Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Edwardo Piet]

"Seriously Delicate, where are atoms? Why can't I see them?"

Are you suggesting God is completely indistinguishable from his non-existence....?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ua_oJfpQWY

[jenny1972]

Logical arguments are not evidence. They are only as true as their initial assumptions.

Textual accounts are evidence, just woefully insufficient evidence for a sceptic regarding the claims that are normally made.

Anecdotal accounts are also evidence, but again insufficient to a sceptic.

Unexplained phenomena are not evidence. They are simply unexplained.

Well, this is bullshit.

So-called "sceptics" are plenty happy to accept textual accounts in other cases. 

It's only skepticism because they have a problem with theism. At least have the integrity to admit that much.

maybe they have a problem with a 2000+ year old book of stories that look a lot like other myth stories throughout history you have a half God half human creature :jesus that concept came from greek mythology where gods had human wives and sons half human half God and took . you have to take into account the cultures of the times what evidence is there that   of it is all mythology creative writing and rumor and manipulation and politics ! nevermind that the catholic church you are relying on their honesty really havent recent events shown them to be manipulative liars ? there are several interpretations and additions long after jesus died the synoptic gospels were not even collected for several generations after his death all things are subject to the society the myths the attitudes of the people , the catholic church as it became more powerful had every reason to try and keep that power mixed with politics anything produced by 2000-6000 year old politics we have crappy corrupt politicians and we live in a modern secular society so be skeptical for that reason alone

[TheRocketSurgeon]

What is the genetic code by which we would get a half-god, half-human offspring?

It's clear that physical impregnation was necessary; thus the whole bit about the Holy Spirit descending on mary.

So it begs the question, while we're talking about 2000 year old mythologies, of why they thought a god could have a child, when doing so requires human sperm and human egg? It seems obvious that the concept made sense to the ancients, who had no idea what genetics was. It's the same reason we get Eve being made from a rib, yet being female. Why the rib? Why not just make her from clay, like God did with Adam, in the story? Simple: They had no idea what chromosomes were, let alone that if you clone a being out of the rib-bone DNA of a male, you get a male. They simply did not know how females came to be. And that's okay until you start telling me that your mythology is modern reality, and the "only reason" I don't believe it is because I have a problem with theism (an odd claim, considering I was a theist when I rejected the Christian claims, and remained a theist for a few years afterward).

I've posted this before, but you really, seriously need to consider the implications of this basic fact:

[jenny1972]

What is the genetic code by which we would get a half-god, half-human offspring?

It's clear that physical impregnation was necessary; thus the whole bit about the Holy Spirit descending on mary.

So it begs the question, while we're talking about 2000 year old mythologies, of why they thought a god could have a child, when doing so requires human sperm and human egg? It seems obvious that the concept made sense to the ancients, who had no idea what genetics was. It's the same reason we get Eve being made from a rib, yet being female. Why the rib? Why not just make her from clay, like God did with Adam, in the story? Simple: They had no idea what chromosomes were, let alone that if you clone a being out of the rib-bone DNA of a male, you get a male. They simply did not know how females came to be. And that's okay until you start telling me that your mythology is modern reality, and the "only reason" I don't believe it is because I have a problem with theism (an odd claim, considering I was a theist when I rejected the Christian claims, and remained a theist for a few years afterward).

I've posted this before, but you really, seriously need to consider the implications of this basic fact:

yes but that would actually make sense so baaaa! and they they would have to accept the gays *gasp* and accept contradiction that wont do yea it doesnt make sense but it must be true because its the only way it all hold up lol constant struggle to explain contradictions im sure in the light of new info.

[drfuzzy]

Well, this is bullshit.

So-called "sceptics" are plenty happy to accept textual accounts in other cases. 

It's only skepticism because they have a problem with theism. At least have the integrity to admit that much.

maybe they have a problem with a 2000+ year old book of stories that look a lot like other myth stories throughout history you have a half God half human creature :jesus that concept came from greek mythology where gods had human wives and sons half human half God and took . you have to take into account the cultures of the times what evidence is there that    of it is all mythology creative writing and  rumor and manipulation and politics ! nevermind that the catholic church you are relying on their honesty really havent recent events shown them to be manipulative liars ? there are several interpretations and additions long after jesus died the synoptic gospels were not even collected for several generations after his death all things are subject to the society the myths the attitudes of the people , the catholic church as it became more powerful had every reason to try and keep that power mixed with politics anything produced by 2000-6000 year old politics we have crappy corrupt politicians and we live in a modern secular society so be skeptical for that reason alone

Wow, did Delicate REALLY say that?  Wow.  

We reject the Bible as evidence, Delicate, because we have spent years reading it and puzzling over how any human being revere and follow a flawed, internally-contradictory, unscientific book of offensive fables.    

A text that I would consider worth using as a source would not be based upon myth.  It would be consistent within itself.  If it described historical events, it would source earlier respected historical texts that told the exact same story.  Better evidence would be any scientific study that has been replicated.  (But your previous posts prove that you have no respect for scientific knowledge.)   
     There is no scientific evidence for god's existence that I am aware of.  When you present that evidence, I will probably change my mind.  The burden of proving the existence of something falls on the person who asserts its' existence.  Until then, atheists will say "not enough data".  

You probably know of the BibViz project: the website of bible analysis never ceases to amaze me.  http://bibviz.com/  It provides an enormous amount of information and demonstrates conclusively many of the reasons I reject the bible as source material.

If you don't want to explore hundreds of comparisons, here are 5 from the gospels:

[Edwardo Piet]

EPIC image! Thanks for sharing!!

[robvalue]

Let's look at the difference between a textual anecdote and a scientific report.

The anecdote is the claim, and the evidence, rolled into one. This happened, and it is true because I've written that it happened. You can't test it though, because it's already happened. At best, it's unfalsifiable and therefor useless from a scientific point of view.

A scientific report explains the claim (which is falsifiable and makes testable predictions, crucially) and then gives a summary of the tests and evidence (which are not simply the report itself) which back up the claim. The claim can then be independently tested by anyone with the appropriate expertise. The evidence, independent of the report, can be investigated. New evidence can be gathered which either supports or contradicts the claim, and if evidence does prove the claim wrong, then this is accepted by the scientific community. (Some guy writing shit on a blog is not evidence, as covered by the problem with anecdotal accounts. It needs to be properly verified evidence.)

[Aractus]

If you don't want to explore hundreds of comparisons, here are 5 from the gospels:

That graphic is misleading. For example, when Jesus says "My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?" it is written in Hebrew in Matthew (Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?) But in Mark it's written in Aramaic (Eloi, Eloi, lemá sabachtháni?). Both Matthew and Mark say that people were confused by what he said and thought he was calling for Elijah - if he was speaking Hebrew it was probably because they were trying to interpret it as Aramaic (which then becomes 'Elijah! Elijah! Why have you forsaken me?'). More importantly, both Matthew and Mark say that Jesus shouted again before he died (Matt 27:50; Mark 15:37), so clearly they do NOT say that his last words were "My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?": they say that he said that - that people got confused - and then he shouted something else (but they don't say what) before he died. It's not a contradiction.

The death of Judas and the question of who purchased the Field of Blood is a true contradiction. Apologists claim that Matthew can be interpreted that "he hanged himself in shame", however while that is possible, the context of Matthew's narrative does not allow for that possibility, and even if it did it doesn't solve the problem of who bought the field. Matthew 27 says that the Jewish leaders bought the field after Judas hanged himself using Judas's money. But Acts makes it clear that Judas himself buys the field and then dies in it.

[Anomalocaris]

Even if the bible contained no explicit contradictions, that would not even be a significant piece of evidence for it being true. It is just evidence that it's writers were quite the dimwits who thought humanity too were all gullible dimwits.

[Aractus]

Well Chuck, the Bible does contain some explicit contradictions. That is my point. Why dilute the real contradictions with claims that are entirely frivolous?