Can you prove the Bible has fallacies?

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: RCN
I'm pointing out what most Biblical scholars admit to being a fvck up/ textual corruption. Yet you still want to defend it.

The bolded part shows who is 'next on the list'. Why would everything else be the same except for the top guy in the story?

What you're quoting isn't a contradiction. It's that simple.

What would you call it?

The same thing others are describing it, that you utterly refuse to accept it as: two different points of view. Hell, even the childishly simple "netscape billboard" scenario explains it in terms a freaking six year old can (and would) understand but you (and many others like you) flat out refuse to acknowledge that that could possibly be true.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: RCN
I'm pointing out what most Biblical scholars admit to being a fvck up/ textual corruption. Yet you still want to defend it.

The bolded part shows who is 'next on the list'. Why would everything else be the same except for the top guy in the story?

What you're quoting isn't a contradiction. It's that simple.

What would you call it?

The same thing others are describing it, that you utterly refuse to accept it as: two different points of view. Hell, even the childishly simple "netscape billboard" scenario explains it in terms a freaking six year old can (and would) understand but you (and many others like you) flat out refuse to acknowledge that that could possibly be true.

OK....lets review:

In Matthew Judas returns the silver and hangs himself. The priest buy a field because they can't put blood money in the treasury.

In Acts Judas buys a field with the reward, has a fall and spills his guts.

So what you are telling me is two people witnessed the situation. One says "from my point of it looke like he gave the money back and hung himself and the priest bought a field" and the other one says "I'm not so sure. To me it looked like he bought a field and had an accident".

:roll:

 

[DAGTA]

Originally posted by: RCN

OK....lets review:

In Matthew Judas returns the silver and hangs himself.

In Acts Judas buys a field with the reward, has a fall and spills his guts.

So what you are telling me is two people witnessed the situation. One says "from my point of it looke like he gave the money back and hung himself and the priest bought a field" and the other one says "I'm not so sure. To me it looked like he bought a field and had an accident".

:roll:

I can see why you question the money being different in the two stories, but the rest isn't different.

When a body is hung and left to rot it often spills it's guts. Those two accounts could easily be addressing the same story.

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN
I want you to read these and tell me again there is not a contradiction:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a11.htm
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt08b23.htm

There is not a contradiction. Both references say the same thing that I quoted.

Two different men?

11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Jashobeam, the son of a Hachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hundred and slew them at one time.

12 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo, the Ahohite, who was one of the three mighty men.


8 These are the names of the mighty men whom David had: Josheb-basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; [he lifted up his spear] against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

9 And after him was Eleazar the son of Dodo the son of an Ahohite, one of the three mighty men with David, when they jeoparded their lives against the Philistines that were there gathered together to battle, and the men of Israel were gone away;

I don't understand what you're trying to point out. Could you elaborate a little more please?

I'm pointing out what most Biblical scholars admit to being a fvck up/ textual corruption. Yet you still want to defend it.

The bolded part shows who is 'next on the list'. Why would everything else be the same except for the top guy in the story?

What I don't get is how it contradicts. "After" doesn't necessarily mean "immediate successor," it can also mean "later in line." Is that what you're saying, because I see no other possible contradiction.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/552

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: RCN
OK....lets review:

In Matthew Judas returns the silver and hangs himself.

In Acts Judas buys a field with the reward, has a fall and spills his guts.

So what you are telling me is two people witnessed the situation. One says "from my point of it looke like he gave the money back and hung himself and the priest bought a field" and the other one says "I'm not so sure. To me it looked like he bought a field and had an accident".

:roll:

RCN, I've posted the same thing about three times over.

Judas hung himself and died. After his death, his body fell from the tree and was smashed on the rocks, thus spilling out his bowls. That's the story right there. The Bible doesn't say that Judas was killed in the fall. Therefore, we know that he died from hanging, and was dropped after his death.

 

[secretanchitman]

have you read inherit the wind?

that is probably one of my favorite books of all time, next to fahrenheit 451.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RCN
OK....lets review:

In Matthew Judas returns the silver and hangs himself.

In Acts Judas buys a field with the reward, has a fall and spills his guts.

So what you are telling me is two people witnessed the situation. One says "from my point of it looke like he gave the money back and hung himself and the priest bought a field" and the other one says "I'm not so sure. To me it looked like he bought a field and had an accident".

:roll:

RCN, I've posted the same thing about three times over.

Judas hung himself and died. After his death, his body fell from the tree and was smashed on the rocks, thus spilling out his bowls. That's the story right there. The Bible doesn't say that Judas was killed in the fall. Therefore, we know that he died from hanging, and was dropped after his death.

I'll get back to this later. I don't have time right now..

Nice try at harmonization though...........

 

[SampSon]

The bible does contradict itself quite a few times.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
...Basically, I want anyone to try to give me solid, undeniable evidence that the Bible has fallacies, and I, in turn, will try to give you evidence of the contrary.

<sigh>

This is a disingenuous invitation.

People hold religious beliefs on the basis of faith; these beliefs are not arrived at on the basis of any evidence and therefore can not be undone by any evidence.

We could try to dispassionately look at the evidence and decide which of the two possibilites (i.e. fallacies or no fallacies) is more likely (which is essentially the scientific method to arriving at an answer). But whatever possibility we choose, we can never be absolutely certain it is completely correct.

No one can "prove" that the Bible is incorrect. But it's equally true that no one can prove that hobbits don't exist, that those kidnappings by bug-eyed aliens haven't happen, or that the sun will rise tomorrow.

What we can individually decide is how much evidence we need to have before we treat something as true (by basing our actions on the assumption that it is true). Based on my pedestrian understanding of astrophysics and years of experience, I do believe the sun will rise tomorrow (or at least I'm going to bed thinking that I need to set the alarm clock).

Based on my equally pedestrian understanding of biology, geology, and chemistry, I find that evolution is a more believable explanation of how we got here than Biblical creation. Now I know that you're just waiting to spring some voodoo-science on me in support of creationism using carefully culled "facts". But I'm betting that you didn't decide to believe creationism on the basis of these facts. Instead, most of the "faithful" start with a belief in the Bible (possibly requiring no evidence at all) and then select those theories and "facts" that bolster their beliefs.

The bottom line here is that you can not disprove something to a person who believes it as a matter of faith (and I'm not going to try). There are few things that you can prove to be absolutely impossible, so in that sense chances are good that no one can prove the Bible contains fallacies. Of course, it's almost as hard to prove the converse -- that the Bible doesn't contain fallacies. While I can't prove either conjecture, I think that there is much more evidence supporting the latter conclusion. So that's what I'm basing my actions on.

(That and hobbits...) 😉

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: SampSon
The bible does contradict itself quite a few times.

indeed. but i don't think it contradicts itself in its message. Unless you compare the new testament vs. old testament in which case the contradiction is intentional

 

[quackerww]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9162292468797126455&q=penn

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: RapidSnail
...Basically, I want anyone to try to give me solid, undeniable evidence that the Bible has fallacies, and I, in turn, will try to give you evidence of the contrary.

<sigh>

This is a disingenuous invitation.

People hold religious beliefs on the basis of faith; these beliefs are not arrived at on the basis of any evidence and therefore can not be undone by any evidence.

We could try to dispassionately look at the evidence and decide which of the two possibilites (i.e. fallacies or no fallacies) is more likely (which is essentially the scientific method to arriving at an answer). But whatever possibility we choose, we can never be absolutely certain it is completely correct.

No one can "prove" that the Bible is incorrect. But it's equally true that no one can prove that hobbits don't exist, that those kidnappings by bug-eyed aliens haven't happen, or that the sun will rise tomorrow.

What we can individually decide is how much evidence we need to have before we treat something as true (by basing our actions on the assumption that it is true). Based on my pedestrian understanding of astrophysics and years of experience, I do believe the sun will rise tomorrow (or at least I'm going to bed thinking that I need to set the alarm clock).

Based on my equally pedestrian understanding of biology, geology, and chemistry, I find that evolution is a more believable explanation of how we got here than Biblical creation. Now I know that you're just waiting to spring some voodoo-science on me in support of creationism using carefully culled "facts". But I'm betting that you didn't decide to believe creationism on the basis of these facts. Instead, most of the "faithful" start with a belief in the Bible (possibly requiring no evidence at all) and then select those theories and "facts" that bolster their beliefs.

The bottom line here is that you can not disprove something to a person who believes it as a matter of faith (and I'm not going to try). There are few things that you can prove to be absolutely impossible, so in that sense chances are good that no one can prove the Bible contains fallacies. Of course, it's almost as hard to prove the converse -- that the Bible doesn't contain fallacies. While I can't prove either conjecture, I think that there is much more evidence supporting the latter conclusion. So that's what I'm basing my actions on.

(That and hobbits...) 😉

Understood. I came into this the wrong way, and for that I am sorry 🙁. I didn't want this to be a religious bashing thing, I only wanted people to give reasons for why the believe the Bible to be corrupted (for lack of better words). I badly worded the topic title and initial post, which gave a bad impression to those who saw it. I just hope you understand that my motive wasn't to flame, troll, or ridicule.

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Who cares.

Well considering that if the Bible is true your eternal destiny depends on your belief in it or not.

Simply for that reason alone, no God will ever get my belief if their supposive scripture states that if you don't believe in me, you are damned. Screw that crap, that God has a low self-esteem, and if God was just/flawless/omnipotent, lines like this wouldn't exist in the Bible.

I am more agnostic than anything, but nothing could make me believe in God in the Christian/Islamic sense.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Who cares.

Well considering that if the Bible is true your eternal destiny depends on your belief in it or not.

Simply for that reason alone, no God will ever get my belief if their supposive scripture states that if you don't believe in me, you are damned. Screw that crap, that God has a low self-esteem, and if God was just/flawless/omnipotent, lines like this wouldn't exist in the Bible.

I am more agnostic than anything, but nothing could make me believe in God in the Christian/Islamic sense.

Christian/Islamic sense? Holy hell, could you possibly find two more opposing or different religions to group together? :roll:

Redeption comes from accepting forgiveness that Christ extended with his death on the cross. It's more than just "believe in me" because those three words don't nearly express all they are intended to intail as described throughout the new testament. It's not as simple as "believe in me" so instead of freaking the hell out and making ignorant assumptions about a god with self esteem problems, you should try reading the whole of the new testament with an open mind. Do some Bible study and educate yourself to what the Bible REALLY says, not what way too many stupid assfvcks want you to think it says.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Who cares.

Well considering that if the Bible is true your eternal destiny depends on your belief in it or not.

Simply for that reason alone, no God will ever get my belief if their supposive scripture states that if you don't believe in me, you are damned. Screw that crap, that God has a low self-esteem, and if God was just/flawless/omnipotent, lines like this wouldn't exist in the Bible.

I am more agnostic than anything, but nothing could make me believe in God in the Christian/Islamic sense.

Christian/Islamic sense? Holy hell, could you possibly find two more opposing or different religions to group together? :roll:

Redeption comes from accepting forgiveness that Christ extended with his death on the cross. It's more than just "believe in me" because those three words don't nearly express all they are intended to intail as described throughout the new testament. It's not as simple as "believe in me" so instead of freaking the hell out and making ignorant assumptions about a god with self esteem problems, you should try reading the whole of the new testament with an open mind. Do some Bible study and educate yourself to what the Bible REALLY says, not what way too many stupid assfvcks want you to think it says.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Who cares.

Well considering that if the Bible is true your eternal destiny depends on your belief in it or not.

Simply for that reason alone, no God will ever get my belief if their supposive scripture states that if you don't believe in me, you are damned. Screw that crap, that God has a low self-esteem, and if God was just/flawless/omnipotent, lines like this wouldn't exist in the Bible.

I am more agnostic than anything, but nothing could make me believe in God in the Christian/Islamic sense.

Christian/Islamic sense? Holy hell, could you possibly find two more opposing or different religions to group together? :roll:

Redeption comes from accepting forgiveness that Christ extended with his death on the cross. It's more than just "believe in me" because those three words don't nearly express all they are intended to intail as described throughout the new testament. It's not as simple as "believe in me" so instead of freaking the hell out and making ignorant assumptions about a god with self esteem problems, you should try reading the whole of the new testament with an open mind. Do some Bible study and educate yourself to what the Bible REALLY says, not what way too many stupid assfvcks want you to think it says.

Wow ok, I simply mentioned Christianity and Islam because they are the 2 major religions, thats the only reason.

I did go to private school, and I did read the Bible while I was there, I was force fed religion for years and years and I can say a few things, it preaches hate, hypocrisy, and yes the "if you don't believe in me you are eternally damned" attitude. God as depicted in the Bible has a low self-esteem no matter which way you cut it, come on, if God was flawless he would have never got lonely and thus we would never have been created if you belierve in that bullsh!t. In my previous post it doesn't make me sound like I am "freaking the hell out". Perhaps from your post you just made you should take your own advice.:disgust:

Besides theres no use in discussing this, I just wanted to put in my $0.02, so further posts from you I am just going to ignore. This horse has been beaten with a stick for too long.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Belief in Christianity requires faith, and one either has it or one does not. I choose not to, because I see no point in believing in "God" (given that there is NOT ONE SHRED of evidence to indicate that "God" is real.)

That you've ever seen, possibly, but what you're saying is that the proof others have witnessed for themselves is a lie, which is something you cannot possibly claim.

Anyway, the OP is a flamebaiting troll.

"Proof that others have witnessed" is not relevant to me at all. I said "NOT ONE SHRED of evidence", which is entirely different than someone else's anecdote. Give me something, some effect, some environmental factor, some phenomenon, that is measureable, testable, and repeatable that is directly attributable to God, as opposed to normal environmental interactions.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem
Wow ok, I simply mentioned Christianity and Islam because they are the 2 major religions, thats the only reason.

I did go to private school, and I did read the Bible while I was there, I was force fed religion for years and years and I can say a few things, it preaches hate, hypocrisy, and yes the "if you don't believe in me you are eternally damned" attitude. God as depicted in the Bible has a low self-esteem no matter which way you cut it, come on, if God was flawless he would have never got lonely and thus we would never have been created if you belierve in that bullsh!t. In my previous post it doesn't make me sound like I am "freaking the hell out". Perhaps from your post you just made you should take your own advice.:disgust:

Besides theres no use in discussing this, I just wanted to put in my $0.02, so further posts from you I am just going to ignore. This horse has been beaten with a stick for too long.

Preaches hate? Hypocrisy? You're either lying about going to a private school or you never *ever* paid attention or you're dumber than a bag of hammers.

You think man was created because God was lonely? Holy fvck, what the hell is wrong with this picture? :laugh: That's funny. Please, tell me more of what you think the Bible preaches... this sh|t's funny!

You've proven that you have absolutely no concept or understanding of what Christ and the rest of the Bible teaches.

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
"Proof that others have witnessed" is not relevant to me at all. I said "NOT ONE SHRED of evidence", which is entirely different than someone else's anecdote. Give me something, some effect, some environmental factor, some phenomenon, that is measureable, testable, and repeatable that is directly attributable to God, as opposed to normal environmental interactions.

What you're saying is that it's not proof because you never witnessed it. I could drop a pencil on the ground right now, but you'd say you don't believe it because you weren't there to see the proof yourself. I'm observing it, I'm repeating it, and I'm measuring it, but YOU aren't. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen or is any less "proof" because you didn't see it yourself. The fact of the matter is that what you're saying is attempting to discredit the life experiences of billions of people across the globe, which is utterly impossible and fantastically wild. Just because you haven't witnessed something like that yourself doesn't mean it hasn't happened. The fact that you think as much says to me that you wouldn't accept it if it DID happen to you. You'd just pass it off as something else.

My point? If you're not open to it, you'll never see it.

 

[eilute]

A woman can not have a baby unless she has sexual intercourse.

The Bible is a rather thick book though, and this only disproves part of it.

 

[eilute]

EDIT:

oops! double post.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: eilute
A woman can not have a baby unless she has sexual intercourse.

The Bible is a rather thick book though, and this only disproves part of it.

:roll:

Please. Go away.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: eilute
A woman can not have a baby unless she has sexual intercourse.

The Bible is a rather thick book though, and this only disproves part of it.

yeah....the new part.

Although it doesn't really disprove it as the correct/ in use at the time translation doesn't say Mary was a virgin.

 

[RCN]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: RapidSnail

Originally posted by: Thraxen
Who cares.

Well considering that if the Bible is true your eternal destiny depends on your belief in it or not.

Simply for that reason alone, no God will ever get my belief if their supposive scripture states that if you don't believe in me, you are damned. Screw that crap, that God has a low self-esteem, and if God was just/flawless/omnipotent, lines like this wouldn't exist in the Bible.

I am more agnostic than anything, but nothing could make me believe in God in the Christian/Islamic sense.

Christian/Islamic sense? Holy hell, could you possibly find two more opposing or different religions to group together? :roll:

Redeption comes from accepting forgiveness that Christ extended with his death on the cross. It's more than just "believe in me" because those three words don't nearly express all they are intended to intail as described throughout the new testament. It's not as simple as "believe in me" so instead of freaking the hell out and making ignorant assumptions about a god with self esteem problems, you should try reading the whole of the new testament with an open mind. Do some Bible study and educate yourself to what the Bible REALLY says, not what way too many stupid assfvcks want you to think it says.

Wow.....some very Christian like language in there. I applaud your devotion.

I read it with an open mind and decided people like you actually have no fvcking clue about what it says.................................YMMV

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: eilute
A woman can not have a baby unless she has sexual intercourse.

The Bible is a rather thick book though, and this only disproves part of it.

:roll:

Please. Go away.

I think I have addressed the question appropriatelyy.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: RCN

Originally posted by: eilute
A woman can not have a baby unless she has sexual intercourse.

The Bible is a rather thick book though, and this only disproves part of it.

yeah....the new part.

Although it doesn't really disprove it as the correct/ in use at the time translation doesn't say Mary was a virgin.

...but she was and it's still not a contradiction.