NationStates Jolt Archive

i believe there's God and there's the man. i believe the bible is not tribal superstions written down by money-crazed monks. i am not a new-age fool, and i am not with any other confession or religion. i'm frequently at the church and i work sometimes in it.

but i'm not christ-ian. he may be existed - he surely has to be. but i dont think he was something else than one of the many messias that jews had, around year zero. he was only the luckiest one!

someone knows Rene Guenon's works?

I think we have to assume Moses didn't write the Pentatauch...

After all, the last book of the 'Mosaic' texts describes his own funeral.... quite an achievement, when you think about it...lol

My personal opinion is that there existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years a history/religious "text" among the tribes of Israel that was handed down from generation to generation verbally. That would account for the repetative manner which some of the old testament takes, and would also account for the tradition of Cantors, as well as the tradition of Rabbis in the tribe of Levi, in the Hebrew faith - both of these would have ensured that the verbal history and religous "text" was preserved and passed down to the next generation. And, at some point, writing was "invented" or "borrowed" by the Israelites, and someone/someone(s) took the time to write down the history / stories / traditions / laws / religious texts.

edit - had another thought - if a rich verbal tradition/history was finally able to be written down, that would / could account for the great respect and care given it - "it" being the Ark of the Covenant/the Torah - once it was written down.

Resulting in the books we call the Old Testament.

And, I don't think Moses personally wrote any of the bible.

But - ALL of that is conjecture - no one is ever going to know who "wrote" / "wrote down" the bible.

Although, it is pretty safe to assume that Moses did NOT write the description of his own funeral.

Unless he was a direct ancestor of Nostradamus?

Okay - then, isn't it just as possible that the writer (we'll still presume it to be Moses) was trying to give the impression that creation took place sequentially, over a period of time, and choose to use a time period familiar to his (her?) audience (first day, second day, etc) to allude to a passage of time unfathomable to them (first trillion years, second trillion years, etc)?

Yes of course it's possible. We are only talking about explanations here. We cannot prove what Moses or whoever really meant. We are differing, perhaps over what is the most likely explanation.
Personally, I would have thought that the writer could easily have used any other description rather than morning and evening, if he wanted to convey the possibility of a very long period of time. Why didn't he or she call each period a creation event, or a work of God, or anything else but 'morning and evening'. It seems, whether the writer was wrong or right', that he meant a literal morning an evening. The danger with this explanation is that either the writer was wrong or he was right. he could have been ignorant of the details of creation, i.e., how long it really took, but in that case, he had no right to describe it distincly as morning and evening. That would make him wrong, really wrong. It's like giving witness in a court to a murder when you were not really there. It amounts to lying.
Alternatively, he could have been right......
The stories we hear from evolution are mere explanations. None of them actually prove evolution, or disprove creation in six days, as far as I can see.
Once again, we differ merely with explanations. The truth is still out there somewhere......
As a Christian, I have found that the Bible speaks truth into my own life. I have never found any of its messages false. As a genetical researcher, I have never personally studied any detail of creation that is at odds with what Moses wrote. I can't say the same for every field of science, or even of other areas of research within my own field of genetics.....out of ignorance of the details of that research.......but I can say that in my own area (bacterial genetics), nothing that I have found disagrees with a six day creation and a young earth. You may call me blind and biased, but remember that I do know more of the details about my own research than you. It would be a case of the pig calling the hog a swine.

So, what your saying is: fossils only form when the situation is favourable.

What? That's a radical new concept...

Why, if that were true, there would be a few hundreds of fossils of most creatures that must have numbered into the hundreds of millions...

Oh, wait... yeah, we see that, don't we...

But... but... if fossilisation only occurs in favourable circumstances... well, things like ammonites that were IN those favourable conditions should have provided a disproportionately huge number of fossils!

Oh, wait... yeah, we see that too, don't we...

Yes, so far as I understand paleontology, fossils only form strictly under favourable conditions. That's not a radically new concept.......
When you get a large flood, dead animals tend to get swept together. Thus we find whole beds of fossils. We sometimes find families of animals, like a family of T-rex's. That really had to be a sudden burial.
I think you are a bit presumptious to say that we don't see disproportionately huge numbers of fossils. I was under the impression that we do. Have you ever wondered around the fossil beds of the Texas limestone? I have. It's worth a look.

I think you are confusing me with your sarcasm. For the sake of a good discussion, why not just let your statements be simple and easy to follow. Argue with reason, not scorn.

lol

My personal opinion is that there existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years a history/religious "text" among the tribes of Israel that was handed down from generation to generation verbally. That would account for the repetative manner which some of the old testament takes, and would also account for the tradition of Cantors, as well as the tradition of Rabbis in the tribe of Levi, in the Hebrew faith - both of these would have ensured that the verbal history and religous "text" was preserved and passed down to the next generation. And, at some point, writing was "invented" or "borrowed" by the Israelites, and someone/someone(s) took the time to write down the history / stories / traditions / laws / religious texts.

edit - had another thought - if a rich verbal tradition/history was finally able to be written down, that would / could account for the great respect and care given it - "it" being the Ark of the Covenant/the Torah - once it was written down.

Resulting in the books we call the Old Testament.

And, I don't think Moses personally wrote any of the bible.

But - ALL of that is conjecture - no one is ever going to know who "wrote" / "wrote down" the bible.

Although, it is pretty safe to assume that Moses did NOT write the description of his own funeral.

Unless he was a direct ancestor of Nostradamus?

Why could not Moses have written parts of the Bible? Just because his name is on the book, it doesn't necessarily mean that he had to write all of it, particularly about his own death. That could easily have been filled in by his apprentice, Joshua, who would also have been a scholar, as Moses was. Joshua's style may have been rather like Moses' also, since he was a student.
You have to remember, Moses had one of the finest educations of the time. Not only that, it was said that he excelled at it. Egyptians would have had a fine learning in physics and astronomy and mathematics, in order to build the pyramids. They were no mean civilisation, and probably would have made modern culture look a bit poor, with all the wealth and luxury and pomp they had. Sure we have more technology, but that doesn't make us more intelligent.

lol

My personal opinion is that there existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years a history/religious "text" among the tribes of Israel that was handed down from generation to generation verbally. That would account for the repetative manner which some of the old testament takes, and would also account for the tradition of Cantors, as well as the tradition of Rabbis in the tribe of Levi, in the Hebrew faith - both of these would have ensured that the verbal history and religous "text" was preserved and passed down to the next generation. And, at some point, writing was "invented" or "borrowed" by the Israelites, and someone/someone(s) took the time to write down the history / stories / traditions / laws / religious texts.

edit - had another thought - if a rich verbal tradition/history was finally able to be written down, that would / could account for the great respect and care given it - "it" being the Ark of the Covenant/the Torah - once it was written down.

Resulting in the books we call the Old Testament.

And, I don't think Moses personally wrote any of the bible.

But - ALL of that is conjecture - no one is ever going to know who "wrote" / "wrote down" the bible.

Although, it is pretty safe to assume that Moses did NOT write the description of his own funeral.

Unless he was a direct ancestor of Nostradamus?

Prophecy is one thing... to actually describe as an historical account, your own funeral? A little different, methinks. ;)

We know that the Hebrews were a united 'people' before their sojourn in Babylon - we also know they had no scriptural texts before that point... at least, we have no evidence of any... not even in their OWN texts.

Thus - the logical explanation - since they had texts AFTER they stayed in Babylon - was that the Hebrews acquired the technology to write scripture IN Babylon. This makes sense: as you say it explains the repititions present in the text, which are not unlikely, for an oral tradition. Also - it would explain why so many of the Old Testament accounts bear such an uncanny resemblence to contemporary Babylonian accounts - it is eminently likely that the Hebrew texts were somewhat influenced by the OTHER texts available to the scribes.

It would also explain why the Mosaic laws bear an uncanny 'resemblance' to the laws od Hammurabi, which were, literally, 'carved in stone'.

Yes, so far as I understand paleontology, fossils only form strictly under favourable conditions. That's not a radically new concept.......
When you get a large flood, dead animals tend to get swept together. Thus we find whole beds of fossils. We sometimes find families of animals, like a family of T-rex's. That really had to be a sudden burial.
I think you are a bit presumptious to say that we don't see disproportionately huge numbers of fossils. I was under the impression that we do. Have you ever wondered around the fossil beds of the Texas limestone? I have. It's worth a look.

I think you are confusing me with your sarcasm. For the sake of a good discussion, why not just let your statements be simple and easy to follow. Argue with reason, not scorn.

Sometimes we do find 'groups' of fossils. That doesn't necessarily mean families... but it also doesn't necessarily mean 'floods' either, now does it?

Sure, floods are one possible mechanism, but so is volcanic activity, for example. And, even if we accept flooding as the LEADING cause of fossilisation - that doesn't logically equate to one 'large flood'.

I'm not being presumptuous. We see little fossil evidence PER 'thing'. It is unlikely that there were only ever a few hundred Tyrranosaurs... so, why so few fossils? Obviously - a small fraction of 'things' ever leave any fossil trace.

I think we can largely discount the 'one big flood' idea, by virtue of the fact that the order of sedimentation shows that animals did not all die at the same time - we have fossils accumulated over a great stretch - unless you can prove that a tree, for example, makes a better swimmer than a fish.

Why could not Moses have written parts of the Bible? Just because his name is on the book, it doesn't necessarily mean that he had to write all of it, particularly about his own death. That could easily have been filled in by his apprentice, Joshua, who would also have been a scholar, as Moses was. Joshua's style may have been rather like Moses' also, since he was a student.
You have to remember, Moses had one of the finest educations of the time. Not only that, it was said that he excelled at it. Egyptians would have had a fine learning in physics and astronomy and mathematics, in order to build the pyramids. They were no mean civilisation, and probably would have made modern culture look a bit poor, with all the wealth and luxury and pomp they had. Sure we have more technology, but that doesn't make us more intelligent.

Moses would have had an education - yes. But, he wouldn't have learned to write. You really need to look into history, before you start discussing it. Unless he was a citizen of the "place of truth" he wouldn't learn the written language - and we know he wasn't, because no royal family members ever were.

And - if he HAD learned a language in Egypt, and HAD written the scriptures - the scriptures would not be in Hebrew.

All of this is irrelevent, of course, because Moses is another biblical allegory. Inspection of Egyptian history does not show any princes with Hebrew names. And - if we assume that Moses is an Egyptian name, it would most likely be derived from [m'ses]... which merely implies 'born'. Further suggestion that Moses is allegory... his name merely means 'born' in Egypt.

Sometimes we do find 'groups' of fossils. That doesn't necessarily mean families... but it also doesn't necessarily mean 'floods' either, now does it?

Sure, floods are one possible mechanism, but so is volcanic activity, for example. And, even if we accept flooding as the LEADING cause of fossilisation - that doesn't logically equate to one 'large flood'.

I'm not being presumptuous. We see little fossil evidence PER 'thing'. It is unlikely that there were only ever a few hundred Tyrranosaurs... so, why so few fossils? Obviously - a small fraction of 'things' ever leave any fossil trace.

I think we can largely discount the 'one big flood' idea, by virtue of the fact that the order of sedimentation shows that animals did not all die at the same time - we have fossils accumulated over a great stretch - unless you can prove that a tree, for example, makes a better swimmer than a fish.

Woah, I was not hinting at Noah's flood in my last replies. The great amounts of water that I spoke about are accepted by the paleontologists, without necessarily assuming that it was Noah's flood.
Rats!! I have to leave now, but I will be back tomorrow....

Moses would have had an education - yes. But, he wouldn't have learned to write. You really need to look into history, before you start discussing it. Unless he was a citizen of the "place of truth" he wouldn't learn the written language - and we know he wasn't, because no royal family members ever were.

And - if he HAD learned a language in Egypt, and HAD written the scriptures - the scriptures would not be in Hebrew.

All of this is irrelevent, of course, because Moses is another biblical allegory. Inspection of Egyptian history does not show any princes with Hebrew names. And - if we assume that Moses is an Egyptian name, it would most likely be derived from [m'ses]... which merely implies 'born'. Further suggestion that Moses is allegory... his name merely means 'born' in Egypt.

How on earth can you have an education in Egypt without learning how to read and write? Far out, man, you are surely making some wild claims. Moses not read and write?!!
Can you give a good reason for thinking this??? It is written that he lived in Egypt for 40 years before he fled the place. Is that not long enough to be considered a citizen of Egypt.

Who cares what his name meant? That doesn't prove that he was myth. In fact, I thought the Bible says that his name meant 'drawn from the water', or something like that. Don't know where you got your name meaning from, although I can see how it may mean the waters of birth. If he was only myth, it would be more likely that the myth makers gave him a more dignified name, wouldn't you say? A humble name like Moses is consistent with the storytellers sticking to the truth. It certainly doesn't suggest that he was an allegory figure.

It's also a bit dangerous to look at the history of Egypt and claim that an absence of any mention of Moses equals a Hebrew myth. How many times have we seen whole nations rewrite their history books to leave our certain painful and humiliating memories? Does a mention of the communist nations ring a bell?

Moses would have had an education - yes. But, he wouldn't have learned to write. You really need to look into history, before you start discussing it. Unless he was a citizen of the "place of truth" he wouldn't learn the written language - and we know he wasn't, because no royal family members ever were.

And - if he HAD learned a language in Egypt, and HAD written the scriptures - the scriptures would not be in Hebrew.

All of this is irrelevent, of course, because Moses is another biblical allegory. Inspection of Egyptian history does not show any princes with Hebrew names. And - if we assume that Moses is an Egyptian name, it would most likely be derived from [m'ses]... which merely implies 'born'. Further suggestion that Moses is allegory... his name merely means 'born' in Egypt.

How on earth can you have an education in Egypt without learning how to read and write? Far out, man, you are surely making some wild claims. Moses not read and write?!!
Can you give a good reason for thinking this??? It is written that he lived in Egypt for 40 years before he fled the place. Is that not long enough to be considered a citizen of Egypt.

Who cares what his name meant? That doesn't prove that he was myth. In fact, I thought the Bible says that his name meant 'drawn from the water', or something like that. Don't know where you got your name meaning from, although I can see how it may mean the waters of birth. If he was only myth, it would be more likely that the myth makers gave him a more dignified name, wouldn't you say? A humble name like Moses is consistent with the storytellers sticking to the truth. It certainly doesn't suggest that he was an allegory figure.

It's also a bit dangerous to look at the history of Egypt and claim that an absence of any mention of Moses equals a Hebrew myth. How many times have we seen whole nations rewrite their history books to leave our certain painful and humiliating memories? Does a mention of the communist nations ring a bell?

Moses would have had an education - yes. But, he wouldn't have learned to write. You really need to look into history, before you start discussing it. Unless he was a citizen of the "place of truth" he wouldn't learn the written language - and we know he wasn't, because no royal family members ever were.

And - if he HAD learned a language in Egypt, and HAD written the scriptures - the scriptures would not be in Hebrew.

All of this is irrelevent, of course, because Moses is another biblical allegory. Inspection of Egyptian history does not show any princes with Hebrew names. And - if we assume that Moses is an Egyptian name, it would most likely be derived from [m'ses]... which merely implies 'born'. Further suggestion that Moses is allegory... his name merely means 'born' in Egypt.

How on earth can you have an education in Egypt without learning how to read and write? Far out, man, you are surely making some wild claims. Moses not read and write?!!
Can you give a good reason for thinking this??? It is written that he lived in Egypt for 40 years before he fled the place. Is that not long enough to be considered a citizen of Egypt.

Who cares what his name meant? That doesn't prove that he was myth. In fact, I thought the Bible says that his name meant 'drawn from the water', or something like that. Don't know where you got your name meaning from, although I can see how it may mean the waters of birth. If he was only myth, it would be more likely that the myth makers gave him a more dignified name, wouldn't you say? A humble name like Moses is consistent with the storytellers sticking to the truth. It certainly doesn't suggest that he was an allegory figure.

It's also a bit dangerous to look at the history of Egypt and claim that an absence of any mention of Moses equals a Hebrew myth. How many times have we seen whole nations rewrite their history books to leave our certain painful and humiliating memories? Does a mention of the communist nations ring a bell?

Moses would have had an education - yes. But, he wouldn't have learned to write. You really need to look into history, before you start discussing it. Unless he was a citizen of the "place of truth" he wouldn't learn the written language - and we know he wasn't, because no royal family members ever were.

And - if he HAD learned a language in Egypt, and HAD written the scriptures - the scriptures would not be in Hebrew.

All of this is irrelevent, of course, because Moses is another biblical allegory. Inspection of Egyptian history does not show any princes with Hebrew names. And - if we assume that Moses is an Egyptian name, it would most likely be derived from [m'ses]... which merely implies 'born'. Further suggestion that Moses is allegory... his name merely means 'born' in Egypt.

How on earth can you have an education in Egypt without learning how to read and write? Far out, man, you are surely making some wild claims. Moses not read and write?!!
Can you give a good reason for thinking this??? It is written that he lived in Egypt for 40 years before he fled the place. Is that not long enough to be considered a citizen of Egypt.

Who cares what his name meant? That doesn't prove that he was myth. In fact, I thought the Bible says that his name meant 'drawn from the water', or something like that. Don't know where you got your name meaning from, although I can see how it may mean the waters of birth. If he was only myth, it would be more likely that the myth makers gave him a more dignified name, wouldn't you say? A humble name like Moses is consistent with the storytellers sticking to the truth. It certainly doesn't suggest that he was an allegory figure.

It's also a bit dangerous to look at the history of Egypt and claim that an absence of any mention of Moses equals a Hebrew myth. How many times have we seen whole nations rewrite their history books to leave our certain painful and humiliating memories? Does a mention of the communist nations ring a bell?

I believe in God the father almighty, creator of Heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only son, out Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirt, born of the Virgin Mary. He sufferd under Pontius Pilot, was crusified, died and was buried, he decended to hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead, he accended in to Heaven, and is seated at the right had of God. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Holy Cathlic Chrurch*, The forgiveness of sins, the resurection of the body ad the Life everlasting. Amen.

----The Apostles Creed.

(*Being all Christians.)
There's no concrete evidence for any religious belief, and if there was a god and he really did create the world in 6 days, everyone would have the same creation story.

Prophecy is one thing... to actually describe as an historical account, your own funeral? A little different, methinks. ;)

We know that the Hebrews were a united 'people' before their sojourn in Babylon - we also know they had no scriptural texts before that point... at least, we have no evidence of any... not even in their OWN texts.

Thus - the logical explanation - since they had texts AFTER they stayed in Babylon - was that the Hebrews acquired the technology to write scripture IN Babylon. This makes sense: as you say it explains the repititions present in the text, which are not unlikely, for an oral tradition. Also - it would explain why so many of the Old Testament accounts bear such an uncanny resemblence to contemporary Babylonian accounts - it is eminently likely that the Hebrew texts were somewhat influenced by the OTHER texts available to the scribes.

It would also explain why the Mosaic laws bear an uncanny 'resemblance' to the laws od Hammurabi, which were, literally, 'carved in stone'.

You are quite wrong to say that there is no evidence for writing in the Hebrew culture before their time in Babylon. Moses had the ten commandments written on stone, for heaven's sake. What good would they be if no one could read them? Also, he told Joshua to make a habit of keeping the book of the law a point of regular mediation. King David was apparently the WRITER of many poems and songs, according to the OT. King Josiah was a king who was noted for his attention to the book of the law. All these people, just to name a few, lived before the Babylonian exile.

Just pointing out 'uncanny resemblences' will not prove anything, neither will it even be a persuasive argument. One can find 'uncanny resemblences' everywhere, like conincidences, but that neither proves or disproves a theory or even makes an explanation seem more or less unlikely.

There's no concrete evidence for any religious belief, and if there was a god and he really did create the world in 6 days, everyone would have the same creation story.

I suppose what you mean is that you have not found anything that seems like concrete evidence to you that argues for religious belief. I hope you keep looking. It may well be right under your nose. The Bible promises that if you are willing to have faith, you will find all the evidence you need, and more. But without faith, you are basically choosing to remain out of reach of obtaining that evidence. The Bible has already described the position you have found yourself in. Your only way out........faith. It goes on to say that those who refuse the path of faith will one day find out, too late, their error.

Would it surprise you if I told you that there was a time when everyone did have a rather similar version of the creation story? Even now, the so called myths of the indigenous cultures, although not proving creation, at least are consistent with some sort of creation event.

Sometimes we do find 'groups' of fossils. That doesn't necessarily mean families... but it also doesn't necessarily mean 'floods' either, now does it?

Sure, floods are one possible mechanism, but so is volcanic activity, for example. And, even if we accept flooding as the LEADING cause of fossilisation - that doesn't logically equate to one 'large flood'.

I'm not being presumptuous. We see little fossil evidence PER 'thing'. It is unlikely that there were only ever a few hundred Tyrranosaurs... so, why so few fossils? Obviously - a small fraction of 'things' ever leave any fossil trace.

I think we can largely discount the 'one big flood' idea, by virtue of the fact that the order of sedimentation shows that animals did not all die at the same time - we have fossils accumulated over a great stretch - unless you can prove that a tree, for example, makes a better swimmer than a fish.

i never said that fossil formations prove one large flood. They are only consistent with intensive flood-like activity, and could be explained by one large flood.

I DONT think you can discount the 'one big flood idea' at all. The sedimentation is likely to show the various boyant densities of the organisms. Thus the lower the density, the higher up in the sedimentation formation. (I think you could assume that in some cases the organisms were under water before they were buried under mud.) This would tend to place organisms from similar species closer together, giving an appearance of evolutionary formation. The smaller organisms would most likely have a lower boyancy, thus would be found lower in the sediment formations.

Also, there would have been perhaps many waves within the one flood. It took almost a year, if I recall correctly. Plus there would have been a long period of where the dams and lakes left from the great flood burst under torrential rain that followed. There would have been plenty of waves of mud, forming multiple layers of sedimentation rather quickly. There is nothing intrinsic about a fossil that will tell you when it died. Evolutionists will look for extrinsic data, to see how deep it has been buried, and the level of radioactivity found in that particular layer of sediment in which the fossil was found. Thus, age is reasoned, and based on several assumptions. The radio-dating method is a bit dogey. And a layer of sedimentation, simply because it is under another layer, does not make it a million years older. As I pointed out before, layers of sedimentation are more likely formed rather quickly under water, than taking several hundreds of thousands of years.

Also, the great flood explains the great multitudes of fossils found and also the great reservoirs of oil and coal, in many places right around the world. It has to be something massive to move such great amounts of of mud to quickly cover the forests, provide pressure and heat and turn them into oil before they could rot. When you see the size of the coal seams and those big oil 'lakes', you have to marvel at their magnitude. Something big has to be part of the explanation. The great flood does fit well here.

Prophecy is one thing... to actually describe as an historical account, your own funeral? A little different, methinks. ;)

We know that the Hebrews were a united 'people' before their sojourn in Babylon - we also know they had no scriptural texts before that point... at least, we have no evidence of any... not even in their OWN texts.

Thus - the logical explanation - since they had texts AFTER they stayed in Babylon - was that the Hebrews acquired the technology to write scripture IN Babylon. This makes sense: as you say it explains the repititions present in the text, which are not unlikely, for an oral tradition. Also - it would explain why so many of the Old Testament accounts bear such an uncanny resemblence to contemporary Babylonian accounts - it is eminently likely that the Hebrew texts were somewhat influenced by the OTHER texts available to the scribes.

It would also explain why the Mosaic laws bear an uncanny 'resemblance' to the laws od Hammurabi, which were, literally, 'carved in stone'.

How 'bout I put a more explicit spin on what your saying:

Biblical scholars nowdays put the authorship of the Pentateuch to four different sources. The first, and probably oldest one of these, is called the Yahwist (or J) tradition. This tradition is recognised by the facts that it uses the word hebrew word JHWH (or JHVH, or YHWH, pronounced Yahweh) to name God almost exclusively. This tradition tends to contain large amounts of anthropromorphisms, and tends to portray God in a very "Chummy" manner. The J tradition was probably written in the 10th century B.C.

The second oldest tradition is called the Elohist or E tradition, so named because it uses the word Elohim for God. This tradition was probably written in the 9th century B.C., and portrays God as a much more angry, vengeful being, and it is from this tradition that we get stories such as the near-sacrifice of Issac and the destruction of Sodom.

The third oldest tradition is called the Deutereronomist or D tradition, so called because it is almost the sole source in the book of Deuteronomy, and is rare in the rest of the Pentateuch. It is given as being written in the 6th century B.C.

The last of the four traditions is called the Priestly, or P, tradition. This tradition is concerned mainly with rituals and services, and tends to portray God as a person who demands adherance to and observence of rituals. The P tradition is post-exilic, and is responsible for bringing together all four sources and putting them together into the Pentateuch we know today.

So good, it's worth posting four times?

How on earth can you have an education in Egypt without learning how to read and write? Far out, man, you are surely making some wild claims. Moses not read and write?!!
Can you give a good reason for thinking this??? It is written that he lived in Egypt for 40 years before he fled the place. Is that not long enough to be considered a citizen of Egypt.


You should perhaps research a little history before accusing me of making wild claims. I kind of touched on this in the other post... but I guess you missed it.

Okay - Egypt had a sacred language... were you aware of this? They attributed great 'power' to words and symbols. For example: the idea that you 'lived' after death, for as long as your name was remembered.

This is why a Pharaoh made sure his name was written everywhere, if he could. It is also the reason why later Pharaohs often defaced stelae/monuments/tombs etc. to remove the names of less principled, less popular... or just inconventient... Pharaohs... thus condemning them to 'eternal death'.

This is important for TWO reasons - one of which I will come back to later in this post, okay?

The FIRST reason this is important, is that nobody was allowed to just casually 'learn' to write. There was a specific location (called, in English "The Place of Truth") where all of the 'writers' were trained. It was a sacred duty - think of priesthood, rather than accountants.

You also pretty much had to be BORN INTO the Place of Truth to be allowed to study there... they very rarely took in outsiders (protecting their own), and a Pharaoh or Prince would have been such a remarkable admission, it is unlikely it would not have been mentioned.... especially since Pharaoh's were considered as something of living incarnations of godhood... it would be ridiculous to 'teach the gods'.

(This is why those films that show Hebrew slaves are usually erroneous... they often show Hebrews carving heiroglyphs on monuments (for example)... which just wouldn't have happened... that would be like asking Satan to give Communion at the church, this week.)

So - Moses would doubtlesly have had the finest education that Pharaohnic money could buy... but that would NOT have entitled him to learn to write.


Who cares what his name meant? That doesn't prove that he was myth. In fact, I thought the Bible says that his name meant 'drawn from the water', or something like that. Don't know where you got your name meaning from, although I can see how it may mean the waters of birth. If he was only myth, it would be more likely that the myth makers gave him a more dignified name, wouldn't you say? A humble name like Moses is consistent with the storytellers sticking to the truth. It certainly doesn't suggest that he was an allegory figure.


Who cares what his name meant? Well, that brings us to the second point of what I was discussing earlier.

Egyptians cared A LOT about names. As a child - the name was not that important, but as an adult, the name becomes very important... especially for an heir-apparent.

But, it is unlikely that the Pharaoh or his wife, would give the Crown Prince a Hebrew name. Given the importance of words, and given the status of a 'Prince'... it is pretty much impossible that 'Moses' is a name that a Pharaoh might have given to a child.

So - we end up faced with the fact that 'Moses' must be the Hebrew-isation of an Egyptian name... and the nearest equivalent would be something like "m'ses" (as in the name Ramses, or Ra M'ses... which means "born of Ra".. or 'son of Ra').

It IS possible that an Egyptian child could have been given as 'trivial' a name as 'M'sese'... even possible for this to happen in the royal line - at a stretch. What is not possible is for the Prince to RETAIN that name into adult-hood. That isn't how Egyptian names 'worked'... and it certainly would not have done to have a 40 year old man wandering around with a child-name, or a nonsensical name. ESPECIALLY when that man was the Prince.

If you research Egypt a little, you'll see how inconsistent the name "Moses" is in the CONTEXT of the Exodus story. Far more likely, the name is an artifact... either culled from a vague knowledge of Egyptian, or a Hebrew name for a character that would NOT have been known as 'Moses' in Egypt.

(The Hebrew name for a remembered character is the best 'fit' here... the name refers to the origins of the character... Most likely, if the story IS based on any fact, the Egyptian name is long forgotten by the time the text came to be WRITTEN DOWN, and what we have, is the 'title' given to the character by the retellers of the oral tradition, over a period of centuries).


It's also a bit dangerous to look at the history of Egypt and claim that an absence of any mention of Moses equals a Hebrew myth. How many times have we seen whole nations rewrite their history books to leave our certain painful and humiliating memories? Does a mention of the communist nations ring a bell?

And yet, the Egyptian history DOES record the fact that Semitic peoples CONQUERED about half of the Egyptian 'empire'... and reigned a parralel reign. The Egyptians don't seem to leave things out just because they didn't like them.

Incidentally - you might (if you are interested) want to research the Hyksos Pharaohs... in all possibility, we could be looking at the TRUE origins of the Exodus story, there... and it is FAR from the heroic version of 'triumph over adversity' that the Hebrew tradition records.

You are quite wrong to say that there is no evidence for writing in the Hebrew culture before their time in Babylon. Moses had the ten commandments written on stone, for heaven's sake. What good would they be if no one could read them? Also, he told Joshua to make a habit of keeping the book of the law a point of regular mediation. King David was apparently the WRITER of many poems and songs, according to the OT. King Josiah was a king who was noted for his attention to the book of the law. All these people, just to name a few, lived before the Babylonian exile.

Just pointing out 'uncanny resemblences' will not prove anything, neither will it even be a persuasive argument. One can find 'uncanny resemblences' everywhere, like conincidences, but that neither proves or disproves a theory or even makes an explanation seem more or less unlikely.

Okay - first... I said there is no evidence. Show me the stones with the Ten Commandments? Can you show me?

No - the earliest physical evidence of Hebrew as a written langauge, are the scriptures written AFTER the Babylonian visit.

Maybe THOSE texts mention earlier writing... but they do not PROVE it, they provide no EVIDENCE. More likely, they are recounting 'oral traditions'.

Or, of course, the references are stolen.

Second: The 'Commandments' were not 'written' so that people could read them... remember what Moses does AFTER he comes down with them? He tells all the peasants what they say.

Third: An aside from the discussion - but the original Ten Commandments are NOT the same ones that Moses tells the Hebrews.

Fourth: Poems, songs, and law can all survive in an oral tradition. Just because David is credited with 'writing' a song, doesn't mean he physically took pen and paper and WROTE the song. Similarly, a 'book of law' could be an oral tradition. (Rememer, the Hebrew word from which we take 'book' is [Cepher]... which basically just means a written body, or a record.)

Fifth: The important thing is, because there are no PHYSICAL records from BEFORE the Babylonian time, we have ONLY the internal evidence of scripture to tell us what pre-Babylonian Hebrews were doing. And, to be quite blunt, they could have been lying.

Sixth: You should research those 'uncanny resemblences' before you choose to ignore them. The Flood Myth, for one, seems to have been stolen directly from the babylonian version of the story - even down to using identical wording. Similarly, the Hebrew version of the Creation Myth (for which we only have PHYSICAL evidence from AFTER the Babylon sojourn) seems to steal several elements from the already extant Mesopotamian creation myths... even down to it being a serpent that costs mankind eternal life - although the 'means' is different.

You should maybe also compare the Levitical Law (which is only PHYSICALLY evidenced AFTER Babylon) with the Code of Laws of Hammurabi - which is (literally) carved in stone... and to which many of the Hebrew laws are more than just 'similar'... they even share word patterns, and order.

How 'bout I put a more explicit spin on what your saying:

Biblical scholars nowdays put the authorship of the Pentateuch to four different sources. The first, and probably oldest one of these, is called the Yahwist (or J) tradition. This tradition is recognised by the facts that it uses the word hebrew word JHWH (or JHVH, or YHWH, pronounced Yahweh) to name God almost exclusively. This tradition tends to contain large amounts of anthropromorphisms, and tends to portray God in a very "Chummy" manner. The J tradition was probably written in the 10th century B.C.

The second oldest tradition is called the Elohist or E tradition, so named because it uses the word Elohim for God. This tradition was probably written in the 9th century B.C., and portrays God as a much more angry, vengeful being, and it is from this tradition that we get stories such as the near-sacrifice of Issac and the destruction of Sodom.

The third oldest tradition is called the Deutereronomist or D tradition, so called because it is almost the sole source in the book of Deuteronomy, and is rare in the rest of the Pentateuch. It is given as being written in the 6th century B.C.

The last of the four traditions is called the Priestly, or P, tradition. This tradition is concerned mainly with rituals and services, and tends to portray God as a person who demands adherance to and observence of rituals. The P tradition is post-exilic, and is responsible for bringing together all four sources and putting them together into the Pentateuch we know today.

Exactly - there is a clear pattern of the 'evolution' of the 'story' over a period of centuries... or, at least, of several disparate threads of theology being united over a period of centuries.

There is also no extant material to show where any of the traditions COME FROM, although we can make educated assumptions about the NATURE of the material.

It seems to me most likely, that our Priestly authors united some disparate threads, tidying them together where needed... and that not ALL of those elements were entirely 'pure' Hebrew tradition.

Perhaps the texts became 'changed' to more closely resemble Babylonian material in (or after) Babylon. Perhaps the material had been evolving a Babylonian-influenced spin, even BEFORE the Babylon exile.

All we do know, is that the text seems to have disparate 'roots', and that none of the 'Hebrew' material has physical evidence of historicity BEFORE Babylon.

8675309

8675309

42

No.

Yes, I am most certainly a Christian. Catholic to be exact. And proud of it.

Wow, Grave, you have impressed me with your knowledge (applaudes). Did you read a book about this? And where do you get the time to read/write all this stuff? I don't think I can match you for time and information in this area. (My interest is more in genetics.)

Okay - first... I said there is no evidence. Show me the stones with the Ten Commandments? Can you show me?
No - the earliest physical evidence of Hebrew as a written langauge, are the scriptures written AFTER the Babylonian visit.
Maybe THOSE texts mention earlier writing... but they do not PROVE it, they provide no EVIDENCE. More likely, they are recounting 'oral traditions'.[/I

No, I can't show you the stones....they have been lost. A pity. But since you have claimed the likelyhood of no one at that time being capable of writing, then you have to throw away the whole story. Whoever wrote the story was making it up. There must have been no stone tablets. Thus, the part where Jesus talks about 'If they will no listen to what Moses wrote, then how will they believe even if someone comes back from the dead to tell them', this is rubbish, because Jesus should have known that Moses was illiterate and was never a writer. You are now in the position of rewriting a great deal of the Bible. It hangs together. When you want to change one part, you end up changing a lot of other parts to fit with the first change. Then you end up with a new Bible. That's been done before.

Futhermore, a lack of evidence in this case is not really surprising, and hardly likely to be proof of the falsehood of the story. Would you really be likely to find the original 'book of the law' or the stones on which the laws were written? Given the history of the Jews, and all their tribulations, this is a bit unfair of you to ask. And so you have said that this makes thier account seem wrong, and your preferred explanations seem more likely. More likely to you, perhaps, but that's not very convincing.

Since, as you so often tell me, that the first writings appeared after the visit to Babylon, and that many of the Babylonian texts appear to be rather similar in wording, etc., to the Jewish commandments, would it not also be possible that it was the influence of the Jews on the Babylonian culture that produced these texts. Unless, of course, those texts were dated to pre-Jewish captivity times. But then you would have to prove it. Can you?



[I]Second: The 'Commandments' were not 'written' so that people could read them... remember what Moses does AFTER he comes down with them? He tells all the peasants what they say.

Of course he has to tell them. They were slaves, most likely uneducated. But the Bible clearly says that God wrote them with His finger. You are the one changing the words.

Third: An aside from the discussion - but the original Ten Commandments are NOT the same ones that Moses tells the Hebrews.

Once again, what is your evidence?

Fourth: Poems, songs, and law can all survive in an oral tradition. Just because David is credited with 'writing' a song, doesn't mean he physically took pen and paper and WROTE the song. Similarly, a 'book of law' could be an oral tradition. (Rememer, the Hebrew word from which we take 'book' is [Cepher]... which basically just means a written body, or a record.)

I am aware of the possibility of oral traditions surviving, perhaps it is even possible for the huge number of material in the Psalms to have survived by oral tradition (unlikely). My point is that the Bible says it was definitely written. Consider King Ahaz who after listening to a portion of the scroll being read out, would cut that bit off with his sword and cast it into the fire of his winter palace. That, man, is the story. And you, in order to hold to your suggestions, have to change the story.



Fifth: The important thing is, because there are no PHYSICAL records from BEFORE the Babylonian time, we have ONLY the internal evidence of scripture to tell us what pre-Babylonian Hebrews were doing. And, to be quite blunt, they could have been lying.

It's possible that they could have been lying. That would be downright evil of them, if so. But lies have a way of showing themselves. No one has ever been able to show up a lie in the Bible to my knowledge. You know how it goes, in order to make and justify and cover one lie, you have to make several more, and thus more and more. But archeology has proven the historical accuracy of the Bible again and again. (I'm not suggesting that we have discovered all there is to know--there are still some questions that need answering.) The accounts have been shown to be true in many places. This makes your suggestion of lying unlikely.

Sixth: You should research those 'uncanny resemblences' before you choose to ignore them. The Flood Myth, for one, seems to have been stolen directly from the babylonian version of the story - even down to using identical wording. Similarly, the Hebrew version of the Creation Myth (for which we only have PHYSICAL evidence from AFTER the Babylon sojourn) seems to steal several elements from the already extant Mesopotamian creation myths... even down to it being a serpent that costs mankind eternal life - although the 'means' is different.

You should maybe also compare the Levitical Law (which is only PHYSICALLY evidenced AFTER Babylon) with the Code of Laws of Hammurabi - which is (literally) carved in stone... and to which many of the Hebrew laws are more than just 'similar'... they even share word patterns, and order.

Many cultures have flood myths, even those without exposure to the Hebrew culture. The fact that the Babylonians also had a flood myth suggests that perhaps it was not a myth after all. Or it may have been that the Hebrews influenced the Babylonians, and some of the Babylonians believed the Hebrew account. The Jews did have a knack of gaining influence and power (consider the story of Esther and the Persian King Xerxes). That would explain some of the similar wording. I suppose you might suggest that Hammurabi lived before the Hebrew exile. Yes, but that doen't mean the Babylonian carvings were from his time, or that they weren't influenced by the Hebrews.

I try not to ignore 'uncanny resemblences'. There is a reason for each one of them. But perhaps you could forgive me for not going along with your reasons, particularly when it seems as though you are looking for any excuse to make the Bible seem inaccurate, and therefore not trustworthy of confidence.

sorry about the mess, with the italics, I'm stil getting used to this jolly thing.

So good, it's worth posting four times?
That's either my ignorance of this jolly network system, or some fault within the network itself. Or perhaps I wanted you to read what I was writing more thoroughly :)



You should perhaps research a little history before accusing me of making wild claims. I kind of touched on this in the other post... but I guess you missed it.

Yep, I missed it, sorry.

Okay - Egypt had a sacred language... were you aware of this? They attributed great 'power' to words and symbols. For example: the idea that you 'lived' after death, for as long as your name was remembered.

I presume this sacred language thingy had a time-line associated with it. Does it apply to the whole of the Egyptian history?


The FIRST reason this is important, is that nobody was allowed to just casually 'learn' to write. There was a specific location (called, in English "The Place of Truth") where all of the 'writers' were trained. It was a sacred duty - think of priesthood, rather than accountants.

You also pretty much had to be BORN INTO the Place of Truth to be allowed to study there... they very rarely took in outsiders (protecting their own), and a Pharaoh or Prince would have been such a remarkable admission, it is unlikely it would not have been mentioned.... especially since Pharaoh's were considered as something of living incarnations of godhood... it would be ridiculous to 'teach the gods'.

Do you know this, is this your opinion or is this speculation? Please indicate. Personally, I don't find it altogether unreasonable that the Pharaohs were educated. They did have the power over the priests, and that would be unlikely if only the priests could read or write. We know from more recent history that priests of all kinds are likely to try and get as much power as they can (of course there are always exceptions....no offense meant to the Catholics).

Who cares what his name meant? Well, that brings us to the second point of what I was discussing earlier.

Egyptians cared A LOT about names. As a child - the name was not that important, but as an adult, the name becomes very important... especially for an heir-apparent.

But, it is unlikely that the Pharaoh or his wife, would give the Crown Prince a Hebrew name. Given the importance of words, and given the status of a 'Prince'... it is pretty much impossible that 'Moses' is a name that a Pharaoh might have given to a child.


The Bible doesn't tell us Moses' adult Egyptian name, only his name given to him when he was pulled out of the river. For some reason, perhaps a Hebrew custom, the Bible sticks to using this name. This gives no cause for the unbelieveable.


So - we end up faced with the fact that 'Moses' must be the Hebrew-isation of an Egyptian name... and the nearest equivalent would be something like "m'ses" (as in the name Ramses, or Ra M'ses... which means "born of Ra".. or 'son of Ra').

Not necessarily. Not a fact, Grave, not a fact. Your explanation, perhaps.

It IS possible that an Egyptian child could have been given as 'trivial' a name as 'M'sese'... even possible for this to happen in the royal line - at a stretch. What is not possible is for the Prince to RETAIN that name into adult-hood. That isn't how Egyptian names 'worked'... and it certainly would not have done to have a 40 year old man wandering around with a child-name, or a nonsensical name. ESPECIALLY when that man was the Prince.

You are shooting down a strawman. The Bible doesn't rule out that Moses may have had several names. Considering that God has several names, as does many other characters of the Bible, your explanations are not binding in this case.

If you research Egypt a little, you'll see how inconsistent the name "Moses" is in the CONTEXT of the Exodus story. Far more likely, the name is an artifact... either culled from a vague knowledge of Egyptian, or a Hebrew name for a character that would NOT have been known as 'Moses' in Egypt.

What!! How can a name like Moses be inconsistent? Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all. It's the name that the Hebrews used, not necessarily the Egyptians, or at least not necessarily beyond his infancy. Your explainations are not necessarily even likely.


And yet, the Egyptian history DOES record the fact that Semitic peoples CONQUERED about half of the Egyptian 'empire'... and reigned a parralel reign. The Egyptians don't seem to leave things out just because they didn't like them.

Did you realize that there is a mention of Hebrew slaves building pyramids inscribed on a stele of Rameses II?


Incidentally - you might (if you are interested) want to research the Hyksos Pharaohs... in all possibility, we could be looking at the TRUE origins of the Exodus story, there... and it is FAR from the heroic version of 'triumph over adversity' that the Hebrew tradition records.

The last time I read up on Egyptian history was in high school. Perhaps I will take up your suggestion.

Wow, Grave, you have impressed me with your knowledge (applaudes). Did you read a book about this? And where do you get the time to read/write all this stuff? I don't think I can match you for time and information in this area. (My interest is more in genetics.)

Okay - first... I said there is no evidence. Show me the stones with the Ten Commandments? Can you show me?
No - the earliest physical evidence of Hebrew as a written langauge, are the scriptures written AFTER the Babylonian visit.
Maybe THOSE texts mention earlier writing... but they do not PROVE it, they provide no EVIDENCE. More likely, they are recounting 'oral traditions'.[/I

No, I can't show you the stones....they have been lost. A pity. But since you have claimed the likelyhood of no one at that time being capable of writing, then you have to throw away the whole story. Whoever wrote the story was making it up. There must have been no stone tablets. Thus, the part where Jesus talks about 'If they will no listen to what Moses wrote, then how will they believe even if someone comes back from the dead to tell them', this is rubbish, because Jesus should have known that Moses was illiterate and was never a writer. You are now in the position of rewriting a great deal of the Bible. It hangs together. When you want to change one part, you end up changing a lot of other parts to fit with the first change. Then you end up with a new Bible. That's been done before.

Futhermore, a lack of evidence in this case is not really surprising, and hardly likely to be proof of the falsehood of the story. Would you really be likely to find the original 'book of the law' or the stones on which the laws were written? Given the history of the Jews, and all their tribulations, this is a bit unfair of you to ask. And so you have said that this makes thier account seem wrong, and your preferred explanations seem more likely. More likely to you, perhaps, but that's not very convincing.

Since, as you so often tell me, that the first writings appeared after the visit to Babylon, and that many of the Babylonian texts appear to be rather similar in wording, etc., to the Jewish commandments, would it not also be possible that it was the influence of the Jews on the Babylonian culture that produced these texts. Unless, of course, those texts were dated to pre-Jewish captivity times. But then you would have to prove it. Can you?



[I]Second: The 'Commandments' were not 'written' so that people could read them... remember what Moses does AFTER he comes down with them? He tells all the peasants what they say.

Of course he has to tell them. They were slaves, most likely uneducated. But the Bible clearly says that God wrote them with His finger. You are the one changing the words.

Third: An aside from the discussion - but the original Ten Commandments are NOT the same ones that Moses tells the Hebrews.

Once again, what is your evidence?

Fourth: Poems, songs, and law can all survive in an oral tradition. Just because David is credited with 'writing' a song, doesn't mean he physically took pen and paper and WROTE the song. Similarly, a 'book of law' could be an oral tradition. (Rememer, the Hebrew word from which we take 'book' is [Cepher]... which basically just means a written body, or a record.)

I am aware of the possibility of oral traditions surviving, perhaps it is even possible for the huge number of material in the Psalms to have survived by oral tradition (unlikely). My point is that the Bible says it was definitely written. Consider King Ahaz who after listening to a portion of the scroll being read out, would cut that bit off with his sword and cast it into the fire of his winter palace. That, man, is the story. And you, in order to hold to your suggestions, have to change the story.



Fifth: The important thing is, because there are no PHYSICAL records from BEFORE the Babylonian time, we have ONLY the internal evidence of scripture to tell us what pre-Babylonian Hebrews were doing. And, to be quite blunt, they could have been lying.

It's possible that they could have been lying. That would be downright evil of them, if so. But lies have a way of showing themselves. No one has ever been able to show up a lie in the Bible to my knowledge. You know how it goes, in order to make and justify and cover one lie, you have to make several more, and thus more and more. But archeology has proven the historical accuracy of the Bible again and again. (I'm not suggesting that we have discovered all there is to know--there are still some questions that need answering.) The accounts have been shown to be true in many places. This makes your suggestion of lying unlikely.

Sixth: You should research those 'uncanny resemblences' before you choose to ignore them. The Flood Myth, for one, seems to have been stolen directly from the babylonian version of the story - even down to using identical wording. Similarly, the Hebrew version of the Creation Myth (for which we only have PHYSICAL evidence from AFTER the Babylon sojourn) seems to steal several elements from the already extant Mesopotamian creation myths... even down to it being a serpent that costs mankind eternal life - although the 'means' is different.

You should maybe also compare the Levitical Law (which is only PHYSICALLY evidenced AFTER Babylon) with the Code of Laws of Hammurabi - which is (literally) carved in stone... and to which many of the Hebrew laws are more than just 'similar'... they even share word patterns, and order.

Many cultures have flood myths, even those without exposure to the Hebrew culture. The fact that the Babylonians also had a flood myth suggests that perhaps it was not a myth after all. Or it may have been that the Hebrews influenced the Babylonians, and some of the Babylonians believed the Hebrew account. The Jews did have a knack of gaining influence and power (consider the story of Esther and the Persian King Xerxes). That would explain some of the similar wording. I suppose you might suggest that Hammurabi lived before the Hebrew exile. Yes, but that doen't mean the Babylonian carvings were from his time, or that they weren't influenced by the Hebrews.

I try not to ignore 'uncanny resemblences'. There is a reason for each one of them. But perhaps you could forgive me for not going along with your reasons, particularly when it seems as though you are looking for any excuse to make the Bible seem inaccurate, and therefore not trustworthy of confidence.

Wow, Grave, you have impressed me with your knowledge (applaudes). Did you read a book about this? And where do you get the time to read/write all this stuff? I don't think I can match you for time and information in this area. (My interest is more in genetics.)


Thank you. I don't get to debate as much as I'd like to, and some of my material is a bit rusty...

I have spent years researching Egyptian and Mesopotamian life, history and religions, etc. Our westernised world FAVOURS one view of history (i.e. the direct historical lineage of western culture, as drawn through Christianity and into the Ancient Hebrews) and relegates all the other information to a sort of secondary status.. but it IS still there, if you look.

Our mathematics, for example, owe much to the Babylonian mathematicians... and yet babylon is almost unknown in our society, except as a 'bad guy' in the Christian holy book.


No, I can't show you the stones....they have been lost. A pity. But since you have claimed the likelyhood of no one at that time being capable of writing, then you have to throw away the whole story. Whoever wrote the story was making it up. There must have been no stone tablets. Thus, the part where Jesus talks about 'If they will no listen to what Moses wrote, then how will they believe even if someone comes back from the dead to tell them', this is rubbish, because Jesus should have known that Moses was illiterate and was never a writer. You are now in the position of rewriting a great deal of the Bible. It hangs together. When you want to change one part, you end up changing a lot of other parts to fit with the first change. Then you end up with a new Bible. That's been done before.

Futhermore, a lack of evidence in this case is not really surprising, and hardly likely to be proof of the falsehood of the story. Would you really be likely to find the original 'book of the law' or the stones on which the laws were written? Given the history of the Jews, and all their tribulations, this is a bit unfair of you to ask. And so you have said that this makes thier account seem wrong, and your preferred explanations seem more likely. More likely to you, perhaps, but that's not very convincing.

Since, as you so often tell me, that the first writings appeared after the visit to Babylon, and that many of the Babylonian texts appear to be rather similar in wording, etc., to the Jewish commandments, would it not also be possible that it was the influence of the Jews on the Babylonian culture that produced these texts. Unless, of course, those texts were dated to pre-Jewish captivity times. But then you would have to prove it. Can you?


Jesus doesn't have to be lying. He was well versed in the Old Scriptures, as can be seen from his references to them.... but that doesn't mean that the Old Scriptures came TO Jesus in a true form. After all, if he quotes a line of scripture, and that LINE is untrue... he isn't lying... just quoting a lie.

Why should Jesus have known that Moses was illiterate? He BELIEVED the Old Scripture to be true. He might not have made as in-depth a study.

You say it is unlikely to find the 'stones' of the Hebrew Law... and yet, we have 'stones' of evidence of the Babylonian Law.

It WOULD be possible that the Babylonian scriptures were influenced by Hebrew scripture, but for one thing... the Babylonians were part of a tradition of Mesopotamian culture - and the roots of their religion and myths show up much earlier than the Hebrew myths.

It IS possible there was some cross-pollination... but the Mesopotamian religion existed in physical form, while the Hebrews were still desert nomads.


Of course he has to tell them. They were slaves, most likely uneducated. But the Bible clearly says that God wrote them with His finger. You are the one changing the words.


Not changing the words - this is a common misconception on the part of Christians. No offense meant to you.

The first set of commandments was broken by Moses. The second set, he wrote himself.... see Exodus 34:28 "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments".


Once again, what is your evidence?


My evidence is scriptural. Moses recounts commandments to the people of Israel, but the only text that is CALLED the Ten Commandments, in scripture, is the set of instructions God gives to Moses, which he carves into the stone himself. And - looking at those commandments - on the stones which went into the Ark of the Covenant - they are similar to the commandments we TEACH as the Ten Commandments, but they are NOT the same ones we teach.

Our modern Ten Commandments are not those God dictated on Mount Sinai, and the evidence is in the Bible.

Read Exodus 34:11-27.


I am aware of the possibility of oral traditions surviving, perhaps it is even possible for the huge number of material in the Psalms to have survived by oral tradition (unlikely). My point is that the Bible says it was definitely written. Consider King Ahaz who after listening to a portion of the scroll being read out, would cut that bit off with his sword and cast it into the fire of his winter palace. That, man, is the story. And you, in order to hold to your suggestions, have to change the story.


Not at all unlikely. Think of how much stuff you know - you know thousands... maybe millions of details. Recalling a few hundred songs is not that hard. You probably know a few hundred songs yourself... and that is for fun, not because you HAVE to.

The thing about the Ahaz story is - it's root may be truth, but it may have been altered in the writing... either deliberately, or innocently. Example - if a young scribe encountered the part of oral tradition where Ahaz 'spat words' into a fire (as in, to forget them, or condemn them) then the young scribe (perhaps not REALISING that written material was new in his culture) might interpret this as Ahaz casting parchment into the fire... you see what I mean?


It's possible that they could have been lying. That would be downright evil of them, if so. But lies have a way of showing themselves. No one has ever been able to show up a lie in the Bible to my knowledge. You know how it goes, in order to make and justify and cover one lie, you have to make several more, and thus more and more. But archeology has proven the historical accuracy of the Bible again and again. (I'm not suggesting that we have discovered all there is to know--there are still some questions that need answering.) The accounts have been shown to be true in many places. This makes your suggestion of lying unlikely.


Archeology has never managed to prove a single detail of the 'miraculous' nature of the Bible, my friend.

All it has been able to do is 'prove' what we can see of the material world... that Rome existed, that Babylon existed, etc.

Show me ONE piece of evidence of a 'miracle' text.


Many cultures have flood myths, even those without exposure to the Hebrew culture. The fact that the Babylonians also had a flood myth suggests that perhaps it was not a myth after all. Or it may have been that the Hebrews influenced the Babylonians, and some of the Babylonians believed the Hebrew account. The Jews did have a knack of gaining influence and power (consider the story of Esther and the Persian King Xerxes). That would explain some of the similar wording. I suppose you might suggest that Hammurabi lived before the Hebrew exile. Yes, but that doen't mean the Babylonian carvings were from his time, or that they weren't influenced by the Hebrews.

I try not to ignore 'uncanny resemblences'. There is a reason for each one of them. But perhaps you could forgive me for not going along with your reasons, particularly when it seems as though you are looking for any excuse to make the Bible seem inaccurate, and therefore not trustworthy of confidence.

The Babylonian flood myth refers to one river flowing over it's banks... it flooded as far as the eye could see. That is not the same as flooding the whole world, although it is easy to see how someone might misinterpret "as far as the eye can see" as the "whole world".

The Hebrew flood myth never happened... there has never been, in the last few hundred thousand years, a flood that could reasonably be said to have been 'worldwide'.

In fact, at the time at which the flood is SUPPOSED to have taken place, killing all men, women and children... there are cultures who have uninterrupted histories, who seem to have forgotten to mention that they were underwater and dead.

That's either my ignorance of this jolly network system, or some fault within the network itself. Or perhaps I wanted you to read what I was writing more thoroughly :)


The Nationstates system thing is notoriously bugg-y and difficult. :)


I presume this sacred language thingy had a time-line associated with it. Does it apply to the whole of the Egyptian history?


Not all of it, no - the heiroglyphic language evolved over some time - and was evetually largely replaced by Coptic... which is a kind of 'written' version of the Egyptian language.

It is most commonly assumed that Moses lived under the reign of Ramses II - although there is no real evidence to support the assumption, and the Bible doesn't name any of the Pharaohs. The sacredness of the language was certainly still true, during the reign of Ramses II.


Do you know this, is this your opinion or is this speculation? Please indicate. Personally, I don't find it altogether unreasonable that the Pharaohs were educated. They did have the power over the priests, and that would be unlikely if only the priests could read or write. We know from more recent history that priests of all kinds are likely to try and get as much power as they can (of course there are always exceptions....no offense meant to the Catholics).


I have done quite a lot of research on the matter, from a variety of sources. I didn't claim that Egyptian Kings were uneducated... merely that they wouldn't be able to write... they may still have been able to read - but neither is necessary for a person to be 'educated'.

Example: I know people that can recite entire books of the Bible... and yet they have no formal qualification. They learned the Bible from hearing it.

Also - consider that not all of the 'priests' of Egypt would be able to write, either... only the specially selected caste of the Place of Truth.

Finally - Ramses II wrote a lot of accounts... but that doesn't mean he physically wrote them himself. A royal figure needs to be able to do very few things for himself, when he can have others do them for him.


The Bible doesn't tell us Moses' adult Egyptian name, only his name given to him when he was pulled out of the river. For some reason, perhaps a Hebrew custom, the Bible sticks to using this name. This gives no cause for the unbelieveable.


Actually, if you believe the Bible to be accurate, it says he kept his name all his life, and that even the new Pharaoh knew it (after the death of Moses' adopted father).

Exodus 5:4 "And the king of Egypt said unto them, Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? get you unto your burdens".

This is part of the reason the name is 'inconsistent'.


Not necessarily. Not a fact, Grave, not a fact. Your explanation, perhaps.


Not 'necessarily' a fact, perhaps... but neither is the scriptural account 'necessarily' a fact as it is.


You are shooting down a strawman. The Bible doesn't rule out that Moses may have had several names. Considering that God has several names, as does many other characters of the Bible, your explanations are not binding in this case.


As I showed above, the text shows Moses addressed by the Hebrews, and by Egyptians, by the same name.

It isn't really a matter of a strawman, I am just showing an apparent inconsistency.

Why would Pharaoh give a son a Hebrew name?

Why would an adult in Egypt be known by his childhood name?

Why would an adult in Egypt be known by a Hebrew name?

Why would an adult in Egypt be known (if it WAS the case that the Hebrews ahve just borrowed the Egyptian for 'born') by a name that just means 'born'?


What!! How can a name like Moses be inconsistent? Sorry, I don't follow your logic at all. It's the name that the Hebrews used, not necessarily the Egyptians, or at least not necessarily beyond his infancy. Your explainations are not necessarily even likely.


The Egyptians did use it - I have shown a passage above for example.

The name just doesn't 'fit' with Egyptian culture.

Example: you know how Chinese names work? What we list first, is the 'last name' in Chinese - hence Chairman Mao, for example?

Cultures have definite naming traditions. 'Moses' does not conform to tradition.


Did you realize that there is a mention of Hebrew slaves building pyramids inscribed on a stele of Rameses II?


I have seen no such evidence... do you remember where you heard this?
As far as I recall, Ramses II recorded absolutely no encounters with the Hebrews, at all... slaves or otherwise.


The last time I read up on Egyptian history was in high school. Perhaps I will take up your suggestion.

It IS very entertaining stuff... truly fascinating. It is hard to reconcile such an advanced culture with the time it existed.

I believe in God the father almighty, creator of Heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only son, out Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirt, born of the Virgin Mary. He sufferd under Pontius Pilot, was crusified, died and was buried, he decended to hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead, he accended in to Heaven, and is seated at the right had of God. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Holy Cathlic Chrurch*, The forgiveness of sins, the resurection of the body ad the Life everlasting. Amen.

----The Apostles Creed.

(*Being all Christians.)

'Are you a Christian' and 'do you think this statement is true' are two different questions. It's possible to answer 'yes' to the first and 'no' to the second.

I]Jesus doesn't have to be lying. He was well versed in the Old Scriptures, as can be seen from his references to them.... but that doesn't mean that the Old Scriptures came TO Jesus in a true form. After all, if he quotes a line of scripture, and that LINE is untrue... he isn't lying... just quoting a lie.

Why should Jesus have known that Moses was illiterate? He BELIEVED the Old Scripture to be true. He might not have made as in-depth a study.[/I]

And so, judging by your statement, Jesus was not God. There we have it, perhaps. The great difference between our beliefs. For if you and I cannot agree on this statement (that Jesus is God), what is the point of arguing about Moses? He certainly was a secondary figure compared to Jesus. The Gospel writers all portray Jesus either claiming He was God, or at least indicating this, or in the very least, not denying it. So you are saying, indirectly, that you know better and that your explanations are more likely, and thus you do away with any reason to believe. Beware, Grave, beware. Could not one accuse you of great arrogance? Or, if not arrogance, a very strong determination not to believe? Which equates to a great bias, I would say. How is it that you could even think yourself more of an authority on what the past was really like than the eye witnesses. OK, you may claim that the eye witnesses were biased. Only believers wrote the Bible. They were not objective. But I think you and I could agree that no human being is objective. We are not objective creatures/beings. Yet it is possible that these biased writers were committed to telling the truth. This is quite likely, given an indepth study of what they said. I have certainly discovered no deliberate deceptions in the Bible--which is something that you would have to be accusing them of. Neither of us could be so naive as to explain away all of the recorded miracles of the Bible as cases of mistaken explanations. If what you say is true, someone, somewhere along the line had been telling some great big woppers.


You say it is unlikely to find the 'stones' of the Hebrew Law... and yet, we have 'stones' of evidence of the Babylonian Law.

That's because there was only two Hebrew stone tablets, both stored in the Ark of the Covenant, which is lost to us (so far), whereas the Babylonian scriptures were most likely engraved all over the joint.


It WOULD be possible that the Babylonian scriptures were influenced by Hebrew scripture, but for one thing... the Babylonians were part of a tradition of Mesopotamian culture - and the roots of their religion and myths show up much earlier than the Hebrew myths.

It IS possible there was some cross-pollination... but the Mesopotamian religion existed in physical form, while the Hebrews were still desert nomads.

The newer cultures can certainly influence the older. Just look at Christianity in Rome, and Islam in Arabia. You can't say that the Hebrews were still desert nomads. I do realize that there is quite some debate raging over the bronze age and the golden age etc., etc., but according to the Hebrew scriptures, they were definitely well settled in their cities. This is likely, I think, given the long siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Desert nomads are not used to long sieges behind city walls.


Not changing the words - this is a common misconception on the part of Christians. No offense meant to you.

I have not taken any offense from you, Grave, on the contrary, I thank you for your polite and interesting discussion.

The first set of commandments was broken by Moses. The second set, he wrote himself.... see Exodus 34:28 "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments".

This I was aware of, and in no wise contradicts my earlier point that God wrote with His finger, and Moses read it to the people. This is the account. And if you say that Moses could probably not read or write, then I think you are changing the words. Your explanation is that Moses told the people what God said to him, and they told their children, and their children told their children, and so forth. You would have to change the part that says that Moses read the law to the people, and all the other parts that talks about Moses rewriting the law, etc.

My evidence is scriptural. Moses recounts commandments to the people of Israel, but the only text that is CALLED the Ten Commandments, in scripture, is the set of instructions God gives to Moses, which he carves into the stone himself. And - looking at those commandments - on the stones which went into the Ark of the Covenant - they are similar to the commandments we TEACH as the Ten Commandments, but they are NOT the same ones we teach. Our modern Ten Commandments are not those God dictated on Mount Sinai, and the evidence is in the Bible.

What, a slight difference in the wording...that is hardly a point worth making. The message was the same. That is what matters.


Not at all unlikely. Think of how much stuff you know - you know thousands... maybe millions of details. Recalling a few hundred songs is not that hard. You probably know a few hundred songs yourself... and that is for fun, not because you HAVE to.

None of the songs I know have any where near as much in them as Psalm 119.

The thing about the Ahaz story is - it's root may be truth, but it may have been altered in the writing... either deliberately, or innocently. Example - if a young scribe encountered the part of oral tradition where Ahaz 'spat words' into a fire (as in, to forget them, or condemn them) then the young scribe (perhaps not REALISING that written material was new in his culture) might interpret this as Ahaz casting parchment into the fire... you see what I mean?

Yes, I see what you mean, but I also think that your explanation was a bit of a weak one. And once again, you would have to change the wording to make the details of the story exact.

Archeology has never managed to prove a single detail of the 'miraculous' nature of the Bible, my friend.

I never mentioned proof for miracles. But proof for the Bibical accounts. For example, the constructions at Jerusalem, the destruction of Jericho, of Lashish, and some of the other cities that were burned to the ground. Archeology has proven the historical accuracy of many of these accounts.

All it has been able to do is 'prove' what we can see of the material world... that Rome existed, that Babylon existed, etc.

Show me ONE piece of evidence of a 'miracle' text.

I rather think that evidence for miracles is right there screaming at you, and you are not prepared to accept it, thus you cannot see it. Even the Bible talks about needing faith before you can see. That's the basic rule, although there have been exceptions, of course.

When you challenge me to show you evidence, you are setting me up for an impossible task. I could mention that the Hebrew slaves did escape from their captives, with millions of people, men, women, and children, and crossed the desert, and arrived in Canaan with all their livestock, defeated the occupants who lived in walled cities, and built a great kingdom for themselves. Not only is that a miracle, but it is a succession of miracles. For each of those events are unlikely, unless you take into account the possibility of miracles. But this is not evidence to you. No, I would have to give you evidence that does not require faith, or you won't accept it. And I suspect even were I good enough to provide you that evidence, you have already crafted some explanations (some of them may even be rather clever ones) to counter my evidence. You don't need proof for this. Only explanations, and thus you have successfully resisted all my attempts. So I'm not silly enough to get right to work and take up your challenge. No, the real obstacle here is your resistance to belief.

The Babylonian flood myth refers to one river flowing over it's banks... it flooded as far as the eye could see. That is not the same as flooding the whole world, although it is easy to see how someone might misinterpret "as far as the eye can see" as the "whole world".

I am ignorant of the Babylonian flood myth. However, I see no reason for this myth to disprove or confirm the Hebrew account of the great flood. The myth may easily be altered (I guess the same explanation could be thrown at the Hebrew 'myth'), or could be about a separate event.


The Hebrew flood myth never happened... there has never been, in the last few hundred thousand years, a flood that could reasonably be said to have been 'worldwide'.

So long as you say something so general and so absolute, based on the same sort of information that I have from science and paleontology, I have no confidence in your explanations being even remotely objective.

In fact, at the time at which the flood is SUPPOSED to have taken place, killing all men, women and children... there are cultures who have uninterrupted histories, who seem to have forgotten to mention that they were underwater and dead.

Of course each culture would have an uninterrupted account of their own history, if they all decended from Noah.

'Are you a Christian' and 'do you think this statement is true' are two different questions. It's possible to answer 'yes' to the first and 'no' to the second.

Oh No...

of course

Yes, I am most certainly a Christian. Catholic to be exact. And proud of it.

Woo! Go the Catholics!

The Babylonian flood myth refers to one river flowing over it's banks... it flooded as far as the eye could see. That is not the same as flooding the whole world, although it is easy to see how someone might misinterpret "as far as the eye can see" as the "whole world".

The Hebrew flood myth never happened... there has never been, in the last few hundred thousand years, a flood that could reasonably be said to have been 'worldwide'.

In fact, at the time at which the flood is SUPPOSED to have taken place, killing all men, women and children... there are cultures who have uninterrupted histories, who seem to have forgotten to mention that they were underwater and dead.
It needn't not have been a real flood at all, to be mythologically valid, as the flood isn't what the story is about, it's about renewal.

EDIT: The Hebrew version, anyway.

Don't like to label myself, but guess "atheist" would be closest. I guess I've just accepted that I don't have a clue. I've sometimes wished I believed in some higher power because maybe some things would be a little easier that way, but I don't.
To those of you who have thought these things through and found that you do believe in God or Allah or whatever you may call it, I say, good for you!
What I don't like about religion is that many people get born into one and they don't have the permission or the courage to question it.

What I don't like about religion is that many people get born into one and they don't have the permission or the courage to question it.

Have you not read the previous posts? There are loads of people whose parents are staunch believers and brought up their kids that way. Yet, here they are, posting often cliched arguments AGAINST Christianity.

For the record, I'm a Christian, and I know that I'm not 100% perfect. People often make the mistake of thinking that Christians are these pure, goody-goodys. Newsflash - just because you're saved, doesn't mean you stop sinning. God recognises that we are fallible humans, and knows that we can never come to fully represent Christ; all He wants is for us to strive to be like Jesus, so we can be an example to others. Obviously, there are "Christians" out there who don't do a very good job of this (the crusades being a very god example, and I have my doubts about Tony Blair).

Have you not read the previous posts? There are loads of people whose parents are staunch believers and brought up their kids that way. Yet, here they are, posting often cliched arguments AGAINST Christianity.


Yes Eldenland I have (although not all- I joined here today and haven't read all 36 pages). And I know there are. I also know there are many- MANY people who are as I said- I know one person on this place so I'm talking about people in general. Personally I know quite a few people who live their lives that way, Christians, Muslims, even atheists.
I just thought this was an interesting discussion and I wanted to share my first thoughts, so I did. :rolleyes:

It needn't not have been a real flood at all, to be mythologically valid, as the flood isn't what the story is about, it's about renewal.

EDIT: The Hebrew version, anyway.

And, as myth, I see nothing wrong with it... fair dues to them.

But, there are people out there who honestly believe in a literal world-Flood, despite the evidence to the contrary... and some of those people would even shape what can be taught in schools to conform to that literal view...

And so, judging by your statement, Jesus was not God. There we have it, perhaps. The great difference between our beliefs. For if you and I cannot agree on this statement (that Jesus is God), what is the point of arguing about Moses? He certainly was a secondary figure compared to Jesus. The Gospel writers all portray Jesus either claiming He was God, or at least indicating this, or in the very least, not denying it. So you are saying, indirectly, that you know better and that your explanations are more likely, and thus you do away with any reason to believe. Beware, Grave, beware. Could not one accuse you of great arrogance? Or, if not arrogance, a very strong determination not to believe? Which equates to a great bias, I would say. How is it that you could even think yourself more of an authority on what the past was really like than the eye witnesses. OK, you may claim that the eye witnesses were biased. Only believers wrote the Bible. They were not objective. But I think you and I could agree that no human being is objective. We are not objective creatures/beings. Yet it is possible that these biased writers were committed to telling the truth. This is quite likely, given an indepth study of what they said. I have certainly discovered no deliberate deceptions in the Bible--which is something that you would have to be accusing them of. Neither of us could be so naive as to explain away all of the recorded miracles of the Bible as cases of mistaken explanations. If what you say is true, someone, somewhere along the line had been telling some great big woppers.


Whether or not we agree about Jesus' divinity, SHOULD be irrelevent, if the text has any historical accuracy, surely?

You misunderstand me when I talk about errors in the text. Perhaps, there was a deliberate policy of lying... I do not know. I DO know that we have a lot of evidence that tells us that not EVERYTHING written in the Bible is true.

The thing with oral traditions, and with history in general, is that it relies on human memory - and humans are flawed. It also relies on human perspective - and we KNOW that humans are naturally more subjective than objective.

An example might be Jesus walking on water. It could be a literal reference, or it could be that Jesus was in very shallow water, so it LOOKED like he was walking on water. The witness who reported it wouldn't be 'lying'... he'd just be wrong.

I am not arrogant about Jesus' divinity (or lack thereof). There is ONE book, in all the world that claims contemporary knowledge, and thinks Jesus was 'god'. There is no other evidence of the Godhood of Jesus - so how is it 'arrogant' to be sceptical?

I do not have a 'strong determination' not to believe, either.... do you have a 'strong determination' to not believe in Allah, or Shiva?

If evidence ever presents itself, I see no reason why I would not 'believe'. But, I have seen no evidence... hardly 'strong determination'.


That's because there was only two Hebrew stone tablets, both stored in the Ark of the Covenant, which is lost to us (so far), whereas the Babylonian scriptures were most likely engraved all over the joint.


Or maybe it's because the Ark of the Covenant is a myth? You have to accept, if you are TRYING to be objective, that it is POSSIBLE there WAS NO Ark of the Covenant... just as my objectivity has to admit it possible that the Ark did exist. I accept the possibility - I just see no evidence.


The newer cultures can certainly influence the older. Just look at Christianity in Rome, and Islam in Arabia. You can't say that the Hebrews were still desert nomads. I do realize that there is quite some debate raging over the bronze age and the golden age etc., etc., but according to the Hebrew scriptures, they were definitely well settled in their cities. This is likely, I think, given the long siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Desert nomads are not used to long sieges behind city walls.


The Hebrews are recorded in some ancienmt civilisation texts, as still being nomadic - Egyptian history, for example, records the 'Hapiru'. You have to bear in mind that some of these ancient civilisations are impossible, if you take the Bible literally. For example - there are remains of Canaanite cities that date back to maybe 9000 years ago - so, we have people apparently living on this world, long before the Bible even says the world existed.


I have not taken any offense from you, Grave, on the contrary, I thank you for your polite and interesting discussion.


I try not to be insulting, and I try to make a good debate... but I have to allow for the fact that some people cannot debate their religions without over-reacting to any potential nick in the armour of faith.


This I was aware of, and in no wise contradicts my earlier point that God wrote with His finger, and Moses read it to the people. This is the account. And if you say that Moses could probably not read or write, then I think you are changing the words. Your explanation is that Moses told the people what God said to him, and they told their children, and their children told their children, and so forth. You would have to change the part that says that Moses read the law to the people, and all the other parts that talks about Moses rewriting the law, etc.


Look again... the set of tablets God is supposed to have made, Moses smashed because he got in a mood. The SECOND set of tablets (apparently written by Moses, not God.... just dictated... Personally, I see conflict here, because I don't see how Moses could have written the Tablets.


What, a slight difference in the wording...that is hardly a point worth making. The message was the same. That is what matters.


No - the message is not the same. Try going through your Bible and comparing the 'accepted' Ten Commandments, with the actual set of Commandments that supoposedly went into the Ark.

The accepted version rarely mentions 'seething animal young in their mother's milk', to my recollection...

Seriously - compare the Commandments accounts.


None of the songs I know have any where near as much in them as Psalm 119.


But then, how many songs do you guess you know? I have a pretty good knowledge, I would say, of probably more than a thousand songs... and I don't think I'm THAT unusual. Some of those songs I don't recall all that well now... but then, my job isn't remembering songs.


Yes, I see what you mean, but I also think that your explanation was a bit of a weak one. And once again, you would have to change the wording to make the details of the story exact.

I never mentioned proof for miracles. But proof for the Bibical accounts. For example, the constructions at Jerusalem, the destruction of Jericho, of Lashish, and some of the other cities that were burned to the ground. Archeology has proven the historical accuracy of many of these accounts.


The Bible says that Jericho was razed to the earth - archeology disagrees. Parts of the wall are damaged, but much of the Jericho wall remains largely intact.


I rather think that evidence for miracles is right there screaming at you, and you are not prepared to accept it, thus you cannot see it. Even the Bible talks about needing faith before you can see. That's the basic rule, although there have been exceptions, of course.

When you challenge me to show you evidence, you are setting me up for an impossible task. I could mention that the Hebrew slaves did escape from their captives, with millions of people, men, women, and children, and crossed the desert, and arrived in Canaan with all their livestock, defeated the occupants who lived in walled cities, and built a great kingdom for themselves. Not only is that a miracle, but it is a succession of miracles. For each of those events are unlikely, unless you take into account the possibility of miracles. But this is not evidence to you. No, I would have to give you evidence that does not require faith, or you won't accept it. And I suspect even were I good enough to provide you that evidence, you have already crafted some explanations (some of them may even be rather clever ones) to counter my evidence. You don't need proof for this. Only explanations, and thus you have successfully resisted all my attempts. So I'm not silly enough to get right to work and take up your challenge. No, the real obstacle here is your resistance to belief.


No - the ONLY evidence of miracles is ONE BOOK. Would you accept a history that said that Hitler was the victim of a Jewish Conspiracy? That said that the Holocaust never happened? I suspect you would demand evidence, before you accepted such an unlikely premise, no?

So, why make a special exception for something as IMPORTANT as the matter of whether there is a god?

Regarding Exodus, and the settlement of cities... you can show me an account of such events, but you cannot show me evidence.


I am ignorant of the Babylonian flood myth. However, I see no reason for this myth to disprove or confirm the Hebrew account of the great flood. The myth may easily be altered (I guess the same explanation could be thrown at the Hebrew 'myth'), or could be about a separate event.


Well, the Babylonian myth is an earlier text than the Hebrew one, so maybe it DOES describe a different event. But, if that were the case, it still does nothing to support the idea of a 'world Flood' as recorded in Genesis. Because, Mesopotamian history just keeps right on trucking, even when the Bible claims that every person except Noah and his family were dead.


So long as you say something so general and so absolute, based on the same sort of information that I have from science and paleontology, I have no confidence in your explanations being even remotely objective.


You have scientific evidence of a cataclysmic flood, that wiped out ALL human and animal life, a mere 6000 years ago?

This I would LOVE to see. And not just me... this is the sort of evidence Christianity has needed for years.

Where can I find scientific evidence for a worldwide flood, within the last ten thousand years?


Of course each culture would have an uninterrupted account of their own history, if they all decended from Noah.

And yet, some cultures DON'T have flood myths... so they must not be descended from Noah?

I still don't see how you seem to be clinging to this 'young Earth' view of Genesis... how can we all be descended from Noah... when there are cultures with archeological evidence dating back to thousands of years BEFORE 'Noah', and uninterrupted history for the part of time where the Bible claims a 'dead world'?

The only LOGICAL explanation, is that - if the Flood occured at all - it was local, rather than global.

You didn't even leave an option for the Christian agnostics. :rolleyes:

how the heck can you be a Christian agnostic?

how the heck can you be a Christian agnostic?
There are different kinds of agnostics-one is "Christian agnostic". Christian agnostics aren't quite sure if they believe in Christianity, but they're not quite sure they disbelieve in it, either. Make sense?

My answer could go on for pages and hours, but I'll try and make this short.

When I say that no, I am not a Christian, it is not an easy statement to make.

I've been for quite a run with religion, starting when I was 4. I went to a strongly Fundamentalist/Conservative Baptist School. Memorized scripture starting young, prayed, every class was tied to religion.
I believed every word. I could recite entire books of the Bible. I could argue anything for the religion. I felt I really knew what I was talking about.

I was baptised as a Lutheran. I then started attending an Episcopalian church.

Then I secretly started going to Yoga on sunday mornings instead of Church. I couldn't tell my classmates. They'd be shocked and offended.



I left the school after 7th grade and started going to a liberal Episcopalian school. I started realizing that maybe things weren't how they seemed to me. I thought. I researched. I did heavy research into other religions.


I can't identify as a Christian anymore. It's been a very hard, very long ride for me, and I jjust can't do that anymore. I think Jesus' teachings are beautiful, but I do not think he was God. He never once said that he "died for our sins" (his followers did), and he did not say he was a god. He said he was the "son of god", but he calls us "children of God" - we are on the same level. His messages line up with many of the messages of Siddharta and some of Muhhamed too, but especially the more mystic side of Islam.

I used to be afraid of not being a christian, the nagging fears were always int he back of my mind. "I'm going to hell" - "He's watching" - "I'm evil" - etc. It was a hard, hard ride.

I don't believe in afterlife. I don't believe in a deity answering prayers.




I could keep going on this forever. I did actually, the other day. A friend and I sat and we talked about it for about... 6 hours? So don't get me started :P

how the heck can you be a Christian agnostic?
You believe in the Christian god but don't think it will ever be provable

Whether or not we agree about Jesus' divinity, SHOULD be irrelevent, if the text has any historical accuracy, surely?
////////
Well, that depends. For example, if the OT accounts describe a miracle that apparently happened, since you don't seem to believe in miracles, therefore you automatically look for an alternative explanation. If miracles are possible, then it is also possible that Jesus rose again from the dead, and that He is the Son of God. Jesus' divinity is linked to every part of the Bible. The Bible was not written by apologeticists. They were just writing the truth as they saw it, not trying to prove their point to a sceptic, so it's no wonder that they delve into apologetics. As for historical accuracy, you are the one that needs some weighty evidence in order to prove that you really know better than the 'mislead' writers of the Bible. Just because the Bible is the only book, that doesn't make it unlikely to be true. You need more than this, Grave.
/////////
You misunderstand me when I talk about errors in the text. Perhaps, there was a deliberate policy of lying... I do not know. I DO know that we have a lot of evidence that tells us that not EVERYTHING written in the Bible is true.
/////////
Honestly, I've only heard explanations (not evidence) that contradicts the Bible, usually on the premise that miracles are not possible. Perhaps you would care to dig up some more objective evidence.
/////////
The thing with oral traditions, and with history in general, is that it relies on human memory - and humans are flawed. It also relies on human perspective - and we KNOW that humans are naturally more subjective than objective.
/////////
I agree with you here. Perhaps that explains all the variation between the myths (in various cultures) about the origins of the world. The account given by Moses and the Hebrews has a stronger case. Moses wrote what he wrote after spending some quality time with God, the Creator. Thus Moses wrote what he understood. Given that he was a man communing with God, it may have been quite likely that there was a lot he didn't understand, and thus it is possible that some of his descriptions were a bit two-dimensional. But at least the direct contact with the eye witness (God) would rule out the necessity of relying on oral traditions.
//////////

An example might be Jesus walking on water. It could be a literal reference, or it could be that Jesus was in very shallow water, so it LOOKED like he was walking on water. The witness who reported it wouldn't be 'lying'... he'd just be wrong.
///////////
Come off it, Grave. Those chaps were worried about their boat sinking in the storm when they saw Jesus walking on the water. I don't think you have appreciated their situation very well.
//////////
I am not arrogant about Jesus' divinity (or lack thereof). There is ONE book, in all the world that claims contemporary knowledge, and thinks Jesus was 'god'. There is no other evidence of the Godhood of Jesus - so how is it 'arrogant' to be sceptical?
///////////
I have not labelled you as arrogant. I only suggested that this may have been one way to explain why it was that someone could think that they knew better than the eye witnesses. Furthermore, you are saying that there is no other evidence (other than a single book, which, as you should know, is not a single book but a collection of literature) that Jesus is God. But I say you are wrong, for look at all those lives who have been changed. I know changes can happen outside of Christianity, but Christianity doesn't deny this. The claim that Jesus is God can be personally witnessed to, not only on the evidence of my own life that has changed dramatically, but the lives of those I have personally met and that I have read about. Our personal experiences confirm that Jesus is still God, even if your personal experience has disappointed and disillusioned you. He never predicted that everyone would believe. Quite the opposite, in fact, that only comparatively few would choose to, and that even of those who chose to follow him, many would turn away. Is that not also true today?
//////////
I do not have a 'strong determination' not to believe, either.... do you have a 'strong determination' to not believe in Allah, or Shiva? If evidence ever presents itself, I see no reason why I would not 'believe'. But, I have seen no evidence... hardly 'strong determination'.
/////////
OK I take you at your word that you do not have a strong determination not to believe. However, when you disregard the possibility of miracles, you have already chosen what to believe and what to disregard, when it comes to reading the Bible. My earlier point (in my last post) is that the evidence you are looking for--that which will really convince you that the Bible is true--is out of your reach, unless you allow the possibility that Jesus is God. Every other bit of evidence will only be cleverly re-interpreted, since there appears to be nothing wrong with your intelligence. If you don't agree with this, than may I ask you what sort of evidence could I supply (theoretically) that would be compelling enough for you to believe?
Remember, there were those who personally witnessed the resurrection of Lazarus from dead, and immediately, instead of believing that Jesus was God (who else could bring dead people back to life?) went and told his enemies about it, who in turn looked for a way of putting him to death. Incredible, but that is human nature. That is in both you and me.
(OK, I used an example from the Bible, possibly not the best considering it is the point of debate in this case, however I believe that one doesn't have to look very far to see other examples for my point.)
//////////
Or maybe it's because the Ark of the Covenant is a myth? You have to accept, if you are TRYING to be objective, that it is POSSIBLE there WAS NO Ark of the Covenant... just as my objectivity has to admit it possible that the Ark did exist. I accept the possibility - I just see no evidence.
/////////
I will allow the possibility that the Ark of the Covenant was a myth, but in doing so, I have to allow that the Bible may have some rather deliberate errors in it, and therefore not trustworthy when it claims that Jesus is God. Thus, I have to allow that there is no God, which is something that doesn't fit in well with my life so far.
/////////

The Hebrews are recorded in some ancienmt civilisation texts, as still being nomadic - Egyptian history, for example, records the 'Hapiru'. You have to bear in mind that some of these ancient civilisations are impossible, if you take the Bible literally. For example - there are remains of Canaanite cities that date back to maybe 9000 years ago - so, we have people apparently living on this world, long before the Bible even says the world existed.
////////////
Would you like to suggest the basis of the dating method? Do we have anything that can differentiate between 9000 and 6000 years? My impression is that dating methods have rather a large error associated, and are based on assumptions, which may or may not hold true, depending on the particular circumstances involved (e.g. radio dating depends on the soil being relatively undisturbed). And nowhere is it written in the Bible that the world was created 6000 years ago. This is an approximation, which in turn, does not create an impossibility in this case.
There is no doubt, according to the Bible account, that the Hebrews were once nomadic. But since they settled on the highway between Egypt and Assyria and several other empires (e.g. Hittites), it is likely that they quickly learned how to build their own constructions, just as it says in the time of King David (books of Samuel).
/////////
Look again... the set of tablets God is supposed to have made, Moses smashed because he got in a mood. The SECOND set of tablets (apparently written by Moses, not God.... just dictated... Personally, I see conflict here, because I don't see how Moses could have written the Tablets.
///////////
Because you don't think he was a writer, or because you think he couldn't write down the message that God intended to communicate, or that he simply didn't know how to carve in stone?
/////////

No - the message is not the same. Try going through your Bible and comparing the 'accepted' Ten Commandments, with the actual set of Commandments that supoposedly went into the Ark.
The accepted version rarely mentions 'seething animal young in their mother's milk', to my recollection...
Seriously - compare the Commandments accounts.
////////////
Are you confusing the instructions to the Levites with the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) are distinct from the laws eg. on cooking a young goat in its mothers milk, etc.
It's true that there are several mentions of the Ten Commandments, and that sometimes they differ in the wording. But the message is unmistakeably the same. It is typical of humans to make slight alterations, and typical of God to keep the message the same.
//////////

The Bible says that Jericho was razed to the earth - archeology disagrees. Parts of the wall are damaged, but much of the Jericho wall remains largely intact.
///////////
Would that be the newer rebuilt Jericho, built by a Hebrew man who lost his eldest son when he prepared the foundations, and then his youngest son when he set the gates, for example, or first Jericho the one that the Hebrews marched around until the walls collapsed? Perhaps the walls belonged to a third Jericho, built on top of the previous ruins.
///////////
No - the ONLY evidence of miracles is ONE BOOK. Would you accept a history that said that Hitler was the victim of a Jewish Conspiracy? That said that the Holocaust never happened? I suspect you would demand evidence, before you accepted such an unlikely premise, no?
///////////
I don't accept the Bible as true and the truth of miracles simply because it was all recorded in a book (or more correctly, a collection of literature), no matter how miraculous it's survival over the past several millennia seems. No one does, to my knowledge. Only when the truth that one encounters in the book agrees with the truth one has recognised in his own soul or spirit (i.e. when the Spirit of God communes with the human spirit) can there be a true element of belief, in my experience.
////////

Regarding Exodus, and the settlement of cities... you can show me an account of such events, but you cannot show me evidence.
/////////
I have read some archaeological books on the evidence, even ones written by non-believers. I didn't think that was a point of this debate. Do you really think that there is no evidence? I was under the impression that you were more well read than that.
//////////

You have scientific evidence of a cataclysmic flood, that wiped out ALL human and animal life, a mere 6000 years ago? This I would LOVE to see. And not just me... this is the sort of evidence Christianity has needed for years. Where can I find scientific evidence for a worldwide flood, within the last ten thousand years?
/////////////
Once again, the evidence is already part of the great debate. And the evidence may be there under your nose. For example, we know that there was a great deal of species lost all about one time. We know that there had to be some major catastrophes that buried millions of tonnes of organic matter and turned it into coal and oil and fossils. This is pretty much what everyone agrees with. A great flood fits pretty well with the evidence. Virtually everywhere in the world there are signs of flooding. What we disagree over is the dating system. That's because the evolutionists need lots of time for their evolving theory. But according to creation, long periods of time are not necessary, since God created intelligent life forms. There is the hottest part of the debate. To me, great flood catastrophe is certainly not impossible, but rather, fits well with what I have read and seen. The strongest argument against this seems to be the dating system, which, as I have mentioned, is based an many assumptions. If there was a flood that moved great amounts of soil and rock around in a short time, then of course the dating system no longer applies, because it usually doesn't take into account this possibility.
////////////
And yet, some cultures DON'T have flood myths... so they must not be descended from Noah?
//////////
Or was it that the information was lost from human memory, like so much of the Australian Aboriginal myths?
///////////
I still don't see how you seem to be clinging to this 'young Earth' view of Genesis... how can we all be descended from Noah... when there are cultures with archeological evidence dating back to thousands of years BEFORE 'Noah', and uninterrupted history for the part of time where the Bible claims a 'dead world'?
/////////
I have never heard of any myths with dating systems included. I'm not 'clinging' to any theory. I'm open to the possibility of a local flood only in the Genesis account. However, based on what I have seen in my own home country (Australia), what I have seen here in Europe, and what I have seen in Northern America, and parts of Asia, I have no trouble accepting that those landmarks and formations were once formed by a great flood. Indeed, some places have left me wondering what this topic is not discussed more frequently. The problem is that no one can rule out the possibility of a great flood, without relying heavily of flawed radio dating methods. The moment their assumptions are questioned, they begin to look a bit foolish.
//////////
You misunderstand me when I talk about errors in the text. Perhaps, there was a deliberate policy of lying... I do not know..
//////////
Given the language used by the writers to describe the miracles, there leaves little room for innocent misunderstanding of events. If Jesus really didn't do all those miracles, and people thought that they really were miracles, if he had any grain of honesty about him, he would have not have allowed them to believe that they were. Like Paul and Silas, he would have been quite insistent that no body worshipped him. Yet the accounts seem quite clear that he accepted the worship. Whoever wrote those accounts was either deliberately lying, or telling the truth. There is no room for innocent misunderstanding.
/////////
I DO know that we have a lot of evidence that tells us that not EVERYTHING written in the Bible is true.
///////////
Now that you have made such a large claim, care to back it up with examples? Can you honestly say that you KNOW that not everything written in the Bible is true? Based on a set of explanations, perhaps? (I do not include the pictorial descriptions used, e.g. Job's intestines boiling. I see this, literally speaking, an impossibility (as far as I know), but I also realize that it was never meant to insult our intelligence, and is simply a metophor.)
//////
The only LOGICAL explanation, is that - if the Flood occurred at all - it was local, rather than global.
/////////
And yet if it were really true, and you discovered it so one day, what would you then say about your logic? I feel that you are clutching at straws to say something like this. Unless you have some very strong evidence that I am unaware of.........

Well, that depends. For example, if the OT accounts describe a miracle that apparently happened, since you don't seem to believe in miracles, therefore you automatically look for an alternative explanation. If miracles are possible, then it is also possible that Jesus rose again from the dead, and that He is the Son of God. Jesus' divinity is linked to every part of the Bible. The Bible was not written by apologeticists. They were just writing the truth as they saw it, not trying to prove their point to a sceptic, so it's no wonder that they delve into apologetics. As for historical accuracy, you are the one that needs some weighty evidence in order to prove that you really know better than the 'mislead' writers of the Bible. Just because the Bible is the only book, that doesn't make it unlikely to be true. You need more than this, Grave.


I don't believe in miracles because there is always a more simple, physical explanation... or because miracle stories cannot be proved to be miraculous.

Why do I need weighty evidence? I am saying that the world is the logical world we see... surely, evidence is ONLY required when someone makes a claim that the world CAN be otherwise?


I agree with you here. Perhaps that explains all the variation between the myths (in various cultures) about the origins of the world. The account given by Moses and the Hebrews has a stronger case. Moses wrote what he wrote after spending some quality time with God, the Creator. Thus Moses wrote what he understood. Given that he was a man communing with God, it may have been quite likely that there was a lot he didn't understand, and thus it is possible that some of his descriptions were a bit two-dimensional. But at least the direct contact with the eye witness (God) would rule out the necessity of relying on oral traditions.


The Moses account only has a 'stronger case' to you, because you believe that Moses spoke to God. I don't... so your story doesn't impress me. Similarly, other religions are just as sure, and just as unequivocal about their myths... Allah directly inspired Mohammed to write scripture, because Mohammed was illiterate.... so we KNOW that Mohammed must have been writing God's words, don't we?


Come off it, Grave. Those chaps were worried about their boat sinking in the storm when they saw Jesus walking on the water. I don't think you have appreciated their situation very well.


They might have been in stormy water... that doesn't make it deep... or mean that Jesus was NOT walking in shallow water. Even deep water can have sandbars, etc.


I have not labelled you as arrogant. I only suggested that this may have been one way to explain why it was that someone could think that they knew better than the eye witnesses. Furthermore, you are saying that there is no other evidence (other than a single book, which, as you should know, is not a single book but a collection of literature) that Jesus is God. But I say you are wrong, for look at all those lives who have been changed. I know changes can happen outside of Christianity, but Christianity doesn't deny this. The claim that Jesus is God can be personally witnessed to, not only on the evidence of my own life that has changed dramatically, but the lives of those I have personally met and that I have read about. Our personal experiences confirm that Jesus is still God, even if your personal experience has disappointed and disillusioned you. He never predicted that everyone would believe. Quite the opposite, in fact, that only comparatively few would choose to, and that even of those who chose to follow him, many would turn away. Is that not also true today?


I have seen no evidence for god. Yes, some people experience a change in their life when they convert to Christianity. But then, some people experience a change in their life when they convert to Islam or Hinduism.

Are all equally true?

My personal expernieces have not disappointed or disillusioned me... I just do not believe in 'your' god.


I will allow the possibility that the Ark of the Covenant was a myth, but in doing so, I have to allow that the Bible may have some rather deliberate errors in it, and therefore not trustworthy when it claims that Jesus is God. Thus, I have to allow that there is no God, which is something that doesn't fit in well with my life so far.


Just because the book is wrong, doesn't mean there is no god. Unless you place more faith in the text of scripture, than in the spirit of god?


Are you confusing the instructions to the Levites with the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17) are distinct from the laws eg. on cooking a young goat in its mothers milk, etc.
It's true that there are several mentions of the Ten Commandments, and that sometimes they differ in the wording. But the message is unmistakeably the same. It is typical of humans to make slight alterations, and typical of God to keep the message the same.


I am not confused here... you should really check your scripture.

It seems it is you that is confused. Exodus 20 is the words of Moses, apprently saying what God has told him, and is the start of a collection of statutes... this is important - I'll show you why in a minute.

Exodus 34:28 describes the ONLY set of statutes called the Ten Commandments in all of the scripture. (Bold added by me).

Exodus 34:28 "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Exodus 34:10-27 clearly lists what those 'commandments' are.

Deuteronomy 4:13-4 then says "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone... And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it."

Saying that Moses wrote Ten Commandments AND taught statutes and judgements - THESE are the text of Exodus 20... they are additional to the Ten Commandments, which are recorded in Exodus 34.

In case you are still uncertain, there is only ONE MORE Old Testament mention of the Ten Commandments - which clearly tells that the Exodus 34 text is what went into the Ark... remember the first set of stones were broken, and the second set are listed in Exodus 34 as the text inscribed on the stones that Moses brought all the way down.

Deuteronomy 10:4-5 "And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me... And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me".


I don't accept the Bible as true and the truth of miracles simply because it was all recorded in a book (or more correctly, a collection of literature), no matter how miraculous it's survival over the past several millennia seems. No one does, to my knowledge. Only when the truth that one encounters in the book agrees with the truth one has recognised in his own soul or spirit (i.e. when the Spirit of God communes with the human spirit) can there be a true element of belief, in my experience.


Actually - most people seem to accept the bible as true because it was written down. The most common argument I have seen for the 'truth' of the Bible is that it says it is true...

You may say that the book requires 'faith' to understand. I could just as easily argue that you need to suspend disbelief (what you call 'showing faith') in order to accept the text.


Once again, the evidence is already part of the great debate. And the evidence may be there under your nose. For example, we know that there was a great deal of species lost all about one time. We know that there had to be some major catastrophes that buried millions of tonnes of organic matter and turned it into coal and oil and fossils. This is pretty much what everyone agrees with. A great flood fits pretty well with the evidence. Virtually everywhere in the world there are signs of flooding. What we disagree over is the dating system. That's because the evolutionists need lots of time for their evolving theory. But according to creation, long periods of time are not necessary, since God created intelligent life forms. There is the hottest part of the debate. To me, great flood catastrophe is certainly not impossible, but rather, fits well with what I have read and seen. The strongest argument against this seems to be the dating system, which, as I have mentioned, is based an many assumptions. If there was a flood that moved great amounts of soil and rock around in a short time, then of course the dating system no longer applies, because it usually doesn't take into account this possibility.


Evolutionists are not the only scientists. There are people performing research in ways that 'date' the earth, that have nothing to do with evolution, or evolutionists. Carbon decay, for example, follows a strict halflife, and shows a MUCH greater age than the 6,000 to 10,000 years lifespan of the Earth, that the Bible claims.


I have never heard of any myths with dating systems included. I'm not 'clinging' to any theory. I'm open to the possibility of a local flood only in the Genesis account. However, based on what I have seen in my own home country (Australia), what I have seen here in Europe, and what I have seen in Northern America, and parts of Asia, I have no trouble accepting that those landmarks and formations were once formed by a great flood. Indeed, some places have left me wondering what this topic is not discussed more frequently. The problem is that no one can rule out the possibility of a great flood, without relying heavily of flawed radio dating methods. The moment their assumptions are questioned, they begin to look a bit foolish.


Which terrain features do you believe are evidence of a Flood? I cannot think of a single terrain feature that isn't BETTER explained some other way.


Given the language used by the writers to describe the miracles, there leaves little room for innocent misunderstanding of events. If Jesus really didn't do all those miracles, and people thought that they really were miracles, if he had any grain of honesty about him, he would have not have allowed them to believe that they were. Like Paul and Silas, he would have been quite insistent that no body worshipped him. Yet the accounts seem quite clear that he accepted the worship. Whoever wrote those accounts was either deliberately lying, or telling the truth. There is no room for innocent misunderstanding.


Maybe Jesus accepted the worship as a sacrifice, in order that his message be proclaimed.

I think there is still plenty of room for innocent misunderstanding... for example - a 'miracle story' that was actually about someone else originally, might have got 'tied up' in the Jesus story.



Now that you have made such a large claim, care to back it up with examples? Can you honestly say that you KNOW that not everything written in the Bible is true? Based on a set of explanations, perhaps? (I do not include the pictorial descriptions used, e.g. Job's intestines boiling. I see this, literally speaking, an impossibility (as far as I know), but I also realize that it was never meant to insult our intelligence, and is simply a metophor.)


Well - one example (there are, I don't doubt, literally hundreds):

Genesis 30:37-9 "...And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods... And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink... And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted".

Apparently, the Bible records that you can make animals have patterned young, just by LOOKING at those patterns. Nice trick. Never seen it work.


And yet if it were really true, and you discovered it so one day, what would you then say about your logic? I feel that you are clutching at straws to say something like this. Unless you have some very strong evidence that I am unaware of.........

How am I clutching at straws? There is no concrete evidence of a flood that the Bible claims is absolutely real. It seems to me, you have to make a bigegr leap to believe ONE story without evidence, than to remain sceptical about the whole thing.

You believe in the Christian god but don't think it will ever be provable

i believe that. well, it'll be proven when we're all dead. and, considering the alternative, i'd rather not have evolved from monkeys :D

i believe that. well, it'll be proven when we're all dead. and, considering the alternative, i'd rather not have evolved from monkeys :D
But being “dead” brings you out of the physical universe … it does not make it any more theoretically testable to those of us who are not dead

So agnosticism holds true

And reality does not always go with what you prefer … such is life

ur question of a rock that God himself could not lift would disprove the power of God, however God can create a rock that he cannot lift but at any moment He will be stronger then that rock. God can create a rock that Jesus (who is also God) could not lift because Jesus is God in the form of man, however God (the father) could not create a rock that He himself could not lift. Known on earth can truly answer ur question. The reason ur question has no true answer is because God exists not in the 3rd dimension but another realm possibly the fourth demension and his power cannot be undertood by our feable minds. when u die and stad before the father, before he sends u to hell, ask him that question.

ur question of a rock that God himself could not lift would disprove the power of God, however God can create a rock that he cannot lift but at any moment He will be stronger then that rock. God can create a rock that Jesus (who is also God) could not lift because Jesus is God in the form of man, however God (the father) could not create a rock that He himself could not lift. Known on earth can truly answer ur question. The reason ur question has no true answer is because God exists not in the 3rd dimension but another realm possibly the fourth demension and his power cannot be undertood by our feable minds. when u die and stad before the father, before he sends u to hell, ask him that question.
If he can not lift it he is not all powerful … but if he can lift it he is also not all powerful because he did not have the power to make the rock that he could not lift

i believe that. well, it'll be proven when we're all dead. and, considering the alternative, i'd rather not have evolved from monkeys :D

Unfortunately - reality isn't actually determined by what we would 'rather'.

Unfortunately - reality isn't actually determined by what we would 'rather'.
Lol read my response to the same post

:fluffle:

Lol read my response to the same post

:fluffle:

You just keep beating me to the punch, today... :D

I think that a Nation which is Buddhist and Communist (real communist, not Dicatorship) would work. If the people do not seek wealth and materialistic possesions then I'm sure it would work much better. When people critisize Communism they have they normal, corrupt, greedy person in mind. But if you have a nation of people aspiring to be christ-like Buddhas, then it could funtion.

I think I'm an agnostic. I don't like religion.

Why can't people be free to follow whoever they like in their own way? Why does it matter to God whether his followers use condoms or not? (I've never understood this part of Catholicism)

I don't understand people who are 'semi-religious'. Girls I know say they're religious but still bitch about people and are mean. But this never makes sense to me. Because either Jesus rose from the dead... or he did not. Either Muhammed (peace be upon him) received the Qur'an directly from God... or he did not.
And if these things did happen, then they are miraculous, and should be taken seriously. For if Jesus was the Son of God and Muhammad the prophet of Allah, then that should affect all believers' lives deeply.

Religions cause so many problems. Religion, some would say, is meant to be a good thing. But in my eyes it isn't. It is the cause of so many wars, so much prejudice, hatred and oppression.



**Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die**

I think that a Nation which is Buddhist and Communist (real communist, not Dicatorship) would work. If the people do not seek wealth and materialistic possesions then I'm sure it would work much better. When people critisize Communism they have they normal, corrupt, greedy person in mind. But if you have a nation of people aspiring to be christ-like Buddhas, then it could funtion.
Yah, but where will you find such people? You say yourself that if you think of normal (and per definition greedy) people, it won't work.
It's a nice theory, but in reality it has proven not to work.

Back on topic: I'm what I think you would call 'a satanic agnosticus'. Which has nothing to do with that red goat, but with myself: I believe I have the choise to do with my life what I want. There's no bigger plan, i just have to figure it all out myself. It doesn't matter if there is a God, cause I won't ever see him in this life. I just try to live well and correct, according to the general morals.

No I don't believe in your dellusional,corrupt religion.. and you mispelt 'Catholic'.. Also Catholicism is not the only form of Christianity..

No, I'm a Jew.

No, I am definently an Aethiest. I DO believe that maybe Christ existed, MAYBE.

I'm thinking about researching and going Buddhist.

I suppose what you mean is that you have not found anything that seems like concrete evidence to you that argues for religious belief. I hope you keep looking. It may well be right under your nose. The Bible promises that if you are willing to have faith, you will find all the evidence you need, and more. But without faith, you are basically choosing to remain out of reach of obtaining that evidence. The Bible has already described the position you have found yourself in. Your only way out........faith. It goes on to say that those who refuse the path of faith will one day find out, too late, their error.

Would it surprise you if I told you that there was a time when everyone did have a rather similar version of the creation story? Even now, the so called myths of the indigenous cultures, although not proving creation, at least are consistent with some sort of creation event. You are telling me that although I live my life by morals that christians have, I will see the error in my ways. I arrived at those morals with help of Christianity as I used to believe in creation, until one day in school they taught us about evolutionary theory. When I was about 12 I started reviewing the christian morals and found most of them suitable to live my life by.

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He decended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead. He accended in to Heaven, and is seated at the right had of God, from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the Life everlasting. Amen.

And Amen. World without End

I believe. Jesus has saved us all and I want to share it with everyone.

i'm praying for all of you out there who have not been enlightened yet. And going to church doesn't make you a christian.

Grace and Peace to you
-Neeo

i'm praying for all of you out there who have not been enlightened yet. And going to church doesn't make you a christian.

Grace and Peace to you
-Neeo
Pray all you want … its not going to happen :) I tried that faith for the first 15 years of my life or so … Im done with that lol moved on to bigger an better things lol

I am a Christian.

(re: buddhist communists) Yah, but where will you find such people? You say yourself that if you think of normal (and per definition greedy) people, it won't work. It's a nice theory, but in reality it has proven not to work.

That's only because people, especially in the west or in large nation-states believe mostly that greed is necessary to survive.

The message of Christianity, or Buddhism for that matter, is that greed only makes survival more difficult--but it's hard to convince people because greed does sort of work in the short term, plus it takes only a few vicious or greedy people to screw it up for everybody, making generosity very difficult. Plus, when times are tough, greed becomes an emotional reaction; hard to avoid.

Impress me and im converted
show me what he has to offer that the others dont.
I used to go to a christian friday thing which was pretty cool cuz of the guy who ran it, then he stopped and i became dissolusioned

No. Christian = hypocrite

Ahhh, i finally revealed my anti-semetic side.

and BTW, I was jokin

:) :headbang: :cool: :sniper: :rolleyes: :mp5: :p

No. Christian = hypocrite

Ahhh, i finally revealed my anti-semetic side.

and BTW, I was jokin

:) :headbang: :cool: :sniper: :rolleyes: :mp5: :p
Um if you hate christians it would be anti-gentile not semetic

I am a Christian.
I am UpwardThrust

I'm pretty much an atheist ("pretty much" meaning that I'm open to the possibility that there is a higher power, but I highly doubt there is one).
I guess you could call me agnostic, but whatever.


I find it really funny when people say "I KNOW there is a God."
I'm always tempted to answer: "No, you don't KNOW, you only THINK there is a God."
It's impossible to *know* whether or not there is a God, because it is not provable by concrete evidence.


just wondering, would witnessing a miracle be concrete evidence? of course i dont expect anyone to believe me(fair enough, you have no reason to) but my father isnt crippled anymore.

Cause i KNOW there is a god,

and i dunno about the catholic church though, i dont think saints or mary should be worshipped, seems a bit like idols, plus they were the most majorly corrupt christian group in history(i think...). im into pentacostal.

I'm a Christian. However, I really dislike the Catholic Church, and many churches for that matter. They tend to focus on keeping people pure and controlling their lives, rather than focus on what Jesus taught, and worshipping God.

just wondering, would witnessing a miracle be concrete evidence? of course i dont expect anyone to believe me(fair enough, you have no reason to) but my father isnt crippled anymore.

Cause i KNOW there is a god,

and i dunno about the catholic church though, i dont think saints or mary should be worshipped, seems a bit like idols, plus they were the most majorly corrupt christian group in history(i think...). im into pentacostal.

WE DO NOT WORSHIP THE SAINTS, MARY OR THE POPE!

You are telling me that although I live my life by morals that christians have, I will see the error in my ways. I arrived at those morals with help of Christianity as I used to believe in creation, until one day in school they taught us about evolutionary theory. When I was about 12 I started reviewing the christian morals and found most of them suitable to live my life by.

I'm not commenting on your life, the way you live it, or your morals. I'm commenting on what the message of the Bible is on the issue of believing, and how that makes your position look like, in the context of what the Bible says. I don't know how you live, whether your life is full of good deeds or not. However, according to the Bible, the issue is doing good deeds that arise out of a genuine belief in God, and faith in Jesus Christ. Good deeds that are a stand alone attempt do not impress God, for it is written, 'without faith it is impossible to please God', and that all our attempts at righteousness look like dirty rags to Him.

When you embrace a Christian moral simply because it is suitable for your life, you have not really accepted Christianity. Jesus made it clear that acknowledging him as the Lord/Friend of your life was the real choice, and the decisive issue on whether you would recieve the gift of eternal life from him.

Why did you reject the creation account? Simply because someone came along with a 'nice sounding' set of explanations? Actually, I don't blame you for going along with them. I almost did too. But that was before I realized that there are far too many great big holes in the evolutionary theory. Holes that require a lot of faith or belief or something in order to be at peace with an explanation that leaves a mighty, creative God out of it. And when I looked a bit futher, I found that not only were there great holes in their explanations, but also the creation account had quite a lot going for it. This I discovered after about 10 years of studying at university, completing my bachelor of biological sciences and my doctorate of philosophy in biochemistry. I do not accept that life arose from nothing. I say that is an impossibility. I accept that miracles are possible, that with God, anything is possible, and that from the beginning, he wanted us to come to him through faith, not from hard evidence, because hard evidence gives us no option. And the choice to love is what real love is.

If you are interested in discussing the evolution/creation debate, then by all means, fire away. I'm always keen to get involved. I only ask that you keep the discussion posts to a minimum, since I don't have a lot of time to answer.

To answer the question if I am a Christian... yes and no.

I was born a Christian, I was raised Catholic. So my view of the world, of morals, of right and wrong, of life itself is basically Christian.
But, growing up, i found that I cannot agree fully with the teaching of any church or faith. I cannot force myself to believe things that my brain tells me are wrong or have a different explanation than the one offered by religion.

To give a few examples : The evolution theory makes sense, simply because it is based on the laws of physics, chemistry and biology of this world. It doesn't contradict any of them. Now, that isn't to say that it explains everything in detail, I doubt it ever will because the data needed for that is not accessible to us. So, if you feel happier and saver believing that god not only started it all but is still meddling, feel free. I can't believe that, as it lacks common sense.
I'm not sying that the univers happened by accident though. May, or may not, I can only speculate. It's possible that a superhuman being pushed it into existence. It's possible it just happened by accident. Maybe it was an accident happening to the superhuman being, who knows?

And Jesus being that superhuman being? No, I don't believe that. In my eyes and to my understanding, he was a prophet, a great man, an enlightened soul, but nothing more. For all I know he never once refered to himself as Lord, he said he was the son of god and called everybode brother and sister, which in consequence would make us all children of god. He seemed to regard himself as teacher, and that's the role he has for me.
As for the alleged miracles, I don't doubt that some did happen, simply because people believed they would happen, but many are pure exagerations.

Religious laws? No, I don't believe in them in any way. Religion isn't about law, and law shouldn't be about religion. Law is about living together in a peaceful socitey, religion is partly about filling the holes in your understanding of the world, partly about spirituality. Religion cannot be any basis of law.
A religion that requires me to follow its laws to the letter is no religion, as it will do little enough for my spirituality or my soul.

To sum it up, yes, I believe that god exists. No, I don't believe he is the god the bible tells us about. Take all religious books ever written by humans, take all kinds of faiths on this planet, and look very, very closely. God is the being that's at the center of all of them.

I don't believe in miracles because there is always a more simple, physical explanation... or because miracle stories cannot be proved to be miraculous.

That only works if you are not an eye witness. And then, even if an eye witness gives a really good account of a miracle, you would always have the option of discrediting the integrity of the witness. In effect, this is what you are doing when you don't accept the accounts of e.g. Luke when he writes about the miracles by Paul, or Matthew (or whoever the real writer was) when he describes the miracles by Jesus. Your belief cannot allow that the miracles were really true, but mere magician's tricks. A misunderstanding of a miraculous event is ruled out because we are dealing with eye witnesses.

Why do I need weighty evidence? I am saying that the world is the logical world we see... surely, evidence is ONLY required when someone makes a claim that the world CAN be otherwise?

It depends, I think, on what you accept as evidence, and on where you are coming from. If you choose not to believe, then the claims made by the authors of the Bible will seem like they need more evidence (though I could hardly imagine what better evidence they could provide for you, given their circumstances). However, the Apostle John wrote that Jesus said, 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hears me, and opens the door, I will come in and have fellowship with him.' That is the challenge, Grave. So now it's your move. In order to prove or disprove the claims of the Bible, you have to accept His invitation. To reject His invitation will not prove anything.

The Moses account only has a 'stronger case' to you, because you believe that Moses spoke to God. I don't... so your story doesn't impress me. Similarly, other religions are just as sure, and just as unequivocal about their myths... Allah directly inspired Mohammed to write scripture, because Mohammed was illiterate.... so we KNOW that Mohammed must have been writing God's words, don't we?

Well, it may have been an angel of some sort that did speak to Mohammed. I don't deny this. All things are possible with God. It may have even been possible that God somehow caused an illiterate man to become literate, although I don't see this necessity, since it is likely that he had literate aquaintences. However, when Mohammed explains that Jesus was just a prophet and not the Son of God, he has fallen into the trap of saying that Jesus was just a good man, even when He claimed to be God and claimed to take away the sins of the world, and to forgive men of their sin (no good man would ever claim this if it were not true). So he, like you, ends up rearranging the words of the Gospel writers to fit in with his idea of who Jesus was. In short, he likes his explanation better than what the Bible says, although he, like you cannot prove that it was changed. So, no, we don't know if Mohammed was writing the words of God....most likely not, if we accept the account of the Gospel writers.

They might have been in stormy water... that doesn't make it deep... or mean that Jesus was NOT walking in shallow water. Even deep water can have sandbars, etc.

Are you suggesting that he walked out into the middle of the Sea of Gallilee on a sandbar? What happened to your reasonable explanations?

I have seen no evidence for god. Yes, some people experience a change in their life when they convert to Christianity. But then, some people experience a change in their life when they convert to Islam or Hinduism.

My explanation for your lack of evidence for God is that you have refused to take up his invitation to prove that he exists. You won't see the evidence if you refuse to open your eyes. A change is not necessarily evidence for truth. You have to look at what direction the change is made, and whether the truth in the choice shows through the change. Becoming a convert is not a license to throw away reason. It does, however, usually require great humility, a point that is rather costly.

Just because the book is wrong, doesn't mean there is no god. Unless you place more faith in the text of scripture, than in the spirit of god?

I agree. However, I never said this. I said that if the Bible has deliberate falsehoods in it, then it is likely that the God that it describes does not exist. This is different from saying that a false Bible EQUALS no God.

I am not confused here... you should really check your scripture. It seems it is you that is confused. Exodus 20 is the words of Moses, apprently saying what God has told him, and is the start of a collection of statutes... this is important - I'll show you why in a minute. Exodus 34:28 describes the ONLY set of statutes called the Ten Commandments in all of the scripture. (Bold added by me). Exodus 34:28 "And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Exodus 34:10-27 clearly lists what those 'commandments' are. Deuteronomy 4:13-4 then says "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone... And the LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it." Saying that Moses wrote Ten Commandments AND taught statutes and judgements - THESE are the text of Exodus 20... they are additional to the Ten Commandments, which are recorded in Exodus 34. In case you are still uncertain, there is only ONE MORE Old Testament mention of the Ten Commandments - which clearly tells that the Exodus 34 text is what went into the Ark... remember the first set of stones were broken, and the second set are listed in Exodus 34 as the text inscribed on the stones that Moses brought all the way down. Deuteronomy 10:4-5 "And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me... And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me".

Sorry, I'm still confused, for I don't quite see the inconsistency that you are trying to show me. What was the point?

Actually - most people seem to accept the bible as true because it was written down. The most common argument I have seen for the 'truth' of the Bible is that it says it is true...

Perhaps they may say this, but I doubt that is the only reason. As that sort of argument, I also have heard it too many times. It should not be used when the Bible itself is the point of debate.

You may say that the book requires 'faith' to understand. I could just as easily argue that you need to suspend disbelief (what you call 'showing faith') in order to accept the text.

Either way, you need to do something definite before you will recieve.......according to the Bible.

Evolutionists are not the only scientists. There are people performing research in ways that 'date' the earth, that have nothing to do with evolution, or evolutionists. Carbon decay, for example, follows a strict halflife, and shows a MUCH greater age than the 6,000 to 10,000 years lifespan of the Earth, that the Bible claims.

It should be obvious that there is a very big problem with such dating methods....if the world were only, say, 6-10, 000 years old, then carbon decay dates don't make much sense. You have to assume a much older earth before the dates can mean anything. Assumptions come first, in this case. Not good for a logical argument.

Which terrain features do you believe are evidence of a Flood? I cannot think of a single terrain feature that isn't BETTER explained some other way.

The one that really impressed me in Australia was a place near Syney, next to the Blue mountains. It seems there is a clear case of terrain being shaped by flood waters. You could still see the sediment layers clearly, as you looked at the face of a large cliff. It bore all the marks of rapid erosion. The problem was that it had such a high altitude, that it was not possible for any local flood to do it. It must have been a mighty flood indeed. It was also quite recent (ie thousands rather than hundreds of thousands) since the original waters marks seemed quite well preserved. I don't know how anyone could explain such a formation at such high altitude (considering there isn't that much earthquake acitivity in Australia to explain this) within relatively recent history--unless you use the possibility of a mighty flood. I've certainly not heard any other explanation that even comes close. And there are many such formations that I have observed, not only within australia, but outside of it also.

Maybe Jesus accepted the worship as a sacrifice, in order that his message be proclaimed.

And yet if he did this, he would be accepting a falsehood in order to accomplish his means. That is inconsistent with the message of the Bible. It's never right to do wrong in order to do right. That's like saying that God is both good and evil at the same time.

I think there is still plenty of room for innocent misunderstanding... for example - a 'miracle story' that was actually about someone else originally, might have got 'tied up' in the Jesus story.

Not in every case. Those who claimed to be eyewitnesses describe the miracles as they saw them. Furthermore, they had ample opportunity to talk things over with Jesus, and they even performed miracles themselves (according to their claims). That doesn't leave any room for possible innocent misunderstanding. Either they were trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or they were telling the truth.

Well - one example (there are, I don't doubt, literally hundreds): Genesis 30:37-9 "...And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods... And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink... And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted". Apparently, the Bible records that you can make animals have patterned young, just by LOOKING at those patterns. Nice trick. Never seen it work.

The writer is not saying that Jacobs trick worked (i.e. it may have been God that helped him, not his particular tricks), or that it was scientifically proven. It is written that that is what he did. It's not even suggesting that he was doing the right thing. Note that it was while he was trying to do this his way instead of God's way. It may have been based on some superstitious religion that was opposed to God's ways.

There are many things we don't yet understand about the nature of the interaction between animal reproductive systems and plant biology. Just because you or any scientist has never observed it (which makes us ignorant), you shouldn't not scoff at it, if you want to avoid the possibility of egg on your face one day. Ignorance should not resort to ridicule. Ridicule sounds better coming from the learned. Haven't we learned anything from history?

How am I clutching at straws? There is no concrete evidence of a flood that the Bible claims is absolutely real. It seems to me, you have to make a bigegr leap to believe ONE story without evidence, than to remain sceptical about the whole thing.

Once again, the leap distance depends on your choice. If you chose to accept God at his word, you will find this the smaller leap in logic. If you reject it, of course your own way looks better. There is evidence there, Grave, but unfortunately, it's the sort of evidence that can be explained in more than one way, since it is separated from us by time. Evidence that cannot be explained in more than one way has to be personal. You have to encounter Jesus for yourself. And yet, according to his followers, he said that you have to accept his invitation first.

I believe in God the father almighty, creator of Heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only son, out Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirt, born of the Virgin Mary. He sufferd under Pontius Pilot, was crusified, died and was buried, he decended to hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead, he accended in to Heaven, and is seated at the right had of God. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Holy Cathlic Chrurch*, The forgiveness of sins, the resurection of the body ad the Life everlasting. Amen.

----The Apostles Creed.

(*Being all Christians.)

Wow, this is a late post. I am a Christian but I cannot vote yes because I am not Catholic and have no desire to be. The Catholic church does not encompass all Christianity.

That only works if you are not an eye witness.

Hmm... I remember a few weeks back when a bunch of people started praying to a concrete wall somewhere in the States because it looked to them like a picture of the virgin Mary? I'm an eyewitness, so to speak, I saw it on TV, and I still know that there's a logical explanation and that it's not a miracle

And then, even if an eye witness gives a really good account of a miracle, you would always have the option of discrediting the integrity of the witness. In effect, this is what you are doing when you don't accept the accounts of e.g. Luke when he writes about the miracles by Paul, or Matthew (or whoever the real writer was) when he describes the miracles by Jesus. Your belief cannot allow that the miracles were really true, but mere magician's tricks. A misunderstanding of a miraculous event is ruled out because we are dealing with eye witnesses.

Ever heard the word "exageration"? I don't discredit them, but I'm sure they were emotional enough to write down what they saw (subjective perception) rather than what happened (objective description of events)


In order to prove or disprove the claims of the Bible, you have to accept His invitation. To reject His invitation will not prove anything.

You're saying, to disprove the claims of the bible, you have to believe them? :confused:

However, when Mohammed explains that Jesus was just a prophet and not the Son of God, he has fallen into the trap of saying that Jesus was just a good man, even when He claimed to be God and claimed to take away the sins of the world, and to forgive men of their sin (no good man would ever claim this if it were not true). So he, like you, ends up rearranging the words of the Gospel writers to fit in with his idea of who Jesus was.

And how exactly do you know that your interpretation of the bible is the only valid one?


Are you suggesting that he walked out into the middle of the Sea of Gallilee on a sandbar? What happened to your reasonable explanations?

See above, under "exageration"


My explanation for your lack of evidence for God is that you have refused to take up his invitation to prove that he exists. You won't see the evidence if you refuse to open your eyes. A change is not necessarily evidence for truth. You have to look at what direction the change is made, and whether the truth in the choice shows through the change. Becoming a convert is not a license to throw away reason. It does, however, usually require great humility, a point that is rather costly.

Again, you seem to say that to be able to prove god, you have to believe in him? Not very empirical

I agree. However, I never said this. I said that if the Bible has deliberate falsehoods in it, then it is likely that the God that it describes does not exist. This is different from saying that a false Bible EQUALS no God.

Why would they have to be deliberate?
Not one of the people who wrote the gospels was an eyewitness to what Jesus did. The old testament used to be stories told from one generation to the next before they were written down. People selected at serveral stages what accounts were to go into the bible and what accounts weren't. People told events from memory, they described them the way saw them and understood them. None of this is very accurate.

Hmm... I remember a few weeks back when a bunch of people started praying to a concrete wall somewhere in the States because it looked to them like a picture of the virgin Mary? I'm an eyewitness, so to speak, I saw it on TV, and I still know that there's a logical explanation and that it's not a miracle
There is a logical explanation. The presence of the image of Mary is a result of the mind's capacity to interpret symbolism. We are very comfortable and skilled at interpreting man-made symbols as messages from another human (i.e. words and images), but for some reason our comfort level takes a nose-dive when the symbols we see occur in nature. Reading such symbols is a skill we have put aside, with our modern mentality. We generally call it "superstitious" when interpretation of such symbols results in perceived messages, as if they were sent from another mind. But it's not necessary to put such a silly slant on what is happening. The only message it produces comes from the subconscious and is intended only for the one who reads it.

There is a logical explanation. The presence of the image of Mary is a result of the mind's capacity to interpret symbolism. We are very comfortable and skilled at interpreting man-made symbols as messages from another human (i.e. words and images), but for some reason our comfort level takes a nose-dive when the symbols we see occur in nature. Reading such symbols is a skill we have put aside, with our modern mentality. We generally call it "superstitious" when interpretation of such symbols results in perceived messages, as if they were sent from another mind. But it's not necessary to put such a silly slant on what is happening. The only message it produces comes from the subconscious and is intended only for the one who reads it.


My point exactly. People want to see a miracle, so they see one. I don't feel the need to interpret a stain on a wall, apart maybe out of artistic curiosity, so I see it for what it is. A stain.
No matter how many logical explanations you give to people, if they want to see it as a miracle, they will. Or, if they are less religiously inclined, they might attribute it to space aliens, an FBI conspiracy etc.
All of these phenomena are, in my opinion, based on the fact that people crave something supernatural, something mysterious, something "you cannot explain". Add this craving to the fact that people are conditioned to read symbols, man-made or other, and you have the explanation for almost every miracle that ever occured on this planet.

My point exactly. People want to see a miracle, so they see one. I don't feel the need to interpret a stain on a wall, apart maybe out of artistic curiosity, so I see it for what it is. A stain.
No matter how many logical explanations you give to people, if they want to see it as a miracle, they will. Or, if they are less religiously inclined, they might attribute it to space aliens, an FBI conspiracy etc.
All of these phenomena are, in my opinion, based on the fact that people crave something supernatural, something mysterious, something "you cannot explain". Add this craving to the fact that people are conditioned to read symbols, man-made or other, and you have the explanation for almost every miracle that ever occured on this planet.
I don't think they do it out of "need"; it's a natural and useful talent that has been suppressed because the rules of rational thinking we learn from childhood encourage otherwise. To those who consciously dismiss it (as you appear to be doing), it is a loss of a part of themselves, a part that knows themselves.

True, there is an attraction to the unknown in mankind, but that is the very same stimulus that has inspired science to great ends.

Hmm... I remember a few weeks back when a bunch of people started praying to a concrete wall somewhere in the States because it looked to them like a picture of the virgin Mary? I'm an eyewitness, so to speak, I saw it on TV, and I still know that there's a logical explanation and that it's not a miracle

Your example doesn't apply to what I was referring to. According to what I was saying, you would have to see the miracle yourself. In your example above, you are getting a second hand account from some believers.

Ever heard the word "exageration"? I don't discredit them, but I'm sure they were emotional enough to write down what they saw (subjective perception) rather than what happened (objective description of events)

Exaggeration is another word for lying. If, on the other hand, they were simply being emotional, their individual stories would not fit together. (You may argue that the four gospels, for example, don't fit together, but that is another debate.) To me they appear quite sound and without emotion. In fact, I have often wished they would be more colourful and descriptive in their accounts, but it appears that they only wished to write the bare facts, just enough to communicate their message. Nope, you wouldn't describe the writers as being led away by their emotions. More like cold hard lying, or a serious attempt to give the truth.

You're saying, to disprove the claims of the bible, you have to believe them? :confused:

Well, yes, I suppose you could put it like that. Although I wouldn't expect a one-time atheist to jump in and embrace everything the Bible says, all at once (without something like a miraculous revelation--which I have heard has happened before). But what is possible is the skepticism (i.e. questioning) that is based on a humble and learning attitude, taking one little step of faith at a time. I don't say throw away all the apparent inconsistencies, for example, but deal with them one at a time, and allow the Spirit of God to show you the truth, even if it appears impossible. (Sight will most like seem impossible to a man who have never seen before.) The Kingdom of God is open to those with the attitude of little children, but closed to those who choose not to believe.

And how exactly do you know that your interpretation of the bible is the only valid one?

Which point do you differ over? That Jesus never claimed He was God? I think anyone reading the Bible would have to say that this is what the writers were trying to say. I'm not the only one who reads the Bible and has come to this conclusion. There are, however, points in the Bible that Christians are divided over. However, these are minor points, and therefore should be relegated to less important debates.

Again, you seem to say that to be able to prove god, you have to believe in him? Not very empirical

That is exactly my point, since you are not going to meet him without believing in him, until the end, when time is finished, and judgement day has come. You complain that that is not very empirical. Hmmmmm.......maybe, maybe not. For example, it may not be very empirical to disbelieve in God's existence and then set about trying to prove it either. However, it seems to me (as I understand the Bible) that God wanted us to make the choice whether to believe in him or not. After that, what we believe (i.e. the existence/nonexistence of God) will most likely appear the most logical. God's like that--hard to put in a box.

Why would they have to be deliberate? Not one of the people who wrote the gospels was an eyewitness to what Jesus did. The old testament used to be stories told from one generation to the next before they were written down. People selected at serveral stages what accounts were to go into the bible and what accounts weren't. People told events from memory, they described them the way saw them and understood them. None of this is very accurate

Not one, you say, and yet, from what I have read, we can only make educated guesses about who actually wrote what. Where do you get your information from?
At what point were the old Testament stories written down? Can you prove this? Can you prove that they weren't accurate? No doubt there is some human variation there, but when you accept that God was involved in the writing of the Bible, then you have no problem believing that what went in there was what He wanted, or at least the message that He wished to communicate was preserved.

If a writer claims to be an eyewitness (See the letters of the Apostle John) he is either lying or he is telling the truthl That includes the possibility of exaggeration.

So if god has no problem performing miracles (ie interfering in the world as is) why does he seem to have a problem in making it clear to humanity that he does in fact exist. Would make it a whole lot easier if the last time he really showed humanity was in a 2k+ year old badly written book

So if god has no problem performing miracles (ie interfering in the world as is) why does he seem to have a problem in making it clear to humanity that he does in fact exist. Would make it a whole lot easier if the last time he really showed humanity was in a 2k+ year old badly written book
I know, I know... you make such statements in the context of speaking to Christians who believe god is somehow real... but what goes on inside of us is as real as anything in the physical world, and there are some Christians who recognize this (and, indeed, some who don't differentiate between the two).

I think your arguments only address a strawman, and it pains me to see.

I know, I know... you make such statements in the context of speaking to Christians who believe god is somehow real... but what goes on inside of us is as real as anything in the physical world, and there are some Christians who recognize this (and, indeed, some who don't differentiate between the two).

I think your arguments only address a strawman, and it pains me to see.
Sorry you are right … I was trying to speak in the context of the traditional view on a Christian god (I did not specify being as it was a Christian thread…) I apologize

What I was TRYING to hint at ( and I am tired) is the traditional view of Christians (and I know we argued this false before but still saying it) is that a revelation from god would remove free will

So supposedly his showing me that he exists in a clear way that I can understand will remove free will why does that supposed god still perform “miracles” which are also a revelation from god in a way, would also jeopardize our free will

I obviously did not get my “in traditional Christian thought” context across nor make as good of an argument as I could even in that context

Sorry

Nope. I feel that religion controls people's lives too much.

Yes I am a Christian, but No i am not a cathlioc. (voted yes in the poll, which I thought matched the title of the thread in the basic 'Are you a Christian'.)

So supposedly his showing me that he exists in a clear way that I can understand will remove free will why does that supposed god still perform “miracles” which are also a revelation from god in a way, would also jeopardize our free will
I suppose because a miracle requires belief and/or faith to "see" (in the sense of "understanding" it, interpreting its meaning; of course, to less enlightened minds, that means seeing with the eyes). Free will is not endangered by anything that goes on inside of us, such as the application of meaning to naturally occuring symbolism. It is endangered, though, by god making physical changes (or hypothetically, by suggestions of god physically altering us from the start-up to be something we are not, such as altering us to not be able to recognize crime or violence, which would require a brain of a different make-up).

God "goes on inside of us". All we know and have of him is our end of the relationship we have with him. (I am using the gender symbolically, of course; being a straight female, I find a counterpart in males, and have no difficulty with a "father" image). That's my explanation, but I'd be as interested as you to hear a good argument from the "strawman" quarter. ;)

I believe in good spelling. Failing that, a good spell checker will do. Clearly whoever started this thread doesn't share these beliefs.

I suppose because a miracle requires belief and/or faith to "see" (in the sense of "understanding" it, interpreting its meaning; of course, to less enlightened minds, that means seeing with the eyes). Free will is not endangered by anything that goes on inside of us, such as the application of meaning to naturally occuring symbolism. It is endangered, though, by god making physical changes (or hypothetically, by suggestions of god physically altering us from the start-up to be something we are not, such as altering us to not be able to recognize crime or violence, which would require a brain of a different make-up).

God "goes on inside of us". All we know and have of him is our end of the relationship we have with him. (I am using the gender symbolically, of course; being a straight female, I find a counterpart in males, and have no difficulty with a "father" image). That's my explanation, but I'd be as interested as you to hear a good argument from the "strawman" quarter. ;)

And I can understand that … just (and this is overly simplified I know not supposed to be a straw man) that a god that requires our belief would find the time to appear on a piece of grill cheese but not take the time to make sure I understand fully the choice and the consequences to save or condemn myself to eternal damnation

And I can understand that … just (and this is overly simplified I know not supposed to be a straw man) that a god that requires our belief would find the time to appear on a piece of grill cheese but not take the time to make sure I understand fully the choice and the consequences to save or condemn myself to eternal damnation
Understanding the choices and consequences are what we have religious scholars and schools for, no? And to a (greatly) lesser extent, online bulletin boards. :)

Seeking is also something we must do for ourselves (literally, for our own benefit, to come to our own conclusions, for our own individual reasons), not have god put in our faces. Too easy. ;)

EDIT: I understand your point, though: Christianity does not make sense.

Understanding the choices and consequences are what we have religious scholars and schools for, no? And to a (greatly) lesser extent, online bulletin boards. :)

Seeking is also something we must do for ourselves (literally, for our own benefit, to come to our own conclusions, for our own individual reasons), not have god put in our faces. Too easy. ;)

EDIT: I understand your point, though: Christianity does not make sense.
I don’t know sometimes I figure out more stuff about my own beliefs just by trying to figure out a way to express it on these bulletin boards

I don’t know sometimes I figure out more stuff about my own beliefs just by trying to figure out a way to express it on these bulletin boards
That's cool. I've never had religious schooling, just read some in books, mostly about mythology.

That's cool. I've never had religious schooling, just read some in books, mostly about mythology.
Oh I’ve read a lot myself but just trying to figure out how to explain it makes me think an analyze it to some extent

I believe. Jesus has saved us all and I want to share it with everyone.
Well don’t bug me with it … its not appreciated :)

Oh I’ve read a lot myself but just trying to figure out how to explain it makes me think an analyze it to some extent

Thats how I feel too. Perhaps its a human thing. We are like the old gentleman who said, "How do I know what I am thinking unless I hear what I am saying?"
One thing is clear to me, that a place where we can politely discuss anything worth talking about is rather a good thing.

WE DO NOT WORSHIP THE SAINTS, MARY OR THE POPE!

EBH, why are you a Catholic?

Thats how I feel too. Perhaps its a human thing. We are like the old gentleman who said, "How do I know what I am thinking unless I hear what I am saying?"
One thing is clear to me, that a place where we can politely discuss anything worth talking about is rather a good thing.
Agreed and not only self analyzing … I have learned more then a few things from some of the people around here :)

Agreed and not only self analyzing … I have learned more then a few things from some of the people around here :)

definitely

Your example doesn't apply to what I was referring to. According to what I was saying, you would have to see the miracle yourself. In your example above, you are getting a second hand account from some believers.

I saw (with my own eyes, through a camera) people praying to a waterstain on a concrete wall. They considered it a miracle, I don't.


Exaggeration is another word for lying. If, on the other hand, they were simply being emotional, their individual stories would not fit together. (You may argue that the four gospels, for example, don't fit together, but that is another debate.) To me they appear quite sound and without emotion. In fact, I have often wished they would be more colourful and descriptive in their accounts, but it appears that they only wished to write the bare facts, just enough to communicate their message. Nope, you wouldn't describe the writers as being led away by their emotions. More like cold hard lying, or a serious attempt to give the truth.

You have to take into account that the four gospels we talk about here were selected very early on from a large number of somtimes very different accounts. None of the evangelists ever met Jesus. The earliest of today's gospels, Marc's, was written approximately 40 years after Jesus died. Can you imagine how many stories would have been added by alledged eyewitnesses, how much the stories would have changed in the memories of the people who most likely advised Marc? One of the reasons that the gospels don't excel in imagery might that the evangelists were challenged as they were already faced with a large number of stories that contradicted each other.



Well, yes, I suppose you could put it like that. Although I wouldn't expect a one-time atheist to jump in and embrace everything the Bible says, all at once (without something like a miraculous revelation--which I have heard has happened before). But what is possible is the skepticism (i.e. questioning) that is based on a humble and learning attitude, taking one little step of faith at a time. I don't say throw away all the apparent inconsistencies, for example, but deal with them one at a time, and allow the Spirit of God to show you the truth, even if it appears impossible. (Sight will most like seem impossible to a man who have never seen before.) The Kingdom of God is open to those with the attitude of little children, but closed to those who choose not to believe.

Ah, don't mistake me for an atheist. I'm sure god exists, I just doubt that the bible is right in most aspects, as it is in parts incoherent, contradictory and illogical. Doesn't make god less real, in my eyes, but the people who wrote it down were just humans. They would tell us what THEY THOUGHT was right, not necessary exactly what had happened.
You have to take into account the mentality and culture of these people. Telling stories was a way of conveying messages, and you would make sure that the message is remembered by talking in symbols people could remember. It's very much like fables and fairy tales. They try to give you a moral lesson, you'rs not supposed to believe that the crow and the fox really talked.


Which point do you differ over? That Jesus never claimed He was God? I think anyone reading the Bible would have to say that this is what the writers were trying to say. I'm not the only one who reads the Bible and has come to this conclusion. There are, however, points in the Bible that Christians are divided over. However, these are minor points, and therefore should be relegated to less important debates.

If everybody reading the bible came to the same conclusion, how come there's more than just one religion on the planet? How come there's this large, huge number of Christian churches and sects? No, people read a lot of different things into that book and always have.
In my opinion it is always dangerous to place your own interpretation of a book before your common sense, that led to a large number of deaths in the last 2 millenia (Christians, Jews, witches, colonised natives, Protestants of all confessions, heretics of all kind)



That is exactly my point, since you are not going to meet him without believing in him, until the end, when time is finished, and judgement day has come. You complain that that is not very empirical. Hmmmmm.......maybe, maybe not. For example, it may not be very empirical to disbelieve in God's existence and then set about trying to prove it either. However, it seems to me (as I understand the Bible) that God wanted us to make the choice whether to believe in him or not. After that, what we believe (i.e. the existence/nonexistence of God) will most likely appear the most logical. God's like that--hard to put in a box.

Again, I'm not an atheist. I believe god exists. But I find it infuriating that people shove books in my face and try to tell me that they KNOW who, what or how god is. They don't. Nobody does. They just believe that their respective book is right, that doesn't prove a thing. And it doesn't make the book right, either.



Not one, you say, and yet, from what I have read, we can only make educated guesses about who actually wrote what. Where do you get your information from?
At what point were the old Testament stories written down? Can you prove this? Can you prove that they weren't accurate? No doubt there is some human variation there, but when you accept that God was involved in the writing of the Bible, then you have no problem believing that what went in there was what He wanted, or at least the message that He wished to communicate was preserved.

If a writer claims to be an eyewitness (See the letters of the Apostle John) he is either lying or he is telling the truthl That includes the possibility of exaggeration.

I don't doubt that the message was preserved, but it definitely got elaborated. The old testament is a history of the Hebrew people, the earliest account date from around 1850 BC. I don't know when exactly it was written down, nor when the Torah in it's current form was agreed on, but it took centuries, centuries of telling, writing down, copying, correcting, arguing... the message is perserved, I'm sure, but the story itself most likely got changed and altered considerably. If you take into account that much of it was intended to be a allegories in the first place, you might be able to imagine how accurate the account is.

If you are interested in the timeline, try here http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

im a christian and proud of it. Without my faith (and my fiance) i would not be in this world, i would b dead. They have kept me strong and helped me deal with my demons and allow me to conquer them.

im a christian and proud of it. Without my faith (and my fiance) i would not be in this world, i would b dead. They have kept me strong and helped me deal with my demons and allow me to conquer them.
And me learning the fact that I did not have faith has changed my life for the better to … maybe it is just the act of self discovery that has the beneficial effect rather then the actual conclusion you come to

...sufferd under Pontius Pilot... accended in to Heaven, ... the right had of God... the resurection of the body ad the Life everlasting...

The number one reason not to be Christian; they spend too much time in their "Big Book" and not enough time in the other big book... Webster's big book.

LEARN TO SPELL YOU ILLITERATE DOLT.
You :headbang: Knowledge

So if god has no problem performing miracles (ie interfering in the world as is) why does he seem to have a problem in making it clear to humanity that he does in fact exist. Would make it a whole lot easier if the last time he really showed humanity was in a 2k+ year old badly written book

Willemia has probably already answered this good question, but I also wanted to add my thoughts, if only to help my mind get around it. I hope I dont confuse you more, but there is always that risk here.

The question over whether the Bible is adequate enough to communicate the gospel as God would have it communicated....I myself see that it is altogether not really what God intended....that it should be the sole message. There are several other messages......one is creation. The Bible says that all creation points to God. In the last few hundred years, the theory of evolution has done away with this "pointing". Thus when people look at a beautiful sunset now, they don't think, "what an amazing creator" unless they are specifically Christian or something not far off. What they might think is how amazing a place they happened to find themselves in after millions of years of evolution. Why did God allow this theory of evolution to change things? Well, perhaps it can be argued that the church was in gave error. It was striving to rule over the minds of men, when that was strictly only God's position. So He had to discipline the church. Thus he removed her social power, and along comes Darwin. With Dawins ideas came some huge changes in the church. She became far more mission orientated. She realized that she couldn't keep her power. Her power was eventually broken, and there were elements in the church that longed to get back to the real role of the church, as Jesus intended. She was to be his body. His hands, his feet, his voice. Her role was to serve His interests. Consider that He loved the world so much that he died for it. Thus the church was to be consistent with the work of Jesus, rather than ruling with an iron fist. The church still has its corruption. Any church that will try to cover up evil, such as child abuse, joins in with the evil, and becomes opposed to God. Just because they call themselves a church does not cut it with God. Jesus often said that our works and deeds must be consistent with our beliefs and our faith, indeed, must arise from our faith, otherwise He will declare that he doesnt know them on the day of judgement. There will be much disappointment (weeping and gnashing of teeth) on that day.

So getting back to my original point, the messages of the Bible, creation, and the church must all work together to speak to each person about the urgency of a genuine faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible message has always been there. God allowed the creation message to be blurred with Darwins ideas. But that was in order to help the message of the church, to discipline her and bring her back to the point of being consistent with his teaching, that of love and service, not of lording over and controlling the people.

There are still corrupt churches and people in churches today. That will go on until the end of time. People will get hurt, and disappointed and turn away from Christ because of the message of the church. I suggest, though, that things were far worse back in the days before Darwin, when the church had a lot more power.

But the message of the church should be the most compelling and urgent message of all. The Bible is just a book, a true book in my opinion, and containing the words of God. A church contains the living spirit of God. Both work together and sound out God's message of good news and hope to all men.

The number one reason not to be Christian; they spend too much time in their "Big Book" and not enough time in the other big book... Webster's big book.

LEARN TO SPELL YOU ILLITERATE DOLT.
You :headbang: Knowledge
You're right, I'm Christian (Orthodox) and I prefer the Oxford English Dictionary.

Again, I'm not an atheist. I believe god exists. But I find it infuriating that people shove books in my face and try to tell me that they KNOW who, what or how god is. They don't. Nobody does. They just believe that their respective book is right, that doesn't prove a thing. And it doesn't make the book right, either.

:thumbs up:

Willemia has probably already answered this good question, but I also wanted to add my thoughts, if only to help my mind get around it. I hope I dont confuse you more, but there is always that risk here.

The question over whether the Bible is adequate enough to communicate the gospel as God would have it communicated....I myself see that it is altogether not really what God intended....that it should be the sole message. There are several other messages......one is creation. The Bible says that all creation points to God. In the last few hundred years, the theory of evolution has done away with this "pointing". Thus when people look at a beautiful sunset now, they don't think, "what an amazing creator" unless they are specifically Christian or something not far off. What they might think is how amazing a place they happened to find themselves in after millions of years of evolution. Why did God allow this theory of evolution to change things? Well, perhaps it can be argued that the church was in gave error. It was striving to rule over the minds of men, when that was strictly only God's position. So He had to discipline the church. Thus he removed her social power, and along comes Darwin. With Dawins ideas came some huge changes in the church. She became far more mission orientated. She realized that she couldn't keep her power. Her power was eventually broken, and there were elements in the church that longed to get back to the real role of the church, as Jesus intended. She was to be his body. His hands, his feet, his voice. Her role was to serve His interests. Consider that He loved the world so much that he died for it. Thus the church was to be consistent with the work of Jesus, rather than ruling with an iron fist. The church still has its corruption. Any church that will try to cover up evil, such as child abuse, joins in with the evil, and becomes opposed to God. Just because they call themselves a church does not cut it with God. Jesus often said that our works and deeds must be consistent with our beliefs and our faith, indeed, must arise from our faith, otherwise He will declare that he doesnt know them on the day of judgement. There will be much disappointment (weeping and gnashing of teeth) on that day.

So getting back to my original point, the messages of the Bible, creation, and the church must all work together to speak to each person about the urgency of a genuine faith in Jesus Christ. The Bible message has always been there. God allowed the creation message to be blurred with Darwins ideas. But that was in order to help the message of the church, to discipline her and bring her back to the point of being consistent with his teaching, that of love and service, not of lording over and controlling the people.

There are still corrupt churches and people in churches today. That will go on until the end of time. People will get hurt, and disappointed and turn away from Christ because of the message of the church. I suggest, though, that things were far worse back in the days before Darwin, when the church had a lot more power.

But the message of the church should be the most compelling and urgent message of all. The Bible is just a book, a true book in my opinion, and containing the words of God. A church contains the living spirit of God. Both work together and sound out God's message of good news and hope to all men.

Well god has managed to make church … uncomfortable for me … to the point that besides funerals and weddings it is not really possible for me to sit through
His message really has got to come to me in another way

(and read the follow up post … which was really what I was trying to get at but I was half asleep and blabbering in that first post)

The number one reason not to be Christian; they spend too much time in their "Big Book" and not enough time in the other big book... Webster's big book.

Refusing to consider Christianity because of a misconception that they 'don't spell right' has got to be the worst reasoning I've ever heard. :rolleyes:

Let's see... Grammer > Eternal Life - Actually, I think that's a greater case of underwhelming intelligence than a Christian who misspells three-letter words.

[Note to reader: this post is as tongue-in-cheek as I persist in hoping the quoted post was]
[Also note: I'm writing under the hypothetical assumption that Christianity DOES equal eternal life]

That only works if you are not an eye witness. And then, even if an eye witness gives a really good account of a miracle, you would always have the option of discrediting the integrity of the witness. In effect, this is what you are doing when you don't accept the accounts of e.g. Luke when he writes about the miracles by Paul, or Matthew (or whoever the real writer was) when he describes the miracles by Jesus. Your belief cannot allow that the miracles were really true, but mere magician's tricks. A misunderstanding of a miraculous event is ruled out because we are dealing with eye witnesses.


Luke wasn't a witness... or even close to being one.

Matthew MAY have been a witness, but - since he and Luke both seem to reference the same 'source material'... maybe Matthew's testimony was based on someone else's witness testimony.

John wasn't a witness, Luke wasn't a witness, Matthew seems to reference the same source as Luke... it sounds like we only have ONE 'witness' testimony, in the form of Mark's Gospel. Hardly a consensus.


It depends, I think, on what you accept as evidence, and on where you are coming from. If you choose not to believe, then the claims made by the authors of the Bible will seem like they need more evidence (though I could hardly imagine what better evidence they could provide for you, given their circumstances). However, the Apostle John wrote that Jesus said, 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hears me, and opens the door, I will come in and have fellowship with him.' That is the challenge, Grave. So now it's your move. In order to prove or disprove the claims of the Bible, you have to accept His invitation. To reject His invitation will not prove anything.


I have. I did. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

I still don't buy it.

And, I didn't 'CHOOSE' not to believe.


Well, it may have been an angel of some sort that did speak to Mohammed. I don't deny this. All things are possible with God. It may have even been possible that God somehow caused an illiterate man to become literate, although I don't see this necessity, since it is likely that he had literate aquaintences. However, when Mohammed explains that Jesus was just a prophet and not the Son of God, he has fallen into the trap of saying that Jesus was just a good man, even when He claimed to be God and claimed to take away the sins of the world, and to forgive men of their sin (no good man would ever claim this if it were not true). So he, like you, ends up rearranging the words of the Gospel writers to fit in with his idea of who Jesus was. In short, he likes his explanation better than what the Bible says, although he, like you cannot prove that it was changed. So, no, we don't know if Mohammed was writing the words of God....most likely not, if we accept the account of the Gospel writers.


So - you say Mohammed was wrong?

But, he says the Bible is wrong.... and he represents the same 'god'.

He didn't 'rearrange' the Bible... he says God (Allah) showed him the Biblical errors... and you use the same claim for the inerrancy... and yet Mohammed actually communed with God... have you ever literally 'talked' with God?


Are you suggesting that he walked out into the middle of the Sea of Gallilee on a sandbar? What happened to your reasonable explanations?


It was an off-the-cuff... not supposed to be definitive... just to show that there ARE other explanations.


My explanation for your lack of evidence for God is that you have refused to take up his invitation to prove that he exists. You won't see the evidence if you refuse to open your eyes. A change is not necessarily evidence for truth. You have to look at what direction the change is made, and whether the truth in the choice shows through the change. Becoming a convert is not a license to throw away reason. It does, however, usually require great humility, a point that is rather costly.


I was a believer.

Now, I'm not.

My 'reason' is the same throughout.


I agree. However, I never said this. I said that if the Bible has deliberate falsehoods in it, then it is likely that the God that it describes does not exist. This is different from saying that a false Bible EQUALS no God.


I agree. The Bible almost certainly describe any REAL 'god' as he/she is.


Sorry, I'm still confused, for I don't quite see the inconsistency that you are trying to show me. What was the point?


You don't see it? How?

Re-read it.

There are clearly two sets of laws, being confused for one.

The one that the Neo-Cons proudly demand to nail on churches, are Levitical Statutes, and not the 'Ten Commandments' at all.


Either way, you need to do something definite before you will recieve.......according to the Bible.


Been there, done that.


It should be obvious that there is a very big problem with such dating methods....if the world were only, say, 6-10, 000 years old, then carbon decay dates don't make much sense. You have to assume a much older earth before the dates can mean anything. Assumptions come first, in this case. Not good for a logical argument.


That isn't the assumption that Carbon dating is based on... perhaps you should research it before you attempt to discredit it?


The one that really impressed me in Australia was a place near Syney, next to the Blue mountains. It seems there is a clear case of terrain being shaped by flood waters. You could still see the sediment layers clearly, as you looked at the face of a large cliff. It bore all the marks of rapid erosion. The problem was that it had such a high altitude, that it was not possible for any local flood to do it. It must have been a mighty flood indeed. It was also quite recent (ie thousands rather than hundreds of thousands) since the original waters marks seemed quite well preserved. I don't know how anyone could explain such a formation at such high altitude (considering there isn't that much earthquake acitivity in Australia to explain this) within relatively recent history--unless you use the possibility of a mighty flood. I've certainly not heard any other explanation that even comes close. And there are many such formations that I have observed, not only within australia, but outside of it also.


I don't know the specific feature you are talking about, but it sounds like a shear face, to me. Simply put, pressure from below pushes one part of the land mass upwards. You are left with a 'layer-cake' design of rock.


And yet if he did this, he would be accepting a falsehood in order to accomplish his means. That is inconsistent with the message of the Bible. It's never right to do wrong in order to do right. That's like saying that God is both good and evil at the same time.


God is, according to the Old Testament. He is the root of everything, after all.


Not in every case. Those who claimed to be eyewitnesses describe the miracles as they saw them. Furthermore, they had ample opportunity to talk things over with Jesus, and they even performed miracles themselves (according to their claims). That doesn't leave any room for possible innocent misunderstanding. Either they were trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or they were telling the truth.


Most of the 'witness' testimony you claim was not written by anyone anything like a witness. Half of the Gospel writers, at least, probably never even saw Christ, let alone spoke to him.

And, that is if you assume that the texts are written by the people who claim to have written them.


The writer is not saying that Jacobs trick worked (i.e. it may have been God that helped him, not his particular tricks), or that it was scientifically proven. It is written that that is what he did. It's not even suggesting that he was doing the right thing. Note that it was while he was trying to do this his way instead of God's way. It may have been based on some superstitious religion that was opposed to God's ways.

There are many things we don't yet understand about the nature of the interaction between animal reproductive systems and plant biology. Just because you or any scientist has never observed it (which makes us ignorant), you shouldn't not scoff at it, if you want to avoid the possibility of egg on your face one day. Ignorance should not resort to ridicule. Ridicule sounds better coming from the learned. Haven't we learned anything from history?


Do you honestly believe that science is going to find out that looking at a pattern determines what the offspring will look like? Or are you trying to be flippant?

You asked me to provide something we know now not to be true... and I met your challenge.


Once again, the leap distance depends on your choice. If you chose to accept God at his word, you will find this the smaller leap in logic. If you reject it, of course your own way looks better. There is evidence there, Grave, but unfortunately, it's the sort of evidence that can be explained in more than one way, since it is separated from us by time. Evidence that cannot be explained in more than one way has to be personal. You have to encounter Jesus for yourself. And yet, according to his followers, he said that you have to accept his invitation first.

Been there, done that.

The evidence isn't compelling, no matter which side.

The ONLY way to accept, and continue to accept, the biblical inaccuracy, is to choose to. THAT is a flawed premise.

Nope. I feel that religion controls people's lives too much.
Sometimes it indeed seems designed to do so

And me learning the fact that I did not have faith has changed my life for the better to … maybe it is just the act of self discovery that has the beneficial effect rather then the actual conclusion you come to

Wise words, Master Thrust. :)

Wise words, Master Thrust. :)
Thank you … too bad quoted poster ran away without replying … would hate to challenge someone’s faith.


:p

But really were not just flowery words … my life HAS gotten better when I accepted what I am and then work from there.
Being self honest seems to have improved my mood and outlook about life … religious people seem to attribute that to the conclusion (that god made their life better) when it just may have been the act of finding what they needed (in their case god) but the real improvement is in finding what you need personally … not what is necessarily true

As you suggested, I had a look at that website. I didn't get far past the third or eight paragraph. I have copied it below.

The overriding theme of the Bible storylines is the theme of cultural conquest. Conquest by the Hebrews over their enemy neighbors, culturally by the Jews over the Israelites (used here to mean members of the ten "lost" tribes), the Christians over the Jews, the Catholics over the Gnostics, Marcionites, and other pre-Catholic factions, and on and on. In some cases, the conquest is recorded as a historical, often military event. In others, it merely is recorded as a change in content and context, an alteration of the storyline and outlook and worldview.

The overriding theme of the Bible storylines is that of cultural conquest? What! I thought it was about the love of God for humans, their rebellion, His patience and long suffering with their smelly ways, and finally His providing the solution of faith in Jesus Christ, and the beginings of a people of his own, the church. What has this to do with conquest by a culture? Cultures, surely, play a rather small role in the story. Sorry, but I simply could not read it all, after disagreeing with what the writer thinks is the main conclusion of the Bible. Cultural conquest, indeed! I must read the book again!


I saw (with my own eyes, through a camera) people praying to a waterstain on a concrete wall. They considered it a miracle, I don't.

Ok, you saw a wall, and perhaps so would I. But do you know what they saw? Can you see all of reality? You say that God is real. Can you see him now? So how can you be so sure that these people only imagined it? Or perhaps they did imagine it. Would that make every other miracle recorded in the Bible also some imagination? I think such conclusions are rather hastily made.


You have to take into account that the four gospels we talk about here were selected very early on from a large number of somtimes very different accounts. None of the evangelists ever met Jesus. The earliest of today's gospels, Marc's, was written approximately 40 years after Jesus died. Can you imagine how many stories would have been added by alledged eyewitnesses, how much the stories would have changed in the memories of the people who most likely advised Marc? One of the reasons that the gospels don't excel in imagery might that the evangelists were challenged as they were already faced with a large number of stories that contradicted each other.

I suppose you mean that none of the writers met Jesus. The evangelists were the 12 apostles. So perhaps Mark would have been, lets say, 20 when Jesus died. 40 years later, he is 60. Perhaps a bit older than the expected life span of those times, but that doesnt rule out the possibility of him writing it with his own hands. he could have been an eyewitness. Since the Gospel stories seem to fit in well together (mostly, although there are several apparent discrepancies), how do you propose that happened? Are you suggesting that they did some serious editing of the Bible to make it presentable? If so, then why didnt the remove all those niggling little bits, like the cock crowing one time instead of three times at Peters denial of Christ?



Ah, don't mistake me for an atheist. I'm sure god exists, I just doubt that the bible is right in most aspects, as it is in parts incoherent, contradictory and illogical. Doesn't make god less real, in my eyes, but the people who wrote it down were just humans. They would tell us what THEY THOUGHT was right, not necessary exactly what had happened.
You have to take into account the mentality and culture of these people. Telling stories was a way of conveying messages, and you would make sure that the message is remembered by talking in symbols people could remember. It's very much like fables and fairy tales. They try to give you a moral lesson, you'rs not supposed to believe that the crow and the fox really talked.

My apologies here, but actually I wasnt specifically referring to you as an atheist, but using the atheist (as a likely candidate for the strongest opposition to the Bible and faith) as an example. But I have noted you belief orientation. It helps me to form my posts.
It appears to me that much of the scriptures is concerned with the Christ, the Son of God. Do you think his death and resurrection were also a tale, used to tell a truth, or were they real events?


If everybody reading the bible came to the same conclusion, how come there's more than just one religion on the planet? How come there's this large, huge number of Christian churches and sects? No, people read a lot of different things into that book and always have.
In my opinion it is always dangerous to place your own interpretation of a book before your common sense, that led to a large number of deaths in the last 2 millenia (Christians, Jews, witches, colonised natives, Protestants of all confessions, heretics of all kind)

Unity is something God likes and wants. He wants to see the Body of Christ united. Man has caused the division. God allows it, for He won't prevent them from sinning, because that would take away their choice, and thus would mean that they could no longer chose to love him. They would be robots.
Are you suggesting that it is not common sense to believe in the miracles recorded in the Bible? What would make that common sense? Where does one get common sense from?
I suppose my definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ. Thus, all Christ followers (those who definitely follow Him) accept His claims that He is the Son of God, and that he died and rose again. If, however, you believe in Christ but not that he was God, or that He rose again (same thing really), then I call you a renegade Christian. You would be a renegade because you have rejected the Bible as containing the true message of Christ. Supposing you were right, and the Bible was wrong, how would you then know what God is like. Obviously you can't trust the Bible. So what is he like, for you? And why do you believe He exists?

Again, I'm not an atheist. I believe god exists. But I find it infuriating that people shove books in my face and try to tell me that they KNOW who, what or how god is. They don't. Nobody does. They just believe that their respective book is right, that doesn't prove a thing. And it doesn't make the book right, either.

Perhaps you could agree that it is possible that some people have encounted God personally, and that you have not, or at least not yet? I can see how that possibility would make anyone annoyed. Of course, it is also possible that they are either mislead or lying to you. That would also be annoying. Either way, to keep from being annoyed, I suggest you avoid all such poeple. However, perhaps there is some truth to what they are trying to say, but perhaps they are just not communicating it to you effectively. Do you allow for this possibility? i can say that I have encounted God at a personal level and that now I am not lying to you. So, if you accept my word, I'm either mislead or right. That narrows down the options a bit.



I don't doubt that the message was preserved, but it definitely got elaborated. The old testament is a history of the Hebrew people, the earliest account date from around 1850 BC. I don't know when exactly it was written down, nor when the Torah in it's current form was agreed on, but it took centuries, centuries of telling, writing down, copying, correcting, arguing... the message is perserved, I'm sure, but the story itself most likely got changed and altered considerably. If you take into account that much of it was intended to be a allegories in the first place, you might be able to imagine how accurate the account is.

If you accept that the message was preserved, you would have to accept that God sent His son to earth, to die for the sins of the world, to forgive all men, and to offer them all a chance of responding to that forgiveness by believing, and the freedom from all the bondage we have placed ourselves under, and in so doing recieve eternal life, and escape the consequences of your sin. This would make you a Christian, in my books, for that is the Gospel message is.

Well god has managed to make church … uncomfortable for me … to the point that besides funerals and weddings it is not really possible for me to sit through
His message really has got to come to me in another way

(and read the follow up post … which was really what I was trying to get at but I was half asleep and blabbering in that first post)

Sounds like you have had an encounter with one of God's worst enemies....an evil church. Perhaps you should try another church.....or perhaps you could at least talk to God about it. The all-mighty would have a solution. Going to church doesn't make you are Christian, any more than not going to church makes you a non-Christian, in my opinion.

Sounds like you have had an encounter with one of God's worst enemies....an evil church. Perhaps you should try another church.....or perhaps you could at least talk to God about it. The all-mighty would have a solution. Going to church doesn't make you are Christian, any more than not going to church makes you a non-Christian, in my opinion.
More specifically a certain priest … and the whole organization behind him that had been hiding his guilt sense the 70’s just so that he could get to me in the mid 90’s

I’m sorry but after having “encounters” in the church itself and then being told that my families life and jeopardy were being put into danger if I said anything by a bishop and another priest… well lets just say organized religion will never be for me again

More specifically a certain priest … and the whole organization behind him that had been hiding his guilt sense the 70’s just so that he could get to me in the mid 90’s

I’m sorry but after having “encounters” in the church itself and then being told that my families life and jeopardy were being put into danger if I said anything by a bishop and another priest… well lets just say organized religion will never be for me again

As a Chrisitian, I say, "Who could blame you for your resolution?" Certainly not the God I believe in. However, have you thrown away your faith in God because of a nast encounter with one of His enemies?

Thank you … too bad quoted poster ran away without replying … would hate to challenge someone’s faith.


:p

But really were not just flowery words … my life HAS gotten better when I accepted what I am and then work from there.
Being self honest seems to have improved my mood and outlook about life … religious people seem to attribute that to the conclusion (that god made their life better) when it just may have been the act of finding what they needed (in their case god) but the real improvement is in finding what you need personally … not what is necessarily true

I utterly agree, hence the "Wise words" comment.

I think I have seen just the same things in my own experiences... it's nice to see it echoed, and so eloquently. :)

As a Chrisitian, I say, "Who could blame you for your resolution?" Certainly not the God I believe in. However, have you thrown away your faith in God because of a nast encounter with one of His enemies?
Nope … I held on more then a few years after those incidences until I just fell out of faith. That is just my problem with the organization

The Christian god from the bible
1) Does not make logical sense to me
2) Conflicts with my personal morals and my feeling of right
3) Does not have nearly enough support to change my whole life over
I just can not and do not have blind faith in anything … if I were to believe in a god it would be more in the deistic sense then a specific doctrine

I utterly agree, hence the "Wise words" comment.

I think I have seen just the same things in my own experiences... it's nice to see it echoed, and so eloquently. :)
Thank you sir:) you usually are saying my feelings more eloquently then I usually express them

Luke wasn't a witness... or even close to being one.

Matthew MAY have been a witness, but - since he and Luke both seem to reference the same 'source material'... maybe Matthew's testimony was based on someone else's witness testimony.

John wasn't a witness, Luke wasn't a witness, Matthew seems to reference the same source as Luke... it sounds like we only have ONE 'witness' testimony, in the form of Mark's Gospel. Hardly a consensus.

Wait half a second. In three sentences, you have reduced the validity of four accounts to a mere single witness. I don't know how you get the those conclusions so quickly. Luke certainly witnessed the life and miracles of Paul, so he would have ample opportunity to check out the claims of Christianity. he also may have been an eyewitness. John certainly was a witness, one of the twelve. Perhaps he didnt personally write the Gospel of John, but it certainly sounds like something he directly contributed. Some think that Mark wrote Peter's account. I see no compelling reason to accept that Matthew was written based on Lukes account. Grave, I appreciate you are only making suggestions, but sounds like you are in too much hast to do away with these testimonies.



I have. I did. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

I still don't buy it.

And, I didn't 'CHOOSE' not to believe.

Can I take you at your word? I wont accuse you of lying (that would be a bit too impolite), but perhaps you are misled? How could I know? How could you know? But, as I understand it, you are telling me that you had an encounter with the only one who truly loved you perfectly, and it failed to impress you. May I suggest that something is wrong here? Sure, you say, no God. But another possibility is that you are mistaken. Before you take offense, remember that there are millions of people who life experience, in their view, is not compatible with yours.


So - you say Mohammed was wrong?

But, he says the Bible is wrong.... and he represents the same 'god'.

He didn't 'rearrange' the Bible... he says God (Allah) showed him the Biblical errors... and you use the same claim for the inerrancy... and yet Mohammed actually communed with God... have you ever literally 'talked' with God?

I say that when I am holding to the Biblical account (without changing the words) this makes Mohammed's account wrong in my view, yes. And yes, I know he resolves this by changing the words of the Bible, or at least claiming that the Christians changed it in the first place.

I would not say that Allah is the same as the Christian God. I know this is a point of debate, and obviously the Bible says nothing on that subject (Islam being a younger religion), but I feel that Allah is rather different from my God. My God is a whole lot closer to the individual, among other characteristics. He also seems to have a lot more love. Yes, I do commune with God, every day. This is the normal life of a Christian. A day spent without God is a day of hell. However, I don't see bright lights and special messagers that Mohammed apparently got. Just a quite and private communion in my spirit with the spirit of God. The Bible claims this for each child of God. Makes me wonder why you ever left him, or gave up on him, or whatever you did to find yourself a pagan (or whatever you call yourself).



You don't see it? How?

Re-read it.

There are clearly two sets of laws, being confused for one.

The one that the Neo-Cons proudly demand to nail on churches, are Levitical Statutes, and not the 'Ten Commandments' at all.

Are you suggesting that the original Ten commandments were something other than the ones that I learned in Sunday School. But I am confused. May I ask you to copy here the two sets of laws (or examples of them) so that I may see what differences you are talking about. If you don't have the time, then don't bother, but now I am rather curious.


That isn't the assumption that Carbon dating is based on... perhaps you should research it before you attempt to discredit it?

Do you assume that I haven't researched it? I never said that carbon dating is based on this. This is simply one of the many assumptions. Rates of decay, level of original radiation in original material, these are just some of the other assumtions. My point is that a method that assumes millions of years can hardly be used to prove millions of years. That's like the argument that the Bible says it is true, therefore it must be true.



I don't know the specific feature you are talking about, but it sounds like a shear face, to me. Simply put, pressure from below pushes one part of the land mass upwards. You are left with a 'layer-cake' design of rock.

Sorry, I've forgotten the name of the joint, and have no idea how to find it again.

That is one possibility, I agree, but a movement of that size in a comparatively quiet (earthquake-wise) country like Australia should certainly not be limited to a single event. Our current observations make that unlikely. One way to check you explanation would be to take some core samples of the earth that had not moved, to compare it with that which had moved. According to your explanation, they should have an identical pattern of layers (i.e., layer width and colour, etc.). Would be an interesting investigation. Of course, we could not rule out other possibilities, but maybe it would be a little showdown between the two different ways of thinking.



God is, according to the Old Testament. He is the root of everything, after all.

haven't you read that parts that say God is good? Not God is good and evil. That is a Muslim teaching, and perhaps taught by some other religions. But the Bible teaches that God is only good. He created a world where evil is possible, but that means giving the choice of good and evil to those he created, not creating the evil itself. Big difference.

Most of the 'witness' testimony you claim was not written by anyone anything like a witness. Half of the Gospel writers, at least, probably never even saw Christ, let alone spoke to him.

What about half of the Gospel writers, or even a fraction of the new testament being written by eyewitnesses of Jesus death and life after death. My point applies in these cases, does it not?

And, that is if you assume that the texts are written by the people who claim to have written them.

Then they were lying. simple as that. That is my point. Either lying or telling the truth. No room for innocent ignorance in this particular case.


Do you honestly believe that science is going to find out that looking at a pattern determines what the offspring will look like? Or are you trying to be flippant?

Actually, I was thinking more about Jacob putting the bark in their drinking water. Sorry to cause the misunderstanding. I usually try to avoid flippancy on such a scale, and sarcasm. I have found they make things more clouded.

You asked me to provide something we know now not to be true... and I met your challenge.

No, you have not really provided an example, for in this case, I have shown you that the Bible was not really trying to say that Jacob was doing the right thing, or that his method really worked. It's not an example of an untruth in the Bible, but more an account of what some chap thought was a good idea. I think you have taken it out of context to serve your point.


Been there, done that.

The evidence isn't compelling, no matter which side.

The ONLY way to accept, and continue to accept, the biblical inaccuracy, is to choose to. THAT is a flawed premise.

I accept that I cannot change your mind, although I doubt that you were afraid of that anyway. You point here only confirms what Jesus said. Many will turn away from the faith.

I once asked you a question that I don't remember you answering. What would it take for you to believe in Jesus Christ? What sort of evidence would you accept? If you like, you may ask the same question of me, from the opposite side, ie what would it take for me to no longer believe in Jesus Christ. I would be very interested in reading your answer, and perhaps also in discovering what my own answer would be.

I'm agnostic.

I have no problem with Christians believing in what they do, so long as they don't impose their beliefs on others (which, frankly, quite a few of them do). And I certainly do have problems with Christians who come up to me and tell me I'm hellbound, ect...because if I accept your right to religion, why can't you accept mine? /rant

Im a new player on this game and enjoying it so far.

As for the question on this forum : Yes i am a christian. :)

Im a new player on this game and enjoying it so far.

As for the question on this forum : Yes i am a christian. :)
Welcome!

As you suggested, I had a look at that website. I didn't get far past the third or eight paragraph. I have copied it below.

The overriding theme of the Bible storylines is the theme of cultural conquest. Conquest by the Hebrews over their enemy neighbors, culturally by the Jews over the Israelites (used here to mean members of the ten "lost" tribes), the Christians over the Jews, the Catholics over the Gnostics, Marcionites, and other pre-Catholic factions, and on and on. In some cases, the conquest is recorded as a historical, often military event. In others, it merely is recorded as a change in content and context, an alteration of the storyline and outlook and worldview.

The overriding theme of the Bible storylines is that of cultural conquest? What! I thought it was about the love of God for humans, their rebellion, His patience and long suffering with their smelly ways, and finally His providing the solution of faith in Jesus Christ, and the beginings of a people of his own, the church. What has this to do with conquest by a culture? Cultures, surely, play a rather small role in the story. Sorry, but I simply could not read it all, after disagreeing with what the writer thinks is the main conclusion of the Bible. Cultural conquest, indeed! I must read the book again!

Pay special attention to the firt parts, killing Hethits and raving against Babel and whatnot... The site is ordered chronologically regarding what parts of today's bible were written down in what time.


Ok, you saw a wall, and perhaps so would I. But do you know what they saw? Can you see all of reality? You say that God is real. Can you see him now? So how can you be so sure that these people only imagined it? Or perhaps they did imagine it. Would that make every other miracle recorded in the Bible also some imagination? I think such conclusions are rather hastily made.

As I said before, if you crave a miracle, you will see it(I never said they imagined it, I just said they percieved the events as a miracle, I didn't). If you are happy and content without it and don't need it, you will see reality.


I suppose you mean that none of the writers met Jesus. The evangelists were the 12 apostles. So perhaps Mark would have been, lets say, 20 when Jesus died. 40 years later, he is 60. Perhaps a bit older than the expected life span of those times, but that doesnt rule out the possibility of him writing it with his own hands. he could have been an eyewitness. Since the Gospel stories seem to fit in well together (mostly, although there are several apparent discrepancies), how do you propose that happened? Are you suggesting that they did some serious editing of the Bible to make it presentable? If so, then why didnt the remove all those niggling little bits, like the cock crowing one time instead of three times at Peters denial of Christ?

They did. The final version of the bible was agreed upon during the several councils in the first millenium. Actually, the divinity of Christ didn't became accepted church lore until the 3rd council at Constantinople in 680 BC.

You can check that all here if you like http://www.awitness.org/essays/christgod.html

Most of what you read in the bible and most of the interpretations were concluded upon by the Catholic church during its early years. There were other churches around, providing different interpretations and including more than our current 4 gospels in their holy books, but as soon as the Catholic became the official church of the Roman Empire, the days of these other congregations were numbered. You may be a protestant now, but the bible you read was composed by the Catholic church, and the interpretations you read were given by church councils and popes.




My apologies here, but actually I wasnt specifically referring to you as an atheist, but using the atheist (as a likely candidate for the strongest opposition to the Bible and faith) as an example. But I have noted you belief orientation. It helps me to form my posts.
It appears to me that much of the scriptures is concerned with the Christ, the Son of God. Do you think his death and resurrection were also a tale, used to tell a truth, or were they real events?

He lived, he preached and taught, and he died. I don't believe in his resurection, that was symbolism used to keep early Christians faithful. It has worked for churches ever since, you can keep people miserable as hell if you promis them a better life after death. I believe death is just that, death. The end.
Nor do I believe that he died for us. That is one of the interpretations I don't agree with. I don't know if it was intended, but in dying the way he did he made sure that people would keep following him.



I suppose my definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ. Thus, all Christ followers (those who definitely follow Him) accept His claims that He is the Son of God, and that he died and rose again. If, however, you believe in Christ but not that he was God, or that He rose again (same thing really), then I call you a renegade Christian. You would be a renegade because you have rejected the Bible as containing the true message of Christ. Supposing you were right, and the Bible was wrong, how would you then know what God is like. Obviously you can't trust the Bible. So what is he like, for you? And why do you believe He exists?

Again, I don't say the bible is wrong, I say you can't take it literally because it was never intended that way.
I haven't rejected the bible as a book about god, but I reject it as "the only book about god"
What I did was take a close look at all the religions on the planet. If you want to find god, you have to look at them all, you can't just stare at one single book and hope to find all of him there, won't work. If you want to inform yourself, you have to read more than one newspaper, otherwise you'll get a biased account of events.
God is what is common to all of them.
I don't know why I believe he exists. I already said that it is not possible to prove if god exists or not, you either believe it or you don't.


Perhaps you could agree that it is possible that some people have encounted God personally, and that you have not, or at least not yet? I can see how that possibility would make anyone annoyed. Of course, it is also possible that they are either mislead or lying to you. That would also be annoying. Either way, to keep from being annoyed, I suggest you avoid all such poeple. However, perhaps there is some truth to what they are trying to say, but perhaps they are just not communicating it to you effectively. Do you allow for this possibility? i can say that I have encounted God at a personal level and that now I am not lying to you. So, if you accept my word, I'm either mislead or right. That narrows down the options a bit.

I wouldn't say that you're mislead, nor that you are lying. It's the same with the miracles, if you feel the need to see them, you will. If you feel the need for god, you'll be convinced to experience him (or maybe you did, who am I to say?) I never felt that need... so maybe that means I experience him constantly on an unconscious level? I don't know.
I accept the fact that god is a being beyond my imagination, and definitely way beyong the descriptions of the bible, the Q'ran, the Bagvad-Ghita, the Torah, or the book of Mormon. These books are attempts to describe him, and every book gives you a different angle. The angle of those who wrote the books.
Maybe I will experience god some day, who knows? But he would have to approach me in a different way than that stain on the wall. That worked for the people who fell to their knees and prayed in front of it, and I'm not saying that it wasn't a miracle to them or less real to them. But it wasn't to me.

*claps and bows down to his determintation and research* wow im converted

*claps and bows down to his determintation and research* wow im converted

Whose, mine? :D

errrr sure. ok
the cheque and congratulatory ham are in the post