Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Symmetry]

There's no reply to that

[notyou2]

*waves at Jay*

[jay_a2j]

That's quite a caveat you've got at the end there. You mean that it can be shown to be in error, in particular? But somehow not in the end?

Quite the non-response you have there...

Look- if the caveat is "it's all right, no matter how wrong at the end". That's a caveat that erases all wrongs,

Who said it was wrong at the end? I said, it can not be proven to be in error in it's ENTIRETY. That means, from first page to last page.... error-less.

[jay_a2j]

*waves at Jay*

*waves back to notyou2*

[GoranZ]

Logic dictates that there is a God!

Can someone move this to The Trash Can, where it actually belongs.

Razorvich?

[Dukasaur]

That's quite a caveat you've got at the end there. You mean that it can be shown to be in error, in particular? But somehow not in the end?

Quite the non-response you have there...

Look- if the caveat is "it's all right, no matter how wrong at the end". That's a caveat that erases all wrongs,

Who said it was wrong at the end? I said, it can not be proven to be in error in it's ENTIRETY. That means, from first page to last page.... error-less.

It's wrong at the beginning, it's wrong at the end, it's wrong pretty much every step along the way.

Beginning: Genesis. Complete bullshit. You know, normally I try to soft-pedal it, but I'm not in a good mood right now so I'll just give it to you undiluted. Genesis is horseshit and lies from start to finish. The earth was not created in seven days. The earth was not created before the light. There was light from quadrillions of stars nine billion years before the earth was formed. Both creation stories in Genesis are bullshit, but the funny part is that they don't even agree with each other. The story told in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is different from the story told in Genesis 2:4, so even if one or the other had been true, they couldn't both be. Moving on, there's no evidence for a woldwide flood. There's lots of evidence for lots of different floods that happened in many different times in many different places, and liars and bullshitters point at all these different floods and try to somehow weave them into one, but the fact is they all happened in different places at different times and are completely unrelated events. Furthermore, if somebody had tried to repopulate all the world's animals from only one pair of each, they would all be hopelessly inbred, and the beautiful diversity of life that we see around us would degenerated into some kind of factory farm. There's no evidence that there were ever people who lived to be 600 years old or 800 years old. For that matter, were Noah's grandsons fucking each other's first cousins after that first generation?

End: Revelation. No such event has happened. I think it's astronomically unlikely that it WILL ever happen, but you can't prove a negative, so you can bury your head in the sand and dream that one day it will. I don't know why you would -- it sounds like a pretty awful time -- but to each his own. So go ahead and dream about it.

In the middle: tons of horseshit upon horseshit upon horseshit. Just to grab an example at random:

Luke 2:1. The bizarre idea that a Roman census forced people to go back to their place of birth to be counted for a census. Nevermind that no record exists of this census. The very concept is ridiculous. No ruler would force a mass migration of people just to count them. It's ridiculous, it's stupid, it's asinine. When a census is taken, in ancient times as in modern, people are counted right where they stand. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone tried to shuffle people around in the middle of a census? It's a difficult process and prone to much error to begin with; can you imagine trying to do it in the middle of a forced mass migration?

But by far the most egregious lie in the Bible is the role reversal of Solomon and Ahab. The Bible paints Solomon as wise and rich beyond your wildest dreams. But we've excavated Solomon's palace, and it was a mean hovel by royal standards. No evidence of wealth whatsoever. Just mean, low-quality earthenware jugs. Ahab, on the other hand, was one of the greatest heroes in Jewish history. By marrying Jezebel, he forged an alliance with the powerful merchant kings of Tyre, and with that alliance he pushed back the mighty Assyrian empire and brought relative freedom to Palestine for the first time in hundreds of years. But the parasitical cult of Jehovah couldn't just admire a man who saved their nation. Because he gave support to the rival cult of Baal, they painted him a bad guy and spread all kinds of disgusting and evil stories about him. So Solomon, a pathetic loser, was painted as a great and wealthy king who brought stability to Isreal, while Ahab, a great and wealthy king who brought stability to Israel, is character-assassinated and painted as a pathetic loser.

Sometimes I'm in a generous mood and I try to defend the Bible, because sure enough it contains beautiful poetry like Ecclesiastes and a considerable amount of wisdom. But bottom line, finding a diamond ring in a dung heap doesn't change the fact that it's a dung heap. The Bible is overwhelmingly comprised of horseshit, with the occasional diamond along the way.

Lest someone thinks I'm picking on Christians, let me be frank: Judaism is a pile of horseshit also. Islam is a pile of horseshit also. Buddhism is a pile of horseshit also. Hinduism is a pile of horseshit also. There are no fairies in the sky ruling our destiny. Our destiny is here, on earth, and we can either make a go of it and reach out and seize the heavens, or grovel in the dirt and cling to the fantasy that heaven is coming to us.

[tzor]

That's possibly the strangest necrobump in recent memory.

by BigBallinStalin on Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:54 pm
by jay_a2j on Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:37 pm

Sorry it took a minute to respond.... The Bible proves itself to be the Word of God.

That has got to be the strangest definition of "a minute" in all of internet history.

[Symmetry]

That's quite a caveat you've got at the end there. You mean that it can be shown to be in error, in particular? But somehow not in the end?

Quite the non-response you have there...

Look- if the caveat is "it's all right, no matter how wrong at the end". That's a caveat that erases all wrongs,

Who said it was wrong at the end? I said, it can not be proven to be in error in it's ENTIRETY. That means, from first page to last page.... error-less.

Out of interest, which Bible?

[tzor]

Beginning: Genesis. Complete bullshit. You know, normally I try to soft-pedal it, but I'm not in a good mood right now so I'll just give it to you undiluted.

NO really, tell us what you really think.

There are three problems with the first chapter of Genesis.

The first problem is the structure of the chapter. Most people assume it is linear but it appears hierarchical. One could argue that is is hierarchical and non temporal.

God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word. In the literary structure of six days, the creation events in the first three days are related to those in the second three.

The second is that the "zero point" isn't as obvious as it appears. It doesn't help that people have fucked up the first line of the story.

Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.

So strike out the "In the Beginning" and start with "When" and things get interesting. Large oceans and no continent formations. Probably the conditions of the planet 4 billion years ago? We get a hint of the time when the creation of the firmament is mentioned. Ironically the earth's magnetosphere activated 3.5 billion years ago (the Archean Eon). By the way continent formation started 2.5 billion years ago (the Proterozoic Eon). Ironically the Bible has it backwards, initially the land was formed into a single unit (Rodnia), not the seas. Note that this information is as useful as the notion that Lincoln's assistant was Kennedy and Kennedy's assistant was Lincoln.

Finally we get to the third problem. The writers of the story are dealing with the "science" of the day, especially the science of the civilizations that were around them. The world they insisted was created by the chaotic and conflicting desires of competing Gods. They, on the other hand insisted that it was a logical progression and a deliberate design. In other words the whole first chapter was a counter argument against the Enûma Eliš. This happens throughout Genesis. Half of the work is dedicated to a split function; reinventing the myths of the cultures around them and giving them horrible origin stories. (Then we get to the creation of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, the second part of the Genesis narrative.)

The book has two major sections—the creation and expansion of the human race (2:4–11:9), and the story of Abraham and his descendants (11:10–50:26). The first section deals with God and the nations, and the second deals with God and a particular nation, Israel. The opening creation account (1:1–2:3) lifts up two themes that play major roles in each section—the divine command to the first couple (standing for the whole race) to produce offspring and to possess land (1:28). In the first section, progeny and land appear in the form of births and genealogies (chaps. 2–9) and allotment of land (chaps. 10–11), and in the second, progeny and land appear in the form of promises of descendants and land to the ancestors. Another indication of editing is the formulaic introduction, “this is the story; these are the descendants” (Hebrew tōledôt), which occurs five times in Section I (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 10:31) and five times in Section II (11:10; 25:12, 19; 36:1 [v. 9 is an addition]; 37:2).

Once you realize that this is not a physics textbook, the question of "error" becomes doctrinal more than scientific.

I could go on but why should I? Dissing the past is a common stupid petty thing of the present. One is only comforted by the notion that those who crudely insult the past will be crudely insulted by the future. That is one of the few short term (in geologic time scales) consistent attributes of man.

[Symmetry]

Strike out "genesis"? You have an interesting Bible there,

Again though- which Bible are you referring to?

[jonesthecurl]

That's possibly the strangest necrobump in recent memory.

by BigBallinStalin on Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:54 pm
by jay_a2j on Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:37 pm

Sorry it took a minute to respond.... The Bible proves itself to be the Word of God.

That has got to be the strangest definition of "a minute" in all of internet history.

Yay verily, 37 months, five days, six hours and forty-four minutes is as a minute in the eyes of Jay.

[jonesthecurl]

Beginning: Genesis. Complete bullshit. You know, normally I try to soft-pedal it, but I'm not in a good mood right now so I'll just give it to you undiluted.

NO really, tell us what you really think.

There are three problems with the first chapter of Genesis.

The first problem is the structure of the chapter. Most people assume it is linear but it appears hierarchical. One could argue that is is hierarchical and non temporal.

God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word. In the literary structure of six days, the creation events in the first three days are related to those in the second three.

The second is that the "zero point" isn't as obvious as it appears. It doesn't help that people have fucked up the first line of the story.

Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.

So strike out the "In the Beginning" and start with "When" and things get interesting. Large oceans and no continent formations. Probably the conditions of the planet 4 billion years ago? We get a hint of the time when the creation of the firmament is mentioned. Ironically the earth's magnetosphere activated 3.5 billion years ago (the Archean Eon). By the way continent formation started 2.5 billion years ago (the Proterozoic Eon). Ironically the Bible has it backwards, initially the land was formed into a single unit (Rodnia), not the seas. Note that this information is as useful as the notion that Lincoln's assistant was Kennedy and Kennedy's assistant was Lincoln.

Finally we get to the third problem. The writers of the story are dealing with the "science" of the day, especially the science of the civilizations that were around them. The world they insisted was created by the chaotic and conflicting desires of competing Gods. They, on the other hand insisted that it was a logical progression and a deliberate design. In other words the whole first chapter was a counter argument against the Enûma Eliš. This happens throughout Genesis. Half of the work is dedicated to a split function; reinventing the myths of the cultures around them and giving them horrible origin stories. (Then we get to the creation of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, the second part of the Genesis narrative.)

The book has two major sections—the creation and expansion of the human race (2:4–11:9), and the story of Abraham and his descendants (11:10–50:26). The first section deals with God and the nations, and the second deals with God and a particular nation, Israel. The opening creation account (1:1–2:3) lifts up two themes that play major roles in each section—the divine command to the first couple (standing for the whole race) to produce offspring and to possess land (1:28). In the first section, progeny and land appear in the form of births and genealogies (chaps. 2–9) and allotment of land (chaps. 10–11), and in the second, progeny and land appear in the form of promises of descendants and land to the ancestors. Another indication of editing is the formulaic introduction, “this is the story; these are the descendants” (Hebrew tōledôt), which occurs five times in Section I (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 10:31) and five times in Section II (11:10; 25:12, 19; 36:1 [v. 9 is an addition]; 37:2).

Once you realize that this is not a physics textbook, the question of "error" becomes doctrinal more than scientific.

I could go on but why should I? Dissing the past is a common stupid petty thing of the present. One is only comforted by the notion that those who crudely insult the past will be crudely insulted by the future. That is one of the few short term (in geologic time scales) consistent attributes of man.

Trouble is, it's difficult to argue with a "Literally no error" guy like Jay and a "well, go back and look at the original language and translate it properly, take this bit as metaphor, this bit as a later interpolation" guy like you at the same time. I did try to set up a "Christians discuss it among themselves" thread a while back, but fellow-atheists jumped all over it almost immediately. As RAH once said, "God protect me from my friends"...

[Symmetry]

I had a bit more luck with threads about parables. Some of the peeps who are very literal about their Bible of choice are ok with the idea that some of it is fiction,

[DoomYoshi]

Luke 2:1. The bizarre idea that a Roman census forced people to go back to their place of birth to be counted for a census. Nevermind that no record exists of this census.

The pedantic point is that Luke 2:1 is a record of that census.

My actual point is to direct your attention to the Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

Turns out there is a record, although its pretty garbled.

I had a bit more luck with threads about parables. Some of the peeps who are very literal about their Bible of choice are ok with the idea that some of it is fiction,

I had an interesting conversation recently with a fellow abut the parable of the mustard seed, as told in all 3 Synoptics. He said its ridiculous because mustard isn't a tree. I said it's a parable, so it doesn't need to be a real plant, just like the Prodigal son doesn't need to be a real person. Then he started foaming at the mouth and complaining about the Pope. I was like "Cool sorry bro".

[Symmetry]

DY- Parables are the best thing in Christianity, IMHO- they are open to question. I kind of like Buddhists Koans for the same reason.

"Luke 2:1" indicates that you prefer a one of the Bibles divided into chapter and verse, right?

[jusplay4fun]

The title of this Forum thread MISSES a major point: one does not find God in the head, using logic and facts. God is found in the heart and requires a “leap of faith” that goes beyond intellect. One cannot find God strictly by looking at facts only. Facts can help bolster faith, but faith goes beyond facts and goes beyond intellect. One does not find God by intellect or logic alone.

The second key point is that the Bible is neither a science book nor a book of history. If one looks for good science or accurate history in the Bible, one will find errors.

The early books of the Bible are the recordings of a nomadic people struggling to survive among many other tribes. The “science of Genesis” is not accurate. Some authors have explained it, and I have read some and they make sense, but do not adequately explain all the discrepancies. The historical records are not accurate, but were written many years later and will make heroes appear larger than life; such is the case of Solomon, IMO, that Duk cites. Many of the stories are written to make heroes of mere men and gloss over inconvenient facts, IMO.

Some parts of the Bible are also symbolic or an allegory. Such is the case of the last Book, the book of Revelation. It was meant to give hope to a people being persecuted by the Roman Empire and all the tyranny that a temporal power had: crucifixions, burning alive, feed to lions and wild beasts, and so much more savagery. It is an example of apocalypse literature, pointing to an end of the world when all seems lost. It was meant to give hope that Rome would not wipe out Christianity, as I understand it.

Mike JP4Fun; see the citation below regarding the Book of Revelation:

(From Wikipedia: An apocalypse (Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apokálypsis, from ἀπό and καλύπτω, literally meaning "an uncovering") is a disclosure of knowledge or revelation. In religious contexts it is usually a disclosure of something hidden, "a vision of heavenly secrets that can make sense of earthly realities".[1]
In the Book of Revelation (Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, Apokalypsis Ioannou – literally, John's Revelation), the last book of the New Testament, the revelation which John receives is that of the ultimate victory of good over evil and the end of the present age, and that is the primary meaning of the term, one that dates to 1175.[2]
Today, the term is commonly used in reference to any prophetic revelation or so-called end time scenario, or to the end of the world in general.)

[jay_a2j]

Yay verily, 37 months, five days, six hours and forty-four minutes is as a minute in the eyes of Jay.

It was a joke man!

[jay_a2j]

That's quite a caveat you've got at the end there. You mean that it can be shown to be in error, in particular? But somehow not in the end?

Quite the non-response you have there...

Look- if the caveat is "it's all right, no matter how wrong at the end". That's a caveat that erases all wrongs,

Who said it was wrong at the end? I said, it can not be proven to be in error in it's ENTIRETY. That means, from first page to last page.... error-less.

Out of interest, which Bible?

Although there are several English translations, some better than others, they (for the most part) say essentially the same thing. I personally like the KJV and the ESV.

[jonesthecurl]

Yay verily, 37 months, five days, six hours and forty-four minutes is as a minute in the eyes of Jay.

It was a joke man!

And that was a gentle dig.

[jusplay4fun]

As far as I know, all modern Bibles and Bible translations now use Chapter and Verse divisions and notation. Please read from Wikipeadia:

"The Bible was divided into chapters in the 13th century by Stephen Langton and it was divided into verses in the 16th century by French printer Robert Estienne[15] and is now usually cited by book, chapter, and verse. The division of the Hebrew Bible into verses is based on the sof passuk cantillation mark used by the 10th-century Masoretes to record the verse divisions used in earlier oral traditions."

JP4F

DY- Parables are the best thing in Christianity, IMHO- they are open to question. I kind of like Buddhists Koans for the same reason.

"Luke 2:1" indicates that you prefer a one of the Bibles divided into chapter and verse, right?

[Thorthoth]

So basically,...

On the zeroeth day, Logic said let there be god. And it was, and it was ''ehh''.

[2dimes]

That's quite a caveat you've got at the end there. You mean that it can be shown to be in error, in particular? But somehow not in the end?

Quite the non-response you have there...

Look- if the caveat is "it's all right, no matter how wrong at the end". That's a caveat that erases all wrongs,

Who said it was wrong at the end? I said, it can not be proven to be in error in it's ENTIRETY. That means, from first page to last page.... error-less.

It's wrong at the beginning, it's wrong at the end, it's wrong pretty much every step along the way.

Beginning: Genesis. Complete bullshit. You know, normally I try to soft-pedal it, but I'm not in a good mood right now so I'll just give it to you undiluted. Genesis is horseshit and lies from start to finish. The earth was not created in seven days. The earth was not created before the light. There was light from quadrillions of stars nine billion years before the earth was formed. Both creation stories in Genesis are bullshit, but the funny part is that they don't even agree with each other. The story told in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 is different from the story told in Genesis 2:4, so even if one or the other had been true, they couldn't both be. Moving on, there's no evidence for a woldwide flood. There's lots of evidence for lots of different floods that happened in many different times in many different places, and liars and bullshitters point at all these different floods and try to somehow weave them into one, but the fact is they all happened in different places at different times and are completely unrelated events. Furthermore, if somebody had tried to repopulate all the world's animals from only one pair of each, they would all be hopelessly inbred, and the beautiful diversity of life that we see around us would degenerated into some kind of factory farm. There's no evidence that there were ever people who lived to be 600 years old or 800 years old. For that matter, were Noah's grandsons fucking each other's first cousins after that first generation?

End: Revelation. No such event has happened. I think it's astronomically unlikely that it WILL ever happen, but you can't prove a negative, so you can bury your head in the sand and dream that one day it will. I don't know why you would -- it sounds like a pretty awful time -- but to each his own. So go ahead and dream about it.

In the middle: tons of horseshit upon horseshit upon horseshit. Just to grab an example at random:

Luke 2:1. The bizarre idea that a Roman census forced people to go back to their place of birth to be counted for a census. Nevermind that no record exists of this census. The very concept is ridiculous. No ruler would force a mass migration of people just to count them. It's ridiculous, it's stupid, it's asinine. When a census is taken, in ancient times as in modern, people are counted right where they stand. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone tried to shuffle people around in the middle of a census? It's a difficult process and prone to much error to begin with; can you imagine trying to do it in the middle of a forced mass migration?

But by far the most egregious lie in the Bible is the role reversal of Solomon and Ahab. The Bible paints Solomon as wise and rich beyond your wildest dreams. But we've excavated Solomon's palace, and it was a mean hovel by royal standards. No evidence of wealth whatsoever. Just mean, low-quality earthenware jugs. Ahab, on the other hand, was one of the greatest heroes in Jewish history. By marrying Jezebel, he forged an alliance with the powerful merchant kings of Tyre, and with that alliance he pushed back the mighty Assyrian empire and brought relative freedom to Palestine for the first time in hundreds of years. But the parasitical cult of Jehovah couldn't just admire a man who saved their nation. Because he gave support to the rival cult of Baal, they painted him a bad guy and spread all kinds of disgusting and evil stories about him. So Solomon, a pathetic loser, was painted as a great and wealthy king who brought stability to Isreal, while Ahab, a great and wealthy king who brought stability to Israel, is character-assassinated and painted as a pathetic loser.

Sometimes I'm in a generous mood and I try to defend the Bible, because sure enough it contains beautiful poetry like Ecclesiastes and a considerable amount of wisdom. But bottom line, finding a diamond ring in a dung heap doesn't change the fact that it's a dung heap. The Bible is overwhelmingly comprised of horseshit, with the occasional diamond along the way.

Lest someone thinks I'm picking on Christians, let me be frank: Judaism is a pile of horseshit also. Islam is a pile of horseshit also. Buddhism is a pile of horseshit also. Hinduism is a pile of horseshit also. There are no fairies in the sky ruling our destiny. Our destiny is here, on earth, and we can either make a go of it and reach out and seize the heavens, or grovel in the dirt and cling to the fantasy that heaven is coming to us.

The bible is a funny book Duke and by that I mean like it seems to be alive and talks to you. I honestly believe you find what you want in it.

That is why people join the weirdest cults run by someone that tells them what the bible says. Then they go look and actually think they find what someone told them was there.

Sometimes it's kind of good like Mormans. Sometimes it's less pleasant like jw.org.

Sometimes the groups are outright bad.

You obviosly love to read, I challenge you to pick up a bible again, any translation you find laying around. Only do it later when you are in a good mood, open it to a random page and let it talk to you. Don't worry about looking for facts or anything else. Just relax and explore what it might say to you personally right then.

Then instead of going back to the same place next time, open it to another random spot. I think if you can honestly go without expectations you will be surprised.

The last sentence you wrote here looks a bit like parts of what was told to the church leaders, that made them rage and get a guy killed.

[riskllama]

what a thoughtful post, 2dimes - have a toffee.

[2dimes]

Why do you write before the quote?

As far as I know, all modern Bibles and Bible translations now use Chapter and Verse divisions and notation. Please read from Wikipeadia:

"The Bible was divided into chapters in the 13th century by Stephen Langton and it was divided into verses in the 16th century by French printer Robert Estienne[15] and is now usually cited by book, chapter, and verse. The division of the Hebrew Bible into verses is based on the sof passuk cantillation mark used by the 10th-century Masoretes to record the verse divisions used in earlier oral traditions."

JP4F

DY- Parables are the best thing in Christianity, IMHO- they are open to question. I kind of like Buddhists Koans for the same reason.

"Luke 2:1" indicates that you prefer a one of the Bibles divided into chapter and verse, right?

The point of chapter and verse is to easily find a part for discussion.

I agree with symmetry. (yeah I know) The bad thing about chapter and verse is that people isolate small bits, then often take them out of context.

Great for making funny quotes or pretending someone agrees with you. Horrible for trying to understand what was actually intended as a whole.

[tzor]

Trouble is, it's difficult to argue with a "Literally no error" guy like Jay and a "well, go back and look at the original language and translate it properly, take this bit as metaphor, this bit as a later interpolation" guy like you at the same time.

That's true. Once you start taking everything literally, anything can literally be an error. The problem is in the definition of error. Error needs to be defined in terms of the subject mater at hand. It's more than just knowing the original language. The collection of works consists of tales, stories, songs, visions, and even a classic Jewish comedy routine. (Otherwise known the book of Jonah. If you start nit picking on the whale you are missing the whole story. The whale - not really called a whale by the way - is a Deus Ex Machina in the plot between the fleeing Jonah and his destiny.)

You don't need atheists to destroy a thread about whether the Bible is in "error" ; the literalists and non literalists can easily derail the thread by themselves.