Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[TRANSPONDER]

The history of mankind can be summed up with three words: necessity to nonsense. So, yes, this is irrelevant (nonsense). People didn't change the world for good or ill, they created it, with or without science, Holy Books, Western Culture and all the rest. Humanlike gods living on Mount Olympus was only a small part of that nonsense just as your response is only a part of that. Everything we say and everything we do is nonsense from necessity.

You do not have any more or less faith than anyone else and your claims, by definition as a verb, to state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof; and as a noun, an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt or a demand or request for something considered one's due, like anyone else's, are nonsense. Belief doesn't persuade anyone of anything, that's why they call it belief. So, when someone insists on evidence and reason what they really mean is confirmation bias.

Creation is necessity, for example, the resulting nonsense being ideology. Ideology is literally the science of ideas. Religion, belief, science, history, etc. are ideological which becomes nonsensical when given as an edict or diktat. Thus, the sociopolitical class struggle of religion vs science.

Why did you type so many words when you could have just been honest and admitted that you don't have any evidence or reason to believe in the gods?

You alluding to faith is nothing but a weak attempt to level the playing field. The problem is that faith should be avoided at all costs because faith is a necessary mechanism in order to believe in something that is false. Faith does not have the ability to suggest that a belief may be true.
Want to believe in Big Foot? Faith is required due to a lack of convincing evidence.
Want to believe in Nessy? Faith is required due to a lack of convincing evidence.
Want to believe in Allah? Faith is required due to a lack of convincing evidence.

Due to this, faith should be abhorred by all, yet all religions require it in order for humans to believe in all the different competing god concepts. Faith is what has brought us all the false gods and faith is used by many to pick one of these god concepts to believe is true while simultaneously rejecting the other options for not applying faith to them. The main mechanism that determines what god a person will apply their faith to is geography. Two nonsensical mechanism are at play for humans to form a god concept belief (fear often being a 3rd).

Like Transponder said: "Evidence and reason. Let's see some of that, not appeal to fallacies like selected Faith and appeal to some numbers of people but not others."

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to tax your search for evidence and reason. Perhaps you could just skip to the part where I say when someone insists on evidence and reason what they really mean is confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias can't be ignored - on both sides. This is why we discuss and debate. The whole matter of epistemology, validated data (if one doesn't accept that, discussion is pointless, anyway) and logical reasoning comes into play in order to correct errors, misunderstanding and false reasoning.

Appealing to confirmation bias without any context just looks like a blanket excuse to claim a win (or a draw at least) without doing a debate. We still await a case from theism. Why we should believe in the Bible, the god of the Bible and/or Christianity.

Let me help and save some time. It comes does the God's chosen communication - the Bible. Never mind mental communications, they are merely one's own ideas; never mind experiences, they are just counting the hits and ignoring the misses. The Bible is either broadly reliable or it isn't. I accept that if one doesn't believe it why should we believe any other book? But like any other book, it is open to critique. And there has been a lot of that, especially since the 80's. We are at the stage where critics are saying that so much is wrong with the Bible that indeed it doesn't look like a reliable record by humans, let alone a reliable communication by a god.

How do the believers respond to this? Not adequately by doing appeals to Faith, inversion of the burden of proof or accusations of bias. Those are not making a case; those are excusing the inability to make one.

Let me save time again I have seen many discussion and arguments put forward. They come down to denial and excuses. Denial that the Ark doesn't work; denial that the resurrections are terminally contradictory. Excuses for three of the gospels never hinting at strikingly important events in the other one (no raising of Lazarus, no transfiguration, no penitent thief, none of John's sermons, missing some of Luke's striking parables, no angelic explanation in John, no attempted murder at Nazareth in anyone but Luke, no nativity in John, healing at a distance in Mark or indeed Sanhedrin trial in John. So far, just dismissal and excuses. We are at the stage where the Bible case is lost, but the tough part is in getting people to realise it where all the outlets seem to be putting out the religious view 'The Bible is reliable; Christianity is true'.

If that isn't where we are, let's hear the counters. Kalam, Ontological arguments and origins of the cosmos, Life and consciousness and indeed Morals is pointless as none of those tell us which Holy Book is true. The case for any religion stands or falls on the scripture.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

But it’s not at all ambiguous to millions. You view is your own personal subjective opinion.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

That would a very honest and honorable man whom we could not but admire….and extremely rare.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

But I don’t claim divine understanding. My position is based on evidence and logic. It has explanatory power other positions lack.

I can assure you that debates so far have not produced any decent evidence and 'explanations' have turned out to be excuses why there is no decent evidence. I look forward to discussing yours, should you produce any as so far, I have seen you produce only personal faithclaims.

All you produce is personal lack of faith claims. In the face of millennia of people understanding the Bible, you claim it is ambiguous, for example. Thousands have written books explaining it and more than thousands have reads these books and yet you claim it is ambiguous. Untold numbers of men and women have changed the world they lived in when they understood that book. They went out and built orphanages, hospitals, schools, and universities because that book communicated to them clearly what they are to do. It is not ambiguous to millions and their subsequent deeds showed this. Those who did not understand that book did no such improvements in the lives of others. What evidence do I have that you will even see what is plain to millions?

How do these millions cope with the following fact

All of this, however, leads to another question. Since the bible is “a collection of writings of questionable authors by questionable churchmen -- then later translated, transcribed, modified, revised, and rewritten unknown times by unknown people”, how can it be touted as “the word of god” or “inerrant” or “infallible”?

Unless one assumes divine intervention at every step along this thousand year plus process, there is virtually no possiblity of the Bible being "inerrant".

Neither the authors of the Bible nor their writings claim the Book is inerrant. The claim is that it’s useful for teaching (truth), correction (moral behavior) and training in doing right. This it fulfills it’s part perfectly.

The inerrancy theory was probably invented to avoid the uncomfortableness of the actual claim.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because what it claims matches real life. I have tested it in the crucible of life and found it stands the test. I’ve read published scientific articles that couldn’t stand the test of being repeated or even critical thought.

These are just more faithclaims, or perhaps personal opinions. To which you are well entitled, but contain no reason whatsoever for anyone else to accept them.

The same goes for your unbelieving claims. They’re just your personal opinion and there’s no reason whatsoever to lend them any credence. No reason to accept them.

The reason the Bible reflects life is because it was written by people who had lived it.

Is there any nonfiction book written by people who didn’t live life?

It is not only not inerrant, it is often wrong (unless on denies human knowledge).

Usually said by people who don’t see the truth, that is, don’t understand it.

Whatever you have found, I have tested the Bible against validated data, reason and internal coherence and it fails in all respects. We may disagree, but that means your case cuts no ice with me.

You case cuts no ice with me. The difference between us is I understand the writings whereas you do not. Makes my position more reliable.

I am willing to subject it to critical thought. I have seen no such from you so far, but merely more faithclaims.

I see no critical thought from you, just doubt claims.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

But it’s not at all ambiguous to millions. You view is your own personal subjective opinion.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

That would a very honest and honorable man whom we could not but admire….and extremely rare.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

But I don’t claim divine understanding. My position is based on evidence and logic. It has explanatory power other positions lack.

I can assure you that debates so far have not produced any decent evidence and 'explanations' have turned out to be excuses why there is no decent evidence. I look forward to discussing yours, should you produce any as so far, I have seen you produce only personal faithclaims.

All you produce is personal lack of faith claims. In the face of millennia of people understanding the Bible, you claim it is ambiguous, for example. Thousands have written books explaining it and more than thousands have reads these books and yet you claim it is ambiguous. Untold numbers of men and women have changed the world they lived in when they understood that book. They went out and built orphanages, hospitals, schools, and universities because that book communicated to them clearly what they are to do. It is not ambiguous to millions and their subsequent deeds showed this. Those who did not understand that book did no such improvements in the lives of others. What evidence do I have that you will even see what is plain to millions?

How do these millions cope with the following fact

All of this, however, leads to another question. Since the bible is “a collection of writings of questionable authors by questionable churchmen -- then later translated, transcribed, modified, revised, and rewritten unknown times by unknown people”, how can it be touted as “the word of god” or “inerrant” or “infallible”?

Unless one assumes divine intervention at every step along this thousand year plus process, there is virtually no possiblity of the Bible being "inerrant".

Neither the authors of the Bible nor their writings claim the Book is inerrant. The claim is that it’s useful for teaching (truth), correction (moral behavior) and training in doing right. This it fulfills it’s part perfectly.

The inerrancy theory was probably invented to avoid the uncomfortableness of the actual claim.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because what it claims matches real life. I have tested it in the crucible of life and found it stands the test. I’ve read published scientific articles that couldn’t stand the test of being repeated or even critical thought.

These are just more faithclaims, or perhaps personal opinions. To which you are well entitled, but contain no reason whatsoever for anyone else to accept them.

The same goes for your unbelieving claims. They’re just your personal opinion and there’s no reason whatsoever to lend them any credence. No reason to accept them.

The reason the Bible reflects life is because it was written by people who had lived it.

Is there any nonfiction book written by people who didn’t live life?

It is not only not inerrant, it is often wrong (unless on denies human knowledge).

Usually said by people who don’t see the truth, that is, don’t understand it.

Whatever you have found, I have tested the Bible against validated data, reason and internal coherence and it fails in all respects. We may disagree, but that means your case cuts no ice with me.

You case cuts no ice with me. The difference between us is I understand the writings whereas you do not. Makes my position more reliable.

I am willing to subject it to critical thought. I have seen no such from you so far, but merely more faithclaims.

I see no critical thought from you, just doubt claims.

Ok. But I have seen nothing from you but faithclaims. Fair enough. So I accept (unlike many Bible critics) that a case has to be made to NOT credit the Bible as reliable, believable or true. Not Inerrant. Let me try your - wall patience with a quote from my soon not to be published memoirs "The wonderful story of my fantastic life" When the religion debate first hit the Internet, Bible contradictions were just lists of what hats Samuel was wearing and the apologists just shrugged it off 'Inerrant doesn't mean no errors. God maybe didn't write the Bible, but he inspired the writers with the truth. All errors are mans' fault, not God's". Thus Bible contradictions had to go a step further.

Thus the Bible has to be shewn more wrong than can be excused as human errors - it is wrong information. OT of course, but also new as we already know that if the OT is debunked the Christians simply say Jesus made it all a new covenant. Cobblers because if Eden is false, whence sin? God had to impose sin -death or there is no need for Jesus to release us. 'Sin' is just haw we were made, (by evolution thank you very much) and not some fault of ours.

So for starters, OT Order of creation. Ark feasibility, The sun standing still, all wrong. The absurdity of Babel and origins of language, Prophecy of Tyre false, Daniel not a prophet (dateable to around 160 BC, not 500 BC) and more recently increasing reason to think Exodus was an invented origin story (like Genesis) written in Babylon 600 BC (on epigraphic grounds) using Babylonian records (e.g Sargon in the bulrushes) and I am now halfway sure the Exodus was based on equating the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose with the leading the Jews out of the delta by Moses.

NT? Nativity, touchstone test case contradiction. One account has to be wrong and on evidence, both. From Matthew's silly star and the contrived plot of Herod looking for a Royal pretender in scripture (only a Christian writer would get that idea) to Luke's daft idea that signing on for a tax (which didn't apply to Galilee anyway) required someone to go back to their ancestral city, and how many people even know what that is? Of course, Joseph would sign on in Capernaum or Sepphoris, not trek to Judea taking his wife just so Jesus could fulfil scripture by being born there. Matthew and Luke knew that scripture required that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem (in fact John states this 7.41 but doesn't claim Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem) and invented contradictory stories to "Correct" this omitted information.

So the case for gospel contradiction made, where is the next worst example? In the crux and pillar of Christianity, the resurrection. Not the Crucifixion; I believe that allright, but the resurrection stories are almost as bad as the nativities, and the contradictions much more extensive.

After that, under 'clean hands' legal procedure, the other contradictions do not merit benefit of doubt. Attempted killing at Nazareth that nobody else heard of. Miraculous draft of fish at the calling of disciples...but after the resurrection in John, Lord's prayer taught at Matthew's sermon...but also for the first time when they start for Jerusalem in Luke (1) No Transfiguration in John, No raising of Lazarus in the synoptics (that's a Biggie), Temple bust up removed from John and anointing at Bethany removed in Luke, No penitent thief but in Luke (causing theology problems, too ) and thus far, why should we entertain the attempts to patch over the contradictory deaths of Judas or credit the tomb guard which nobody but Matthew mentions?

This is just the beginning. The Bible, NT and Old are shot through with fallacies, nonsense and contradictions. You wanted some'Evidence'. You got it. What do you have other than (I would expect) faithbased dismissal.

(1) fingerprint and identifier of imported material by Matthew and Luke (*not found in Mark) used in contradictory ways. This I call "Q" document.

[Data]

Confirmation bias can't be ignored - on both sides.

True. But it always is.

This is why we discuss and debate.

No, it isn't and you know it. I know it and everyone else knows it. Like above when you said confirmation bias can't be ignored. It's like saying that everything will work out in the long run. No, it won't. It never has and it never will, until Jehovah settles the matter of his rightful sovereignty. We will debate that until it happens so the question is why do we really debate? I've addressed this multiple times here. Ego, ideology, entertainment, sport, boredom and sociopolitical class struggle, i.e. control. Xenophobia. Narcissism.

When once you start to put on a show the show must always go on. Most of this is show. Religion is a show. Pretense. Science is different - until you make it so then it becomes the same or worse. Worse because science is potentially far more destructive. To me it is important to look at these things, not due to any pretense that prevention or protestation will solve the serious problems they incur, and they are many, but to be aware of them and correct them, as much as possible in myself until Jehovah of armies destroys all of that nonsense. I'm separate from, though a part of the nonsense like a chronic disease which no one can't cure but which I can manage to some extent.

To skeptics that is laughable, or controversial but this is a mutual perception.

The whole matter of epistemology, validated data (if one doesn't accept that, discussion is pointless, anyway) and logical reasoning comes into play in order to correct errors, misunderstanding and false reasoning.

Only without the pretense of the aforementioned confirmation bias of both sides I mentioned earlier.

Appealing to confirmation bias without any context just looks like a blanket excuse to claim a win (or a draw at least) without doing a debate. We still await a case from theism.

They will take it to their grave. Who cares?

Why we should believe in the Bible, the god of the Bible and/or Christianity.

We've had this discussion? We should only believe it if that is what we want. Motivation is flawed unless it is the genuine desire for truth, which it almost never is (again with the confirmation bias, ideology, etc.) An intellectual or academic pursuit doesn't dictate outcome nor negate or necessitate desire. Belief isn't going to solve your problems or make you in accordance with the Bible, God and/or Christianity. Belief in God doesn't make God true, right or acceptable. It's subjective.

Let me help and save some time.

[Laughs] You and I have been doing this for far too long to make such unrealistic claims. Wasting time is the very essence of what we do. Best to thine own self be tree.

True.

It comes does the God's chosen communication - the Bible.

That would depend on your motivation. If it's an investigation, yes. If your motivation is something else the Bible is only a tool for better or worse for that effect. You aren't going to better yourself, anyone else, science or religion through such an investigation because the investigation isn't really about the objective truth. That's why truth itself alone is defined as a fact or belief that is accepted as true. I started to study the Bible for sociopolitical reasons. I hated the hypocrisy and ignorance of - the normalcy and conformity of the apparent (to me) dominant force of the Bible belt. Pretty myopic gesture for an ignorant hypocrite but, I thought, [pounds fist on desk] doggonit I must be better than that!

You live and learn. Hopefully. Or go on thinking you're better than your enemy by becoming them. If you can't beat them. Being unaware that you are doing that ensures your success [hint, hint] as I've told you repeatedly. Perceived victories in the "debate" - seen any? Oh, those fundies do that all the time. Indeed. They do.

Never mind mental communications, they are merely one's own ideas; never mind experiences, they are just counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

There are probably as many people who have benefited from the placebo effect of Christ as have been harmed by it. The royal (collective) you thinking that you can fix that, especially by using the illusion of science (knowledge) in vain only again, turns you into your enemy. You (again the royal collective) can't give any other logical explanation for your motivations. Show me someone for reform and I'll show you a sick person who's head is full of evil intentions. Science is not a collection of facts; it is a process of discovery. . . . Ideas have consequences.

The Bible is either broadly reliable or it isn't.

For what? Contextually you mean in the knowledge of Jehovah God and the one who he sent forth? Be honest, are your efforts not in line with my criticism in this post and the one to which you respond? You often refer to the win or loss of debate. What do you hope to win and what do you hope to lose? Give me a brief example of your loss, like I gave recently here in the case of my forgetting the term father-in-law as used in the Bible, my uncertainty in the discussion of Satan being appointed as protector in Eden or long ago when I briefly bought into the Christ myth theory and abandoning my faith altogether.

The Bible is either broadly reliable or it isn't in giving you accurate knowledge. Data, information. What you do with it, like science and religion, is up to you and the mass of humanity drifting in a turbulent sea of insanity. The sea you and I and everyone else inhabit.

I accept that if one doesn't believe it why should we believe any other book?

Depends on what you want and why, but debate is to you a spectator sport or intellectual, academic, sociopolitical, religious or other facade its usefulness deviates from the intent. You want to believe to be a more peaceful person? Maybe Buddha would be the better option. To answer the question, though, simply, examine the books. First without any such facade. I can personally recommend the Dhammapada, Gospel of Buddha, Analects of Confucius, Mencius, Bhagavad Gita, Quran, Pirkei Avot, Kojiki, Nihongi, Tao Te Ching, and Chuang Tzu. If you were really interested in any those you wouldn't have needed me to point them out to you which begs the question why you would be critical of the Bible without the confirmation bias mentioned repeatedly throughout my typical response. Your sport doesn't allow for a keen interest in the reason behind your opponent's motivation without insulting it while confidently overlooking your own similar interest. What's the use in that?

But like any other book, it is open to critique.

Should be but your critique is thinly veiled propaganda. You have no real interest in the subject.

And there has been a lot of that, especially since the 80's.

Coincidentally it just happens to be when you stepped in the picture. Or did you mean the 1880s, when the industrial revolution painted that picture? Because you could take it all back to Pharaoh.

We are at the stage where critics are saying that so much is wrong with the Bible that indeed it doesn't look like a reliable record by humans, let alone a reliable communication by a god.

[Laughs. Again] And the record attests to the merit humanity possesses to do that. Necessity to nonsense. You need to stop making my point. Even if you do it unintentionally or unaware. Anyway, that is the way it is supposed to happen. (Genesis 3:15 - Revelation 22:21) Then necessity to nonsense will be no more.

How do the believers respond to this?

Might as well ask the cat.

Not adequately by doing appeals to Faith, inversion of the burden of proof or accusations of bias. Those are not making a case; those are excusing the inability to make one.

Well, then, good for you. Make another notch on the scoreboard. Or, maybe if you're the smartest guy in the house you're in the wrong house.

Let me save time again

Great! My eyes and head are all wonky from wrestling with Hyper Text Markup Language working on Ajahn Sumedho's discourse on the Buddhist Four Noble Truths. So, I do this for an hour or so.

I have seen many discussion and arguments put forward.

Just goes on and on doesn't it? You say it's a good thing, that there is some reason for it? I say you will take it to your grave without it ever having any benefit to anyone other than buried deep beneath the superficial and let's face it. We're so lazy. Anyway, why dig for that which you already have?

They come down to denial and excuses.

Shame! Shame on them. We, though, are men of science!

Denial that the Ark doesn't work; denial that the resurrections are terminally contradictory.

Here we go . . .

Excuses for three of the gospels never hinting at strikingly important events in the other one (no raising of Lazarus,

Throw in some vague talking points that you wouldn't respond to if someone put them to the test, either because your opponent knows better than to waste his time or is foolish enough to be in the same boat as you in the first place, but that's okay, no matter what, you win, right?

no transfiguration, no penitent thief, none of John's sermons, missing some of Luke's striking parables, no angelic explanation in John, no attempted murder at Nazareth in anyone but Luke, no nativity in John, healing at a distance in Mark or indeed Sanhedrin trial in John. So far, just dismissal and excuses. We are at the stage where the Bible case is lost, but the tough part is in getting people to realise it where all the outlets seem to be putting out the religious view 'The Bible is reliable; Christianity is true'.

Setting aside the juvenile and unsophisticated pretense of an argument, what about, though, my argument which, oddly enough, is more along the lines that the Bible is unreliable and Christianity is false?

If that isn't where we are, let's hear the counters. Kalam, Ontological arguments and origins of the cosmos, Life and consciousness and indeed Morals is pointless as none of those tell us which Holy Book is true. The case for any religion stands or falls on the scripture.

[yawns] Well, I better get back to work.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #64]

You wrote a heck of a lot there and I'm afraid it was just denial. It was dismissing the vanue of derbate, investigation, considering the Bible and pretty much everything else. It looked to me like you wanted to keep it what you wanted to believe and dissing anything that conflicted.

Sorry Data but I don't have another lifetime to waste and I have to choose my battles. They are logic and evidence focussed on God's only communication outside personal beliefs and opinions elevated to cosmic level. I'l debate on evidence in and out (if relevant) of the Bible but I won'; waste my time on faithclaims andaccusations of bias, as though Religious Faith wasn't the most biased bias of them all.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #64]

You wrote a heck of a lot there and I'm afraid it was just denial. It was dismissing the vanue of derbate, investigation, considering the Bible and pretty much everything else. It looked to me like you wanted to keep it what you wanted to believe and dissing anything that conflicted.

Sorry Data but I don't have another lifetime to waste and I have to choose my battles. They are logic and evidence focussed on God's only communication outside personal beliefs and opinions elevated to cosmic level. I'l debate on evidence in and out (if relevant) of the Bible but I won'; waste my time on faithclaims andaccusations of bias, as though Religious Faith wasn't the most biased bias of them all.

Okay. You've mentioned a couple times that the Biblical prophecy of Tyre was a failure and I've asked you about that with no response or explanation. Put your money where your ideology is, metaphorically. Debate that. Back up your vague unsubstantial claim. I haven't done that one for a while.

[POI]

In post 21, you state "Anybody here want to debate me on slavery in my thread?"

What then exactly is <your> position on slavery. as it pertains/relates to the Bible God?

I'm building up a case for my position in the thread. Again, I welcome any skeptic to debate me on slavery in my thread. If skeptics believe they have such a strong case, join the debate.

I skimmed one of your latest responses in that thread. I guess the Bible God is a-okay with both owning and breeding chattel slaves for their entire lives?

[Mae von H]

Ok. But I have seen nothing from you but faithclaims. Fair enough. So I accept (unlike many Bible critics) that a case has to be made to NOT credit the Bible as reliable, believable or true. Not Inerrant. Let me try your - wall patience with a quote from my soon not to be published memoirs "The wonderful story of my fantastic life" When the religion debate first hit the Internet, Bible contradictions were just lists of what hats Samuel was wearing and the apologists just shrugged it off 'Inerrant doesn't mean no errors. God maybe didn't write the Bible, but he inspired the writers with the truth. All errors are mans' fault, not God's". Thus Bible contradictions had to go a step further.

I have seen nothing from you but doubtclaims. Why do you not measure yourself with the same standard you measure others?

Regarding debating religion on the net, I have read and heard thousands of debates and never one about what hat Samuel was wearing. Not one. Maybe the debates you read are not the best ones to look at. Try John Lennox vs. Dawkins.

But I assume you mean that tongue in cheek. I will give you some insight into many believers. They DON'T like to talk about passages that point to their own moral behaviour (or lack of it.) It is much more pleasant for them to debate the age of the earth (as though they have a way to measure that) than talk about forgiving others and doing right by them, stranger or close friend. I cannot even consider taking an unbeliever to church with me anymore. The songs and sermons are so narcissistic that they are no example of what Jesus taught. But anyone can see they all prefer to hear support for their already narcissistic tendencies. The focus is on making them feel better and except for the annual tithe series, no sermons challenge their morality pretty much. So its preferable argue these matters as one feels morally superior AND one's one real behaviour is left untouched.

I will have to repeat myself a lot it seems. No Bible writer claimed their work was infallible or inerrant. Not one. You need to move off of that point. I know the uneducated or highly religously steeped educated insist this is so but that is because the real claim the Bible writers make of the book is not very pleasant. Surely you can see why anyone would prefer to spend hours and days and years on defending the claim that the book is without error instead of it is there to teach THEM about how to behave? Say that one sentence and a thousand thoughts of how one's behaviour does not measure up come to mind. Speak at length about its inerrancy and those sleeping errors of behavior remain undesturbed.

Thus the Bible has to be shewn more wrong than can be excused as human errors - it is wrong information. OT of course, but also new as we already know that if the OT is debunked the Christians simply say Jesus made it all a new covenant. Cobblers because if Eden is false, whence sin? God had to impose sin -death or there is no need for Jesus to release us. 'Sin' is just haw we were made, (by evolution thank you very much) and not some fault of ours.

You have best not propose the theory of evolution as to the genesis of man because scientifically you are on very thin ground and there is many a biologist who had to honestly admit that theory does not match real life seen in the laboratory or elsewhere. Genesis explains man with the best possible fit of what we really see.

So for starters, OT Order of creation.

What is the problem? The universe is older than the earth. The earth is older than the life on it. The plants and animals are older than man. Fits perfectly. You believe a different order?

Ark feasibility,

What is the problem? Engineers looked at the description and said it fits perfectly to the shape and size of a super tanker today. How did they know to build a ship like a tanker?

The sun standing still, all wrong.

I hate to break it to you but the sun does stand still in relation to the earth. The earth moves around it. (You left yourself open to that one. Hope you have a sense of humor.)

The absurdity of Babel and origins of language,

You got a better proposition?

Prophecy of Tyre false, Daniel not a prophet (dateable to around 160 BC, not 500 BC) and more recently increasing reason to think Exodus was an invented origin story (like Genesis) written in Babylon 600 BC (on epigraphic grounds) using Babylonian records (e.g Sargon in the bulrushes) and I am now halfway sure the Exodus was based on equating the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose with the leading the Jews out of the delta by Moses.

Well, you want to believe these things although archeology does not back you up. Evidence for the Exodus is there.

NT? Nativity, touchstone test case contradiction. One account has to be wrong and on evidence, both. From Matthew's silly star and the contrived plot of Herod looking for a Royal pretender in scripture (only a Christian writer would get that idea) to Luke's daft idea that signing on for a tax (which didn't apply to Galilee anyway) required someone to go back to their ancestral city, and how many people even know what that is?

Again, this probably comforts you. But the last needs to be addressed. Just because people today do not know much, does not follow that the Israelies then did not know much. They knew which of the sons of Jacob was their great....grandfather. I bet no one today learned from childhood their ancestry going back centuries.

Of course, Joseph would sign on in Capernaum or Sepphoris, not trek to Judea taking his wife just so Jesus could fulfil scripture by being born there. Matthew and Luke knew that scripture required that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem (in fact John states this 7.41 but doesn't claim Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem) and invented contradictory stories to "Correct" this omitted information.

Again, this comforts you although your education in these matters assumes modern thinking that would have been foreign to them. Fact is, thousands read and kept those works and knew that this was how it was done at that time.

So the case for gospel contradiction made, where is the next worst example? In the crux and pillar of Christianity, the resurrection. Not the Crucifixion; I believe that allright, but the resurrection stories are almost as bad as the nativities, and the contradictions much more extensive.

Except that people alive today have seen the risen Christ....thousands of them. They did not know who he was until he told them. But if you do not want to believe, there are many reasons you can tell yourself.

After that, under 'clean hands' legal procedure, the other contradictions do not merit benefit of doubt. Attempted killing at Nazareth that nobody else heard of. Miraculous draft of fish at the calling of disciples...but after the resurrection in John, Lord's prayer taught at Matthew's sermon...but also for the first time when they start for Jerusalem in Luke (1) No Transfiguration in John, No raising of Lazarus in the synoptics (that's a Biggie), Temple bust up removed from John and anointing at Bethany removed in Luke, No penitent thief but in Luke (causing theology problems, too ) and thus far, why should we entertain the attempts to patch over the contradictory deaths of Judas or credit the tomb guard which nobody but Matthew mentions?

You know, if police are interviewing a group of people about events they witnessed, if they all have exactly the same story, it is thought to be collusion. That is the indication of none of it being truth, not the varieties that happened when different people experience the same event.

This is just the beginning. The Bible, NT and Old are shot through with fallacies, nonsense and contradictions. You wanted some'Evidence'. You got it. What do you have other than (I would expect) faithbased dismissal.

I prayed for a lame women and she got up and walked. I have seen other less wild miracles. Thousands of them. I have seen the power of following Jesus change lives for the better as well and the power of those believers change the world for the better. You should look into the amenities you enjoy because of the Christians. IT was the Christians who fought slavery, built schools and hospitals and homes for orphans and the elderly. No atheists would give their lives to doing this. No Hindus nor Muslims nor Buddists either. You see, christians see each man as valuable being made in the image of God. For the atheist, they are just creatures that crawled out of a slimy pool evolving by time and chance and only those who have personal meaning for you (rather narcisstic) are valuable.

(1) fingerprint and identifier of imported material by Matthew and Luke (*not found in Mark) used in contradictory ways. This I call "Q" document.

Yes, I learned about the supposed Q document decades ago in university. If you think you are going to spring something new on me that will shake me, you have another "think" coming. It is rare for an atheist to propose some thought that is new to me. I recall it happened once on these sorts of sites. Otherwise is always rehashing the same doubt supporting "factoids."

That the book is an ancient one written by people of very different culture and background than we have does not occur to them. That the Hebrews used a lot of metaphor does not occur to Christians even and they take every time "horse" is written it means an equine creature. But maybe it is easier for me as I am educated in Shakespeare and for pleasure read books of a different culture although just the English ones which limits the time period, I admit. A modern man reads the Bible and thinks it was written last year.

The final point is why do atheists hold the Bible to such a high standard when no other written work is held to that standard? I used to read biographies as a kid and today would not have thought that because it was found out that the facts in the book do not match what was elsewhere reported that the person described therefore never even lived or did anything written in the biography. Why do you hold the Bible to that standard? No scientific book ever put in the forward that the information therein is inerrant and yet we read and believe what is written. Science is now riddled with peer reviewed papers that are pretty much outright lies. This is known. And yet no one suggests we ought to end all scientific publications. What is the difference?

We look at the information contained therein and test it in real life. The scientific experiments need to be able to be repeated with similiar enough results. And so I tested the Bible, I DID the instructions contained therein and found that my life is better than I ever thought possible when I was 16. My atheist brother asked me about one truth contained in the Bible. I answered, "it is more enjoyable to give than to receive." He loved to give presents and could not deny that this statement from Jesus was true. There are a lot more like it. But one has to DO the things Jesus recommended, not parse out the bits one does not understand BEFORE one will summon up the courage to actually do what he said. And no mistake, following the teachings of Jesus takes real courage, especially in our culture today.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #64]

You wrote a heck of a lot there and I'm afraid it was just denial. It was dismissing the vanue of derbate, investigation, considering the Bible and pretty much everything else. It looked to me like you wanted to keep it what you wanted to believe and dissing anything that conflicted.

Sorry Data but I don't have another lifetime to waste and I have to choose my battles. They are logic and evidence focussed on God's only communication outside personal beliefs and opinions elevated to cosmic level. I'l debate on evidence in and out (if relevant) of the Bible but I won'; waste my time on faithclaims andaccusations of bias, as though Religious Faith wasn't the most biased bias of them all.

Okay. You've mentioned a couple times that the Biblical prophecy of Tyre was a failure and I've asked you about that with no response or explanation. Put your money where your ideology is, metaphorically. Debate that. Back up your vague unsubstantial claim. I haven't done that one for a while.

Ok Fair enough. In listing problems I don't go into detail,so I'm happy to explain. There were two prophetic attacks on Tyre, under Nebuchadnezzar and under Alexander. Without checking back the prophecy is that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt. Well it was rebuilt to be a powerful and thriving Phoenecian port in Alexander's time . He took it in a siege and it may have looked like it would never be rebuilt, but it was up and running in a decade and still exists today under the name 'Sur'. Attempts have been made to argue that it is not the same city, but it is. Old Tyre is still being found in the archaeology of present Tyre. The prophecy failed.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. But I have seen nothing from you but faithclaims. Fair enough. So I accept (unlike many Bible critics) that a case has to be made to NOT credit the Bible as reliable, believable or true. Not Inerrant. Let me try your - wall patience with a quote from my soon not to be published memoirs "The wonderful story of my fantastic life" When the religion debate first hit the Internet, Bible contradictions were just lists of what hats Samuel was wearing and the apologists just shrugged it off 'Inerrant doesn't mean no errors. God maybe didn't write the Bible, but he inspired the writers with the truth. All errors are mans' fault, not God's". Thus Bible contradictions had to go a step further.

I have seen nothing from you but doubtclaims. Why do you not measure yourself with the same standard you measure others?

Regarding debating religion on the net, I have read and heard thousands of debates and never one about what hat Samuel was wearing. Not one. Maybe the debates you read are not the best ones to look at. Try John Lennox vs. Dawkins.

But I assume you mean that tongue in cheek. I will give you some insight into many believers. They DON'T like to talk about passages that point to their own moral behaviour (or lack of it.) It is much more pleasant for them to debate the age of the earth (as though they have a way to measure that) than talk about forgiving others and doing right by them, stranger or close friend. I cannot even consider taking an unbeliever to church with me anymore. The songs and sermons are so narcissistic that they are no example of what Jesus taught. But anyone can see they all prefer to hear support for their already narcissistic tendencies. The focus is on making them feel better and except for the annual tithe series, no sermons challenge their morality pretty much. So its preferable argue these matters as one feels morally superior AND one's one real behaviour is left untouched.

I will have to repeat myself a lot it seems. No Bible writer claimed their work was infallible or inerrant. Not one. You need to move off of that point. I know the uneducated or highly religously steeped educated insist this is so but that is because the real claim the Bible writers make of the book is not very pleasant. Surely you can see why anyone would prefer to spend hours and days and years on defending the claim that the book is without error instead of it is there to teach THEM about how to behave? Say that one sentence and a thousand thoughts of how one's behaviour does not measure up come to mind. Speak at length about its inerrancy and those sleeping errors of behavior remain undesturbed.

Thus the Bible has to be shewn more wrong than can be excused as human errors - it is wrong information. OT of course, but also new as we already know that if the OT is debunked the Christians simply say Jesus made it all a new covenant. Cobblers because if Eden is false, whence sin? God had to impose sin -death or there is no need for Jesus to release us. 'Sin' is just haw we were made, (by evolution thank you very much) and not some fault of ours.

You have best not propose the theory of evolution as to the genesis of man because scientifically you are on very thin ground and there is many a biologist who had to honestly admit that theory does not match real life seen in the laboratory or elsewhere. Genesis explains man with the best possible fit of what we really see.

So for starters, OT Order of creation.

What is the problem? The universe is older than the earth. The earth is older than the life on it. The plants and animals are older than man. Fits perfectly. You believe a different order?

Ark feasibility,

What is the problem? Engineers looked at the description and said it fits perfectly to the shape and size of a super tanker today. How did they know to build a ship like a tanker?

The sun standing still, all wrong.

I hate to break it to you but the sun does stand still in relation to the earth. The earth moves around it. (You left yourself open to that one. Hope you have a sense of humor.)

The absurdity of Babel and origins of language,

You got a better proposition?

Prophecy of Tyre false, Daniel not a prophet (dateable to around 160 BC, not 500 BC) and more recently increasing reason to think Exodus was an invented origin story (like Genesis) written in Babylon 600 BC (on epigraphic grounds) using Babylonian records (e.g Sargon in the bulrushes) and I am now halfway sure the Exodus was based on equating the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose with the leading the Jews out of the delta by Moses.

Well, you want to believe these things although archeology does not back you up. Evidence for the Exodus is there.

NT? Nativity, touchstone test case contradiction. One account has to be wrong and on evidence, both. From Matthew's silly star and the contrived plot of Herod looking for a Royal pretender in scripture (only a Christian writer would get that idea) to Luke's daft idea that signing on for a tax (which didn't apply to Galilee anyway) required someone to go back to their ancestral city, and how many people even know what that is?

Again, this probably comforts you. But the last needs to be addressed. Just because people today do not know much, does not follow that the Israelies then did not know much. They knew which of the sons of Jacob was their great....grandfather. I bet no one today learned from childhood their ancestry going back centuries.

Of course, Joseph would sign on in Capernaum or Sepphoris, not trek to Judea taking his wife just so Jesus could fulfil scripture by being born there. Matthew and Luke knew that scripture required that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem (in fact John states this 7.41 but doesn't claim Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem) and invented contradictory stories to "Correct" this omitted information.

Again, this comforts you although your education in these matters assumes modern thinking that would have been foreign to them. Fact is, thousands read and kept those works and knew that this was how it was done at that time.

So the case for gospel contradiction made, where is the next worst example? In the crux and pillar of Christianity, the resurrection. Not the Crucifixion; I believe that allright, but the resurrection stories are almost as bad as the nativities, and the contradictions much more extensive.

Except that people alive today have seen the risen Christ....thousands of them. They did not know who he was until he told them. But if you do not want to believe, there are many reasons you can tell yourself.

After that, under 'clean hands' legal procedure, the other contradictions do not merit benefit of doubt. Attempted killing at Nazareth that nobody else heard of. Miraculous draft of fish at the calling of disciples...but after the resurrection in John, Lord's prayer taught at Matthew's sermon...but also for the first time when they start for Jerusalem in Luke (1) No Transfiguration in John, No raising of Lazarus in the synoptics (that's a Biggie), Temple bust up removed from John and anointing at Bethany removed in Luke, No penitent thief but in Luke (causing theology problems, too ) and thus far, why should we entertain the attempts to patch over the contradictory deaths of Judas or credit the tomb guard which nobody but Matthew mentions?

You know, if police are interviewing a group of people about events they witnessed, if they all have exactly the same story, it is thought to be collusion. That is the indication of none of it being truth, not the varieties that happened when different people experience the same event.

This is just the beginning. The Bible, NT and Old are shot through with fallacies, nonsense and contradictions. You wanted some'Evidence'. You got it. What do you have other than (I would expect) faithbased dismissal.

I prayed for a lame women and she got up and walked. I have seen other less wild miracles. Thousands of them. I have seen the power of following Jesus change lives for the better as well and the power of those believers change the world for the better. You should look into the amenities you enjoy because of the Christians. IT was the Christians who fought slavery, built schools and hospitals and homes for orphans and the elderly. No atheists would give their lives to doing this. No Hindus nor Muslims nor Buddists either. You see, christians see each man as valuable being made in the image of God. For the atheist, they are just creatures that crawled out of a slimy pool evolving by time and chance and only those who have personal meaning for you (rather narcisstic) are valuable.

(1) fingerprint and identifier of imported material by Matthew and Luke (*not found in Mark) used in contradictory ways. This I call "Q" document.

Yes, I learned about the supposed Q document decades ago in university. If you think you are going to spring something new on me that will shake me, you have another "think" coming. It is rare for an atheist to propose some thought that is new to me. I recall it happened once on these sorts of sites. Otherwise is always rehashing the same doubt supporting "factoids."

That the book is an ancient one written by people of very different culture and background than we have does not occur to them. That the Hebrews used a lot of metaphor does not occur to Christians even and they take every time "horse" is written it means an equine creature. But maybe it is easier for me as I am educated in Shakespeare and for pleasure read books of a different culture although just the English ones which limits the time period, I admit. A modern man reads the Bible and thinks it was written last year.

The final point is why do atheists hold the Bible to such a high standard when no other written work is held to that standard? I used to read biographies as a kid and today would not have thought that because it was found out that the facts in the book do not match what was elsewhere reported that the person described therefore never even lived or did anything written in the biography. Why do you hold the Bible to that standard? No scientific book ever put in the forward that the information therein is inerrant and yet we read and believe what is written. Science is now riddled with peer reviewed papers that are pretty much outright lies. This is known. And yet no one suggests we ought to end all scientific publications. What is the difference?

We look at the information contained therein and test it in real life. The scientific experiments need to be able to be repeated with similiar enough results. And so I tested the Bible, I DID the instructions contained therein and found that my life is better than I ever thought possible when I was 16. My atheist brother asked me about one truth contained in the Bible. I answered, "it is more enjoyable to give than to receive." He loved to give presents and could not deny that this statement from Jesus was true. There are a lot more like it. But one has to DO the things Jesus recommended, not parse out the bits one does not understand BEFORE one will summon up the courage to actually do what he said. And no mistake, following the teachings of Jesus takes real courage, especially in our culture today.

Yes. Tongue in cheek. I mean arguable errors like numbers of troops. We need real biggies. You saw that yourself. Order of creation? Given Palaeontology as an evidence - based alternative, Daylight made apparently before the sun. Vegetation before the sun, never mind it ought to be sun before the earth. Vegetation before fish though the fossil record shows fish before plants appeared on land. Creation is a best guess theory but isn't supported by the evidence.

The problem with the Ark is not that it is a box that would float (provided the waters were fairly still) but you can't keep all the 'kinds' of animals housed and fed for a year or more without losing a few and the species with it. And nothing to eat after it's all over. Never mind genetic instability (not found in DNA) from trying to repopulate the earth and in just about a 1,000 years, too. It really is unfeasible.

I remind you of the Biblical claim that the sun 'stood still'.Apart from the Bible not knowing (as you know) that the earth rotates around the sun, there is no feasible way that the sun can be made to apparently stop moving. This works if you suppose the Bible - writers thought the sun was an afterthought trundling around inside the sky dome and could be put into idle mode when needed. The Bible does not understand how things really were and are.

Of course the separate development of different languages just as art, culture and indeed mythology developed differently. That apart from what looks like a misunderstanding of the Babylon ziggurat which was one of the later ones. And the earliest we know of appear just as the first writing in different languages appears. Some global common language that suddenly happened because a building project was stopped makes no sense. In a debate about this with otseng, it seemed we needed a socking great tower before any Ziggurat let alone Babylon was built. There is not a scrap of evidence that this happened or even could happen, let alone the connection to the far later Babylon.

Exodus is being more doubted than it was. The debate is ongoing. But the 'evidence' for the Exodus may not be as good as you think. I do hope you will not be appealing to Wyatt's nonsense.

Is it really feasible to claim that all the inhabitants of Judea and Galilee knew their ancestral line, never mind that David's had an ancestral line. What was their ancestral city before David? This makes no sense and even if it did, it makes no sense to have a tax census signed on there. It was in fact done in their 'own city' - where they lived and worked (see that celebrated Egyptian census note and what it actually says). This is just one problem. Your answer to the others is appeal to my supposed bias and vague appeal to meticulous Jewish record keeping. If so how do you explain why Matthew's 'Nazarene' prophecy doesn't appear anywhere in the OT?

So you try to validate imaginary visions with more imaginary visions. Well you may 'comfort yourself' as you say with 'what you want to believe', but that not only does not make for valid evidence but does not explain why the resurrection list in Paul does not match the Resurrection appearances in the gospels (though Luke tries to wangle it so it does). You appeal to the collusion excuse or evasion. We are not so dumb as to be unable to tell a story that looks broadly the same from one that is so word for word that collusion is suspected. As well as stories that are so different that they are without credibility. This is what we find in the Gospels. Which is why I think we can credit the crucifixion, differences and additions aside, but much of the synoptic text does look like - not collusion, but copying. And of course scholarship assumes that 'Mark' was the one the others copied. Until we get to the resurrections, where not only did they not copy but they told different stories. Accounts that would not (I argue) stand up in a court of law.

As you try to buy the debate with miracles and awarding Christianity the credit for what humans have achieved, I argue that it was people of conscience who fought slavery. They were often Christians or used it to back their views up, but only the slave owners could quote the Bible for their case. Abolitionists rather appealed to species: 'Am I not a man and a brother?'

"Q" is apparently used in 2 ways one being the urtext of the Christian document. The other is material common to Matthew and Luke only and represents a document they used and the others didn't. That's what I mean and the evidence is they used it differently. You know that the Lord'sprayer' appears in contradictory contexts? I have never heard that one myself, but have you? How do you explain it? How do you explain that most important prayer in Christianity isn't even in Mark?

The excuse that it was written by people with a different mindset will not answer. Historians can still make judgements about what seems reliable history and what not. And really if nobody can really understand the old writings, or they are metaphor (and not actually true) then we can't trust anything in the Bible, which is my whole argument.

It is not that Bible critics hold it to a higher standard - it is Bible apologists who want it excused in a way they would never excuse other religious books, nor for that matter the findings of science which undermines the creation, Ark, Exodus, dubious miracles, failed prophecies and contradictory events. The bias is on the Christian side; skeptics just want to treat it like any other book.