Board index ‹ Christianity

[Newbie]

Let's split the case a little bit.

1. What are the possibilities that God exists as a higher intelligent being?
2. What are the possibilities that God is as described in the bible?

For the moment let's treat those cases completely separately.

As for #1, it is just as much probable as improbable (for me). The only logical conclusion anyone can say for sure is "We don't know". We can lean towards one or the other side depending on how we see things, but we have no ultimately proof, or evidence that can lead us to proof (evidence that is a theory we can, but haven't yet proven, so that we make necessary scientific reaserch to prove it). I hope you can agree with me on this one. Unfortunately, for me, the argument that everything "looks fine tuned" is not an argument at all. How something "looks" is just your perception, which might be true, but on the scale of the universe it is highly probable that it's just your way of pattern recognition. Now, using this to support other arguments is futile. Even if we could, we cannot calculate probability on this one. At best it's 50/50.

As for #2, it's all in the matter of probabilities, not certainty. (I belive that given enough time you could show definite proofs, but I don't feel like I'm the one person with capabilities to do that.)

The Bible is words written on paper in the form of book. Some of the stories were written after passing it down over generations from parents to children.

First we assume that having no other proof of this one particular god (miracles, sightings etc. can't be used as evidence, because they can be made by any god actually including the theory about prankster god which places the evidence just to mess with us, and that it all might be just our false pattern recognition thing which is scientifically proven not only to exist, but that it is actually a very common thing over billions of years not just in humans but in all animals as well).

So the only way we know this is THIS and NO OTHER god is in form of written word.

How many books humans wrote up to, let's say AD 1000 (roughly)? My answer: REALLY large amount.

How many of these stories were untrue stories, and this can be proven given the knowledge we have today? My answer: Most of them.

Why?

Some books were written just out of pure fantasy.

Some books were written giving theories which people couldn't prove false because of little technological advancement.

Some, actually most, books were burned because people disagreed with the ideas inside of them. And given the historical data (from different sources), it is the Christian church who did much of the book burning.

The most Important Thing: The books were EDITED. It Is extremely hard for historians to get books in their originals, because it is proven that censorship existed all the time in different forms. Data sources were cut, reassabled, changed, etc,. to fit the current ruler (be it king, pope, or just simply a mad scholar) point of view and/or ability to control people/earn money. We do have more and more evidence (supported) that Bible was edited many many times since the first writings. (Even if some of them are false there is a vast ammout of many more that still holds up.)

You can ask a question: But you have to belive in something.

Yes. BUT. First Question I Ask is: "Do I Exist?" The best bet for this is Yes. And... It's still a bet. I don't know, I may not be alive, I can be f.e in matrix. But If I don't bet this one I cannot do anything so I AM BETTING this.

Next Thing is: I have to somehow interact with data given to me (by people or by what i see/hear/smell/touch).

Problem is: People can lie to me, and my senses can lie to me as well.

But same here: I have to bet on something. I would first bet on my senses though. If I see something red, it would be red for me until somebody would give me proof that I cannot disband in any way. A proof that If I would not accept, my bet on "I do Exist" would crumble.

Next I estimate of how much people (different groups) lied to me/told me the truth/showed me the evidence WITHOUT my judgment of if it makes me happy or not. (The worst truth is still better than a beautiful lie.)

Now I have sciencists whose doctrines (in my view) are: We don't know many things, we'll try to figure out the answers, if somebody, even one of us will get an idea, we will do everything we can to proove whether it is right or wrong. Every hypothesis that you cannot prove false is good as a hypothesis, but should stay a hypothesis until the evidence is found. (Remember, I'm still talking about my point #2 here, not 1.)

Many of them were wrong, but in the end there were other sciencists that proved them wrong.
What they always told me was: This is true and you can prove by doing this experiment. It will work always that way whether you like it or not. Just deal with it. You have questions about how it works? Here, here are the explanations. Black on white, always the same, no metaphors whatsoever.

If an idea is tested long enough and provides enough evidence to support it from different fields of studies by different people all around the world, and it's stripped of logical fallacies, it can be considered true. No other sciencist coould contradict them without giving proper mathematical evidence that it may not be true, bacause that's what we as human beings consider being a lie.

On the other hand there were religious people. Many religions, many different worldwievs. Every single one of them claiming there is only one god and he's choosen only them as the choosen nation. When asked for evidence about it the only one that couldn't be viewd as fallacy or stupidity was pointing towards holy books (Bible, Koran, etc.)

First Problem is: All books are man made. There was nothing that implied that they COULDN'T be man made. Now the probability check: Is it more probable that those books are simply another book written by man, like thousands before, or that it is a work of people influenced by a being FIRST TIME DESCRIBED ONLY IN THIS ONE BOOK?

I could see a fallacy here. If I write a book, say that everything included in this book is a work of magical tea pot, that it influenced me to write this book to show everyone on the planet that it exists, then wait a few hundred years, nobody could prove that it is false. Yet this would be a perfect tool to control people. It WOULD work. And seeing the number of different religions in the world is evidence enough to support this idea.

At this point I was sceptical but I still didn't have the certanity. Then I actually started reading the bible. Now I coud see that there are many things that you can take literally, but if you took the bible literally as a whole, you couldn't exist in our world anymore. Those laws were perfect for people 2000 years ago in that particular area, but most of them were nonsense right here and now.

Then I heard: "Oh, It's metaphorical", "Oh, it's just Old Testament, read the "New one", and "You can't say what Jesus taught was wrong."

The problem was: On each and every single one of them you could find some contradictionary idea that you couldn't prove wrong (without the bible) either.

The main problem seemed to be morality. Each religion gave the same: "We teach morality, other's don't". The problem was weird because most of morality rules in each religions are the same.

This leads me to ask a question: Which was first, morality or religion?

And though it appeared to me that if moral rules were developed first, spread across the globe, you could very easily use them to make a new religion.

Now there is one more thing that told me this may not be true. Every time a person had seen something extraordinary, "This must be God's doing" was stated, UNTIL the moment somebody could prove that it is actually normal physics laws.

As history and my own senses showed me my whole life, every beliver sees god ONLY in things he/she cannot explain. Once is explained there is no supernatural power in this particular thing, thus shrinking the biblical miracles of killing entire nations to appearing on toast.

Getting back to the Bible:

Given this, and what science has told me, If I belived right now that Genesis happened EXACTLY as it is written, would contradict indisputable evidence that science provides.

If I have to take it METAPHORICALLY I can't be sure that any other thing in bible, including "love thy neighbour" isn't a metaphor. I don't know that the existence of Christ isn't a metaphor. I can't be sure that whole bible isn't a metaphor. And there is no experimental way to determine what should be taken as metaphor and what is not. Given that every person can interpret it on its own in its own way, that leads to no actual knowledge from the Bible, just one person's personal thoughts fit into a metaphor which you can find refferences to it in the Bible and it can be anything, even killing. That tells me that the Bible, in this case, even if true, is useless.

Now there's a third option that Bible is not a work of supernatural inspiration.

Can it still exist even that there is no god? Yes.
Does it still make sense that people belive in it? Yes.
Can it still show good moral behaviors despite of nonexistance of biblical god? Yes.
Can it be used to control masses of people? Yes.

Now, I had my answer.

For me it is enormous evidence that Christianity (and other religions as well) are just man-made, grown on different ideas with already existing morals as "food for people", mostly using to gather same groups of people and control them.

[jimwalton]

WOW. LOOOOOOONG letter. You've covered everything from Genesis to Revelation, from time and eternity, nuts and bolts, even the kitchen sink. It's like "Define the universe and give three examples," and you've done that. I hardly know where to start to how to address all this in this forum, but I respect everything you've said, and I'll do my best. Thank you for your attitude, and your openness. I'll be real honest with you.

You are very right that the evidences for the existence of God (theism) do not prove Christianity. They don't even approach it, and aren't meant to. They are only arguments for the rational possibility that theism has merit. There is no solid, irrefutable evidence that God does or does not exist. We must infer from evidences we see, pursue logic, and do our best to sort out how we know what we know.

I agree with your philosophical pursuit of "how do I know I exist" and "how do I know what I know". They are reasonable. When all is said and done, I can't even prove to you or myself that I exist, though reason and practicality leads me to accept that I do, that knowledge can be real and reliable, and I, like you, have come to accept that reality within certain parameters and contingencies by which I philosophically accept my existence and my ability to know, for if I did not figure out a way to get past that wall, all inquiry would cease there. So thank you for you thoughts on that matter.

(I'll by-pass the discussion on fine-tuning for now in the pursuit of the rest of the conversation. We can come back to that any time.)

Your main question seems to be about the reliability of the Bible. I say this with confidence: The Bible doesn't get a pass because of its claims about itself. We have to subject it to the same scientific rigors and epistemological musings as anything else. Only an idiot has blind faith. Fair?

Job has been shown to the be the oldest book in the Bible. It's author is unknown, but it is philosophically deep and poetically rich. We can be certain that its author was no country bumpkin, illiterate peasant. But that's not where you want to have this discussion.

Let's deal with Genesis (the first five books were a set) as our test case. A thorough computer analysis of linguistics by Radday and Shore points to a single author for all 5 books (the first 5 of the Bible). The oldest manuscript we have of Genesis was found with the Dead Sea scrolls, ca. 100 BC.

Secondly, we know that the culture of the ancient Near East was primarily an oral one—they were hearing dominant. Traditions were passed on by word of mouth generation to generation. The ability to write was not a necessary skill, and certainly not a sign of intelligence (with non-literacy being a sign of stupidity). For instance, the Egyptian culture was a very sophisticated one. Back to the point: authority operates differently in hearing dominant society than in a text-dominant one. Walton and Sandy say (The Lost World of Scripture, 2013, p. 19), "we often think of oral traditions as being unreliable because of their fluidity. in fact, however, written traditions can just as fluid as oral ones. the fluidity depends on the demands of the context in which the tradition is being transmitted." Socrates (in Plato's "Phaedrus") said: "You might think that [written words] spoke as if they had intelligence, but if you question them, wishing to know about their saints, they always say only one and the same thing. And every word, when once it is written, is bandied about, alike among those who understand and those who have no interest in it." Things were only written down for a limited number of reasons: (1) Archives, mostly state or temple. These would be mostly administrative and legal documents. (2) Libraries for more creative literary works, to be archived (never borrowed as in today's libraries). (3) School texts. (4) Documents to be read aloud, such as royal decrees. (5) As symbolic expressions of power. Royal inscriptions to be saved for posterity.

When was Genesis committed to writing? Deuteronomy 28-30 mentions that the Law was written down, presumably for reason #1: archival record, since it was the written covenant between God and his people. Joshua 1, 8, & 23 mention this written archive, as do many books of the OT. Do we have those copies? No. But there is legitimate reason to believe they existed since the nation relied on them regularly for covenantal matters.

Did Moses actually write them? Again, Walton and Sandy (pp. 60-61) say, "We should be more interested in Moses as the authority whose words are represented in the Pentateuch rather than as the author of the Pentateuch or any of its books. As the represented authority his words were undoubtedly generating documents. Though he may well have received training in scribal practice, it is more likely that he would have had scribes who could actually do the writing. This would not contradict the instructions the he write or the statements that he did so. It would be commonly understood that a scribe would be employed in the process.

"That Moses is the authority whose words are represented and that he was generating documents can be readily accepted. Moses was generating information (sermons, rulings, narratives) that would be considered important enough to preserve in written documents. Some undoubtedly would have been recorded in his time and under his supervision. Others may have been produced by later generations after some time of oral transmission. It matters neither how much material is in each category nor which portions are which; the authority derives from Moses and he is inseparable from the material.

"In contrast, whatever role Moses had in Genesis would be the role of tradent as opposed to the role of authority since Genesis never invokes Moses’ authority for the traditions that it contains. Even if Moses were considered one of the primary tradents for Genesis (which is certainly reasonable), there would be no reason to consider him the first, the last, or the only tradent."

Now, it should also be affirmed that some of the writings of Gn/Ex/Lev/Num/Dt have been shown to be extremely old, dating back to the mid-2nd c. BC. Linguistic analysis, cultural information, and corroborative archaeological discoveries prove that at least some of the material of Gn-Dt is both authentic and original to the era of Moses.

Another example: 2 "priestly blessing" amulets (quoting the text from Num. 6.24-26 were found in 1979. They both date to the late 7th or early 6th c. BC.

Much of the language of Gn-Dt fits the era of the mid-2nd millennium BC. Cultural and historical analyses show plenty of accuracy from the same time. Archaeological discoveries support many things Gn-Dt speak of.

All tolled, it is not at all unreasonable to expect that Moses, if he was the author, used many sources of oral tradition and written records to select, arrange, and edit his books. it is still reasonable, even in this day and age, to assert that the principal inspired, purposeful, and creative mind behind Gn/Ex/Lev/Num/Dt was Moses.

But, I'm sure you're asking, what about all that wild, miraculous stuff? We know that slavery was common in ancient Egypt. We can assume that a group of 25,000 people wandering in the deserts of Midian and Sinai would be challenged to survive, both physically and militarily. We know that a cultural entity different from the Canaan culture replaced the Canaanite population in the hill country in a relatively short period of time. One thing we know: The nation survived as a nation. Of course there is no way to prove that God provided food for them in a miraculous way. (I can't even prove to you that I went to the grocery store a month ago. All that stuff is gone.) You may argue that this stuff happened naturally (the Red Sea parting because of strong winds, quail blowing in on the sea breezes, manna happening as a desert dew phenomenon, lightning on the top of Mt. Sinai) and they, in their superstitious ignorance, attributed it to God. Of course that's possible if there is no such being as God, but if there IS such a being, these things are within the scope of what a deity does. What we have to deal with is to explain, even in our hyper-scientific era (if it doesn't conform to science, it's a lie. [Yeah, don't try to explain to my significant other that my love is only chemicals.]) is how 25,000 people survived for so long in a desert—no cities for guaranteed water supply, no crops growing for sustenance, no trained military force to speak of. We have to infer to the most reasonable conclusion.

Are these stories untrue? There is no evidence to assume so.
Were their senses deceiving them? No. Hallucinations don't fill a hungry belly.
Is what is recorded for us just plain wrong? There is no evidence to support such a claim, only a bias that (1) people are stupid (2) people are superstitious, and therefore (3) I can disregard any of it that I want.

Looking at the science (linguistics, history, geography, archaeology, and culture), there are plenty of reasons to stand by the veracity of the text.

Ah, but what do they say about God? How can we trust that? Obviously, God is a metaphysical being and is not subject to scientific proof (any more than your memories, despite that they locate in certain areas of the brain, are provable by science. They are only provable by relation to life.). Again, scientifically speaking, what do we have?

1. A large family migrated to Egypt in the mid 2nd millennium, and somehow survived as a people group, despite centuries of enslavement.
2. This large people group was able to escape from Egypt, a powerful military presence in the ancient Near East.
3. This large people group was able to survive in a desert for a number of decades.
4. This large people group was able to settle in the hill country of Canaan in a fairly short period of time.

They attribute their success and continuance as an act of God. There is no evidence of that, for a surety. That's a theological claim, but it does adequately explain their march through history better than other theories.

I would contend, contrary to your conclusion, that there is enormous evidence that their belief system was certainly not man-made, but makes sense in the total picture by which the Bible (confirmed by science, history, and archaeology) claims.

One more thing (though I've written too long already). It's not metaphor. I can't go into all that now, because I've written too long already. Gen. 1 for instance: recent archaeological work, and the kind of information access that computers and the internet have allowed in Bible research shows that Gn. 1 is a temple text, about function (role and purpose), not structure (the material world we see around us. It's not metaphor, but it's not chronological science either. It's a temple text about God giving creation its roles and functions. That's for a different conversation, but don't be so quick to write stuff off as crap without having the necessary conversations. We can talk about ANY of this more.

[Gargoyle]

> Your main question seems to be about the reliability of the Bible. I say this with confidence: The Bible doesn't get a pass because of its claims about itself. We have to subject it to the same scientific rigors and epistemological musings as anything else. Only an idiot has blind faith. Fair?

Fair

> Job has been shown to the be the oldest book in the Bible. It's author is unknown, but it is philosophically deep and poetically rich. We can be certain that its author was no country bumpkin, illiterate peasant. But that's not where you want to have this discussion.

Yes. There is always a doubt if it had been plagiarised or not.

> Secondly, (...) posterity.

What about ancient greeks texts? Homer's illiade and odysey?

> Yeah, don't try to explain to my significant other that my love is only chemicals

But it still makes you and her happy

> I would contend, contrary to your conclusion, that there is enormous evidence that their belief system was certainly not man-made, but makes sense in the total picture by which the Bible (confirmed by science, history, and archaeology) claims.

Exactly as you said earlier, yoy can't check if it's true and how it happened, because there can be just one extreamly small factor that everybody overlooks and making false assumptions from this point or that point onward. It could be that the dates are good but someone just made up a story. It could be a common belief at a time. It could be that it actually happened but a myth rose from, let's say wandering 5 days to 5 years. People like to exaggerate. It could be that it's true but they survived by extreme luck. It could be million other factors.

My reasoning in here is that, some day ago people would look at the stars and say this is heaven because if it's not heaven than what else could it be? And at that given time there were no science to test it. There were many many questions like this asked for many millenia, most of them concerning "is this the work of god?" And as long as there would be other explanation than supernatural it always occured that it actually is the other explanation.

That's why if i hear the story of moses i think there is just as well logical explanation to this because there are countless possibilities.

And given what i observved until now it is highly probable that the explanation for it is a mix of what i said earlier + many others of which i didn't tought of, but most probably no supernaturality there, because it haven't been observed since then (Actually it fade away for centuries as people learnd about the stuff around them)

We can talk about ANY of this more.

OKAY!!

[jimwalton]

Just briefly on Job: its author and date are unknown. But literary works in the ancient world were often anonymous, and it was not unusual for them to develop through time. Some features in the book are verifiably old (2000 BC?)

As far as Iliad and the Odyssey, the events they describe are from 1200 BC. Homer is thought to have written them down in the 700s BC—a 400- to 500-year spread. As you know, both works are complex and sophisticated literature. It is widely believed that Homer "composed" them, but if so, how did such sophisticated poetry and narrative appear so suddenly in ancient Greece? Were there no precedents? Scholars now believe that these works were first and for a long time oral performances, recited with fixed traditions, through the course of several hundred years. In copies we have of them, some are older and others newer, some local and others not, with a mixture of dialects and vocabulary, but all brought together in a magnificent work of art. The current consensus among scholars is that single authorities ("authors") were essentially responsible for the epics, and it is unknown whether Homer was the "author" or not. The process of composition is unclear. Perhaps the author composed and recited the pieces, perfecting his performance. His work would have been transmitted by a guild of public reciters, and only written down later.

It's not unreasonable to see ancient Scripture in a similar light. Moses, as the authority or trident of the Pentateuchal material, spoke the words of the Lord, and perhaps even wrote them (or part of them) down (as the text indicates he did). The claim is that God revealed truth orally to the writers of the Bible (God didn't pass on any golden hieroglyphics, etc.). It is claimed that these words are the words of God (as opposed to manipulative power plays, mythological understandings, etc.). We accept the claim that inspired truth was communicated and preserved without the necessity of exact wording. They are still reliable and truthful representations of what God and Jesus said and did.

How can we know? We know that science can only take us so far in tracing back the origins of oral communication. While helpful, science is ultimately inadequate for many of these questions. We are left to analyze as best we can what we have.

1. The Bible, written over a period of 1300+ years, by at least 40 authors, from three different continents, and in 3 different languages, has an astounding (some would say miraculous) unity of theme and harmony of thought. Some consider the probability of that to be beyond human design.

2. The Bible has an amazing literary quality to it. Some of the finest poetry ever written, some writing that is without parallel in design and balance, is in its pages. Some consider the probability of that to be beyond human design.

3. The Bible shows a profound insight into the human condition, astounding for its era and culture. Some consider the probability of that to be beyond human design.

4. Far from being just another religious book, the Bible has, by the testimony of millions +, been life-changing in its impact on their personal lives, their societies, and their cultures. Some would consider this to be a mark of divine origin.

5. Far from being another religious book, the Bible's impact on culture and society is unparalleled. It has shaped law, philosophy, art, literature, and education in a way that no other book has. Some would consider this to be a mark of divine origin.

Having said all this, there are logical (scientific, therefore, based on observable cause and effect) reasons to consider the possibility that the Bible is inspired by God, as claimed, and not just because it claims it, as i have demonstrated.

You, on the other hand, speculate about errors and myth, exaggeration, and scientific ignorance. On what historical, evidential basis do you make these claims, or are they just an opinion? I've given you a smidge of my reasoning. I would love now to hear yours, and I'd prefer to get not just opinion, but reasons, even evidences, as I have given you.

[Gargoyle]

> The Bible, written over a period of 1300+ years, by at least 40 authors, from three different continents, and in 3 different languages, has an astounding (some would say miraculous) unity of theme and harmony of thought. Some consider the probability of that to be beyond human design.

The question is: Had we seen such things done by human hands elsewhere? If you're talking about books, it still can be pointed out that the Bible is not the only uniform book ever written at that time by many authors. Koran is another example. Ancient Chineese texts are another example. Get greek mythology (whole) as example. Get other mythologies as example.

It CAN happen more than one time.

Of course bible can be extaordinary in it's case but get this conditions to consideration:

Pyramids, Ancient texts and temples are indisputable evidence that HUMANS without the help of god can create extaordinary things.

Also, this uniformity is not perfect You're laughing at sceptics annotated bible (without probably reading it), claiming that many of them are not accurate. I guess even if 10% of them point to real flaws it shows me that bible is not the work of god inspired people. Why? If god is perfect and omniscient he would know EXACTLY what to tell people, so they would write it as PERFECT Bible. This doesn't hold true only if god is not omniscient OR he does not exist (assuming that bible is from him).

> The Bible has an amazing literary quality to it. Some of the finest poetry ever written, some writing that is without parallel in design and balance, is in its pages. Some consider the probability of that to be beyond human design.

This is just a point of view. For one person balance will be pigeons on roofs for the other one it will not be. Personally i see flaw over flaw.

> The Bible shows a profound insight into the human condition, astounding for its era and culture. Some consider the probability of that to be beyond human design.

What exactly is profound insight into the human condition? How's cursing people by giving them poison reliable way to detect lies? (Numbers 5) How's that an insight to human condition?

> astounding for its era and culture.

Again, what about Aztecs, Ancient Greeks, Ancient Chineese (especially with their medical knowledge at that time), Egyptians etc...

> Some consider the probability of that to be beyond human design.

It's a proposition given when you didn't (or don't want to) see the other cultures and religions. And just a quick question about beyond human design.What about smartphones, quantum computing, gps systems, internet, etc.? Doesn't it look like beyond human design even more? The problem is: Even if something "looks like" it was something it doesn't necessairly have to be. It's just a matter of perception.

> Far from being just another religious book, the Bible has, by the testimony of millions +, been life-changing in its impact on their personal lives, their societies, and their cultures. Some would consider this to be a mark of divine origin.

Let's break down again:

by the testimony of millions +, been life-changing in its impact on their personal lives, their societies, and their cultures
argument at populum. Just because milion+ people thinks something is true - it doesn't make it true. Most people at that time belived that the earth is flat.

Do you know how placebo works? If It's indistinguishable from placebo, It's most likely placebo. How do I know that? Let's Take muslims and Koran. For them Koran is the book which had been life-changing in its impact on their personal lives, their societies, and their cultures. Tao Te Ching had been life-changing in its impact on Chineese people personal lives, their societies, and their cultures. And Most importantly: Kim Jong Dynasty had been life-changing in its impact on North Korean's personal lives, their societies, and their cultures. This can go on and on. Not An argument at all.

> Far from being another religious book, the Bible's impact on culture and society is unparalleled. It has shaped law, philosophy, art, literature, and education in a way that no other book has. Some would consider this to be a mark of divine origin.

It is true that Bible had an impact on our society. Every religious book had an impact on our society. BUT! This doesn't give evidence that it is right. This doesn't give evidence that it is made by people influenced by god. This doesn't give evidence that the impact was beneficial. Actually knowing what Chistianityy had done to science over this two thousend years. (Book burning, Killing scholars, Inquisition, Lying) It looks like it was more contradictory to freedom of thought that anything else. It's just the last years that it plays poor puppy that it is good and didn't knew any better, while secretly trying to influence law authority. And you would probably ask why is that? Well, it appears that they never liked educated people. Educated people can think for themselves and actually point out the flaws of religion. This WOULD explain (logically) all the killing and oppression. But what is happening right now? People get educated. They know real FACTS instead of facts that are controlled by catholic schools. (If you hold education, you can choose what to teach, even lies, the children will belive it anyway, and if not, you can always say that he's a heretic or a sinner so noone would listen to him)

I really do hope and belive (yes, i am capable of beliving ) that in few decades people will be educated enough to judge the truth by themselves. The world free of indoctrination.

[jimwalton]

You were mentioning that Bible is not particularly unique, but I'm not sure you've done adequate research there. The Koran was written by one man over the course of 23 years—vastly different from what I was saying about the Bible. Ancient Chinese texts or Greek mythologies? It depends what you're talking about (you didn't specify), but not one of them is like the Bible and what I was saying about it—written over a period of 1300 years by 40+ authors, 3 languages, 3 continents. The Bible is unique in that way. We have without doubt never seen another book with that kind of scope. The Bible is extraordinary.

I never claimed that its extraordinary character guaranteed it was from God, and of course I agree that people have done extraordinary things, and continue to. The capability of people doesn't speak to the uniqueness of the Bible.

> I guess even if 10% of them point to real flaws it shows me that bible is not the work of god inspired people.

This shows me that you have a mistaken notion of what the Bible is, how it came about, and how it all works. For instance, in the area of science. God speaks to people in a way they can understand. If they have a faulty view of science, he doesn't correct their science, because it actually has nothing to do with what he is trying to tell them. If he told them about stars and planets as being separate bodies of matter in outer space, he would have gotten a huge "Huh?". God accommodates their faulty view of science and delivers his message in language and concepts they can understand. So, they didn't know the sun was a burning ball of hydrogen and helium 93 million miles away. They thought it was a light that moved across the firmament. Fine. He accommodates that and gives his message. You are judging (and I assume condemning) the Bible on false criteria.

> "The Bible has an amazing literary quality to it." This is just a point of view.

Of course it's just a point of view, but one that is shared by literary experts. Saying "Michael Jordan was a great basketball player" is also just a point of view, but those who know what they're talking about agree.

> Personally i see flaw over flaw.

Now this would be worth discussing.

> How's cursing people by giving them poison reliable way to detect lies? (Numbers 5)

Ha — you're joking, right? This tells me, sorry to say, that you haven't studied much. Numbers 5.11-31 isn't a step-by-step abortion guide. There is nothing in Kool-Aid : ) that will cause abortion. The text is about a woman who is accused of hooking up, and whose husband is upset, obviously, and wants her to come clean on it. First he is to take an offering to God as a way to ask the Lord's participation in the proceedings. Then the wife is to drink some water from the tabernacle mixed with some dust from the tabernacle floor, both of which would be symbols of their relationship with God and their (supposed) commitment to honor him. By drinking the water, she would in effect be agreeing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then when the priest asks her if the accusation is true or not, she's bound to her word. That's the point anyway. And then if it is shown that she was faithful and her husband is just suspicious, then God will bless her, and if it is shown that she was a naughty girl and did the wild thing (or if she lies about it to cover it up), that God would punish her for that breach of covenant, both with him and with her husband. But it's far far from giving her poison to detect lies.

Other cultures used a "trial by ordeal" kind of process where the accused is placed "in the hand of God" by some mechanism, generally one that will put the accused in jeopardy, such as drinking poison or being set on fire. And if the deity intervenes to protect them, then that's a declaration of acquittal. Obviously, this is a "guilty until proven innocent" scenario. Hammurabi used a "river ordeal" for trials in his court.

This process, outlined in Num. 5.11-13, involves neither magic nor danger, but simply creates a symbolic situation for the woman to tell the truth and for God to respond. The woman here is presumed innocent until circumstances (directed by the Lord) show otherwise.

> Aztecs, Ancient Greeks, Ancient Chineese (especially with their medical knowledge at that time), Egyptians etc...

Yes, those were amazingly developed cultures also. Some of the things they did are nothing short of absolutely awesome. That doesn't detract from what the Bible also presents that is astounding for its era and culture. Just because Michael Jordan is awesome doesn't mean that LeBron James isn't.

> Just because milion+ people thinks something is true - it doesn't make it true. Most people at that time belived that the earth is flat.

I agree. But since that's not what I said, it's not a rebuttal to my point. What I said is that it changed lives, not just that people believed it. There are millions of stories of people breaking free from alcoholism, of being reconciled with people, of beating drugs, of changing morals, of becoming completely new people that have no parallel in Islam and Hinduism. Christianity stands unique (though not alone) in its witness of changed lives. Certainly there are some Muslims who will tell a story of a changed life, but I'm talking about MILLIONS of Christians.

> Do you know how placebo works?

Duh.

> For them Koran is the book which had been life-changing in its impact on their personal lives, their societies, and their cultures.

Interesting that Islam spreads by military conquest and violent coercion. Christianity spreads by changed lives. Christ never headed an army; Muhammad led armies and conquered cities to make the Muslim. You can't possibly put these two things side by side with good conscience.

> Actually knowing what Chistiany had done to science over this two thousend years.

The irrefutable TRUTH is that science grew up and expanded in Christian Europe under the leadership of the church. Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and many others. Science didn't grow in the Middle East where Islam reigned, but in Europe. Actually, it's Christian theology that endorses what makes science work: regularity and order in the universe, cause and effect, purposeful laws, etc. I fear, my friend, that you have rejected Christianity on so many false premises I barely know where to start, except to attempt block by block to show you what is history and truth.

> Well, it appears that they never liked educated people.

Schools started in Europe and America at the hand of the churches. Education by the church is what brought us the likes of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and Blaise Pascal. Public education was started in the US by churches. Many universities in Europe and the United States (Harvard, Princeton, Yale) were started by Christians.

> People get educated.

You mean people like C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Behe, Georges Lamaire, Francis Collins, and John Polkinghorne, to name a few?

> The world free of indoctrination.

I fear, my friend, that you have been indoctrinated with many inaccuracies. Can we talk more? I'm sorry that you've had such a negative experience in Catholic schools, but don't assume that whatever you were taught speaks for the Christian position. Can we please talk more? You have changed from (nominal) believer to agnostic to atheist, possibly on incorrect premises and fallacious judgments. You seem to think Christians are idiots, believing lies and myths, and walking around with their eyes closed, walking into walls. We should talk more. Decisions like this are far too important to be the victim of mistaken thoughts.

[Gargoyle]

> If he told them about stars and planets as being separate bodies of matter in outer space, he would have gotten a huge "Huh?".

That shows omnipotence false.

> God accommodates their faulty view of science and delivers his message in language and concepts they can understand. So, they didn't know the sun was a burning ball of hydrogen and helium 93 million miles away. They thought it was a light that moved across the firmament.

So you're assuming that god lies to people because they cannot understand any better? That only shows many imperfections of logic here. If he coudn't speak to people then because they were too stupid, he shoud try doing it every now and then and see if people do understand him NOW. If he doesn't it means we are left alone.

Omnipotence is shattered here. Omniscience is shattered here.

That just seems like the most irrational thing any inteligent designer could think of.

"Oh, I'll just appear precisely from here to 1300 years forward and then disappear. I'll also give people the ability to make fake religions so they'll be confused"

This is irrational.

> First he is to take an offering to God as a way to ask the Lord's participation in the proceedings. Then the wife is to drink some water from the tabernacle mixed with some dust from the tabernacle floor, both of which would be symbols of their relationship with God and their (supposed) commitment to honor him. By drinking the water, she would in effect be agreeing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then when the priest asks her if the accusation is true or not, she's bound to her word. That's the point anyway. And then if it is shown that she was faithful and her husband is just suspicious, then God will bless her, and if it is shown that she was a naughty girl and did the wild thing (or if she lies about it to cover it up), that God would punish her for that breach of covenant, both with him and with her husband. But it's far far from giving her poison to detect lies.

This seems like something you coud actually check. I sincerly doubt it ever worked. With all our knowledge about germs and poisonus substances this could have been a perfect tool for said priest to fabricate evidence.

All through the history we see people that do bad things and say that only god can judge me. There was not once noted that this kind of event actually occured except of bible. Even today people are doing horrible things and avoid being sentenced because they already confessed their sins or "this is how their religion works".

Just no. We have WAY more better system of judging what is right than just simply asking an imaginary friend. Defineatly the one that comes from the Bible.

Just to note that "trial by ordeal" was used by Christians mostly.

> I agree. But since that's not what I said, it's not a rebuttal to my point. What I said is that it changed lives, not just that people believed it. There are millions of stories of people breaking free from alcoholism, of being reconciled with people, of beating drugs, of changing morals, of becoming completely new people that have no parallel in Islam and Hinduism. Christianity stands unique (though not alone) in its witness of changed lives. Certainly there are some Muslims who will tell a story of a changed life, but I'm talking about MILLIONS of Christians.

I will ask you one thing.

If I'm christian, but not really a beliver, and i break free from alcocholism, any of my deep beliver friend will say that it's a work of god. You can follow my reasoning from that point onward, right?

The same applies to christian sciencists. They still would be sciencists even if they weren't christians.

> Christianity spreads by changed lives.

By teaching that you are constantly watched and that if you do something bad, you'll burn in hell for ethernity. Well, that IS life changing in a way

I belive that main reason in "christian church incorporated" is money and power (influence over masses).

> Science didn't grow in the Middle East where Islam reigned, but in Europe.

Untrue. They were intellectual center of the world before intellectual outburst in Europe had started.

> I fear, my friend, that you have rejected Christianity on so many false premises I barely know where to start, except to attempt block by block to show you what is history and truth.

I rejected Christianity standing aside of it and looking at what it had done with critical point of view. At first I had no stance. I would say neither is good or bad. Then I saw how bad it is. Of course it had few good side effects on humanity, but MANY MORE bad ones. The problem is - you do not see it when you are inside. You cannot possibly see it when you are inside. This is why so many people still fall in their lies.

> Schools started in Europe and America at the hand of the churches. Education by the church is what brought us the likes of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and Blaise Pascal. Public education in the US was started by churches. Many universities in Europe and the United States (Harvard, Princeton, Yale) were started by Christians.

Just as I pointed out earlier. Just because someone was indoctrinated to be a christian, doesn't give christianity a credit for this person. He was FIRSTLY a scientist and just happened to be a christian. And at that point the concept of atheism were severly punished so no one dared stick their nose out of it in fear of losing work, love, position etc.

> I fear, my friend, that you have been indoctrinated with many inaccuracies. Can we talk more? I'm sorry that you've had such a negative experience in Catholic schools, but don't assume that whatever you were taught speaks for the Christian position. Can we please talk more? You have changed from (nominal) believer to agnostic to atheist, possibly on incorrect premises and fallacious judgments. You seem to think Christians are idiots, believing lies and myths, and walking around with their eyes closed, walking into walls. We should talk more. Decisions like this are far too important to be the victim of mistaken thoughts.

I would love to talk more

I know though that i have to educate myself more to counter your arguments which are very good.

I just have one question for you. Please answer sincerly.

Do you let in a possibility, even a slightest, that you may be wrong and what I actually say may be right? Because if no, we have nothing to talk about. That's why I NEED to know that you'll answer this as sincerely as you can. I can state that I might be wrong in everything I say.

[jimwalton]

> "If he told them about stars and planets as being separate bodies of matter in outer space, he would have gotten a huge 'Huh?'." That shows omnipotence false.

This is a non sequitur. Just because God doesn't choose to tell them they have faulty science doesn't mean that God cannot possibly be all-powerful. It definitely doesn't prove omnipotence to be false.

> So you're assuming that god lies to people because they cannot understand any better?

Oh, not at all. You're misunderstanding. Suppose I'm talking to a 9 year old, and he's asking about, I dunno, the weather. He wants to know how snow happens. He expresses some limited scientific understanding that he got from third grade, but I don't bother to correct all of that because it will just confuse him and make the conversation so long he'll regret ever asking. So I let that go by so I can talk to him about snow, which is really what he wanted to know. Have I lied to him? Of course not. I've just made an "executive decision" about what to talk about. He doesn't need to know all about the water cycle, crystalline formation, low pressure systems and extratropical cyclones. His eyes will glaze over. But because I don't back up the dump truck and pull the level doesn't mean I have lied to him, or that I don't have enough knowledge. I just have to be discerning in my message.

You have misunderstandings about the Bible. I'm not addressing every one of them, but deciding where to reply and where to let things go through. That's neither a reflection of an immoral or inadequate character in me, nor an intent to deceive, nor irresponsible, nor lack of knowledge on my part. If I don't want my message to get lost, I have to know what to hold and what to let go by. There's nothing irrational about it.

> This seems like something you coud actually check. I sincerly doubt it ever worked.

We don't know if it ever worked. Presumably it was a tactic that was used, but that's beside the point. The point is that you were misunderstanding that they were poisoning people, which just isn't the case. It's also not legitimate to assume the soil was toxic. Soil usually only becomes toxic when human waste is not properly handled, or industrial run-off makes it such, but neither were most likely the case at the tabernacle/temple site. It's unfair of you to assume liability and toxicity when there's no reason to assume that outside of bias.

> All thrugh the history we see people that do bad things and say that only god can judge me. ... Even today people are doing horrible things and avoid being sentenced because they already confessed their sins or "this is how their religion works".

Agreed. Too many weirdos out there. You know the sayings: "The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has its limits." And, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."

> We have WAY more better system of judging what is right than just simply asking an imaginary friend.

This betrays a bias on your part. You assume the non-existence of God, and that any reference to him is like a child talking to an imaginary friend, or a psychotic hearing voices and replying. But what if there really IS a God? Then it's not an imaginary friend at all. The Bible presupposes the existence of God, but also evidences his existence. It treats him as if He is a real being who intervenes in humanity for their ultimate benefit. Now, if THAT is actually true, then God guiding the proceedings of Numbers 5.11ff is not a trial-by-ordeal process enacted by humans in their ignorance and superstitions.

> If I'm christian, but not really a beliver, and i break free from alcocholism, any of my deep beliver friend will say that it's a work of god. You can follow my reasoning from that point onward, right?

Yep. I of course agree. God's power is not the only way people escape from addictions and alcoholism. Sometimes therapy, sometimes willpower, sometimes the help of caring friends, and other reasons.

> By teaching that you are constantly watched and that if you do something bad

Again, a whole lot of negative vibes rolling out of you. You assume the worst. I don't obey God out of fear, but out of love. I don't not cheat on my wife because I'm afraid of getting caught. I don't cheat on my wife because I love her.

> I belive that main reason in "christian church incorporated" is money and power (influence over masses)

Has the church been perfect in its administration? Nowhere close. Too many abuses, too many idiots. Every village has its idiots, y'know. The church is no exception. Power and money are both extremely corrupting. But that doesn't mean all are guilty, or even that the church itself is guilty by definition. Only that some people abuse whatever they can for personal gain and bring tragedy in their wake.

> "Science didn't grow in the Middle East where Islam reigned, but in Europe." Untrue. They were intellectual center of the world before intellectual outburst in europe had started.

You're right that they were the intellectual center of the world (Greece = philosophy, Rome = law, Egypt = all kinds of knowledge), but SCIENCE didn't grow up until Europe during the Christian era. It was during late antiquity and the early Middle Ages that the Aristotelian approach to inquiries on natural phenomenon took off and became science as we know it today.

> I rejected Christianity standing aside of it and looking at what it had done with critical point of view. At first i had no stance. I would say neither is good or bad.

This I'm glad to hear. I'm glad you approached it with some neutrality. My concern is that somehow you have fallen prey to misunderstandings that have pushed you not only to the negative side of the fence, but also to an almost bitter position. That I would like to discuss more. My research and thought have pushed me in exactly the opposite direction, convincing me the more I learn.

> He was FIRSTLY a sciencist and just happened to be a christian.

I'm not sure you can substantiate that Kepler, Pascal, Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus were scientists first, or that their science in their lives was a value, and they just happened to be Christians. The evidence points in different directions: that they were equally committed Christians and scientists, seeking truth in all arenas.

> Do you let in a possibility, even a slightest, that you may be wrong and what i acutally say may be right?

In humility I have to always be open to wherever the truth leads, and if I'm not, I have nothing to learn and nothing to say. But in the interest of full disclosure, I have to say honestly that I have been following the truth and it has led me deeply into Christian beliefs. It would take a lot to dislodge me now because the evidences are piled so high in the favor of the Christian world view.