Jump to content

Bible Disproved By One Scripture


elizsia

Recommended Posts

How about God created microorganisms on day 4 becoming corrupted into God creating sun moon and stars on day four?

 

 

Age, it seems, doesn't automatically mean wisdom.

My point is that you can't claim that the NT changes anything- because it quotes Jesus as saying that nothing will ever change.

So it says the OT is still the law- with all the nasty stuff that Moontanman described.

 

 

Jesus Christ, you can't have it both ways.

It's either a work of fiction or of fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez don't be too specific. ( Note there was a heavy dose of saracasm in that last statement)

 

Genesis 1:11 claims God made plants on the third day of creation, before he made man. Genesis 2:5 claims before he made man, God hadn't even made it rain yet, and there were no plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Jesus Christ, you can't have it both ways.

It's either a work of fiction or of fact.

I'm not the one pretending that it has any merit.

I'm certainly not saying it's fact.

I'm pointing out that it does not say what lot of Christians would like to pretend that it says.

If they take it as fact then they can't get away from the fact that it says all those things like "slavery is good".

If it is treated as factual then it's a despicable guide to behaviour.

If it's fiction then it's not a guide at all.

It ought to be ignored lock stock, and barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the one pretending that it has any merit.

I'm certainly not saying it's fact.

I'm pointing out that it does not say what lot of Christians would like to pretend that it says.

If they take it as fact then they can't get away from the fact that it says all those things like "slavery is good".

If it is treated as factual then it's a despicable guide to behaviour.

If it's fiction then it's not a guide at all.

 

 

But you are pretending it doesn't in the same way.

 

 

 

It ought to be ignored lock stock, and barrel.

 

 

 

The very definition of a closed mind.

 

But how does that differ from your intransigent insistence that both, the NT and OT are equivalent?

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The very definition of a closed mind.

 

Not at all, It isn't closed minded to consider the evidence- at length- as I have and come to a conclusion.

 

 

But you are pretending it doesn't in the same way.

 

It's not a pretence; there is evidence.

 

 

But how does that differ from your intransigent insistence that both, the NT and OT are equivalent?

 

 

 

The NT says that it is the same as the OT.

It's not my insistence, it's the NT's insistence.

Of course, it might be wrong, but if it's wrong then that rather supports my idea that we should discard it as a source of ethics or information.

If, on the other hand, you believe it, then you have to believe the bit where it says that the OT still stands and that slavery is not merely acceptable, but a requirement.

Take your pick, you either chuck out both books, or you accept that Christianity condones slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NT says that it is the same as the OT.

It's not my insistence, it's the NT's insistence.

 

That's your interpretation, no-one insisted you follow that path.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And you reveled the biggest flaw in theistic thinking, it can and is twisted to mean what ever anyone wants to mean...

But that's the point God word means different things to different people. I mean me and you are very different and God knows that because he created us that way. What you believe is the biggest flaw in theism is the biggest flaw of atheism not listening just as you accuse us of being blind and ignorant so are you because you can't see that obviously the bible will be interpreted in different ways because we are all different
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's the point God word means different things to different people. I mean me and you are very different and God knows that because he created us that way. What you believe is the biggest flaw in theism is the biggest flaw of atheism not listening just as you accuse us of being blind and ignorant so are you because you can't see that obviously the bible will be interpreted in different ways because we are all different

 

God didn't create me, my parents created me... I accuse you of being ignorant because you seem to have no idea what your own bible says. I have not accused you of being blind. Obviously the great flying spaghetti monster created you.. can you see how silly that is? It becomes no less silly if you replace the flying spaghetti monster with Krishna, or allah or zeus or jupiter or any other supernatural being.

 

How can you possibly think that the fact that gods word must be interpreted is a strength? It might be a strength to someone who wants to use the bible to control and manipulate people to their own means.

 

Not listening? Really? Talk about arrogance! My atheism is based on being a sceptic, it is based on years of reading and studying the bible and the people who claim it to be the truth.

 

You are really grasping at straws now, if the bible is the word of god why musty it be interpreted? Why cannot it be read at face value? Oh wait, the Bible can be shown to be absolute bullshit if taken literally so you have to bend and twist the words to mean what ever you think it should mean. To be sure there are plenty of people willing to tell you what it means. How do you tell who is correct? Who ever agrees with you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's your interpretation, no-one insisted you follow that path.

Well, OK yes.

I am insisting that this

""For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.""

actually means what it says, rather than, for example, "please leave an extra pint today milkman".

But I'm only insisting on that because the alternative is silly.

 

A more reasonable claim would be that, since the book says "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." that's what it means.

It means nothing will change in the laws.

 

You, on the other hand seem to be insisting that it does not say what it actually says.

At that point you can take the view that it means anything and, once again, it is thereby robbed of any value and might as well be discarded.

So, should I chuck it because it's morally wrong- because it condones slavery or should I chuck it because it doesn't say whether it does or not, or should I chuck it because it's impossible to tell what it means?

 

Take your pick.

It's still not worth keeping.

... obviously the bible will be interpreted in different ways because we are all different

No. It will be interpreted in different ways because it is inconsistent and/ or badly written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A more reasonable claim would be that, since the book says "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." that's what it means.

It means nothing will change in the laws.

What are "the laws"? Does that mean every word in the OT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are "the laws"? Does that mean every word in the OT?

It hardly matters.

We know that there are errors in the OT. We also know that it tells you what to do.

So, for example the error that's been pointed out in Genesis isn't telling you to do anything (It is failing to tell you what happened.

It couldn't sensibly be thought of as a law- it's just another mistake.

But the requirements in the OT that you should, for example, kill cheeky children- are law and, according to the NT they still stand.

Of course, because they don't say since exactly which laws are unchanging, they haven't excluded any so the assumption is that He meant all of them.

 

The closest it gets it to refer to them as "the law"- in the singular- and thus to imply they are one unified set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, OK yes.

I am insisting that this

""For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.""

actually means what it says, rather than, for example, "please leave an extra pint today milkman".

But I'm only insisting on that because the alternative is silly.

 

A more reasonable claim would be that, since the book says "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." that's what it means.

It means nothing will change in the laws.

 

You, on the other hand seem to be insisting that it does not say what it actually says.

At that point you can take the view that it means anything and, once again, it is thereby robbed of any value and might as well be discarded.

So, should I chuck it because it's morally wrong- because it condones slavery or should I chuck it because it doesn't say whether it does or not, or should I chuck it because it's impossible to tell what it means?

 

Take your pick.

It's still not worth keeping.

 

No. It will be interpreted in different ways because it is inconsistent and/ or badly written.

I'm telling ya we need to rename this the atheist forum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm telling ya we need to rename this the atheist forum

 

You asked for mistakes, I gave you an example, but instead of replying to it, you choose to post this?! This seems like a deflection, or a Red Herring.

 

I don't really care, until someone claims the Bible is inerrant. Then it's rather easy to show some very basic mistakes, like historical accounts that directly contradict each other (Aaron died in two different geographical places; in 2 Samuel, Saul dies in two ways that are different from the way he died in 1 Samuel, and a fourth way is described in 1 Chronicles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

 

 

Because he thinks a minor (as iNow put it "a lightning rod") forum on a fora entitled science should be populated with bible bashing happy clappies, for some reason, and is miffed to be challenged with rational/logical thinking.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Because he thinks a minor (as iNow put it "a lightning rod") forum on a fora entitled science should be populated with bible bashing happy clappies, for some reason, and is miffed to be challenged with rational/logical thinking.

Man talk about arrogance you can tell me what I am thinking I mean seriously it's called sarcasm but I will admit I should have put that it was sarcasm in the post my bad but really I do believe that you atheists don't really address what I say but instead you just dismiss as complete bs shutout even proving why

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

And you reveled the biggest flaw in theistic thinking, it can and is twisted to mean what ever anyone wants to mean...

 

 

Only because it's a book out of time, I believe when it was written it was understandable, the evidence for which, is just how far the idea spread.

Well, OK yes.

I am insisting that this

""For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.""

actually means what it says, rather than, for example, "please leave an extra pint today milkman".

But I'm only insisting on that because the alternative is silly.

 

A more reasonable claim would be that, since the book says "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." that's what it means.

It means nothing will change in the laws.

 

You, on the other hand seem to be insisting that it does not say what it actually says.

At that point you can take the view that it means anything and, once again, it is thereby robbed of any value and might as well be discarded.

So, should I chuck it because it's morally wrong- because it condones slavery or should I chuck it because it doesn't say whether it does or not, or should I chuck it because it's impossible to tell what it means?

 

Take your pick.

It's still not worth keeping.

 

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'll leave you with this: The fact that the text was translated, automatically means it's an interpretation, that of the translator, among others.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I'll leave you with this: The fact that the text was translated, automatically means it's an interpretation, that of the translator, among others.

I will leave you with this.

If you can't guarantee that the translation is correct then it's no longer reliable and, once again you have pointed out why we should drop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I do believe that you atheists don't really address what I say but instead you just dismiss as complete bs shutout even proving why

Generally, there is nothing to address. Religion has some big claims that it cannot provide any objective, independent, repeatable and consistent evidence for.

 

We can discuss different philosophical points of view here until we are blue in the face, but the point remains that the discussions are based on very little one can actually give supporting evidence for. Okay, one can say that this is the nature of philosophy as a mental exersise, but what do we gain by discussing notions that are so artificial and clearly 'manmade'?

Edited by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will leave you with this.

If you can't guarantee that the translation is correct then it's no longer reliable and, once again you have pointed out why we should drop it.

 

 

But I can guarantee the original spread far and wide and the only thing I think we should drop is the OT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.