Author Topic: Question  (Read 10606 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #87 on: October 21, 2011, 07:15:13 PM »
Quote
Hatter23 stated
Clear and easily verified????????? You are aware Jews exist, right?
I've had a Jew tell me that Isaiah 53 was about National Israel. I think I read once where the Talmud compares it with the Messiah. Pretty sure.

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: Question
« Reply #88 on: October 21, 2011, 11:02:46 PM »
Quote
Hatter23 stated
Clear and easily verified????????? You are aware Jews exist, right?
I've had a Jew tell me that Isaiah 53 was about National Israel. I think I read once where the Talmud compares it with the Messiah. Pretty sure.

OK, that takes it...I'm calling Poe on this one.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline Klokinator

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • Darwins +7/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • ^This is Molly. Btw, I'm an apatheist forever.
    • My game: Fire Emblem Phoenix Saga
Re: Question
« Reply #89 on: October 21, 2011, 11:35:32 PM »
Quote
Hatter23 stated
Clear and easily verified????????? You are aware Jews exist, right?
I've had a Jew tell me that Isaiah 53 was about National Israel. I think I read once where the Talmud compares it with the Messiah. Pretty sure.
I had a christian tell me once that it was easily possible to fit 40 million+ animals and bugs into the ark and not kill off freshwater and saltwater creatures that had to mix in the world wide flood. I "think" he said it was all magical, but none of this can be verified so it should not be brought into a debate.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #90 on: October 22, 2011, 08:08:48 AM »
whatchamean?

there is a way to get names and links to the original posts automatically on the quotes.  If you go to the Quoting Tutorials, it shows you how.  Please learn.  These are easier for you and they help us to read the original post you quote in context. 

Thanks
Screwtape
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #91 on: October 22, 2011, 04:05:25 PM »
whatchamean?

there is a way to get names and links to the original posts automatically on the quotes.  If you go to the Quoting Tutorials, it shows you how.  Please learn.  These are easier for you and they help us to read the original post you quote in context. 

Thanks
Screwtape

Ok, Thanks.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #92 on: October 22, 2011, 06:37:00 PM »
But maybe Jesus really did say that he was the Son of God? And that was the final proof to execute him. Actually quite justly according to jewish law! But even being a or the son of God should not necessarily mean he was physically inseminated by God. Sounds like a primitive explanation of primitive minds to me. The confusion is shown when the gospels include Joseph to their versions of the Jesus genealogy.
The writers avoided calling Joseph Jesus' father. How was it just to kill the Messiah acording to Jewish law? "Only Begotten" means God was literally His Father.

And early on there was unsubstantiated rumors that Jesus was an illegitimate child of a Roman soldier. I don't take that very seriously, but that would be a natural explanation. And a root to his identity crisis.
There are some who believe this tale is in the Talmud, but the names were changed to protect the innocent.

But the virginity-issue is a totally separate thing to the point we are discussing. That the prophecies about Jesus in the OT  would prove that Bible is true and trerefore Christianity is superior to other religions. The point is that when honestly read by anyone, not just by that Jim Lippard, those prophecies dont fit to Jesus! The NT writers twisted their original meaning. A pious fraud, but a fraud still.

The NT writers didn't write the Talmud:

 "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

They were quoting Isaiah 53

Well, Hindus have suffered martyr deaths willingly. Many mormons died for their faith, which originated when some nutcase made stuff up in a tent. Pastor Jim Jones convinced a a lot of people to kill themselves. UFO-cultists made a mass Suicide believing an UFO is coming to get them behind the comet Hale-Bopp. Terrorists flew aeroplanes into skyscrapers in the name of Allah. So this must prove to you that their faith is the true faith? That kind of thing was far easier in the first century, people were much more gullible then. They were not necessarily mentally ill, just gullible and uneducated. In our time we should know better.
In many cases here you're comparing suicide with martyrdom, even terrorist suicide. Those people aren't martyrs, but there are people who are martyred for many different reasons. Buddhist monks were killed by the Chinese government because they wouldn't become communist. It doesn't mean they were wrong. The point is, the disciples of Jesus may not have feared death because they were convinced of the resurrection.

That Jim Lippard page was just a quick way to show something from the Internet. I have though those profecies long before that. The only thing that I personally could suspect to be a propechy about Jesus, is psalm 22. But the translation about piercing hand and feet is disputed by the jews (even in the Finnish translation that bit is about lions) , Jesus ate notoriously well so his bones were not showing, theologically it don´t fit because the guy in the psalm wants to get out of there and anyway it is not said to be a propechy, just a suffering man. Jesus could very well have quoted the psalm or the evangelist written like he did even if he didn´t.
I think it's interesting that the rendering of Psalm 22 in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint which precede the birth of Jesus both say the hands and feet were pierced, but the Masoretic text (after Jesus was executed) say lion. Funny, isn't it?


The rest is rubbish as Jesus-prophecies. Even Isaiah 53 fits to anyone who is suffering unjustly. I´m sure it was an inspiration to many people, including Jesus. But Jesus is not mentioned to have been ugly. Even more so with "sick" in some translations. Nor was Jesus despised by all, according to the Bible he had lots of followers when he was alive. Nor does "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong" really sound like God's Only Son who has been given all the power in  heaven and earth.just somebody suffering and getting compensated at the end. And surely an inspiration for Jesus to go and suffer for others. He was not the first or the last messiah-claimant to do that and suffer a cruel end.

"...and he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death...and he shall divide the spoil with the strong..." Is.53:8,12

Tell me Finn, how can a person do anything after he's dead?

The archaelology link I showed was of course just about one book. But it was the best summary I could find. I understand that there is dispute on details such as was Solomo's kingdom totally insignificant or could he still have had a medium-size state for that period. But there is wide agreement in history research and among non-fundamentalist real university theologians that the Exodus never happened, it is a myth, made-up official history by later Hebrew kings. There goes a lot of the OT!
I have yet to look at the site, but i will soon.

(Better so, the God depicted there is a mass-murdering monster. Why do you wish he exists? Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)
No, when I decided to study the Bible, I viewed it through what the Bible says about God, not what I think God should do. The Bible claims that God created the universe and bestows life. If you read the Bible this way, you understand that God owns you and may take your life whenever He desires without apology. We are only lent to one another temporarily, but God can raise the dead.


It is you who has the preconceived idea that your favorite myth is true. In my neck of woods most people have not taken the Bible more literally than our national Kalevala for a long time. If the stories of the Biblical God are not true, then that God does not exist as such. Unless you can keep some kind of dishonest doublethink-mode, which is sadly typical for religious people.
I'm no scholar, but I did show you mistakes Mr. Lippard made. Just make sure you don't believe what the Bible says because you took an honest objective look at it.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #93 on: October 22, 2011, 07:01:29 PM »
I hope your point is more than to point out what you see as hypocrisy.
It is, but pointing out how unfair people are when it comes to Jesus as opposed to other ancient historical figures is important as well.

If not, then throw in the towel because curiousgirl's hypocrisy has zero bearing on whether gods are really existant beings, as advertised.
That's true, but what it does have a bearing on is how honest someones examination of the scriptures has been. 

It seems to me that what you are saying is any ancient source is as good as any other, yes?
No. What I'm saying is that when people examine the Bible, they should afford it the same fair standards they would any ancient text. 

Let me ask you a question relating to Hannibal though.  If Hannibal actually did not exist, do you think that impacts our lives or how we live them in any significant way?  Can you say the same about yhwh or jesus H?
Hannibal did exist and though he doesn't impact our lives God does...and will.

I am skeptical about your claims to be a skeptic.
I've heard alot of outrageous claims by both Christians and atheists. I'll look for myself. I hope you do the same.

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Question
« Reply #94 on: October 22, 2011, 07:22:17 PM »
Whatchamean, I don't have a special grudge against Jesus and the Bible. I am merely skeptical of Jesus being the Son of God, performing miracles, rising from the dead, etc. I would really like for you to provide some actual evidence (not circular reasoning) for the Bible being a historical document that the others cannot tear to shreds after close examination. Seriously. I am all ears.

I have the same amount of skepticism towards Biblical miracles that I would toward ANY other extraordinary claims that I have not been shown real evidence for. If you provided some logical reasons and solid evidence that pointed toward Jesus being the Messiah, I would not deny that. But so far none of the theists that I have ever come into contact with have ever done that.

Honestly, you could tell me a very unlikely story (like a leprechaun that can read minds living in my garage, or perhaps a guy being resurrected) and as long as you could support it with logic and evidence, I would not be opposed to believing it.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #95 on: October 23, 2011, 08:05:40 AM »
If not, then throw in the towel because curiousgirl's hypocrisy has zero bearing on whether gods are really existant beings, as advertised.
That's true, but what it does have a bearing on is how honest someones examination of the scriptures has been. 

Do you also consider the fact that someone believes in god and was raised in an area where xianity permeated the culture to also bias their honest examination of the bible?

No. What I'm saying is that when people examine the Bible, they should afford it the same fair standards they would any ancient text. 

I don't think that is very clear.  I do not think you are dodging the question, but this^ could still be interpreted as you suggesting all ancient documents are equal.

Let me ask you a question relating to Hannibal though.  If Hannibal actually did not exist, do you think that impacts our lives or how we live them in any significant way?  Can you say the same about yhwh or jesus H?
Hannibal did exist and though he doesn't impact our lives God does...and will.

Close.  The point I was making was it is mainly irrelevant to anyone here whether Hannibal actually existed.  If tomorrow archaeologists found some lost evidence that lead them to conclude Hannibal was a gigantic hoax, we'd say, "interesting," and then keep going on about our day.  We are not invested in Hannibal.

For the religious, however, it is a different story. If jesus H wasn't real, then the whole premise of xianity collapses.  It would change your day.  You are invested in jesus H.  We are too, but not in the same way.  You believe in his existence and want it to be so.  We do not believe in biblejesus[1], but if he really did exist, we want to know.  It seems to me if we are talking about honesty, or let's call it bias so as to not attach too much negative baggage to it, we are in a better position than believers.

 1. though many of us think there may have been a loudmouth jew named jesus who was executed for treason by the Romans, around whom a legend was created
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #96 on: October 23, 2011, 06:54:45 PM »
Sorry, I took a few days leave from the internet.
And sorry for my English too.
I can understand it fluenly, both written and spoken. I rarely have to speak it though.
And I haven't written in English for years.
So now it seems the spelling of even the most familiar words is lacking. And grammarwise I'm confused when to use "in" or "on" or "at", when to say "for" or "to" and so on :D And Im not familiar with English religious terms or the names of the biblical characters in English. Add my typos that I make even when writing Finnish.

Quote
Finntrol stated
Only Luke and Matthew mention the virgin birth.
And, according to Matthew...Isaiah.  :)
.
You seem to be missing the point.
Which is while the evangelists surely did not and could not (and dared not) rewrite the Torah, in their own writings they twisted the meaning of many totally unrelated Torah verses to convince people that Jesus was the Messiah. So what if Matthew thought that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus? Why do you take the opinions of these men as "the Word of God"? They were just letters circulating around and it took years and years of purely human committee work to decide which ones to include to the book we now call the Bible.

Matthew was the sneakiest and most dishónest of them. Knowingly, I think.

Take Matthew 2
 14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

The prophet who said that was Hosea
11
1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,
   and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
   the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
   and they burned incense to images.

You can clearly see that is not a prophecy of Jesus and not a prophecy at all. Matthew lied.

It gets worse:

Matthew 2
 16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

 18 “A voice is heard in Ramah,
   weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
   and refusing to be comforted,
   because they are no more.”

That comes from Jeremiah 31
 
15 This is what the LORD says:

   “A voice is heard in Ramah,
   mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
   and refusing to be comforted,
   because they are no more.”

 16 This is what the LORD says:

   “Restrain your voice from weeping
   and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,”
            declares the LORD.
   “They will return from the land of the enemy.
17 So there is hope for your descendants,”
            declares the LORD.
   “Your children will return to their own land.

That is not about the Herod massacre. That is about exiled children who come back home ALIVE!
Matthew lied again.

(And I'm not sure, but I remember checking once that Rama is not Bethlehem, but is situated at the other side of Jerusalem)

Quote
According to most theologians (including the fundamentalists) Luke wrote for the gentiles. So it would be understandable if he wanted to explain Jesus in a way that fitted the pagan mindset.
Matthew on the other hand is considered to have been through and through jewish and writing to the jews. So you got me there Mark and John make no such claim. Nor is Jesus himself reported saying he was born without sexual intercourse.
You're right, but Mark and John refer to Jesus as the Son of God in such a way (only begotten) which suggests the Spirit impregnated Mary. “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”  And Jesus said, “I am..." Mk.14:61
Like i said, it sounds very primitive thinking. My biologist side starts to ponder sperm and the chomosomes of the Holy Ghost :D Claiming to be divine spiritually don't necessarily have to mean that you are fathered by God in the physical sense. Anyway Jesus is reported to have beeb quite evasive of that question. In the lines of "thou said it" like it depends of the relative interpretation. Only when pressed he blurted the above. John´s theology contains Jesus saying that his pupils can be "Son of Man" too.

But as I said previously, maybe Jesus really thought he was the son of God. That kind of thing was very popular in antiquity, but not among the jews. And then Matthew and Luke did their best to sell that very unjewish and heretic idea to the people. But if Jesus said that, Jesus could have been wrong and deluded. I mean The Egyptian Pharaos really thought they were gods. Galigula thought he was god. The Pope thinks he is Christ's substitute on Earth. Dalai Lama thinks he is reincarnated Buddha. I don't believe them either.

One thing is certain: Both natural science and historical research show that the stories of the Old Testament are not true. Therefore the God of the Bible described through those stories does not exist. So Jesus could not have been the son of Biblegod Yahweh.
 
Quote
And if these miracles of the nativity stories really happened, why Mary and Josef did not readily understand what the 12 year old Jesus was doing in the Temple
We have no idea to begin with how Mary and Joseph perceived Jesus as He was growing up. 

Quote
and later tried to call Jesus home because they thought he had gone crazy?
Don't know what you mean here.
Mark 3
 20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

Jesus didn't respect his mother much:
Matthew 12
 46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

You might think, that if Mary had really went through the divine insemination (sorry! :D ), angelic visitation, then shepards bowing to her child with an angelic choir, then eastern magi or kings bowing again to the child bringing gold and mirha, she would kind of have accepted anything Jesus was doing. And they would have been in more cordial relationship.

And the people of Nazareth would have spoken at least: "Hey that´s the dude some eastern magi or kings brought gold when he was a baby. They must be rich!" Instead they said like: "Nah, ain't that guy the son of some builder?"

Quote
(btw the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew can't be harmonized...
You gonna leave me hangin bro? Gotta get some sleep.
I´m saving my strenght and my keyboard. Read this:
(I had a better link in mind, can't find it now. This is fom a kind of a sister-site of this forum. I´m not registered there)
http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/35238-the-amazing-christmas-story/

More:
Jews at the time of Jesus believed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. Based on

Micah (5:2)
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

So the evangelists "had" to write it so. Funny thing that Jesus was from Nazareth. For that Luke has the story of the taxation. However Roman history has no record of Luke´s taxation/census unlike taxation before and after. And it would be unheard that the Romans should have forced people to travel to their ancestral cities. Millions of people travelling around. The way was to send the taxmen to the people, not the other way round.

And "Bethlehem Ephratat" might not be a town but a clan. Brief note http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ (Don´t know, I must study that later myself)   "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4)."

Then who else than Matthew tries to tie even Nazareth to prophecies.
"2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
There is no such prophecy. I think it might refer to the "nazirs" and Samson. But unlike Jesus they did not drink wine and eat meat.

But maybe Jesus really did say that he was the Son of God? And that was the final proof to execute him. Actually quite justly according to jewish law! But even being a or the son of God should not necessarily mean he was physically inseminated by God. Sounds like a primitive explanation of primitive minds to me. The confusion is shown when the gospels include Joseph to their versions of the Jesus genealogy.
The writers avoided calling Joseph Jesus' father. How was it just to kill the Messiah acording to Jewish law? "Only Begotten" means God was literally His Father.
if Joseph was not his father, there goes the Davidian lineage of Jesus. And of course it was not O.K. to kill a Messiah. But what I have read about judaism, "messiah" means somebody annointed by god. Originally quite literally pouring oil on his head. And there were several "real" accepted messiahs thorough history. Even the pagan Cyrus the Great was called messiah, because he was so nice to the jews. But all messiahs were mortal men.  On the other hand to claim to be "The SON of God" would have been unbiblical heresy, pagan polytheism. And the penalty would be death. Even in the gospels the Sanhedrind gets very angry, tearing their clothes etc, when they during interrogation finally get Jesus to say he is the Son of God. And then consider the case proven.

For the Romans it was simpler. Some guy causing havoc during festivities in the Temple, pissing off their friendly Jewish allies, gathering a large following and claiming to be the KING of Jews. Rebel--> execute. No need to understand Jewish theology.

And early on there was unsubstantiated rumors that Jesus was an illegitimate child of a Roman soldier. I don't take that very seriously, but that would be a natural explanation. And a root to his identity crisis.
There are some who believe this tale is in the Talmud, but the names were changed to protect the innocent.
The Talmud discussions i have read concerning this subject are very blurred, they are not even in agreement which Jesus they are talking about.Could be in code, because the christians had a nasty habit of kikking jews.
The roman Celsus, adversary of christianity, mentions this "Pantera" as Jesus' father too.
Funnily enough, a roman soldiers grave has been found in Germany, nicknamed "Panthera" and records show he was stationed just outside Nazareth, in Sephoris, during Jesus´s supposed birth years. Google that if you want. I don't dig into that now, because I think that as a proof it is as lame as Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code". Which was stupid.


The NT writers didn't write the Talmud:

 "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

They were quoting Isaiah 53
Of course they did not write the Talmud and would not have dared to commit forgery of texts everybody knew. Instead they wrote their own twisted interpretations, making stuff up, taking a verse here, a verse there.. just like modern Christians can prove their factions dogma by hopping from verse to verse, not respecting their original purpose at all. I Bet with the same method someone could "prove" that Barack Obama is prophecised in the old Mickey Mouse comics :D And take Nostradamus. Funny how his "prpohecies" seem to fit AFTER somehing has happened. Or the enviromental activist group Greenpeace (I think not too seriously) are keen to an old Hopi Indian prophecy about "Rainbow Warriors" who save the Earth. I once checked and among Hopi legends there really is one that resembles their version. But I still don't think the Hopi prophecied Greenpeace. Greenpeace just identifies with it.

About Isaiah 53 I don't really mind if that refers to the Israeli nation, the prophet himself or if it is a messianic prophecy. All interpretations are common. And the Talmud is just discussions and differing opinions of jews, not a Holy Book. What matters is that even it it was a messianic prophecy, it really doesn't fit Jesus. Allthough it might have been an inspiration to him and many people.

In many cases here you're comparing suicide with martyrdom, even terrorist suicide. Those people aren't martyrs, but there are people who are martyred for many different reasons. Buddhist monks were killed by the Chinese government because they wouldn't become communist. It doesn't mean they were wrong. The point is, the disciples of Jesus may not have feared death because they were convinced of the resurrection.
Even if it is suicide, the muslim terrorists are sure of Allah rewarding them after death. So they don't fear death. That nutcase cult Heaven´s Gate filmed a video before their suicide, all happy and smiling because they knew they were getting a ride in an UFO. Come on, they testified how they saw their leader glowing divine light! In christian martyrtom there was a suicide element too. Sorry, the source is out of hand, but a respectable history magazine had an article how some christians confessed and QUEUED to be executed. Sometimes it got so bad the romans got bored and ordered them home. Later on christians, both catholic and protestant, surely have terrorized people and died in wars defending their faith.

I don´t find it psychologically strange at all if the discibles collected themselves and continund to believe even after Jesus got killed. After all, he had told them that he must die and he will come back. No modern cult, however idiotic, is discouraged even when everything goes wrong. They always find a way to continue their delusion. Now, the disciples expected or at least hoped to see Jesus again. So they may have started seeing things. In the gospels half of the sightings are so vague, that disciples are not even sure it is Jesus. And those stories contradict each other badly. Some or all of them have to be invented by the Gospel writers. 
http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone
(note that in my mind that does not prove that Jesus did not resurrect. Maybe he did. But it means that if somebody is a biblical literalist who claims that the Bible has no contradictions and claims that the gospels are fit-for-court hard evidence of the resurrection... and if he reads that, can't solve that including the biggies like where did Jesus appear (nobody can)... and continues to claim what he claims.. then he knows he is a liar.But maybe he doesn't care. The whole purpose of such christianity seems to be lying. What if God sees them lying? :D

That Jim Lippard page was just a quick way to show something from the Internet. I have though those profecies long before that. The only thing that I personally could suspect to be a propechy about Jesus, is psalm 22. But the translation about piercing hand and feet is disputed by the jews (even in the Finnish translation that bit is about lions) , Jesus ate notoriously well so his bones were not showing, theologically it don´t fit because the guy in the psalm wants to get out of there and anyway it is not said to be a propechy, just a suffering man. Jesus could very well have quoted the psalm or the evangelist written like he did even if he didn´t.
I think it's interesting that the rendering of Psalm 22 in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint which precede the birth of Jesus both say the hands and feet were pierced, but the Masoretic text (after Jesus was executed) say lion. Funny, isn't it?
I knew that. That´s why the psalm is the only plausible to me. But all piercing is not crucifixion. Then there is the bit about the clothes.A coincedence, common habit when the victim has nice clothes, or a real case of precognition? But I think it would not be below the evangelists just to invent that detail, either. But that cant'be proven with text analysis, like most other claimed "Jesus- prophecies"can.

But the character of psalm 22 does not get pierced/gaped by lions willingly, like Jesus is said to have done. He is desperately begging God to get him out of there the whole time. There is not a clear death. Certainly no resurrection. He is not depicted as Messiah or Son of God. No universal meaning in his suffering. So if it would be the one real prophecy of Jesus in the OT, it is only about him suffering, no more. And then the usual praises of God at the end. Remember Nostradamus and the Hopi legend? Sometimes even the blind hen finds the grain, as the Finnish saying goes. Or a broken clock shows the right time twice a day.

 
The rest is rubbish as Jesus-prophecies. Even Isaiah 53 fits to anyone who is suffering unjustly. I´m sure it was an inspiration to many people, including Jesus. But Jesus is not mentioned to have been ugly. Even more so with "sick" in some translations. Nor was Jesus despised by all, according to the Bible he had lots of followers when he was alive. Nor does "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong" really sound like God's Only Son who has been given all the power in  heaven and earth.just somebody suffering and getting compensated at the end. And surely an inspiration for Jesus to go and suffer for others. He was not the first or the last messiah-claimant to do that and suffer a cruel end.

"...and he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death...and he shall divide the spoil with the strong..." Is.53:8,12

Tell me Finn, how can a person do anything after he's dead?
The jewish ideas about an afterlife or resurrection are varied and I think still unsolved. The original old jew religion was not much interested of that. Gradually thoughs of an afterlife (like in many other religions) or a resurrection gained support. So maybe Isaih was in a phase when he believed in an afterlife where his character would be compensated. What this Isaiah's person does after his death does not sound like Jesus who is supposed to rule all, not just hang out "with the strong". Nor is Jesus said to have had offspring (but I quess christians take that part allegorically). Jesus was not despised by all, he had thousands of followers. He was not silent, he spoke his mind. Noboby is said to mock him for being ungainly. There is no claim of the Isaiah persons physical resurrection from the grave. The carrying of other peoples sins can be quite practical thing there because other peoples' sin is directed at him.

Ha, that might be even me as well as Jesus. I'm rather ungainly (not much luck with the ladies, tall skinny 49-year old geek), I have been despised, bullied as a child, in adult life years and years I have been unjustly wronged by people and I have two victorious Court cases to prove it :D But it still goes on.
Haven't killed me.. yet.. 

So I really don't care if Isaiah 53 is a messiah prophecy or not. It is far too vague to be Jesus or only Jesus and it doesn't fit Jesus very well. But surely the Isaiah was known to Jesus and might have been his self-chosen role model.

I admitted those two alleged Jesus-prophecies to have the right tune. Still: Close but no cigar.
The rest are worse. I mentioned some before. Then take that the cooking instructions of the Pastover Lamb are supposed to prophecise Jesus´s legs not to have been broken. That lamb was not a sacrifice to God. Not an atonement for sins. It was eaten by the household. And not only the bones were not broken, the lamb had to be unbruised. Jesus was bruised.

The archaeology link I showed was of course just about one book. But it was the best summary I could find. I understand that there is dispute on details such as was Solomon's kingdom totally insignificant or could he still have had a medium-size state for that period. But there is wide agreement in history research and among non-fundamentalist real university theologians that the Exodus never happened, it is a myth, made-up official history by later Hebrew kings. There goes a lot of the OT!
I have yet to look at the site, but i will soon.
If you disagree the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan not happening, and you claim to KNOW that... Then please share that supernatural knowledge with archaeologists. They would be happy with new findings. Especially the jewish or christian archeologists. Or admid you DON'T know, you just WISH it to be true.

(Better so, the God depicted there is a mass-murdering monster. Why do you wish he exists? Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)
No, when I decided to study the Bible, I viewed it through what the Bible says about God, not what I think God should do. The Bible claims that God created the universe and bestows life. If you read the Bible this way, you understand that God owns you and may take your life whenever He desires without apology. We are only lent to one another temporarily, but God can raise the dead.

Quit that typical Christian bullshit.
You are transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity. When it gets tough, you back off claiming we can´t understand him, because he is God. In reality it is you who are closing your eyes, in fact lying, by trying not no see the common knowledge, science and history showing that your god does not exist. Your God does not exist. You just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever. It is you, not your nonexistant God. The evil is in you and you are the evil.

Phew.. long post. I gotta get some sleep. And I need a beer.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2011, 07:00:01 PM by Finntroll »

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #97 on: October 25, 2011, 02:46:39 AM »
Finntrol stated
And the Old Testament?
It is far from being historically accurate.
Read this, about the archaeology of Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
If you disagree, surely Jesus or the Holy Ghost can show you where the missing evidence is hidden? Problems? Excuses?

The stories about the biblical God are not true.
Therefore that God does not exist as such.
Finntrol
I finally looked at the archaeology evidence which you said disproves the Bible and it's so predjudiced I don't even know where to begin. It is so obvious the Wikipedia site is biased against the Bible it almost borders on hate. The way they only enlist people who support the notion that the Bible is unreliable is ridiculous. I would never use that site as a source of credibility. For sake of time, I'll give you one example of what I mean.

The basis of their information is a book titled "The Bible Unearthed." In short,  Mr. Finkelstein and Mr. Silberman claim the Bibles stories about Saul, David and Solomon are bs, but reflect a time in Israels history during the Oride Dynasty, so I'll give you an example of their jaded views from that time.

According to Wikipedia, The Bible Unearthed says that the Bibles record of Sennachribs' campaign against Jerusalem is nonsense because the 1) Taylor Prism doesn't mention any slaughter of the Assyrian army and 2) the Bible implys that after Sennachrib left with the tribute paid by Hezekiah, he was "immediately" killed by his sons. Lets look at the Taylor Prism compared to text of the Bible:

The Taylor Prism
As for Hezekiah the Judahite, who did not submit to my yoke: forty-six of his strong, walled cities, as well as the small towns in their area, which were without number, by levelling with battering-rams and by bringing up seige-engines, and by attacking and storming on foot, by mines, tunnels, and breeches, I besieged and took them. 200,150 people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number, I brought away from them and counted as spoil. (Hezekiah) himself, like a caged bird I shut up I sgut up in Jerusalem, his royal city. I threw up earthworks against him- the one coming out of the city-gate, I turned back to his misery. His cities, which I had despoiled, I cut off from his land, and to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and Silli, king of Gaza, I gave (them). And thus I diminished his land. I added to the former tribute, and I laid upon him the surrender of their land and imposts-gifts for my majesty. As for Hezekiah, the terrifying splendor of my majesty overcame him, and the Arabs and his mercenary troops which he had brought in to strengthen Jerusalem, his royal city, deserted him. In addition to the thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver, gems, antimony, jewels, large carnelians, ivory-inlaid couches, ivory-inlaid chairs, elephant hides, elephant tusks, ebony, boxwood, all kinds of valuable treasures, as well as his daughters, his harem, his male and female musicians, which he had brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city. To pay tribute and to accept servitude, he dispatched his messengers.

2 Kings 18:13-16
"Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house.
At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the LORD, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria."

There is nothing in these accounts (except for the amount of silver paid) that conflict. Not too bad so far, agreed?
Now the Bible goes on to say:

"And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem." (vs.17)

What happened? Didn't Sennacherib leave after getting the extortion money? Yes, he did, but there is exidence that he returned:

"And when he heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia..." 2 Kings 19:9

Tirhakah began his reign in 690 BC, ten years after Hezekiah bought Sennacherib off. Does this prove that the Bible story is true? No, but what it does show is that when you take an objective view, the Bibles account isn't proven wrong. That people assume the biblical narrative contains no break is the readers problem. "The Bible Unearthed" also incorrectly asserts that Sennacherib was killed by persons unknown, in opposition to the Bibles claim that he was murdered by his sons (see also: The Chronicle on the Reigns from Nabû-Nasir to Šamaš-šuma-ukin (ABC 1) Column 3 line 35).

« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 02:51:54 AM by whatchamean? »

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #98 on: October 25, 2011, 04:00:41 AM »

(Better so, the God depicted there is a mass-murdering monster. Why do you wish he exists? Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)
No, when I decided to study the Bible, I viewed it through what the Bible says about God, not what I think God should do. The Bible claims that God created the universe and bestows life. If you read the Bible this way, you understand that God owns you and may take your life whenever He desires without apology. We are only lent to one another temporarily, but God can raise the dead.


Quit that typical Christian bullshit.
You are transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity. When it gets tough, you back off claiming we can´t understand him, because he is God. In reality it is you who are closing your eyes, in fact lying, by trying not no see the common knowledge, science and history showing that your god does not exist. Your God does not exist. You just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever. It is you, not your nonexistant God. The evil is in you and you are the evil.
Phew.. long post. I gotta get some sleep. And I need a beer.
Yes Finn, much too long for me to bother with answering after your total misrepresentation of what I said.

You asked,
Quote
Are you a fan of slaughtering women and children?)
I answered,
Quote
No
You then stated,
Quote
You are transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity.
You then went on to say,
Quote
When it gets tough, you back off claiming we can´t understand him, because he is God.
This was in response to my plain statement,
Quote
The Bible claims that God created the universe and bestows life......you understand that God owns you and may take your life whenever He desires without apology.
Your quote,
Quote
You just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever. It is you, not your nonexistant God. The evil is in you and you are the evil.
Phew.. long post. I gotta get some sleep. And I need a beer.
Sounds to me like you've had a few already. I really hope no harm comes to you Finn. Goodbye.

Offline ungod

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 580
  • Darwins +15/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #99 on: October 25, 2011, 05:52:35 AM »
Yes Finn, much too long for me to bother with answering

Which chapter of "How to Win the Debate Through Evasion" did you learn that from?

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #100 on: October 25, 2011, 09:06:19 AM »
Yes Finn, much too long for me to bother with answering

Which chapter of "How to Win the Debate Through Evasion" did you learn that from?

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
The chapter after " How some atheists will falsely accuse you of transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity to  just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever."
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 09:08:23 AM by whatchamean? »

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #101 on: October 25, 2011, 12:00:40 PM »
whatchamean?:

"Wikipedia" is considered to be as or more reliable than, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. Better I think, because it is constanly been updated and corrected by many people. unlike the eminent huge paper-dictionarys or thesauruses where the articles are mostly written by one person, typically some out-of-date emeritus professor, and the articles stay unchanged for decades, But I sure don´t take Wiki articles as God's Word. And there are lots of other sources.

So you think Wikipedia is "biased" against the Bible? Boo hoo!
Then it is "anti-Quran" or "anti-Ilias". "anti-Mahabbarata" or "anti-Kalevala" at the very same level.
There is no reason for science to take your particular religion any more seriously than them.
There could be a person who believes the Arthurian legend, and is deeply offended by the historians "hating" it when they analyze it through other evidence :D

However, as I said, that wikipedia article is just about that one book. And so has to describe that book. I chose to show that link because the article is the most comprehensive description of what science thinks of the OT historicy I could find on the net. And I already said that to my knowledge (from other sources) there is dispute could Solomon's kingdom have been more significant than the writers of "The Bible Unearthed" think. However not even the others do think it was a superpower as in the Bible.

You criticize the Hezekiah part That was long after David and Solomon. I have read from other sources, that about from that time in the Kings the storyline is starting to close actual history. At least the persons there can be confirmed to have been real. More historical and less mythical stories.

But not always.
You deliberately try the miss the point why the article presents the Taylor Prism.

"2 Kings 19
 35 That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies! 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there.

 37 One day, while he was worshiping in the temple of his god Nisrok, his sons Adrammelek and Sharezer killed him with the sword, and they escaped to the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son succeeded him as king."

THAT "minor detail" is not in the Taylor Prism. So the differences are a little bit bigger than arguing the amount of silver paid in ransom! Of course the writers know the Bible. But I agree with you that the Bible does not state that Sennacherib got killed immediatelly.

Very typical for a biblical apologist like you is to take one detail and ignore the rest.
My main point was that no one has found evidence about the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan. The evidence supports totally different history. Some of it is yet hypotetical, but so is all history research. Never so certain as in school books.
However, like we can almost certainly say, that evidence does not support the wanderings of Israel's lost tribe in America as told in the book of Mormon, with that same level of certainty we can say that those stories in the Bible are not true. Since the information of Biblegods actions is based on those stories, which are not true, then sorry, Biblegod does not exist more than the Mormon angel Moroni.

And there is more than history. I don't know if you have lived under some rock in some place like Hicksville Alabama (my apologies to the place if the proverbial Hicksville exists) with biblethumping rednecks. if you are not aware that astronomy, geology, biology and antropology don't support the stories of biblegod's actions either. I don't know if you are a creationist. My apologies if you are not. But if you are, it takes huge effort from you to ignore that evidence and instéad rely on the pathetic pseudoscience of your cult. Closing your eyes like that from already common knowledge would be close to lying.

Yes Finn, much too long for me to bother with answering

Which chapter of "How to Win the Debate Through Evasion" did you learn that from?

 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
The chapter after " How some atheists will falsely accuse you of transferring you own moral or rather inmoral wishes and sick fantasies to your ancient tribal deity to  just play excuses for your own desire for brutality and violence and maybe even other people burning in Hell forever."
Sure, be free to feel insulted.
I really think that fundamentalist Christianity is an evil and sick cult based on lies. And if one does not feel uncomfortable with it, he is seriously lacking morally. Even more so because I have never met a Christian or other fundamentalis who doesn't resort to closing their eyes or lying. By lying they prove that they don't really even believe, it is only a game to them. Which is very perverse. I may sound "biblical" :D here but Ì'm out of explanations other than deliberate human evil. But maybe then I respect them too much, maybe they are just plain stupid.

End of discussion from me too. This is too time-consuming and as always with Christians, frustrating.
But maybe someone with a larger knowledge in biblical history than me can take over?

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Question
« Reply #102 on: October 25, 2011, 01:05:24 PM »
I finally looked at the archaeology evidence which you said disproves the Bible and it's so predjudiced I don't even know where to begin. It is so obvious the Wikipedia site is biased against the Bible it almost borders on hate. The way they only enlist people who support the notion that the Bible is unreliable is ridiculous. I would never use that site as a source of credibility.

I do worry about what Christians like you would do if they really did encounter hate, and not a wiki page that dared disagree with them.  When you declare anyone showing your myths as false as "hating" you, it does make it look like you are one more Christian crying wolf. 

The bible makes various claims which should be supported by archaeology and they aren't.   We should see archaeological evidence of the exodus and the various plagues.  We don't.  We should see evidence of a global flood in the geologic record. We don't.  We should see evidence of a earthquake around 1 AD in the area of Jerusalem.  We don't.  We *shouldn't* see anything left from the city of Tyre.  But, the city's still there, being continually occupied for thousands of years and we find the relic bits underneath the new, even though God said he destroyed it and we'd never be able to find it ever ever again. &)  We find nothing of this extra special temple that Solomon built or the supposedly huge palaces of him and David.   

It's amusing.  Christians can't even figure out where their supposed "savior" was buried with two competeing sites in Israel and more around the world.  How could you guys forget that, the most important part of your story?  Where was the cross put up?  Heck the Jews lost a supposed magic gold box.   Funny how things just slip your minds.  ;D 

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #103 on: October 25, 2011, 04:48:16 PM »
Velkyn,

According to the Catholics, they did hang on to the magic foreskin of Jesus for many years, losing it conveniently just before DNA analysis was discovered. What a sad coincidence..

Whatcha say to that whatchamean?? Do you believe it or not? Are there really that many lying christians?
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #104 on: October 26, 2011, 05:16:19 PM »
I had a christian tell me once that it was easily possible to fit 40 million+ animals and bugs into the ark and not kill off freshwater and saltwater creatures that had to mix in the world wide flood. I "think" he said it was all magical, but none of this can be verified so it should not be brought into a debate.
Thank you for informing me about what should not be brought into a debate. I guess since your belief that God doesn't exist can't be verified, we may include God in a debate. I'll get back to you.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Question
« Reply #105 on: October 26, 2011, 06:54:04 PM »
I had a christian tell me once that it was easily possible to fit 40 million+ animals and bugs into the ark and not kill off freshwater and saltwater creatures that had to mix in the world wide flood. I "think" he said it was all magical, but none of this can be verified so it should not be brought into a debate.
Thank you for informing me about what should not be brought into a debate. I guess since your belief that God doesn't exist can't be verified, we may include God in a debate. I'll get back to you.

Nice try, but it's not a belief that God doesn't exist.  It's a fact.  If we admit that there is a possibility that there is a god, then you must also admit that there is a possibility that there is not a god.  But given those two possibilities, it is beyond abundantly clear, that there is simply no god in existence.  There is not even a coherent imagined god in existence.  No god ever posited, has ever been real, by simple observation.

The belief comes from the theist making the assertion that there is a real god, which has fallen flat on it's face for...freaking ever.  Saying there is a god, and it is real, is exactly the same as saying there is a Santa Claus, and he is real.  Pointless, not even coherent, completely useless, and demonstrably non existent. 

I realize that I am breaking the rules of logic, but I figured it's perfectly acceptable to do so, when the entirety of something as stupid as "Christianity", depends completely on the stunningly stupid and ridiculous claim that some ancient person was crucified, and then came back to life.  Unbelievable nonsense, and expected to be taken seriously by modern, supposedly educated people.

The Christians need to step down off of their pathetic and arrogant high horses, and admit that they don't know what the hell they're talking about when they claim to have knowledge of something so incredibly magical and supernatural, that supposedly left it's instructions in the form of oral tradition, by small groups of ignorant humans who had no idea they were circling the sun, on a lonely planet among the billions of galaxies across an actual universe. 

It's absolutely amazing to read the crap you write here.  And you're claiming to be highly educated and informed in these areas?

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #106 on: October 26, 2011, 06:54:54 PM »
"Wikipedia" is considered to be as or more reliable than, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. Better I think, because it is constanly been updated and corrected by many people.

Is the Bible *better* because it is constantly being updated and corrected by many people too?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #107 on: October 26, 2011, 07:43:46 PM »
"Wikipedia" is considered to be as or more reliable than, say, Encyclopedia Britannica. Better I think, because it is constanly been updated and corrected by many people.

Is the Bible *better* because it is constantly being updated and corrected by many people too?

Whaddya mean, jay?  who is updating and correcting any bibles?
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #108 on: October 27, 2011, 10:48:40 AM »
Whaddya mean, jay?  who is updating and correcting any bibles?

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/06/134307769/U-S-Catholic-Church-Rolls-Out-New-Bible-Translation

http://conservapedia.com/Bible_Retranslation_Project

http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-NewBibleTranslationProjectUnderWay.html

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Living-Translation-NLT-Bible/

Then there was of coarse the KJV, NIV, Gideons etc.

And here Velkyn highlights the Bible Project which is several people collaborating together to provide a more perfect work.

So you see, the Bible has constantly been "improved" upon and "corrected" over the centuries and is still a work in progress.

So, I was asking Mr. Finntroll, since he was praising Wikipedia, if the same standard for praise should be applied to the Bible as well, since there are similarities in how they are created and maintained. Because, as you know, there are some members on this forum[1] who take Wikipedia with a grain of salt when it is cited as a reference.


Edited for a couple of unnecessary words  :P
 1. Myself included
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 10:58:51 AM by jaybwell32 »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Darwins +645/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Question
« Reply #109 on: October 27, 2011, 10:59:09 AM »
But that is not the same way an encyclopedia is corrected.  That is just a new translation.  Nothing is really changed. The facts are not updated.

With the encyclopedias, they get actually new information.  If the bible were corrected in the same way, there would be scant little left.  there would be nothing about women not speaking in church, there would be nothing left of genesis, leviticus, exodus, etc.

If you don't completely trust wikipedia, that's fine.  But you should be able to construct a better reason than by trying to link it in some way to the bible.  That is just an emotional plea.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #110 on: October 27, 2011, 11:08:40 AM »
But that is not the same way an encyclopedia is corrected.  That is just a new translation.  Nothing is really changed. The facts are not updated.

With the encyclopedias, they get actually new information.  If the bible were corrected in the same way, there would be scant little left.  there would be nothing about women not speaking in church, there would be nothing left of genesis, leviticus, exodus, etc.

If you don't completely trust wikipedia, that's fine.  But you should be able to construct a better reason than by trying to link it in some way to the bible.  That is just an emotional plea.

All I'm saying is that the *process*[1] is the same. The information provided and the spirit in which things are edited may not. And not to be too pedantic I wasn't talking about encyclopedias, just Wikipedia.
 1. Different people at different times reviewing what has been written and making changes as necessary to fit more closely to current understanding
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Finntroll

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Darwins +1/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #111 on: October 27, 2011, 11:24:11 AM »
So, I was asking Mr. Finntroll, since he was praising Wikipedia, if the same standard for praise should be applied to the Bible as well, since there are similarities in how they are created and maintained. Because, as you know, there are some members on this forum[1] who take Wikipedia with a grain of salt when it is cited as a reference.
 1. Myself included
I agree with Screwtape  on the difference of encyclopedias and the Bible above.
Weird that I´m  suspected for taking Wiki articles as "THE truth" or something. I'm an university-trained albeit non-practicing historian you know. Majored in General World History. And there no text is really trusted.

There are lots of information in the Web. Wikipedia is just a nice, relatively new thing that makes finding stuff faster. And usually it provides several views of any subject, with links. Easier than combing trough hundreds of individual web sites. Which are great too, but usually present just on point of view and less data than a Wiki article.

Sometímes Wikipedia provides myth-busting too. Like today I read Wiki-articles of two jet fighters (I´m a warplane nerd) , and found that their capabilitiés might be greatly exaggerated in typical books and sites written by  fighter plane fans. But sure, Wiki might get that wrong


Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2629
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Question
« Reply #112 on: October 27, 2011, 11:36:56 AM »
Weird that I´m  suspected for taking Wiki articles as "THE truth" or something.

I do realize that in making my point about your praise of the process of review and editing, in regards to Wikipedia, that I implied that you take Wiki as "THE truth". My apologies. It was an unfortunate side effect to get my question across about the similarities in the editing process between how you described Wiki articles and how the Bible is revised.

Am I to conclude from the rest of your answer that you do not give similar praise to how the Bible is revised and edited even though it is similar to the process of how Wiki articles are revised and edited? Or would you rather restate your admiration for the process entirely? Or would you just rather redact your praise for Wikipedia in general?


I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #113 on: October 27, 2011, 06:18:14 PM »
I had a christian tell me once that it was easily possible to fit 40 million+ animals and bugs into the ark and not kill off freshwater and saltwater creatures that had to mix in the world wide flood. I "think" he said it was all magical, but none of this can be verified so it should not be brought into a debate.
Well Klonk,
It seems Noah brought pairs of organisms on board the ark. It is obvious from the text that "kind" means from the same ancestral genetic pool. How many kinds were there? Nobody knows. Science does not know how many animal, bird or insect species there are currently living on our planet, but they estimate there are currently 2-30 million animal, 10 thousand bird an1-30 million insect,  so
maybe Noah had thousands of kinds. Nobody really knows.

Salt and fresh water fish? All kinds of plausible pro and con theorys swimming around out there. Pick your own agenda.

Offline whatchamean?

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Darwins +2/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Question
« Reply #114 on: October 27, 2011, 07:21:08 PM »
Nice try, but it's not a belief that God doesn't exist.  It's a fact.
That's the funniest thing I've ever heard an atheist say.  :laugh:

If we admit that there is a possibility that there is a god, then you must also admit that there is a possibility that there is not a god.
But given those two possibilities, it is beyond abundantly clear, that there is simply no god in existence.  There is not even a coherent imagined god in existence.  No god ever posited, has ever been real, by simple observation.
Your observation?

The belief comes from the theist making the assertion that there is a real god, which has fallen flat on it's face for...freaking ever
The belief comes from taking God at His word and then growing in His knowledge, something you've never tried....right?

Saying there is a god, and it is real, is exactly the same as saying there is a Santa Claus, and he is real.  Pointless, not even coherent, completely useless, and demonstrably non existent.
At the very least, comparing a real person like Jesus to Santa Claus is demented.

I realize that I am breaking the rules of logic, but I figured it's perfectly acceptable to do so, when the entirety of something as stupid as "Christianity", depends completely on the stunningly stupid and ridiculous claim that some ancient person was crucified, and then came back to life.  Unbelievable nonsense, and expected to be taken seriously by modern, supposedly educated people.
You mean, a) modern, educated people who believe life arose spontaneously from nonlife as opposed to b) backward, uneducated people who believe life arose from a Being greater than man? Hmmm, let me think......yep, I still choose b.

The Christians need to step down off of their pathetic and arrogant high horses, and admit that they don't know what the hell they're talking about when they claim to have knowledge of something so incredibly magical and supernatural, that supposedly left it's instructions in the form of oral tradition, by small groups of ignorant humans who had no idea they were circling the sun, on a lonely planet among the billions of galaxies across an actual universe.
You can hang on to that false argument if you want, but Christians are neither pathetic,  arrogant or on a high horse. We understand we're sinners and know we're not better than others.


It's absolutely amazing to read the crap you write here.  And you're claiming to be highly educated and informed in these areas?
It's even more amazing that that I used to write the crap you write here. You want an education Jetson? Lose your education.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2011, 07:23:08 PM by whatchamean? »

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Question
« Reply #115 on: October 27, 2011, 07:41:53 PM »
Watcha, you can spout all of the blathering nonsense you want to, but you are just one more in a line of millions before you who claim there is a real god, yet have nothing to show it to be true except personal belief.  And your perfectly lame assumptions about science speak volumes about your actual ignorance of science...too bad.

As I have said to others before you, if there was a god, there would be no atheists.  It really is that simple.  There may be some fringe lunatics, like flat-earthers, who upon seeing a god would find a way to deny it, but they would remain just that, fringe lunatics.

Tell me something, and be as serious as you can with your reply.  Where is your god, and why can't I know him to exist?