[Split] Bible discussion split from Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[Thor]

A whole page on eggs, hilarious

Anyhow Science and the Koran, makes me giggle to say the two in the same sentence, so here we go:

"The sun ... runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun (according to the Quran) orbits the earth. 13:2

"He ... spread out the earth."
Sounds like a flat earth to me. 13:3

"And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 15:19

The sun rises and sets at particular places on a flat earth. At the westernmost point on earth, the sun sets in a muddy spring. 18:86, 90

The sun "floats" in an orbit around the earth. 21:33

The heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them."
The sun, stars, and earth were joined together until Allah separated them (about six thousand years ago). 21:30

The earth is fixed and does not move. 27:61

"He hath subdued the sun and moon to service. Each runneth unto an appointed term."
The sun orbits the earth. 35:13

"We decked the nether heaven with lamps."
Allah put "lamps" in the lower heaven to serve as lights. These are the stars that we see in the sky at night. 41:12

"And the earth have We spread out."
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 50:7

"And the earth have We laid out, how gracious is the Spreader (thereof)!"
The earth is flat according to the Quran. 51:48

"The moon was rent in twain."
Muhammaed split the moon into two pieces. Beat that one, Jesus! 54:1-2

"Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof."
The "seven heavens" refer to the sun, moon, and five planets that were known at the time of Muhammad (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). The earth was flat and the "seven "heavens" revolved around it. 65:12

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...ence/long.html

[firebug]

Originally Posted by spiteface

Because, it is a description that the people at the time of the prophet can relate to...

If god is so smart and knows everything, why couldn't he teach his followers advanced geometry?

Amazingly enough in 'modern days' mathematicians can teach even children geometry.

It would seem to me that that god is implying that his followers are idiots if the only thing they can understand is an egg.

Why, in all of the holy books (muslim, christian or otherwise), is there never any new information given for mankind's benefit? Why must we always wait for science to teach us something new that was previously unknown?

~bug

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by firebug

Why, in all of the holy books (muslim, christian or otherwise), is there never any new information given for mankind's benefit? Why must we always wait for science to teach us something new that was previously unknown?
~bug

I think in studying the holy books one may gain the wisdom necessary to deal with the knowledge that comes from science. I believe therein lies the connection between the two.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think in studying the holy books one may gain the wisdom necessary to deal with the knowledge that comes from science. I believe therein lies the connection between the two.

Im interested to know how this works? Can you elaborate please?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Im interested to know how this works? Can you elaborate please?

I'd recommend more books, but that doesn't go well over here.

Basically, naive readings of texts is a lost art. Actually reading great books in the hope that one will uncover personal meaning within the pages.

Bible readers often exemplify just that. Gaining their life roadmap from the pages of the Bible provides a hermeneutic lens for interpreting and navigating the ethical morass of the world.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Most people don't know this though.. I mean pastors are taught it at seminary, but when they get to churches they seem to teach mostly from a devotional point of view, they don't touch anything that the past 300 years of Biblical scholarship has worked out.

So most don't have any cognitive dissonance, because they haven't read the gospels horizontally, or struggled with the discrepancies, or know that many of the books were written fraudulently (many of the Pauline letters weren't authored by Paul), etc etc. As far as they know the Bible is inerrant because they haven't seen any different.

The only change in the last three hundred years in Biblical scholarship is the rise of german rationalism. Its view is that the scriptures are just a book written by men without inspiration from God. The goal of their textual study is to find the most likely explainations for the supernatural events of scriptures that would exclude God in their explaination. They see fullfilled prophesy as proof that what ever book it was in must have been written after the event. They see all the miracles of Christ as either lies or tricks.
They assert that any resemblance to another religion is proof of plagiarism. They see any minor conflict in the narrative of the gospels as proof of inaccuracy while ignoring all the work scholars have done in the last 18 hundred years to understand and explain those supposed conflicts. Pretaining to the gospels and epistles; when they see differences they scream error and when they see harmony they scream plagiarism.

In actual fact they see nothing at all because they exclude the most obvious conclusion before they even begin: That God inspired the 66 books that make up the bible and that the Messiah came 2000 years ago; taking on the form of a lowly man and was faithfull unto death; rising again 3 days later having reconciled all who would believe unto God.

I can see how an atheist would delight in german rationalism because it gives you all a false confidence that you are right and their is no God. But what I don't get is how you personally accept their half truths as (pardon the pun) gospel. Are you so ingrained in your beliefs that you lack the ability to measure their assertions against orthodox apologists?

Now I worked 70 hours last week and hoping this week to shave it down to a mere 60 hours. I don't have a lot of time to respond to these posts. If you or your atheist buddys want they can flood this thread with questions and half truths and I won't have even the slimmest hope of responding to it all. Perhaps you guys need such volume to keep your faith up; I don't know. But I would appreciate you backing up some of the claims you have made against Christianity as of late.

Lets start with your latest one. You said above that many of the Apostle Paul's letters weren't written by him. What proof do you have?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'd recommend more books, but that doesn't go well over here.

Basically, naive readings of texts is a lost art. Actually reading great books in the hope that one will uncover personal meaning within the pages.

Bible readers often exemplify just that. Gaining their life roadmap from the pages of the Bible provides a hermeneutic lens for interpreting and navigating the ethical morass of the world.

Nice. It's rather sad I picked up Larry Flynt's publication as a youth before I picked up a bible, and thus stand before you a twisted, broken parody of a human being....

[peter12]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Nice. It's rather sad I picked up Larry Flynt's publication as a youth before I picked up a bible, and thus stand before you a twisted, broken parody of a human being....

It's probably more complicated than that. The Bible has some pretty kinky stuff in it. Most Jews that I know aren't exactly stiff-necked Protestants.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Nice. It's rather sad I picked up Larry Flynt's publication as a youth before I picked up a bible, and thus stand before you a twisted, broken parody of a human being....

Sorry about that...but thanks...I now have a clear mental image of you when reading your posts.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Lets start with your latest one. You said above that many of the Apostle Paul's letters weren't written by him. What proof do you have?

It is a simple google search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles,

And frankly, what proof do you have that all of they were authored by Paul?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Sorry about that...but thanks...I now have a clear mental image of you when reading your posts.

Don't forget the healthy dose of Lenin and Brezhnev I got by age 11, and, for all intents and purposes, I am basically the anti-Christ...

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The only change in the last three hundred years in Biblical scholarship is the rise of german rationalism. Its view is that the scriptures are just a book written by men without inspiration from God. The goal of their textual study is to find the most likely explainations for the supernatural events of scriptures that would exclude God in their explaination.

Even the Christian scholars who don't take an inerrant view of scripture have the goal of excluding god eh? All the religious educational institutions that have classes with a historical critical approach in their divinities programs are all trying to remove god... fascinating.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They see fullfilled prophesy as proof that what ever book it was in must have been written after the event. They see all the miracles of Christ as either lies or tricks.

Nope, that's not what they "see". What they "see" is far more deep and nuanced than that.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They assert that any resemblance to another religion is proof of plagiarism. They see any minor conflict in the narrative of the gospels as proof of inaccuracy while ignoring all the work scholars have done in the last 18 hundred years to understand and explain those supposed conflicts. Pretaining to the gospels and epistles; when they see differences they scream error and when they see harmony they scream plagiarism.

Anyone who disagrees is "they"? I can see how it's easy to classify everyone who disagrees as "they" when you lump them all together with such simple (and incorrect) characterization of the scholarship.

In which group would you include Origen I wonder? As a scholar that tried to help understand and explain the supposed conflicts? Or as an atheist who tried to remove god? Because Origen frequently mentions differences among the writings and disputes the Pauline letters' authorship.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

In actual fact they see nothing at all because they exclude the most obvious conclusion before they even begin: That God inspired the 66 books that make up the bible and that the Messiah came 2000 years ago; taking on the form of a lowly man and was faithfull unto death; rising again 3 days later having reconciled all who would believe unto God.

All the Christian biblical scholars who work from a historical critical perspective exclude these conclusions eh?

I wouldn't call these conclusions, they're claims. Claims that have little in the way of support.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I can see how an atheist would delight in german rationalism because it gives you all a false confidence that you are right and their is no God. But what I don't get is how you personally accept their half truths as (pardon the pun) gospel. Are you so ingrained in your beliefs that you lack the ability to measure their assertions against orthodox apologists?

"You all".. always a great foundation for discussion.

This is the funny thing, some Christians just can't even conceive that someone could look at things and come to a different conclusion than they do. So instead, accusations of delighting in what must be false evidence to confirm a pre-conceived conclusion. If I don't come to the same conclusion, I clearly must lack the ability to measure the orthodox responses.

First, I've never made any claim to being an atheist.

Second, I didn't start from a position of non-belief and grabbed onto something to defend it, I started from a position of believing exactly as you do. I've read very little that you've ever posted that I could not imagine myself writing not too long ago.

It was when I started to actually read the Bible, to actually research church history, to learn that I was forced to question what many Christian denominations say the Bible says. My position isn't a matter of desire, I didn't WANT to not believe in the Bible, I was forced into it. That's part of why I participate in threads like this, part of me still wants to believe and hopes to find something that will change how I see things.

Now contrast this:

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If you or your atheist buddys want they can flood this thread with questions and half truths and I won't have even the slimmest hope of responding to it all. Perhaps you guys need such volume to keep your faith up; I don't know.

with

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But I would appreciate you backing up some of the claims you have made against Christianity as of late.

This. Usually if someone asks for something starting out with such negative language and accusations will result in conflict rather than discussion...

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Lets start with your latest one. You said above that many of the Apostle Paul's letters weren't written by him. What proof do you have?

The wiki article on this has a decent summary and lots of links to resources and books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...uline_epistles

[flamesfever]

I believe that many non religious types feel that Christianity is a static thing, however that is not true.

I am by no means a scholar on the subject but taking from authors like Borg, some of the changes are:

1. The Bible's origin is a human response to God, rather than a divine
product with divine authority.

2. In interpreting the Bible, much of it should be understood in its
historical context, and is metaphorical in nature, rather than taking it
literally or considering it factual.

3. The emphasis in Christian life is to use it to transform your life through
a relationship with God, here on earth, rather than concentrating on
what to believe or do in order to go to Heaven.

I believe that the main message in Christianity, is to understand how we should act and relate to one another, and that true happiness comes from helping or serving others.

I know you can live a good life, without becoming involved in organized religion, but for me, going to church, besides associating with generally great people, gives me a chance to recalibrate from time to time, my sense of morals and ethics, and what and where I should take my life.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by photon

It was when I started to actually read the Bible, to actually research church history, to learn that I was forced to question what many Christian denominations say the Bible says. My position isn't a matter of desire, I didn't WANT to not believe in the Bible, I was forced into it. That's part of why I participate in threads like this, part of me still wants to believe and hopes to find something that will change how I see things.

In your opinion what makes the bible so inaccurate?

There are thousands of manuscripts, more than any other book known to man.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

In your opinion what makes the bible so inaccurate?

There are thousands of manuscripts, more than any other book known to man.

What manuscripts are you talking about?

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

What manuscripts are you talking about?

The Greek ones that the bible was translated from.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

The Greek ones that the bible was translated from.

Oh I misunderstood.

There are thousands of manuscripts, but a lot of them are duplicates because that was one of the only ways to transfer manuscripts once the old one starts to deteriorate. And all of the manuscripts don't agree with one another. Before maybe a couple hundred years ago most literate people were actually in the church, and the only thing worth writing about to them was religion.

Just because a lot was written about Jesus doesn't mean the bible is the word of God. By the same rationale is the Quran the word of god?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

In your opinion what makes the bible so inaccurate?

I guess that depends on what you mean by inaccurate.. the Bible (or rather the NT anyway) looks like a collection of books written by people who had various goals and messages for their writings. There's enough differences among the manuscripts and enough differences between the various books and authors that I think it discounts the position that the Bible is inerrant (i.e. every word is 100% accurate and free of error). As a history book it's inaccurate. As a book on theology though, that's a different question.

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

There are thousands of manuscripts, more than any other book known to man.

Sure, over 5700 of the NT in Greek. And no two match. Even the smallest fragments the size of a credit card differ from every other manuscript. There's more differences than there are words in the entire NT.

To be sure a lot of those differences are incidental, punctuation, differences in abbreviations (it was common to abbreviate Jesus or Lord or God) etc, but not all are.. some are entire portions that only appear in later manuscripts (the story of Jesus drawing in the dirt while they bring him the woman who had committed adultery for example).

Even though we have that many manuscripts, what we don't have are the autographs. Trying to derive the originals is no easy task, a whole area of scholarship has arisen around it. So even if you could get everyone to agree on what the earliest version of Mark was, we still wouldn't know what the original was.

And I am not trying to say that the textual issues or differences among the books of the NT refutes Christianity, otherwise there would be no Christian Biblical scholars. But it does make some kinds of Christianity more difficult.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

I guess that depends on what you mean by inaccurate.. the Bible (or rather the NT anyway) looks like a collection of books written by people who had various goals and messages for their writings. There's enough differences among the manuscripts and enough differences between the various books and authors that I think it discounts the position that the Bible is inerrant (i.e. every word is 100% accurate and free of error). As a history book it's inaccurate. As a book on theology though, that's a different question.

Sure, over 5700 of the NT in Greek. And no two match. Even the smallest fragments the size of a credit card differ from every other manuscript. There's more differences than there are words in the entire NT.

To be sure a lot of those differences are incidental, punctuation, differences in abbreviations (it was common to abbreviate Jesus or Lord or God) etc, but not all are.. some are entire portions that only appear in later manuscripts (the story of Jesus drawing in the dirt while they bring him the woman who had committed adultery for example).

Even though we have that many manuscripts, what we don't have are the autographs. Trying to derive the originals is no easy task, a whole area of scholarship has arisen around it. So even if you could get everyone to agree on what the earliest version of Mark was, we still wouldn't know what the original was.

And I am not trying to say that the textual issues or differences among the books of the NT refutes Christianity, otherwise there would be no Christian Biblical scholars. But it does make some kinds of Christianity more difficult.

Also, aren't all extant sources from around 100 years after the death of Jesus? The authors of the synoptic gospels and John (the different one) were a generation or two separated from the events they were documenting. Until then, information in the community (which appeared to be expecting eschatological return within their lifetimes) appears to have been transmitted by word of mouth - you know how well the telephone game works or how things are easily exaggerated when one is trying to convince someone else of something.

Look the divergance here is whether or not you believe the Bible was divinely inspired and divinely guided into the form that we have today and you can take it's word at value (some interpret it literally, others do not) and it is applicable today...or if it's just the collaborative work by commitee of hundreds of thousands of people, put together by by medieval councils who decided what was canon and what was aprocryphal, and simply a haphazard historical document of cultural history.

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by photon

I guess that depends on what you mean by inaccurate.. the Bible (or rather the NT anyway) looks like a collection of books written by people who had various goals and messages for their writings. There's enough differences among the manuscripts and enough differences between the various books and authors that I think it discounts the position that the Bible is inerrant (i.e. every word is 100% accurate and free of error). As a history book it's inaccurate. As a book on theology though, that's a different question.



Sure, over 5700 of the NT in Greek. And no two match. Even the smallest fragments the size of a credit card differ from every other manuscript. There's more differences than there are words in the entire NT.

To be sure a lot of those differences are incidental, punctuation, differences in abbreviations (it was common to abbreviate Jesus or Lord or God) etc, but not all are.. some are entire portions that only appear in later manuscripts (the story of Jesus drawing in the dirt while they bring him the woman who had committed adultery for example).

Even though we have that many manuscripts, what we don't have are the autographs. Trying to derive the originals is no easy task, a whole area of scholarship has arisen around it. So even if you could get everyone to agree on what the earliest version of Mark was, we still wouldn't know what the original was.

And I am not trying to say that the textual issues or differences among the books of the NT refutes Christianity, otherwise there would be no Christian Biblical scholars. But it does make some kinds of Christianity more difficult.

The accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts is 99.5% in comparison to Homer's Illiad which is 95% accurate. If the bible is to be discredited, then what about other ancient texts?