The Bible

Who said the Bible was God personally speaking? Humans under divine inspiration, yes. Not humans whose hands were hijacked by God. God did not take away their personhood.

Who said the Bible was a science manual or has to be one? Much of its teachings are in the form of allegories and types to explain concepts.

So you mean you don't understand it, so it must be "ignorance of desert dwellers"?

No they really aren't. The OT was already set by Jews and the NT was something the early Church fathers had in circulation as accepted canon. The so-called Apocrypha was never accepted by Jews.

The Bible says when Yahweh is speaking. Scientists disagree over what science is and what findings are, yet you still believe in science.

No, there aren't remotely that many. You're confusing human ideas with what God wants. Humans trying to dissect every nook and cranny of the Bible and disagreeing with each other because they have free will to do so and aren't robots isn't a reason to disbelieve.

Who says you should be? You have a warped view of what the Bible is, means, and teaches. Secularists always take on the most literalist, extremist, fundie interpretations out there as representative of the whole. Why?

Where does the Bible say sit in a church pew or the kid gets it?

Yeah I'm not really interested in the views of people who think they and their brains came into being out of a random collision of atoms in a cosmological soup who think that random collision has somehow magically created minds that can think straight and form coherent opinions. That's actually pretty funny. And frankly, as one who was an agnostic for over 20 years, been there done that.

If your reasoning faculties are the result of random atomic collision, why should you take yourself so seriously, let alone expect others to agree? I don't see a reason.

There are also channels by atheists-turned-Christian who demolish atheists on a regular basis. One is called shockofgod

Here's an interesting testimony by a former atheist. The video is very well done.

 

I could write something very well and imitate the writing style of the KJV Bible. With the power of charisma I could convince a group of people I heard a voice in my head telling me to write something important and then declare it a revelation. I then add it as a new final page in the Bible or even write a whole book. Some people have done that (Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy and Sun Myung Moon are the 3 I know of. I've read the books of all 3 of them).

Why should I not believe they were under divine Inspiration? What is divine inspiration anyway and why is that "gift" not given to people today?

I have no more reason to believe the desert dwellers of thousands of years ago when they write of a talking donkey.

One more reason my favorite atheist Youtuber mentioned: The four Gospels were not written by Yeshua or his immediate followers. They were written by people who knew the followers of Yeshua. That is hearsay upon hearsay known as double hearsay. There is no reason to believe Yeshua walked on water.

 

That's interesting but the Bible wasn't written by one guy. It was written by many over a span of centuries. Maybe you're thinking of the Quran?

The "KJV Bible" isn't relevant; it's a translation of ancient scriptures as there are other translations as well.

As stated above, this is a literal straw man argument. The Bible wasn't written by one dude. 100% false equivalence argumentation here.

I have no idea where you get this info from, but oral tradition was the norm of the era as most people were illiterate. Do you reject all oral tradition or just ones you dislike?

There was no conspiracy to write a book over centuries - over thousands of years - culminating in people who saw a man executed and then raised from the dead, walking and talking with his physical wounds remaining, and who went to spread the message to the world and all but one willingly died gruesome, tortured deaths due to their preaching this man's words.

 

Oral tradition must be taken with a grain of salt. Memories can be hazy and wording changes (Chinese whispers). There is probably some kernels of truth within mountains of lies.

As for persecution, that is no indication of truth. Thousands of people in human history have died for bad ideas they genuinely believed in.

Here is my favorite atheist Youtuber explaining double hearsay. It's within the first 2-3 minutes of the video, but I'd recommend you watch the rest of the video.

 

Accepting Jesus as your savior or burn in hell is a threat in my book. Attending church is an open expression of that acceptance.

I actually have a story involving threats and church. Years ago I was pressured to attending communion by my mother. I said I did not want to go and then she told me if I did not, she would feel humiliated that her son is not there. A few years later, I refused to attend communion again and this time my ex wife and mother refused to take no for an answer. They only relented when I said if I was forced to attend, I would shout in church "I'm here against my will!"

 

Then you must disbelieve most of human history. We have ample written traditions as well, from the early church fathers, including Apostolic Fathers, that lay the writings of the New Testament at the feet of the Apostles and their personal scribes. The books themselves indicate having been written in the 1st century per the timeline in each book and when each book ended and stylistic patterns indicate a similar author. For your argument to be tenable, it would have to be a massive conspiracy theory involving thousands of people stretched out over some 4,000 years all working together toward a goal of running con artistry across the globe during a time when Christians had to be closeted due to their being thrown to lions.

We are talking about tens of thousands of Biblical manuscripts, some hidden for thousands of years in caves. This is not comparable to one guy making up a swell-sounding book and passing it off like a copy of Dianetics. Far more copies of Biblical manuscripts exist than any other ancient writing in existence and copies are markedly similar.

You clearly haven't researched into this topic and took at face value as unquestioned fact whatever hostile naysayer source(s) you've been reading. I see no indication that you've even familiarized yourself with both sides of the issue, let alone contemplated the worth of each. All I'm seeing is repetition of skeptic talking points.

Early church fathers on the origin of :

Gospel of Luke

Gospel of John

Gospel of Mark

Letters of Paul

Other Letters

 

Communion, no wonder. I'm not a Catholic.

 

My church was Lutheran. Perhaps I used the wrong word. Sacrament or Lord's supper? I call it the bread and wine thing.

 

Got it. Lutheran is a lot better than Catholic.

But the thing is, if the God of the Bible is real, how can you expect to live with Christ if you reject him? Do you hope to be kidnapped or something?

 

If the God of the Bible is real, then I suppose I am an ungrateful child for not suppressing doubts and asking too many questions. So be it because I do not want to sacrifice my critical thinking.

I'd go back to my religion in a heartbeat if god actually performed a miracle in response to a direct demand or if he or an angel spoke to me directly. Alternatively, if an evangelical Christian could answer all my questions regarding Christianity and human sexuality (the questions that drove me away from religion), then I'd give my beliefs a second thought.

I hope that answers the question.

 

If you look for the Amalekites in history there is no reference to them anywhere outside the Bible that does not depend on the Bible references. They were simply a tribe made up by the scribes of the 7th century when they made up the Pentatuechal Historical novel. Even as the Exodus was. Even as Noahs flood was. Even as Abraham, Moses were. . There is no evidence for them. Proven history denies the story written in the Bible.

 

Where on earth did you get this from? The Pentateuch has existed since well before the 7th century.

A Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century was found in Egypt in 1844 which contained parts of Old and New Testaments.

A Codex Vaticanus which dates from the early 4th century also exists.

Carbon dating has showed the Dead Sea Scrolls date to the approximate time of Jesus or upwards of 200 years before him. Papyrus Fouad 266 is a Greek Pentateuch which dates to the 1st century BC. The oldest known Greek Pentateuch is Papyrus Rylands 458 which dates to the 2nd century BC. That's BC as in before Christ.

We have far more physical remnants of historical Bible copies than we do any other ancient book. The idea that Bibles did not exist before the 7th century is as I just showed very easily falsifiable. I have no idea where you got that idea from, but you've clearly never researched into the oldest Biblical manuscripts that we have.

I find it rather amusing that you tried to shoot down the Bible in toto due to a lack of some archaeological evidence (while in other aspects, archaeological evidence is prevalent) while you make unsubstantiated assertions of the origin and dating of the Pentateuch which have no basis in fact.

Simply because we currently lack archaeological evidence of a given historical figure in the Bible does not equal proof it never existed. Not all Christians believe in a literal earthly deluge, either, nor do Jews for that matter.

 

Where does the Bible say that doubt and questions are bad? I was an agnostic for some 20 years. In part of my process, I engaged in research from several angles. One of my favorite speakers was J Warner Wallace, partly as a former atheist but also as a former homicide detective he approached the Bible from an investigative viewpoint.

You should ask to be shown. I did. But don't expect that God is going to perform according to your demands. From my experience, having a poisoned mindset against faith creates an impasse. You have to be open-minded and receptive. Not gullible, just receptive and willing to see.

Well if you base your morality on postmodern social movements and taboos, you're probably never going to be happy in anything outside of placing your faith in postmodern social movements and taboos, and that's idolatry. Regarding human sexuality, whatever may be considered sinful, unlike in Catholicism, partaking in it isn't going to get you put into hell although that doesn't mean you won't be subject to some kind of earthly punishment.

 

If I cannot get satisfactory answers, then it's pointless holding on to beliefs that cannot be defended.

I mentioned the Noah's Ark narrative in my first post as an example. I refuse to take that narrative literally. The problem is most Christians give the wrong answer when I put to them "Did a man named Noah really build a giant box filled with animals to survive a worldwide flood?"

Those who answer "yes" prove my point that Christians deserve to be mocked.

Most people have told me (online and in real life): "I don't know. Who cares? Focus on the New Testament" That is evading a difficult question and is not helpful in making me a believer.

A handful have said: "The whole world meant the whole known world. It was a localized flood" This one is indeed interesting but presently there is no way to prove it conclusively.

Nobody has so far said: "No it did not" And then take ownership of their fellow believers and condemn fools like Ken Ham for spreading pseudo science. Simply giving the right answer is not enough. I need the person to admit that people like Ken Ham drive people away from taking Christians seriously. While this is not necessary, they should then take the step and break communion with Ken Ham meaning they would not sit in the church pews with him.

Not trying hard enough eh? I submit to you this:

Punished for the victim-less crime of touching myself?

 

Sorry, my mistake. It should have read 7th Century BCE. When the Hebrews were in Babylon.

Abraham, according to Biblical genealogy and general concensus, lived 2100/2000 BCE. He lived in Ur. He was Sumerian as his family ancestors were from UR.
UR was Sumerian at the time - not 'of the Chaldees (Chaldeans)' as supposedly written by Moses. The Chaldeans do not appear in history for another 1200 years - after the death of Abraham and 500 years after the death of Moses. So how could Moses have known Ur as 'of the Chaldeans'. During the time mentioned the Sumerians and Ur were overthrown by the Akkadians and Ur destroyed. It was later rebuilt.
The Hittites, from whom Moses tells us that Abraham bought a tomb, did not appear until Abraham had been dead 400 years. So much for the tomb story.
The idea that Pharaoh would have been interested in a 70 year old Sarai is complete nonsense. It's doubtful that Abraham would have got within 800 miles of Pharaoh, ruling, at the time, from Thebes - Southern Egypt. Abraham would have been in the Nile Delta (Northern Egypt) feeding his animals like Semetic tribes often did. Besides, Pharaoh had a harem of young 'princesses' given to him by rulers of nations wanting to seal a trade deal with Egypt. This was a custom of the day. The Hittites sent a 'princess' to seal a deal, and then later asked what had happened to her when the Pharaoh asked for another 'princess' to seal another deal. These 'letters' are archaeological finds and are in the British museum. They are called 'The Arzawa Letters'. Sarai beauty is just another embellishment in the Historical novel.
The only recorded Exodus from Egypt - en masse - is when the Hyksos were evicted by Ahmose I. According to the Bible 600,000 men of arms bearing age (20-50 ac. to Bible) left Egypt. Taking into account wives, under 20's of both sexes, and any over 50's it's estimated that 2.5-3m people left Egypt and wandered 40 years in the deserts. There was no contraception, and the need for large families was paramount in those days. Not like today. There were always small Semetic tribes entering and exiting Egypt for the same reason as Abraham. Even the Egyptians recorded that fact. BUT nothing about the Exodus of such a vast number that would have affected every part of the Egyptian economy. Not something that could be hidden.
Have you actually studied the route taken, the marching order given, and the camping arrangements given. They are impossible for such a large number of people with animals. The marching order required a 'queue' of people 15-20 miles long. How did the front communicate with the back and vice versa. Did they stop everytime a woman had to give birth or animals needed feeding and watering or a burial was required. Study the camping order. How many hours would it take the Levi's at the rear end of the marching order to get to the front to deliver the Tabernacle parts they were carrying. The tabernacle had to be erected first, then the Levi families in correct position round the Tabernacle, before the rest of the tribes could even sort themselves out into correct positions. It's all impossible.

The scribes who wrote the Pentatuech simply took places and events they knew about and wove the stories around them. The errors they made are evidence of their lack of historic knowledge and understanding of desert life. The Hebrews had been settled for approx 400 years.
Archaeology is a useful tool and proves the existence of places and events prior to 1000 BCE. It does not produce any evidence of the people of the Bible. It does give us evidence of events after 1000 BCE which can be a confirmation of Biblical events of that 'Kings' era. However, if you study be prepared for exaggerations of numbers given and results given by both sides in conflicts.
Palestine of the time could not support a great population. Cities were the size of modern small towns, and towns modern villages.

Yes I have studied the Bible for decades, once being a Christian preacher. I have also studied ancient history, archeaology and middle eastern history in relation to the Bible.

 

Perhaps correcting some mistaken beliefs, or false narratives about the bible is in order. Here are a few:

1. The bible is full of errors!
False.
No historical accounts recorded in the biblical manuscripts have been disproved or refuted by any other evidence.
2. The bible has changed many times!
False.
The early church fathers quoted every passage in the new testament, and plenty from the old. There is no substantive disagreement with our current translations. The historical manuscripts have considerable corroboration from other documents. The biblical manuscripts have a long history of scholarship and textual criticism by a continuous line of biblical scholars, translators, and historians.
3. The bible can be translated in many ways, and can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.
False.
There is a scholarly, exegetical intent in the biblical manuscripts. Scholars may differ in some of the nuances in translation, but the source is clear and historically accurate. Individuals might apply personal meanings from a passage, but that does not override the original intent of the author.
4. The bible was all verbal, and the original meaning was lost.
False.
There are many fragments and textual evidences of the accuracy and historicity of the biblical texts, some going back to the first century, for the nt manuscripts. Quotes from early church fathers, commentators, and historians have provided a continual line of credibility for the biblical texts.

 

Most of this post is regurgitated 'textual criticism!', popular in the 19th century. Almost all of the accusations about the bible being 'full of errors!' have been debunked by archaeological findings. The rest stand as accusations without evidence, based on hostile OPINIONS from critics nearly 2 millennia removed from the events. They have no credibility, and only have bias and hostility for a basis.

Arguments of incredulity, or speculations based on insufficient information is not valid, but is fallacious .

 

Why aren't you taking the initiative to look for answers from various sources? You don't sound very interested. Not conversations with individuals, but scholarly sources. How about a topical Bible study?

Do you know what a hasty generalization fallacy is? You just admitted you mock all Christians because some give you an answer you don't like.

You need the person to admit? Why are you basing any open attitude on faith on how some people react to your gotcha questions? All you're doing is rejecting based on their personal knowledge base and their personal feelings. Why would you do that? Do you reject science as a whole because of a few quacks?

Again this all revolves around your taking everything as super-literal. That's your personal position for which you haven't validated as legitimate. I've never come across a hostile secularist that didn't assume extreme literalism. Just because some people are literalists doesn't mean they speak for everyone or that you have to be, too.

Paul in Galatians 4:21-31 explained that the story of Hagar and Sarah in the Old Testament was allegory and then went on to explain what it meant in terms of Christ's Kingdom. Ample Jewish tradition takes Old Testament stories as wholly allegorical. Pointing to some annoying guy like Ken Ham or Kent Hovind doesn't invalidate Christianity as a whole. You seem intent on looking for a couple extreme examples to justify throwing out of the baby with the bath water.

Rather than saying you aren't trying hard enough, I'd say you have a bad attitude which is a block. From personal experience, you will get nowhere with that attitude and your gotcha standards. I needed to humble myself and shut my mouth.

Not what I was referring to. I've never heard of anyone outside of Catholicism pushing that angle. It's not in the Bible and comes from later Catholic teachings of which some Protestant denominations retained. I was referring to things like promiscuity which have concrete worldly consequences.

Catholicism teaches that masturbation is a "mortal sin," and to die without unconfessed mortal sin means hell fire which is obviously idiotic and unbiblical. Protestants don't have that hangup.

I would suggest not getting hung up on denominational sectarianism. Nothing is forcing you to be specifically Lutheran outside of familial pressure. Both myself and my paternal aunt come from an LCMS background but we're both nondenominational Christians.

 

No there is scientific evidence that the world wide flood could not of happened as described in the Bible.

 

No they haven't. Archaeological findings both debunk some of the Bible historical events and agree with other parts. There is no archaeological evidence for any of the stories of Abraham, Moses, the Exodus etc. All we have is evidence of named places, events that took place, before the era of the Kings in Palestine.(from circa 1000-650 BCE) There's no evidence of large numbers of Hebrews in Egypt for 400 years - except in the Bible story. Even suggestions that these were actually the Hyksos is wrong when the Hyksos were 2 centuries before. No evidence that the Hebrews actually entered Palestine as described. Several Biblical 'facts' are denied by archaeology and history. The walls of Jericho may have tumbled. But then they had done so before because Jericho is in an earthquake zone. Nothing to do with a Joshua. And I could have walked round the walls of this 'mighty city' in about 30 minutes. I live in an English town that's bigger than Jericho. Ai, also 'conquered' by Joshua, had been destroyed by the Egyptians 1000 years before - and never rebuilt. 2.5 - 3 million people - calculated on Biblical figures - entered Palestine. If you know anything about the time Palestine was never a land flowing with milk and honey. It's indigenous population numbered around 1 million and they struggled to survive in difficult times. Another 2.5 - 3 million would have inundated the area and could not have been sustained by ancient cultivation methods.
I've given evidence that is widely available in proven ancient history and archaeology. These are opinions based on comparing the Bible with ancient history, archaeology and the conditions at the time.
You say this regurgitated 'textual criticism' was popular in the 19th century. I wouldn't know. I wasn't around at the time. (My first Sunday School lesson was at the age of about 4 - during the middle of WWII). Well, since then archaeology has proved them right in many things and wrong in some.
The story of the Exodus is simply a story. The Biblical facts given are simply impossible. Anyone studying these with an open mind can see that. Even most Jews now accept the fact that these stories are allegories. There is no Jewish History farther back than about 1000 BCE when a tribal leader named David led his tribe to superiority over other tribes. And that story itself has been exaggerated to make him a hero. The most influential king of the period was Omri. But he is virtually ignored because he was a pagan.
That's why 50% of the world population of Jews no longer practise their religion.
All the information is available for anyone wishing to study with an open mind.

 

That is merely your belief, based on arguments of incredulity. You have no evidence that any of the alleged events in the bible are impossible.

Talking donkeys?
Sun paused in the sky?
Someone raised from the dead?
Creation ex niholo?

The point here is not a claim of scientific proof of biblical stories, but that they have not been DISPROVED. They are beliefs, with no empirical way to prove or disprove them.

The argument i am refuting is not a claim of accuracy of the BELIEVED, or NOT BELIEVED, events, but the historical accuracy of the manuscripts that describe them.

 

Lack of archaeological evidence does not debunk a claim.

 

Where did you get that from? Paul certainly believed in Abraham etc. As did the writer/s to the Hebrews.

“Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness’” (v. 6).

- Galatians 3:6–14
Salvation was by faith in the Old Testament, says Paul, and the example of Abraham proves it. Abraham did not earn salvation by works but believed God and received salvation by faith. If you Galatians want to be part of the true Old Testament community, says Paul, you need to imitate Abraham. The true Old Testament community lived by faith and has now been transformed into the New Testament community. Even in the Old Testament, says Paul, God promised the day when the Gentiles would be joined with Israel and all nations would become children of Abraham.

And certainly the Jews believed in Abraham. Would they have called him their Father if he had been known as an allegory. The Jews of Jesus day certainly did. Their Faith hung on God appointing Abraham, on the Covenant given to Abraham. Allegories?

 

The scientific Hydrological Cycle proves that Noahs flood could not have happened as per Bible.

 

But History does.