THE BIBLE

[The_Doc_Man]

A very good point, Eugene. History is written by those who prevailed. What would the history of Israel look like if the Amalekites had won?

 

[Cronk]

we can simply go back to the original text in the original languages they were written and see for ourselves.

But what about before the texts were written? And before science, incomprehensible things like natural events of flood and drought would be explained by supernatural forces such as god or gods or whatever whatever tribe/culture decided.

 

[conception_native_0123]

somehow I knew this discussion was going to rear its ugly head. and I'll stay out of it to make richard happy.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

To be honest, Adam, in the Watercooler you can be yourself. SOMETIMES your tech support savvy is a touch light, but here in the Watercooler, I know your feelings - and you know mine.

Talking about the Bible and going back to the original texts anyway... the Council of Nicea that "blessed" the Bible by choosing which books were legit and which were not TOTALLY voided any further claims to divinity. Unless God came down and lit up a burning bush for them and said, "These books are good, these other books are crap" (shades of Moses and the commandments), there was no legitimacy to any part of that process. And from the notes they left of their deliberations, all they did was pray over their choices and then make them anyway.

 

[Mike Krailo]

That L Ron Hubbard guy decided to write his stuff down on engraved metal plates. Just because it might be found sometime in the future does not define or redefine history. It might preserve his crazy religion though.

Some parts of history are better buried or destroyed so no one rediscovers the truth like maybe Atlantis. We have nuclear bombs but what they supposedly had destroyed their entire civilization. But maybe this is just all a made up story of no consequence.

A new movie just came out called The Adam Project on Netflix which deals with the eventual discovery of time travel and manipulation of worm holes. The whole plot was going back to the time prior to it's discovery and destroying that knowledge so it would never be discovered. Just watched that last night.

Christianity was written on the hearts of men and they wrote letters and accounts of what they witnessed to each other. It spread all over the world as they were commissioned to do so. Quibbling over perceived differences or anomalies doesn't change the overriding commission of Christians and the effect of such faith in the after life.

 

[conception_native_0123]

SOMETIMES your tech support savvy is a touch light

thanks for the compliment richard.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

And before science

Our current Society is science-based. Occasionally we have a major advance in science, often brought about by some genius or other. The notable ones being Newtown, Hawking, Archimedes, Einstein etc...
Before science became the predominant occupation of geniuses, the geniuses of 1000 2000 10,000 years ago would have applied there genius to the popular topics of the time, which would have been religion, botany, weapons of Weapons and the like.

Take religion in particular, there must have been several genius calibre people over the millennia that gathered together the general knowledge of the current and previous cultures. I wouldn't discount the Bible too readily.

I believe that's the view Dr Jordan Peterson takes of the Bible, and I don't think he's far wrong.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Or at least they BELIEVED that He was there.

It is obvious that we developed from an animal that could not speak.

There is one theory that as our minds developed words and concepts and early humans spoke them my inside their heads, they believe them to come from somewhere else like a God. Indeed there are people around that sometimes confuse The Voice in the head with an external being....

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Doc, that's fine. It is also a fact well known how critical the moons placement is in our orbit around earth. A hair closer or further away and we wouldn't be here in the watercooler.

I'll address that one. Everyone on the "religion" side of the argument says the world was made for us. Nobody wants to consider that (as usual for Man) we arrogantly got it backwards AGAIN. The world was not made for us. We evolved to fit the world that we had. Everyone says the world was made perfect for us. But that idea puts the cart before the horse. We evolved perfectly for our environment... but the environment came first! As Earth changed over eons, life changed. Something like 65 million years ago, a really big meteor changed the environment and the thunder lizards died out, leaving mammals to evolve and to eventually dominate the planet.

Man is ALWAYS the egocentric putz. He ALWAYS thinks "its all about ME, ME, ME." Let's look at that.

Man comes up with the idea that a god has created Man in his (the god's) own image. So... in other words, this god can't think past HIS own form? Not much of a thinker to be unable to come up with something original, eh? Or MAYBE it is that Man has created the image of this god in Man's own image - out of sheer arrogance.

Man comes up with religions in which some group of Mankind represents "the chosen people." Until other groups come up with the same idea for THEIR group, leading to religious conflict over which group is ACTUALLY chosen, when the correct answer might very well be NONE.

Man arrogantly decides that the sun, moon, and stars all revolve around the Earth, which is OBVIOUSLY the center of the universe - until some philosophers come along and discredit the idea, and then a scientist or two comes along and PROVES it wrong.

Man claims to have been created (from a pile of dust), a perfect creation by fiat - until someone finally understands evolution and demonstrates our true path.

I could go on - but don't need to. It all comes down to Man being unable to think outside of his own box even though it actually has no sides. We can SEE outside the box - but apparently don't want to.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

That L Ron Hubbard guy decided to write his stuff down on engraved metal plates. Just because it might be found sometime in the future does not define or redefine history. It might preserve his crazy religion though.

Some parts of history are better buried or destroyed so no one rediscovers the truth like maybe Atlantis. We have nuclear bombs but what they supposedly had destroyed their entire civilization. But maybe this is just all a made up story of no consequence.

A new movie just came out called The Adam Project on Netflix which deals with the eventual discovery of time travel and manipulation of worm holes. The whole plot was going back to the time prior to it's discovery and destroying that knowledge so it would never be discovered. Just watched that last night.

Christianity was written on the hearts of men and they wrote letters and accounts of what they witnessed to each other. It spread all over the world as they were commissioned to do so. Quibbling over perceived differences or anomalies doesn't change the overriding commission of Christians and the effect of such faith in the after life.

L. Ron wrote stuff on metal plates.
Moses wrote stuff on stone tablets.
Christianity says their work was written on the hearts of men.

ALL of them wrote what was in their minds. And as to "overriding commission to spread the word" - that is the true mission of every zealot in history. Even the zealots of L. Ron's crazy little group of Scientologists. How do we tell the difference? How do we know that person X has a true commission and person Y is a nutjob?

When it is the difference between Scientology and some Judeo-Christian religion, we know that L. Ron Hubbard was a hack science-fiction writer, a huckster, and a shyster who founded Scientology to get a religious tax exemption. He was still alive in my lifetime and his eccentricities were well known - also in his lifetime. What he wrote about the "Thetans" and all of that "alien beings as the origin of life" stuff is clearly nutjob material. There, it is an easy decision.

When it becomes a matter of one person wrote one book of the Bible and someone else wrote another book... and both of them are LONG dead - how do we tell the difference?

 

[Isaac]

Is the Bible Unique?
Is it fundamentally different from other literature?
The Bible is unique in composition. It is composed of 66 books written over a 1600-year span by 40 different authors, from 40 different generations, from numerous walks of life, in various moods, in different literary forms, on 3 different continents, in 3 different languages; yet as a whole, the Bible has remarkable continuity and unity on a myriad of subjects. How does one explain this?

The Bible is unique in circulation. It has sold billions of copies more than any other book. It has been a best seller for 200 years.

The Bible is unique in translation. It is more translated than any other book in history. It has been translated into over 2,400 languages. It has been translated into every national language in the world except the Maldives (an island off of India where most of the inhabitants speak English).

The Bible is unique in durability. It has survived burnings, bans, and critics. It cannot be destroyed.

The Bible is unique in its impact on lives. People all over the world live and die claiming it has transformed their lives, values, and relationships. People read it over and over claiming they are changed with each reading. (Other books are read and discarded). Millions of people all over the world will meet this week in groups to study the Bible and long to do so again next week. After examining these facts about the Bible, what is the reasonable explanation that the Bible is so unique? (Hint: Anointed Word of God)

Is the Bible Accurate?
Historical accuracy. The Bible passes all the tests of historical accuracy. Whenever archaeology contends there are contradictions between the Biblical record and science, archaeological discoveries always support the Biblical record. There are countless examples of science proving the Bible as historically accurate. Here are a couple of examples:

Manuscript evidence. When you go to college and read Aristotle and Plato, no one ever questions the accuracy of the message or the validity of the manuscripts. The manuscripts are taken at face value for accuracy. They have had a huge influence on Western thought. The number of manuscripts we have for both philosophers- less than 10. The number of manuscript copies that are preserved for the Bible- 14,000. The Bible is by far the best documented ancient manuscript ever. There are 184,590 words in the New Testament and only 400 words are on the disputable list. None of those words affect the meaning of any text. Each scribe would read each word and it would be copied and checked by another scribe to assure accuracy. The Bible is incredibly accurate.

Miracles. We believe that our God is the eternal, all powerful God who can do anything He desires including miracles. The Bible was written by God and is about God. When written, every event was a contemporary event with public eyewitnesses. If any recorded event did not actually happen or was inaccurately recorded, there would have been a public outcry by society. They would have demanded retractions, corrections, and restatement of fact. Every miracle was in fact recorded as accurate with no public outcry, and many of the miracles were corroborated by secular historians of the day.

The Bible refers to the Hittites. Historians claimed the Bible was not accurate because there was no mention of the Hittites in secular annals. Archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital and 40 other major cities. It always happens this way. People say the bible isn't accurate because of such-and-such, then they get proven wrong...in time.

Daniel 5 refers to Belshazzar as the King of Babylon. Historical documents said Nabinitus was King. Archaeologists discovered 3 stones that said when Nabinitus went to war; he named his son Belshazzar to be King in his absence.

The Jewish archaeological expert Nelson Gluck states, “It may be categorically stated that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.”

Human nature. The Bible is painfully accurate in what it says about me. It speaks accurately about the root issues in my life, relationships, values, motives, ethics, behaviors, and fears. It speaks truth about sin, forgiveness, pain, heaven, hell, eternity, reality, consequences, and righteousness. Why is it important for us to know the extent that the early writers and scribes took to ensure the Bible’s accuracy?

Is the Bible Inspired?
Here are three verses that record what the Bible says about itself- 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21; Hebrews 4:12. The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God. But is there any evidence?

The proof is in prophecy. There are 332 references to the coming Messiah in the Old Testament, 61 of which Jesus directly fulfilled. Could this be coincidence? Maybe once but not 332 or even 61 times. These are prophecies written hundreds of years before Jesus was born; prophecies about His lineage, where He was born, His ministry, His death and resurrection. The prophecies were very specific and were fulfilled in specific detail. Peter Stoner took the mathematical probabilities and applied them to fulfilled prophecy. The odds of only 8 of the prophecies being fulfilled is 1x1017 or 1x100 quadrillion.
100,000,000,000,000,000. If you double the fulfilled prophecies to 16, the probability grows to 1x1045.

Jesus claimed the Bible was the inspired Word of God. He was known as a man of integrity (not a liar). No one challenged Him or refuted His claim. The evidence points to the fact that the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God. We have faith in the Word based on both reason and evidence. If we were to toss the Bible, what is plan B? Where would we go for truth? I have never regretted following this book. My only regrets in life stem from times I did not follow this book

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The Bible fails at least one test of historical accuracy in that Israeli archaeologists, who have a vested interest in being found as the "chosen people", could not find any validation to the presence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt.

The Bible fails again in that there is no evidence of the flood in the context as described. A flood high enough to overtop mountains would leave some very hard evidence of its passage. However, for one simple example: When Australia was discovered, it was populated by large numbers of animals of various species, some of which are not seen anywhere else in the world in life or as fossils. The physics of water behavior (fluid dynamics) would say that Australia would have been totally depopulated by that flood. But it wasn't.

A book that deals in self-prophecy is always right. You might as well compare Harry Potter's prophecies that suggest that between him and Voldemort, only one of them could survive - which actually happened in one of the later books. You simply CANNOT make a claim on the Bible's accurate prophecies if they are self-described. You can only make claims of accuracy prophecies by demonstrating externally corroborated prophecies, which the Bible doesn't have. Historically, you CANNOT prove that Jesus existed because there are NO contemporary secular discussions of Him or the multitudes that came to the sermons.

It ALWAYS comes back to belief. If you believe in God then you believe in the Bible. If you don't believe in God, the Bible is just a compendium of fables and myths. All of the Bible's self-referential claims and comments fall apart if you don't believe in God. ALL of them.

I actually don't care what you believe. I absolutely defend your right to believe what you wish to believe. Just remember that when you make claims out in the open, they ARE subject to review and refutation. So if you are going to make a claim, do so in full awareness that your ego might get bruised.

 

[conception_native_0123]

if you are going to make a claim, do so in full awareness that your ego might get bruised.

I never had my ego bruised, but many other things bruised, YES. and by many here.

 

[conception_native_0123]

There are 332 references to the coming Messiah in the Old Testament, 61 of which Jesus directly fulfilled.

I would like a list of those 61, Isaac.

 

[Mike Krailo]

I actually don't care what you believe. I absolutely defend your right to believe what you wish to believe. Just remember that when you make claims out in the open, they ARE subject to review and refutation. So if you are going to make a claim, do so in full awareness that your ego might get bruised.

I will defer you to God on that one, you can argue all you want with God. The nice thing is that you are not forced to believe, if you want to go it alone, you will get your wish and be completely separated from God. Nothing would make the snake happier.

 

[Isaac]

The Bible fails at least one test of historical accuracy in that Israeli archaeologists, who have a vested interest in being found as the "chosen people", could not find any validation to the presence of Hebrew slaves in Egypt.

The Bible fails again in that there is no evidence of the flood in the context as described. A flood high enough to overtop mountains would leave some very hard evidence of its passage. However, for one simple example: When Australia was discovered, it was populated by large numbers of animals of various species, some of which are not seen anywhere else in the world in life or as fossils. The physics of water behavior (fluid dynamics) would say that Australia would have been totally depopulated by that flood. But it wasn't.

A book that deals in self-prophecy is always right. You might as well compare Harry Potter's prophecies that suggest that between him and Voldemort, only one of them could survive - which actually happened in one of the later books. You simply CANNOT make a claim on the Bible's accurate prophecies if they are self-described. You can only make claims of accuracy prophecies by demonstrating externally corroborated prophecies, which the Bible doesn't have. Historically, you CANNOT prove that Jesus existed because there are NO contemporary secular discussions of Him or the multitudes that came to the sermons.

It ALWAYS comes back to belief. If you believe in God then you believe in the Bible. If you don't believe in God, the Bible is just a compendium of fables and myths. All of the Bible's self-referential claims and comments fall apart if you don't believe in God. ALL of them.

I actually don't care what you believe. I absolutely defend your right to believe what you wish to believe. Just remember that when you make claims out in the open, they ARE subject to review and refutation. So if you are going to make a claim, do so in full awareness that your ego might get bruised.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that you (You) decide what is secular vs what is "itself".

If I begin a religion that is anchored on a given historical writing, is that writing all of a sudden "non secular" and "self fulfilling" and thus completely outside the province of evidentiary material?

This is the essence of your argument, and I'd say it's totally wrong.

I also defend your right to believe that, Because all books of the bible are considered by Christians to be significant, they then therefore become outside the bounds of history.

I just think your position requires a lot more faith than mine.
There's actually a lot of evidence for the flood, but i haven't time to go cite it all now.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in "the snake" either. So that comeback is good for you, but meaningless for me. Not trying to be disrespectful, but pointing out that you don't understand the implications of my position if you make that kind of comment.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I also defend your right to believe that, Because all books of the bible are considered by Christians to be significant, they then therefore become outside the bounds of history.

The books can be inside or outside history as you wish. However, if the events they describe cannot be corroborated then there is a problem in that you have an unsupported allegation and someone wants to base their actions on this unsupported allegation. AND they want you to base your own actions on their belief in an unsupported allegation. You can do as you choose - it is your life. However, do not expect me to act consistently with something in which I do not believe.

AND let me add that the Bible has some very good advice in it. My disbelief is limited to the "divinity" aspects of the Bible. As a behavioral guideline, lots of it make perfect sense. As a worship guideline? There, we part ways.

 

[conception_native_0123]

As a behavioral guideline, lots of it make perfect sense.

I've been telling people that for years. If you don't believe in God, then at least believe in THAT!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Something on which we agree, Adam. As a Judeo-Christian culture guide, it has its merits.