Is this not evidence against the Bible?

[alsarg72]

Today and over the past hundreds of years there are and have been many very great authors with access to all the philosophical, ethical, and other resources that humanity has thought up or discovered throughout history, and with access to the actual Bible.

Given that, then if the best and brightest of them could be brought together couldn't they write a better version of the Bible without Gods help?

Shouldn't the inspired word of God surpass man's writing ability? And be extremely convincing?

Does all that not count against the divine origins of the actual Bible?

[alsarg72]

...if it was inspired or dictated by god it would...UNFOLD as time went on and make more and more coherent sense, like puzzle pieces being put together.

Very well said.

As scientific discoveries were made they would naturally fit into what the Bible said rather than interpretations of the Bible having to be rethought.

Of course certain people (you know who) will tell us that the science is wrong and no rethought is required. (When really it's just that they personally require no thought.)

[Zzyzx]

.

As scientific discoveries were made they would naturally fit into what the Bible said rather than interpretations of the Bible having to be rethought.

I agree. If "god" or Jesus of the bible were / was "creator of the universe and its contents" one might expect them to know MORE about the Earth than was known by humans of thousands of years ago and to have been able to communicate some of that knowledge effectively and without error or contradiction as "god's word".

The fact that bible writers, though claimed to be "inspired by god" wrote stories that show obvious ignorance of nature and attribute the tales to "god" or Jesus indicates to me that there is room to doubt that either of the divinities spoke the words or inspired the writers.

If that is correct, what is the bible?

[bjs]

Today and over the past hundreds of years there are and have been many very great authors with access to all the philosophical, ethical, and other resources that humanity has thought up or discovered throughout history, and with access to the actual Bible.

Given that, then if the best and brightest of them could be brought together couldn't they write a better version of the Bible without Gods help?

Shouldn't the inspired word of God surpass man's writing ability? And be extremely convincing?

Does all that not count against the divine origins of the actual Bible?

A hypothetical possibility cannot be considered evidence of anything, nor does it count for or against anything. It is like saying, “What if I could float in air just by concentrating really hard – wouldn’t that be evidence that gravity is false?� That is all well and good until I actually try to do it.

Then we would have to define “better.� Better in what way? Better grammatically? Better by the standards of English poetry?

Right now this thread is just a “What if…� What if’s can be entertaining, but they don’t establish anything in reality.

[alsarg72]

It is not just a hypothetical possibility, it is a highly plausible possibility. I presented it as a possibility to give people the opportunity to voice an opinion. And a hypothetical possibility is one that can be formulated as a hypothesis and tested, if not scientifically then at least philosophically, and is perfectly suitable for debate, if the opposing side can muster any arguments against it at all.

It is however, I consider, completely obviously true. Though I wasn't making that assertion in order to not preempt anyone.

Your analogy with flying is completely inappropriate, given that there is no possibility that The Theory of Gravity is false or that gravity doesn't exist - even if Christians think that Theory means something unproven and without evidence.

Better in what way? Consistent with itself is a good start. Consistent with what science has discovered since it was written. That the Old Testament shouldn't be so morally bankrupt as it is. Better in a literary sense too. Better in that a lot of it shouldn't be utterly childish. That Genesis, the story of Noah, and many other things shouldn't be so patently ridiculous. Better in that it should contain something that wasn't known to desert dwellers. Shall I go on?

But suckka said it very well...

...if it was inspired or dictated by god it would...UNFOLD as time went on and make more and more coherent sense, like puzzle pieces being put together.

...instead of having to be rethought continuously to make it fit with current knowledge, (at least by Christians who think).

If conjecture is not the stuff of debates then what is?

Try again.

[Euphrates]

Given that, then if the best and brightest of them could be brought together couldn't they write a better version of the Bible without Gods help?

You're asking if an objectively better version of the Bible could be written? Objectively better? Undeniably, verifiably, objectively more good-er?

No, sorry. It's completely subjective.

And, no... this is not evidence against the Bible.

If you think an objectively better version of the Bible can be written, don't you owe it to yourselves to prove it?

[alsarg72]

You have very clearly stated your position.

You have not argued in favour of it.

Besides, The Shawshank Redemption is a better movie than Plan 9 From Outer Space. You can call that subjective. We'll accept your opinion that you like Plan 9 From Outer Space more, that is fine. But if you said Plan 9 is the better movie for it's cinematography, writing, direction, acting, etc, you would only look foolish. Equally valid comparisons can be made for the Bible.

Also, this site is called debatingchristianity.com, not accepting, asserting, or even discussing Christianity. See the difference?

[whirlwind]

But suckka said it very well...

...if it was inspired or dictated by god it would...UNFOLD as time went on and make more and more coherent sense, like puzzle pieces being put together.

...instead of having to be rethought continuously to make it fit with current knowledge, (at least by Christians who think).

If conjecture is not the stuff of debates then what is?

Try again.

It does make more coherent sense as it is studied and as He reveals understanding. Also, it is as a puzzle with pieces throughout all the books fitting together. However, it isn't given to everyone to understand.

Mark 4:10-12 And when He was alone, they that were about Him with the twelve asked of Him the parable. And He said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

[Zzyzx]

.

...instead of having to be rethought continuously to make it fit with current knowledge, (at least by Christians who think).

It does make more coherent sense as it is studied

I disagree. "Study" of the bible appears to include "interpreting" statements made in ignorance characteristic of thousands of years ago to attempt to bring it into apparent alignment with recent advances in knowledge and understanding of nature and the real world.

"What the bible passage really means is . . . . " is a revision of the statement or story to make it "mean" what the speaker WISHES it to mean.

and as He reveals understanding.

I see no evidence of anything being “revealed� by a “god� through “study� of the bible. A person may gain new “understanding� or “insight�, but what evidence indicates that those were not the individual’s own mental processes rather than a “revelation� or other influence from a “god�?

Also, it is as a puzzle with pieces throughout all the books fitting together.

Those who wish to believe the bible is “the word of god� find pieces fitting together. Those who are not preordained (or conditioned or “taught� or “indoctrinated�) to accept whatever the bible says, may see contradictions and errors of fact that indicate that the “pieces� (stories) do NOT fit together.

Those who believe believe, others do not (though many are pressured or coerced into accepting Biblicists’ claims for fear of punishment).

However, it isn't given to everyone to understand.

To whom is "given" understanding of the bible?

Many people "understand" it to mean very different things. Are those who disagree with you not "understanding" correctly?

<snip quotes from unverified source>

[whirlwind]

.

...instead of having to be rethought continuously to make it fit with current knowledge, (at least by Christians who think).

It does make more coherent sense as it is studied

I disagree. "Study" of the bible appears to include "interpreting" statements made in ignorance characteristic of thousands of years ago to attempt to bring it into apparent alignment with recent advances in knowledge and understanding of nature and the real world.

"What the bible passage really means is . . . . " is a revision of the statement or story to make it "mean" what the speaker WISHES it to mean.

No. "Sense" isn't given through simply reading the words. When those that are to understand read His Words, His Spirit teaches and that Spirit brings life to the words...others will just see the letter.

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

His Words are written and in them He told us all things. Only the Spirit, the Comforter, can unlock those mysteries....

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him.

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

and as He reveals understanding.

I see no evidence of anything being “revealed� by a “god� through “study� of the bible. A person may gain new “understanding� or “insight�, but what evidence indicates that those were not the individual’s own mental processes rather than a “revelation� or other influence from a “god�?

Because of the power felt. I wrote this before and will again write....I have been shaken by the event. It isn't simply a light bulb going off. It is very profound.

Also, it is as a puzzle with pieces throughout all the books fitting together.

Those who wish to believe the bible is “the word of god� find pieces fitting together. Those who are not preordained (or conditioned or “taught� or “indoctrinated�) to accept whatever the bible says, may see contradictions and errors of fact that indicate that the “pieces� (stories) do NOT fit together.

Those who believe believe, others do not (though many are pressured or coerced into accepting Biblicists’ claims for fear of punishment).

I wasn't indoctrinated. I wasn't churched. I was called. It is the Word of God and it does fit. Some are to understand and others are not. To me, it is impossible to force anyone to truly "believe" by threats.

However, it isn't given to everyone to understand.

To whom is "given" understanding of the bible?

Many people "understand" it to mean very different things. Are those who disagree with you not "understanding" correctly?

<snip quotes from unverified source>

It is given to His disciples to know.

Those that the Spirit teaches are fed as they are able to learn. Until all come to full maturity not all will agree.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

He feeds us as we are able to "bear them."

[Euphrates]

Also, this site is called debatingchristianity.com, not accepting, asserting, or even discussing Christianity. See the difference?

In theory, but not always in application. You've asserted a claim, then accepted it, but never argued for it. In any case, I'll wait until you've provided evidence for your claim.