Bibliographical testing is, as I said, "a testament to the accuracy of today's copies of Biblical writings as compared with those of the original." You're attempting to put it forth as a means of verifying the historical accuracy of the events portrayed in the Bible. This is simply not the case. It only shows that the copies today say essentially the same thing as the original works; they say nothing about the historical accuracy of the original text's claims to begin with.

Still, Christians have nothing to fear. If the early Jews, then the Romans and the lions couldn't stop the Christians, it can't be done. Christianity is spreading rapidly in parts of Africa, many becoming members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and other Protestant based Christian religions. South America is losing some of its Catholics to the LDS Church as well. So in one form or another, Christianity is gaining members.
But it sounds as though you feel that Christians are being persecuted by SH. Certainly you can acknowledge that Christians have had their turn at bat when it comes to persecution of others.

Persecutions of and by those of the Christian faith is a topic for another thread. We're debating the historical accuracy of the Bible in this thread, and what, if anything, there is to support it.

Archaeological evidence and a number of historians have been cited as well as forensic evidence by authorities in these fields whose scholarship is beyond reproach. All these have either been ignored are discarded without more then a passing remark. Tell me how you determine the historicity of an event. What constitutes proof because the circular reasoning of the skeptic gets us nowhere. Here's the account of a skeptic who actually looked at the evidence like Ramsey and Greenleaf he was overwhelmned at the enormous amount of evidence there actually is.


"I wanted to pick up on that theme and summarize what we had gleaned about Jesus so far from nonbiblical sources. "Let's pretend we didn't have any of the New Testament or other Christian writings," I said. "Even without them, what would we be able to conclude about Jesus from ancient non-Christian sources, such as Josephus, the Tal­mud, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosta, Suetonius, Thallus, Phegon, Mara Bar-Serapion?"
Yamauchi smiled. "We would still have a considerable amount of important historical evidence; in fact, it would provide a kind of out­line for the life of Jesus," he said.
Then he went on, raising a finger to emphasize each point. "We would know that first, Jesus was a Jewish teacher; second, many people believed that he performed healings and exorcisms; third, some people believed he was the Messiah; fourth, he was rejected by the Jewish leaders; fifth, he was crucified under Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius; sixth, despite this shameful death, his followers, who believed that he was still alive, spread beyond Palestine so that there were multitudes of them in Rome by A.D. 64; and seventh, all kinds of people from the cities and countryside—men and women, slave and free—worshiped him as God."
This was indeed an impressive amount of independent corrobora-tion. And not only can the contours of Jesus' life be reconstructed apart from the Bible, but there's even more that can be gleaned about him from material so old that it actually predates the gospels themselves. (L. Strobell, The Case for Christ)

Yes, but that is all still books. Dont you have anything else but books to use as evidence, how do you prove those books. I am not trying to be rude, i just wonder if you have anything but books is all.

On a personal note, i dont doubt the idea that a guy named jesus lived, i just want to know what has been proven without books.

We've been here, done that, Anarchy. None of it has been ignored but rather refuted. I've also given more than a "passing remark"; especially since you insist on bringing them up time and time again in spite of their invalidity. Myself and others have also provided you with ways of determining the historocity of an event and what constitutes proof. If you chose to ignore those responses before, that is your problem, not ours.

Nothing you have cited, Anarchy, has served to support the Bible as being historically accurate. You have tried to say that because the text today is similar to the text of old that it validated the account portrayed in the Bible. As I've had to go over with you again in the last couple posts, that simply isn't the case. You've also attempted to validate Biblical claims with other Biblical claims. It's humorous that you would then try accusing others of circular reasoning in this debate.

Greenleaf, for all his accomplishments as a legal scholar, sought to validate Biblical accounts because Christians persisted in the face of incredible persecution. This is hardly anything limited to Christianity. Citing his work as a legal scholar says nothing for his talents as a historian. Simon Greenleaf supplied nothing to validate the Bible as being historically accurate and you didn't either in citing him numerous times throughout this debate.

You've now turned to quoting Lee Strobell who, by the quote provided, is saying nothing about the historical accuracy of the Bible, but rather historical mentions of Jesus and the rise of Christianity in the region.

A good source on this topic might be the book or video series "Testament" with John Romer. He spent a lot of time in the holy lands looking for archeological evidence related to biblical times. I couldn't tell if he was looking for proof for or against, so he was probably neutral.
It was on PBS some time back, and the book is probably readily available at Amazon.com for a small amount of money. The videos tend to be expensive for this kind of thing, tho.

ABS,

Lets try to find a standard because this is circular in the extreme. Im going to list the standards used by Historians as listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed). I will list them and you tell me which one should be applied to the historicity of Scripture or I will write your arguments off as basless. You have made no positive statements regarding standards of evidence and I am begining to think that the pearls of Christian scholarship have been wasted in the discussion. You will find , if you even bother to read this, that every one of these forms of been used in the thread and rejected by you as circular.

"The methodology of history does not differ in broadest outline from that ot other disciplines in its regard for existing knowledge, its search for new and relevant data, and its creation of hypothesis." It further identifies four facets of histo­riography: "heuristic, knowledge of current interpretation, research, and writing."
(1) Heuristic: "In the case of the historian he embraces such things as knowledge of manuscripts collections, methods of card ndexing and classifying material, and knowledge of bibliography."
(2) "The necessity for knowledge of current interpretation is based on the working principle that inquiry proceeds from the cnown to the unknown; and the historian las to be well acquainted with existing work.n his own field, in contiguous historical fields and in allied disciplines."
(3) Historical research is the term applied to the work necessary for the establishing of occurrences, happenings, or events in the neld with which the historian is concerned. Knowledge of these is entirely dependent on the transmission of information from those living at the time, and this information from what is known as the source material to the particular period or topic. The occurrences themselves can never be experi­enced by the historian, and what he has at his disposal are either accounts of occur­rences as seen by contemporaries or some­thing, be it verbal, written, or material, that is the end product of an occurrence. These accounts or end products have been vari­ously termed relics, tracks, or traces of the occurrences that gave rise to them; and from them the historian can, with varying degrees of certainty, deduce the occur­rences. The traces are thus the "facts" of his­tory, the actual occurrences and deductions from the facts; and historical research is concerned with the discovery of relevant traces and with deduction from those traces insofar as this will aid the search for further relevant traces.
(4) Writing: Louis Gottschalk observes four essentials in how to write history:
(a) the collection of the surviving objects and of the printed, written, and oral materials that may be relevant;
(b. the exclusion of those materials (or parts thereof) that are unauthentic;
the extraction from the authentic material of testimony that is credible;
(d) the organization of that reliable testi­mony into a meaningful narrative or exposi­tion. (Gottschalk)
Written and oral sources are divided into two kinds: primary and secondary. A primary source is the testimony of an eyewitness.... A secondary source is the testimony of anyone who is not an eyewitness—that is, of one who was not present at the events of which he tells. A primary source must thus have been pro­duced by a contemporary of the events it nar­rates. It does not, however, need to be original in the legal sense of the word original—that is, the very document (usually the first written draft) [authographa] whose contents are the subject of discussion—for quite often a later copy or a printed edition will do just as well; and in the case of the Greek and Roman clas­sics seldom are any but later copies available. (Gottschalk)
Gottschalk also asks the two all-impor­tant questions that must be investigated: "Was the author of the document able to tell the truth; and if able, was he willing to do so?"

There are four, pick one and apply it to anything that happened in the 1st century. This is my last appeal for a rational standard for history. Otherwise I will simple list the refutations allready established and how the standards listed above were used.

An event is not considered 'historical' unless it has multiple independent accounts, has empirical evidence or some other means of corroboratory evidence. "Authorities" are meaningless without specific evidence and appealing to said authorities without evidence is fallacious. Further, I'm sure you realize that a lot of the so-called archaeological evidence is being discredited today.

While I don't think many people are going to argue about some of the purely historical writings in the OT, when the Bible starts making extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required to support them. Unfortunately, these are the claims for which not only no evidence exists, but every shred of data we have proves conclusively it could never have happened.

Cephus,

You wrote, "Further, I'm sure you realize that a lot of the so-called archaeological evidence is being discredited today."

I realize that a lot of so-called archaeological evidence has been used for over 100 years to attempt to refute the Bible. I dont seriously think there is anything earthshaking out there refuting the best first quality document in history.

You wrote, "...the Bible starts making extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required to support them."

Id be thrilled to death if there was even a comprehensive standard for evidence of history, let alone ' extraordinary evidence' on here. Im finishing up all but specific questions related to the historicity of Scripture. I'll tell you what, define evidence in either substantive or empirical terms and I'll use it in my last refutation of ABS on this thread tommorow.

You wrote, "every shred of data we have proves conclusively it could never have happened"

Ok, some kind of data, proves conclusively, something never happened. Enough, I'll review the internal, external, and bibliographical evidence for the Bible tommorow and then Im through with all but specific questions about the Bible's validity.

The fact of the matter is that over the last century or so, Christian archaeologists went out into the middle east, found ancient sites, and instead of doing proper research to find out what they were, simply looked in the Bible, found something that looked promising and declared they had found it. We are now finding that many, if not most of these sites simply have been misidentified.



There is simply a qualitative difference between claiming that person X lived in town Y and claiming that God caused a world-wide flood. The second is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence. I have no problem if you want to claim that much of the last half of the OT is somewhat historically accurate, I don't know that anyone is arguing that, but to make a leap from SOME parts of the Bible being historical to ALL of the Bible... is indefensible.



The Bible makes a lot of claims, particularly miraculous claims, that simply cannot be true. There was no flood. The universe was not created in 6 days. These things should have left copious amounts of physical supporting data yet when evaluated rationally, we find that the data shows only that they never happened. That's not to say that some of the information in the Bible may not be accurate, but the parts that are simply have nothing to do with the religious aspects.

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/n...7/p_stories.htm

Apparently the Bible isn't the only source of a cataclysmic flood. You are trying to rationalize God. You cannot rationalize a deity. "IF" God and the Bible are true (and I say if because I don't want to offend anyone) how can you possibly grasp in a finite mind the infinite possibilities of God? I'm not saying that I am 100% correct, but I look at the evidence you supply and that I've seen and it just validates God that much more to me. How can the intricities of life have been by accident? It's too perfect and balanced, the ecosystem, the variety and complexity of life forms.

Good point, and it describes why I believe in a supreme being. The Bible itself is not enough for me. But I am sure that there is more to be known that we already know.
Our minds cannot comprehend the limitness of space, much less the purpose of our existence.
Even Jewish scholars say that a lot of the Old Testament (the parts not pertaining to the law) was made up by the leaders of that time in an effort to unify the various tribes of Israel so that they could have economic, political, and military power in the area. Remember the story about the breaking of sticks? I think it was Abraham, not sure, but he demonstrated that it is easy to break one stick, or even 2 or 3, but certainly not a bundle of sticks. That and other stories were used to encourage the ancient Jews to believe in a destiny of power based on a history of favortism by God. At least, that is what I got out of one of the many History Channel shows that I watch. Essentially, the scholars said that the stories are not necessarily true, but were taught for a purpose and were eventually perceived to be true by those who were not in on the scheme.
I see it as harmless, if it keeps the masses from killling themselves out of fear of the unknown. I see it as dangerous when religious leaders use that fear to manipulate the masses into killing others "for God's purposes".

I have only identified your argument as circular when it has indeed been circular. When you attempted to justify the Bible on the basis of God, and God on the basis of the Bible, it was circular. When you attempted to justify Biblical claims on the basis of other Biblical claims, it was circular. The other mistakes you made in trying to justify the Bible as historically accurate were wrong, but I never said those were wrong because of circular reasoning.

As to your list, what do they have to do with verifying the historical accuracy of a document? All they talk about is the job of a Historian and what they do in their research, not the standards of verifying a document's historical accuracy. That's fine and dandy for testing the historical authenticity of a document or artifact, but it does nothing to verify the historical accuracy of claims made in such a document. Lest there be any confusion: While you are again wrong in trying to put these listed standards forth as tests of historical accuracy it is not because of circular reasoning.

I don't believe anybody here has argued the Bible itself is not a historical document. In question is whether the Bible, as a historical document, is historically accurate or more akin to a historical work of myths and legends (there being a difference between the two).

Simply put all you have to do is provide corroboration. While the topic was "what if anything," pretty much the only evidence there is to verify historical accuracy of Biblical claims is external. I'm sorry if you have a problem with me not asking specifically for external evidence, but your other attempted methods of verifying accuracy have only been methods of verifying authenticity, or they have of course been circular as discussed above.

The Bible is not entirely fictional as some details have been shown to be historically accurate. Certain people and places, for example, have been documented by other sources uncovered by archeologists over the years (though some have also been discredited, as previously mentioned). That being said, however, the stories surrounding many of those people and places do remain unconfirmed. There are pretty good odds there was a revolutionary leader by the name of Jesus who gave rise to Christianity, but there is as yet little or nothing to verify the historical accuracy of his life, or much of the Biblical accounting of time before his life.

Finally, it would be beneficial to both you and the rest of the debate if in the future, Anarchy, you tried telling the difference between authenticity and accuracy. One of those is up for the debate while the other is not. Addressing a separate issue and providing standards for that separate issue, all the while carrying on in an arrogant, condescending manner, has been humorous, but it is doing nothing for verifying the historical accuracy of the Bible and its many claims.

Except for a couple of really good questions about internal consistancy and one on the validity of bibliographical testing the only evidence in this thread is external. Nothing comprehensive or conclusive with regards to historical investigations can be gained from this approach. To ignore the Bible in these discussions is to reject all standards of proof for history, recent and distant, before you even start. Nevertheless, extra-biblical sources are available. I dont know why someone would dig a hole for a foundation with a shovel if they have a backhoe but here a few of my favorite shovels:

Historians:
External evidence would include but not be limited to:Tacitus, Pliny the younger, Lucian of Samosta, Surtonius, Tallus, Phegun Mar Bar Serapion. From these sources we can deduce that Jesus was a: 1. Teacher 2. Healer 3. Messiah (Promised King-Priest) 4. Rejected by Jewish leaders 5. Crucified by Pontius Pilate 6. Follwers reported he was alive and worshiped him as God. That does not exaust the external evidence that just the historians that wrote about Christ and the resurection.

Archaeology is also an external evidence test.
There are: Deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents, evidence of linguistics, archaeology, and science,The writings of the early Christian Fathers. There is abundant evidence along this line and pursuing the particulars here is exausting and only conclusive if you manage to sort through the mountain of evidence available. The only three men who I know of who actually did this were a Law Professor, an Archaeologist, and a Literary Professor all came to the same general conclusion:

"...It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations." (Sir William Ramsey, Archaeologist)

"...It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error.(Simon Greenleaf, Legal Evidence Authority and Expert)

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawfull to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receice the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews, and also many of the Greeks. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had condemned him to the cross, unpon his impeachment by the principal man among us, those who had loved him form the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive on the third day, the divine prophets having spoken these and thousands of other wonderful things about him. And even now, the race of Christians, so named from him, has not died out." (Josepus; 1st Century Historian)

"As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself—or else by objective archaeological information. (Dr. Gleason Archer,Christian Linguist)

With that the New Testement can be deduced to have measured up to the standards of evidence used in any investigation of history as outlined in the Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed):

(1) Heuristic: "In the case of the historian he embraces such things as knowledge of manuscripts collections, methods of card ndexing and classifying material, and knowledge of bibliography.

(2) Standards: The necessity for knowledge of current interpretation is based on the working principle that inquiry proceeds from the known to the unknown...

(3) Historical research:The occurrences themselves can never be experienced by the historian, and what he has at his disposal are either accounts of occurrences as seen by contemporaries or something, be it verbal, written, or material, that is the end product of an occurrence.

(4) Writing: Written and oral sources are divided into two kinds: primary and secondary. A primary source is the testimony of an eyewitness.... A secondary source is the testimony of anyone who is not an eyewitness—that is, of one who was not present at the events of which he tells.

From this point I will limit myself only to honest, direct questions relating to the Scriptures themselves. The tests for the general validity of the Bible are over as far as Im concerned. I appreciate that in a forum like this opinions are expressed in an informal manner and this is encouraged in the spirit of open exchange. Im happy to show the rational reasons I find the Scripture reliable but this in no way effects the primacy of faith. Evidence like this serves only as confirmation of a confidence that comes from a personal relationship with God Himself.

"In this section I shall address the question, How does a Christian believer know that Christianity is true? In answering this question, I distinguish between the role of the Holy Spirit and the role of rational argument and evidence. I shall argue that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit gives us an immediate and veridical assurance of the truth of our Christian faith and that rational argument and evidence may properly confirm but not defeat that assurance." (William James Craig, Classical Philosopher)

There can be only one explaination for the persistance of unbelief under the weight of the mountain of Christian scholarship available.

"Go to this people and say, you will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes, Other wise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them" (Is. 6:9,10)

The choices at the top of the thread were either the Bible or babble, I chose the Bible.

If you really look at these sources, you find that in almost all cases, the reports are negative.

Tacitus, for example, records in Annals 15:44 -

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

All we can deduce from this record is that Nero, to cover his own backside for the burning of Rome, went after early Christians. In no case do any of the historical records document that Jesus was more than a teacher among many teachers that existed in Jerusalem at the time. In fact, all accounts are very critical of Jesus as a rabble-rouser and criminal who was put to death for his crimes. Not much of a Messiah if you ask me.

Besides, I'm not sure where you're going with this. I don't know of anyone who questions that Jesus existed, only that Jesus was more than a man who taught, as many hundreds did, at that time in Jerusalem.



No, nor is it the original source of such. The Hebrews got their flood myth primarily from the Babylonians, with some elements from the Hindus and other cultures. At the center of the myth is a tiny kernel of truth, there really was a local flood at the city of Ur around 3500 B.C. from which the original Babylonian story sprang, as well as likely elements from the Black Sea flood, but there certainly was never a world-wide flood, Noah, an ark, etc. The fact that we can so easily track these mythic traditions that pre-date the Hebrew people shows conclusively that the Bible stories are myth, not history.



It's hardly perfect or balanced. If God created all life, he did a pretty terrible job of it. I could do much better myself. The human body, for example, is constructed with the internal organs hanging from the backbone, a design which belies our relationship to quadrapedal animals. The same goes for vestigal organs which show evolutionary links but make no sense under creationism. Why do humans have an appendix? Why do whales and snakes have the remnants of hind legs? Why do chicken embryos have teeth? Why would God include these useless and often detrimental features in his 'perfect' creation?

Your quotes are not offering up examples of evidence supporting Biblical accuracy. Rather than quote people in every single post, why don't you offer up concrete examples? That Sir Ramsey, Mr. Greenleaf, Dr. Archer and Mr. Craig feel their beliefs have been affirmed gives us nothing which to examine or discuss here. Repeating standards for verifying authenticity after I just made clear that we are looking for historical accuracy accomplishes nothing.

Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian and Seutonius weren't even alive at the alleged time of Jesus's life. From what I've foundon Tallus, he is used only to account for a weather phenomenon speculated to coincide with accounts of Jesus's death. Your last source needs to be spelled correctly or something, because searches are bringing up zero results.

I'm not asking you to sort through the "mountains of evidence" but merely provide some examples. Perhaps you could cite what you feel are the most conclusive examples for us? Do they validate the accounts of the Bible and not just affirm that certain people and places existed as named in the Bible?

The Scriptures are what we are seeking evidence of accuracy for. If you don't need to corroborate stories before choosing to accept them as fact we might as well accept Aesop's Fables or Greek and Roman myths.

He was considered a criminal for the idea of freeing the mind and soul. The pharoses wanted the Messiah to be a great warrior to free them from the bondages of the Romans, they didn't like the idea of the Jesus' rethinking of freeing the soul before the body. The pharoses turned Jesus over to the Romans for claiming to be the King of the Jews. The Romans at first had nothing against Jesus. It was after the fact(after the death and resurrection) that the Romans became perturbed with the Christian sect. Of course Jesus was a rabble-rouser, all great people are. Look at Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, it's the nature of the beast to change ones mind through radical thought.




The fact that it is in several different cultures alone backs up the flood story. Whether or not it was world wide is debatable, did humans encompass the entire earth? Probably not, therefore the need for a global flood weren't necessary, only the region that man occupied would suffice.




Really? If humans are so imperfect, how are we the dominate species on the planet? And if our anatomy and design are so flawed, why do science fiction writers and movie makers use the human body as the blueprint for alien design? I'm sure they of all people could come up with something better...

I will jump in here for a bit just because these comments pushed a couple of my buttons.

From my point of view, I would not say that humans are the dominant form of life on the planet. Judging just on the basis of sheer success (which is somewhat subjective, certainly), I would say it's a toss-up between insects and bacteria. It is extremely hard for human beings to be objective about their own species.

As a fervid fan of science fiction, allow me to say that good science fiction has often created sentient aliens which did not resemble humans in any way. Beings of sheer energy; creatures resembling giant blimps floating in the atmosphere; all manner of wonders. If much of science fiction has created humanoid aliens, this is simply due to the limited imagination of human writers.

In order to get back to the main point of this thread, I will state that the validity or invalidity of any sacred text is an unending dispute, which no degree of discussion will advance in either direction. Hence, I withhold any opinion.

The Jews wanted someone who would free them from Roman oppression. They wanted a warrior, not a teacher. Whether or not what is recorded in the Bible is accurate, who knows. All we have are the accounts recorded there, there simply isn't any official Roman record or account of why Jesus was put to death. About all we can assume is that Jesus rocked the boat and his followers adopted some very unpopular methods which turned them into lion chow.



No, it only backs up the existence of mythology. Joseph Campbell goes into good detail on this in The Masks of God, detailing where the Hebrews got a lot of their myths.

One thing that isn't debatable is that the Biblical flood myth was intended to be world-wide. You simply cannot have a flood that covers all of the high mountains and *NOT* have it be world-wide. So you're left with a choice. Is the Bible accurate or did the myth-writer make a mistake?

And man existed in Africa and Asia at the time as well, a middle-eastern flood would be pretty worthless as far as wiping out all living beings.



Because writers use what they know? Come on, you can do better than this, I'm sure. For a supposedly perfect deity, your God doesn't do very well. Humans have a lot of health problems based on our 'design', why didn't God do better? We can't even make it 50 years without serious and debilitating disease, arthritis, etc. Just think what would have happened if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned and we all lived forever! We'd just fall apart!

humans have alot of heath problems because humans treat their bodies like crap, not because God's design is flawed. If the human body was so devistatingly flawed we wouldn't be the dominate species on earth. Even evolution backs that up and I don't believe in evolution! Geesh. The life expectancy of a human has increased and the quality of life has increased too. It's the human mind that's improving, the body is secondary.

While there is no geological support for a worldwide flood (actually relating to the topic at hand), the natural flaws of the human body and our role as a competing species (we are not the dominant) are topics for separate debates.

"What, if anything, is there to support the Bible as either a historical or scientific book?"

I agree with you that the biological debate is off-topic and therefore, if someone wants to start a separate debate on that topic, we can go into it in detail.

You're right though, the flood is yet another example of something that simply cannot be supported as factual from the Bible. Is there anything beyond simple 'there was a city' stuff for which any objective evidence exists? For the earliest parts of the OT, just looking at comparative mythology is enough to show that the Hebrews 'borrowed' their stories from other cultures. The same goes for much of the mythology that surrounds Jesus.

Like what?

Again, the flood story, as I have sited earlier, has been accounted for in the collective conscience of several cultures all over the world. How can a culture in central America "borrow" from a culture in the Middle East?

As a person who is slowly becomeing an advid egyptologist, i have been looking in about how the pyramids were built,
i have found it weird that they are not the only race of people to buld pyramids, why this is is beyond me, but here is a link to various pyramid buliding cultures around the world, also the people that built the pyramids, most of them were not slaves as people are finding out today, there is even art from egypt that shows workers/slaves being paid, this is still all under study though, i posted various links on it earilier in this thread.

pyramids of the world!

That's a very interesting point about pyramids of the world. There are different types of slaves though, endentured servants, criminal labor, ect....

Nileriver, it is obvious, according to all the threads concerning the Bible that you don't believe them at all and you are going to argue any point based on any evidence brought before you. The belief in the Bible as truth comes down to a matter of faith, plain and simple. In all honesty, either you believe or you don't. And if you don't, no amount of evidence will persuade you otherwise, only the love of Jesus and the selfless sacrifice He gave will do that. I'm not going to argue with you anymore because that is not being a good testament for Christ.

I just wanted you to know that though we disagree, I don't think you're immoral or going to Hell. That's not my judgement, but I would just appreciate alittle respect for my religious beliefs. In the same turn, you are entitled to your convictions and they are just as valid as mine.

Where should I start? How about the fact that the majority of 'saviors' from the Middle East all came from 'Mary'?

Mother Savior
Mary Jesus
Maia Buddha
Maia Hermes
Maya Agni
Myrrha Adonis
Myrrha Bacchus
Maya Maria Sommona Cadom
Mariama Krishna

Keep in mind that most of these predate Jesus by hundreds of years. Interestingly enough, most of them were virgins who had immaculate conceptions. If we go back and look at the Hercules myth, we see the story of Jesus once again. He was born of a virgin, Alcmene. He had a god for a father, Zeus. He was the 'only begotten' of the father, called 'savior' (Soter in Greek) and 'the good shepherd' (Neulos Emelos in Greek) and the 'prince of peace'. Upon his death, he went to the lower world and then ascended to heaven from Mount Orca.

At the birth of Krishna in 1200 B.C., angels, shepherds and the prophets attended, bringing gold, frankencense and myrrh. Likewise when Confucious was born in 598 B.C., "Five wise men from a distance came to the house, celestial music was heard in the skies and angels attended the scene." Magi and wise men also attended the births of Mithra, Zoroaster and Osiris, all of whom were born centuries before Jesus.

Herod supposedly sought to destroy Jesus but the story originates in Egypt where Herut seeks to destroy Horus in the myth. Interestingly enough, later in the Egyptian myth, Isis finds her lost son Horus in the Temple of the Sun teaching the priests.

We find the story of Jesus' temptation in many other places including the Venididad where Zarathustra is tempted, but both stories come from a Hindu source. Buddha, as he set forth on his ministry, was tempted by the demon Wasawrthi Mora who said to him, "Be entreated to stay that you may possess the honors that are within your reach; go not, go not." When rejected, this demon gnashed his theeth and threatened vengeance on the Hindu Savior.

The miracles of Jesus all have extra-Hebrew origins as well. Look at the raising of Lazarus, which is an Egyptian tale. Read the story and you'll find that even the names were taken directly from the Egyptian myth. Meri and Merti became Mary and Martha and El-Azar-Us, the subject of the resurrection, became Lazarus.

Even the crucifiction and resurrection were simply mythic retellings. In Babylon, the savior Tammuz is crucified, buried and resurrected. At the crucifiction, Ishtar, his mother, "stood the cross beside". In Egypt, Meri and Merti stood by mourning the death of Osiris. And of course, there are *MANY* messiahs who were crucified.

Jesus - Nazareth
Krishna - India
Sakia - India
Iva - Nepal
Indra - Tibet
Mithra - Persia
Tammuz - Babylonia
Attis - Phrygia
Critia - Chaldea
Thules - Egypt
Orontes - Egypt

And that's just the SHORT list.

Now, if you want to look at Catholicism, they 'borrowed' heavily from mythology as well. The idea that Mary was bodily taken up into heaven is hardly original. Alcmene, mother of Hercules, ascended into heaven and became the Queen of Heaven. So too did Semele, mother of Bacchus, Ishtar, mother of Tammuz, Pallas Athena and Malaket, who appears in Jeremiah, referred to as the "Queen of Heaven".

I could go on and on and on but I think this suffices. Keep in mind that *EVERY* reference predates the birth of Jesus. It is well known to scholars that ancient people often 'borrowed' myths from other cultures, changing names but leaving the core story intact. They were more interested in the 'idea' behind the story than in the truth of the story, and this is clearly the case with Jesus as well.



As I said before, the *MIDDLE EASTERN* myths show a lot of similarities to each other. If you look at traditions from North America, for example, you find that the floods were local affairs and people escaped them by walking up nearby hills. Flood myths are widespread because flooding is widespread. Flood myths tend to pop up in areas where flooding is common and since ancient man tended to live in flood plains where soil was fertile and crops could be easily grown, it's not surprising that water figured into their mythologies. Beyond the basic concept of the water however, these tales bear little resemblance to each other. There are plenty of places that have no flood tradition as well. Japan, most of China, most of Africa, the majority of South America and others all lack flood traditions.



Pyramids were very easy structures to build. If you take a handful of sand and let it pour from your hand, it makes a pyramid. Outside of the basic shape, there really are no similarities between Egyptian pyramids, Incan pyramids and Chinese pyramids. All had different uses, different construction techniques and different purposes. While the Egyptian pyramids were used to bury the Pharoahs, those in Central America never were, instead being used as ceremonial centers and temples. Chinese pyramids were utterly massive affairs, little more than giant mounds of dirt used to bury great warlords and confuse would-be grave robbers.

You are right about one thing though, the Egyptian pyramids were not built with slave labor. We've found the living quarters and camps of those who worked on the pyramids and they were farmers almost exclusively, who worked in the off-season to support their families. There simply is no trace of Hebrew captives ever being in Egypt.

It appears as though some nitpicking may be in order.

Some more inconsistencies between the Bible and science, between the Bible and logic, between the Bible and history:

In Genesis 1 - the creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the actual order of events was completely the opposite.
.................................

2 Samuel, 24:9:
And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

Are we to believe that during this time in history, 1,300,000 people fought in a battle?
....................................

Matthew 2:16:
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

Josephus, who detailed Herod's life pretty thoroughly, never mentions this, surely a noteworthy massacre.
......................................

Matthew 13:31-32:
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Mustard seeds are not the smallest seeds. There are no trees in the mustard family.
......................................

James, 3:7
For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind

So, every species tamed? Somehow, I think not.
.......................................

Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming it was a prophecy of King Herod's supposed killing of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is made clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and has nothing to do with Herod's massacre.

The Matthew verses (2;17-18):
2:17
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
2:18
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

The Jermiah verses:
31:15
Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
31:16
Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
31:17
And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border.
............................................

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Jesus said this to his disciples. Yet they (obviously) all died before that, since it hasn't yet happened.
.............................................

Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

According to Paul, in Romans 10:18
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

So, why didn't the end come?
..................................................

Luke, 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
24:45
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
24:46
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

There is no such prophecy in the Old Testament.
..................................................

Matthew lists 29 generations from David to Jesus; Luke lists 43. Excluding David and Jesus, there are only four names in common to both lists: Salathiel, Zorobabel, Eliakim, and Joseph. Matthew says Joseph's father was named Jacob; Luke says Joseph's father was named Heli. Hmmmmm.
...................................................

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Here Jesus predicts the time until he rises from the dead. Yet in all the gospel accounts of his crucifiction, he is in the tomb for one day and two nights... oops.

So.... Bible? Or babble?

Sorry for the lengthy post, I thought we could use a few specifics here.

Betrayed by a friend:

Psalms 41:9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.

Matthew 26:21-50 The betrayal by Judas.

Burried in a rich mans tomb:

Isaiah 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; F246 because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Matthew 27:57-60 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Executed by crucifiction, having his hands and feet pierced and they stripped him:

Psalms 22:16-17 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

Executed without having a bone broken:

Exodus 12:46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof

John 19:33-36 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.

Sold for 30 pieces of silver:

Zechariah 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

Matthew 26:15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

Will enter Jeruselem on a donkey:

Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king [1] comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Matthew 21:6-9 And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
And brought the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

Isaiah 11:10 Prophesied the Gentiles would seek after a descendant of Jesse, who was King David's father. Fulfillment seen in the millions of Gentiles who have turned to Jesus for forgiveness and salvation.

Being born of a virgin:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Luke 1:34 &35 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Three days and three nights:

Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Have a ministry of healing:

Isaiah 35 Then the (1) eyes of the blind will be opened. And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped. Then the (2) lame will leap like a deer, And the (3) tongue of the mute will shout for joy. For waters will break forth in the (4) wilderness And streams in the Arabah.

Matthew 11:5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the (2) POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM.

To be a sacrifice:

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

To be raised from the dead:
Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Isiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Matthew 28:1-20

http://www.annieshomepage.com/fulfillment.html


http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible

There are many more that were fufilled, but I've provieded links and encourage you to read the bible and the footnotes and crossreference alittle better between the prophets of the ot and the gospel.

And as far as any parrable of Jesus', they are just that, parrables to relate the teachings to the common person. You can't say that a "story" entended to only provide a moral message to be 100% scientificly accurate, can you? Jesus was a carpenter, not a farmer. (in reference to the mustered seed comment)

One thing you need to realize about so-called prophecies is that we have no verification that *ANY* of them occurred. They appear almost exclusively in Matthew who went to great troubles to point out 'fulfilled prophecy'. As the Torah was around and easily accessible at the time, obviously, having a writer simply invent fulfillment in order to lend credibility to their ideas is nothing new. There simply is no confirmation that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, etc. I could easily write a book about Joe Blow and have him fulfill every prophecy in the OT better than Jesus did. It doesn't make it so though.

Of course, there are a lot of claimed fulfillments that simply aren't so. We find a lot of cases in the Bible where a supposed prophecy wasn't a prophecy at all or was improperly 'fulfilled' by a later claim. Isaiah 7:14 is one such classic case. Isaiah never claimed Jesus would be born of a virgin. The word used in Isaiah was 'almah' which means young maiden, not virgin. It refers to any woman of marriage age. The idea that Mary was a virgin came from other mythic sources, as I showed in a previous post. Isaiah uses 'bethulah', the proper word for virgin in 62:5 so if he intended it in 7:14, he would have used it.

If you read the passages surrounding 7:14 though, you find that Isaiah wasn't making a prophecy about Jesus in the first place. In context, the woman being discussed was already pregnant, thus the use of 'almah'. It goes on to say that before this child reaches the age of accountability, both Israel and Syria would be desolated, something which happened, at least partially, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus. In short, Isaiah's "prophecy" didn't regard Jesus at all, a later writer simply struck on the idea, took Isaiah's writings out of context and invented a non-existent prophecy which they could use a standard mythic device to 'fulfill'.

Well, when you put it that way, NO amount of evidence, research or study on my behalf will every make any headway. The topic is mute then. Like I said the other day, either you believe on faith or you do not. The whole point of religion is the belief in the unknown. Your right, the Bible from a cynical point of view does look like a self fulfilling prophesy. But the Bible, from a Christians point of view, is the history of man, the fall from grace in the garden of eden to the love of God through his Son Jesus Christ's sacrifice and resurrection.

You cannot beat someone over the head with it. Either they will answer the knock at the door or they choose to ignore it.

And by the way, I find your Avatar highly offensive Cephus.

Billy Jean, the fulfillment of prophecy is not proof of the Bible's veracity. Just because a writer of a book in the New Testament says so is not proof that it is the case. This is circular reasoning. And the veracity of the Bible is our topic here.

Prophecies can always be fulfilled. Just look at Nostradomus - his ramblings are vague enough to fit any variety of possible events. Eventually something happens that resembles it closely enough, and all of a sudden it's the "fulfillment of prophecy."

The Hebrews of Jesus' time were Messiah-hungry. Many messianic figures emerged; most could be spun into being seen as fulfilling OT prophecy. Jesus taught many good things; I'm glad he was picked for the job instead of someone who embodied the OT prophecies of a great and bloody military leader-messiah.

The Bible holds up well as subjective truth: as a matter of faith, the message of the Bible can be seen as "true."

If, however, the Bible is being touted as objective Truth, then inconsistencies matter. Historical accuracy matters. Thinking pi equals three matters. Whether or not Adam and Eve had bellybuttons matters. What the carnivores ate following the Flood matters. Believing in stoning people to death for adultery matters.

What I mean by this is, if you want to put forth the argument that the Bible stands up as an accurate account of historical events, rather than as a comfort and guide in faith, then you have to be ready for a challenge.

There is no Secular Humanist or evolutionist conspiracy to debunk the Bible. The book must be debunked, however, so long as some people insist on its literal truth. I see such ideas as "scientific creationism" as a sign of shaky faith - for Jesus teaches us, and Kant agrees, at the end (and beginning) of it all, is the leap.

Christians, for the most part, have accepted that some practices sanctioned in the Bible are obsolete - women as chattel, slavery, public executions for blaspheming or adultery, et cetera. Most do not advocate the death penalty for homosexuals, though it seems to be written in the Leviticus that they should. No one can hold the entire Bible to be literally true without having to believe some things which are commonly known to be false. Picking certain things to be historically and literally true while discarding other things is merely convenient revisionism.

Quarkhead,
I concede that the Bible was written by man, but inspired by God. Therefore man's inacuracies have to be taken into account. I also concede that portions of the Bible were passed down through generations orally and that too can effect it's accuracy to an extent. But that to me pertains to the Old Testament, NOT the New Testament. BUT, I will also concede that translation has had an effect on certain aspects of the works.

The philosophy, divinely inspired and overall history to me is not questionable. But I can say that man makes mistakes and if those mistakes overshadow the truths of the Bible then you are reading the Bible for the wrong reasons.

I'd like to comment briefly on a few of these:

When last I checked, Psalms wasn't intended to make any predictions. Besides that, the passage in question is definately not making any prediction to be part of Messianic prophesy as it is a song of lament by one man in particular... Psalm 41

Psalms 22 is yet just another song when looked at in context.

You don't even have to look at the entire chapter for this one to be shown in context. Exodus 12:43-47 makes the intent of that quote perfectly clear. It is neither prophecy or in any way related to a person either present or future.

Again, taken in context Zechariah 11 is not makin any predictions but telling a separate story which merely happens to include 30 pieces of silver as a part of it.

Zechariah 9 makes clear from the start that it is "The word of the LORD is against the land of Hadrach and will rest upon Damascus." If you go on to read the chapter beyond what is simply quoted, you'll see that the King mentioned is much more the warrior than what Jesus was later depicted to be in the New Testament.

The virgin bit has already been addressed, though I will come back to Isaiah in good time.

I don't feel I even need to provide the entire chapter for this one as it is clearly talking only about Jonah with no connection other than mention of a three night span of time. The author of Matthew makes a comparison, but certainly not a prophecy.

Another song not intended as a prophecy nor really even open to interpretation as one when read in its entirity.

As to Isaiah and connections made through Matthew, I would say those are tenuous at best. In addition to the reasoning already offered by Cephus Matthew also seems to have misinterpreted Isaiah in relating some events to Old Testament "prophecies." One such case relating Mary as a virgin when Isaiah referred only to a maiden. It's in that same situation wherein Isaiah claims the savior will be named Immanuel, a name Jesus appears never to have been referred as.

Matthew also tried to relate the birthplace of Jesus to the Old Testament "prophecy" in Micah 5:2. Rather than referring to Bethleham, though, the passage in Micah appears instead to refer to a person; more specifically a person never tied into the geneologies provided for Jesus.

All this is moot, however, when looking at the fallible and falisfiable nature of prophecies, as both Cephus and Quark have now mentioned. Additionally, after having somewhat wasted my time nitpicking in this post, none of these do anything to verify the historical accuracy of the Bible.
I agree with you here, as faith (rather than evidence) appears the most notable or only foundation on which to secure one's belief.

I yeld then.

Good point. If you have a preconceived notion about something, and insist on proving your point, you just may seek only that evidence that helps you do that. That is why so many studies and so much research are soon proved to be so wrong.
There was a time that the AMA claimed that smoking was not only not dangerous to our health, but good for us, and later on that there is no medical reason not to smoke pot. In both cases, the AMA later changed their opinion. It happens a lot with our so-called experts in many professions.
I see the Old Testament as mostly having no relevance to Christians, and even much of the New Testament as suspect, but the overall message of Christianity (as taught by Jesus, not by corrupt men) to be a good thing. Looking for errors in areas that are outside the basic lessons that Jesus intended for us to learn is a waste of time. With all the books included in the NT, all the different writers, and at different times, there are bound to be differences of opinions between the various writers. And to pit one biblical writer against another while looking for these supposed errors is not being fair or reasonable. Even with one writer, Paul, you can find apparently opposite opinions concerning one issue, depending on who he was writing to and the why/when he did it. Take one scripture out of context here, another there, and you have probably just distorted the message.
Preachers do it all the time, which is why I won't listen to them anymore.

Why is that? Because you value your belief over truth? Faith over fact? Religion over reality? Just as the unexamined life isn't worth living, the unexamined belief isn't worth holding.



Blind faith isn't impressive, sorry. Blind faith has resulted in a world of hurt. Blind faith was responsible for the crusades, the witch trials, the Inquisition and Giordano Bruno being burned alive. "I'm right, you're wrong" is a rather silly way to live one's life and in fact, betrays fear that you're not, in fact, right. If your beliefs are right, what do you have to worry about checking them out? Even Jesus said to test all things, but Christians are largely terrified to do so. I know that when I was a Christian, I was... until I really looked at the Bible and found that it was false.

Kids believe in Santa Claus on faith. Adults are supposed to be beyond that. Faith is supposed to be believing where you cannot prove, not believing in spite of what you can prove.



That's because the Bible *IS* a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you evaluated the Bible the same way you evaluate other religious books, you'd have to throw it away. The Bible is nothing special. As with the topic of this thread, Bible or babble? Demonstrably it's babble. Faith in the Bible makes about as much sense as faith that your tin foil hat is going to stop Martian mind-control rays. Neither has any basis in objective reality. Sure, it's frightening to think that heartfelt beliefs may be wrong, but what's more important? A comforting lie or the truth?



There's no right not to be offended, sorry. And I'm sure there are people out there just as offended by your avatar, since Michael Jackson is an accused pedophile. I don't see you rushing to change.



I agree with you Bill. The basic message in the Bible is a good thing but no better really than that taught by many other religions. If people would pay attention to the message and not get caught up in the mythology, the world would be a much better place to live. Unfortunately, you end up with people saying "That period is in the wrong place! You heathen! I'm going to kill you!" Regardless of who taught the message, and we really have no way of knowing if it was Jesus or Paul or anyone else, the message is what matters, not the manuscript.

How dare you say I have blind faith! I read my Bible and I commune with God. I have the faith of a child. I'm sorry you've lost your faith, but STOP persecuting me for mine! No other person on this site, whether debating religion or not has been so abrasive on this subject as you, and I find your comments offensive along with your sacraligious avatar.



Where do you get off saying that? Maybe it's someone who holds onto hope rather than bitterness and anger...



If the Bible isn't anything special, how come it's the best selling book of all time and the most translated book into any language. Your pessism is starting to depress me. How wronged were you to have such anger and anamosity towards religion?



Are you kidding me?

edited to fix quotes - quark

Where did I mention your name anywhere? Sorry, you seem to be rather paranoid, thinking that people are out to get you and taking everything personally, simply because they point out that your posts contain incorrect facts and ideas. If that kind of thing offends you, I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong place.

Once again, we get back to Bible or babble and it comes down to babble. Case closed.

Let's everybody try not to take this too personally and deal only with the issues in this debate. Almost all those participating seem to be aware of the consequences if things get too heated, and it simply isn't necessary to keep closing topics because people couldn't control their emotions.


Why is Titanic the largest grossing movie of all time? Why is the second most best selling book of all time the second most best selling book of all time? Just because Grisham or Clark or Hemmingway write popular novels and sell a great many of them does not make any and every writing of theirs factual. Attempting to justify the Bible on basis of sales is both misleading and useless. Popularity does not make something factual. That a lie might be believed by a million people -- and thereby considered popular -- will not change the fact that it indeed remains a lie.

Actually it's Biblical prophecy that the Word of God would be known and spread throughout the entire world before His second coming, so it is pertinent to the discussion.


Cephus,



you were referring to me.

If every person one day believed in the Bible, that would still not justify the claim you mention as a fulfilled prophecy. If I predict that the Empire State building is going to explode on December 5th 2006, distribute leaflets detailing my prediction, and a person opts to blow it up as a result of reading my leaflet, it is simply self-fulfilling prophecy and hardly worth the wonder and awe many like to bestow on what they view to be "prophecy." The same applies with spreading the word of a religion all around the world simply because a text exists encouraging it.

The Bible, in fact, is the most purchased and least read book of all time. It's sad when you realize that there are so many Christians out there who have no clue what they're supposed to believe. Most Christians are what I term "social Christians". They give Christianity lip service because they think claiming to be Christian makes them appear more socially acceptable to their neighbors, but they don't read the Bible, they don't go to church, they don't have any concept of what Christianity is about beyond what they might have learned in Sunday School as a child. While this doesn't directly relate to the truth of the Bible, it certainly does eliminate the 'lots of people believe it, therefore it must be true' fallacy that is seen so often.

For most Christians that I've talked to and debated over the decades, it's come down to "feeling good" about their beliefs rather than having rational, well-thought-out arguments. There is far too much nickel-and-dime apologetics where 'experts' will throw out half-truths and misquotes to those who are desperately seeking any reason to believe, not mentioning that they're not giving all the facts, just those that happen to agree with them. No apologist can ever win the debate on facts, they get backed into a corner and resort to 'you have to BELIEVE!' Sorry, you can believe all you like that the Earth is flat, doesn't make it so. You can believe all you want that the Bible is true, but if the facts say otherwise, and they do... it isn't.

I've still not seen a single shred of evidence that the Bible has any scientific or historic accuracy, have you?

I think we can do without the personal accounts of Christians and Christianity as a faith in this particular debate, Cephus. While I can understand what you are trying to say it would be best (and is indeed required) to stick with the topic at hand in this thread, rather than begin generalizations and arguments against Christians or Christianity as a whole here.

Edited to add: I would appreciate it if nobody chooses to respond to the above post, but rather return and stick to the topic at hand, please.

I give up! I'm going to be disputed and my religious beliefs put down no matter what I say. You're right and I'm wrong, there's no god and I've been fooling myself my whole life! Is that what you want me to say? Well forget it! This topic is frustrating me because MY beliefs aren't being respected. That's fine, that's how it's always been and how it's always going to be, and some day even worse, so I might as well get used to it now by anonymous people on this board.

I would NEVER disrespect someone on this board for their beliefs, I may not agree and say that, but I wouldn't tell them they live in a fantasy land or are blind or ignorant. But it's a double standard in the world, unreligious people who want it all their way and have everyone open minded, but intern are so close minded and bitter towards the institutions they're either rebelling againsts or hold in contempt.

It's funny that the very same people here that would rally behind me for being a lesbian are the very same ones who ridicule me for my religious convictions! Talk about hypocrisy...Shame on you.

I can see where you feel like your beliefs weren't being respected a couple of times, and I have asked that people not make this topic so personal. If it continues in the future this thread will likely be closed with possible strikes going toward any who disregard the requests made to stick to the topic and avoid heated personal remarks.

To clarify: While I realize it's hard to talk about the Bible and not talk about beliefs, that is precisely what this debate is intended for. People can have belief in "something more" with or without the Bible and even Christians aren't obligated to accept the Bible as entirely inerrant. What we are seeking here is not an explanation for the foundation of Christian faith or any belief at all for that matter. What we are seeking is support for the historical (or scientific) accuracy of the Bible.

I haven't seen any of those who rallied behind you in that forum ridiculing you, but if you'd like to discuss it further, feel free to PM me or any of those otherwise present for both debates in question.

There is a difference between disagreeing with your religious beliefs and ridiculing you. I have yet to see anyone say that you are a bad person because of what you believe, and if anything I have said has been interpreted that way, I apologize, it certainly wasn't intended as such.

However, that being said, you need to be able to distinguish between a reasoned debate on the validity of the Bible and an attack on you as a person. I haven't seen anyone here say that Billie Jean is a slimeball because she believes in the Bible. That simply isn't the case. Saying that the Bible is wrong, however, doesn't qualify as ridiculing you in particular for your beliefs. If your position is that your beliefs are and must be 100% correct and any dissenting opinion is a personal attack, this certainly isn't the thread for you.

Again, my sincerest apologies for anything that you might have construed as an attack upon your person instead of the Bible. I trust this won't be an issue in the future.

On with the thread.

I just thought Id mention that the Bible makes claims that staggers the imagination. When Abraham was on his face before God and God promised him a son, he laughed. When the promise was repeated and Abrahams wife heard it she laughed. God told them when the son was actually born that they were to name him Issac which means 'she laughs'. I really dont have a problem with people that find the Bible hard to believe. Its people that believe it unconditionally that make my hair stand up on end. It took me years to accept that old book as history. The truth is that people standing right there watching redemptive history unfold shook their heads and said, 'no way'. God usually responded with 'is anything to hard for God' or with Jesus it was 'oh ye of little faith, so slow to believe'. Of course its hard to believe, I just think its helpful to remember that the kind of conviction it takes to believe is very personal. Thats why most people wont discuss politics or religion in mixed company, it gets to emotional. It helps if you can be objective. Im not crazy about natural science but itf there is one redeeming quality to it its that being objective it keeps people from getting too emotional. This may be a little off topic but just wanted to toss that in the mix.

The truth about the Bible is that it will never be proven correct. If it were, we would have no choice but to believe. I think of the movie Dogma partially because of ALJ's avatar, and anyone familiar with it might agree that it makes a good point about the distinction between angels and men. Angels can see God, they can hear his voice, and they can not deny his existence. For that reason, they get zero tolerance for disobedience. But God made us differently: we can't see God and we can deny his existence. God wants us to be different from angels in that we CHOOSE him. If the existence of God were proven there really wouldn't be a choice anymore would there? We would be like the angels in Dogma. We would still have free will, but be given no mercy.