The Bible; Of God, Or Men?

Count.

+1	100.0%	[ 36 ]
Total Votes:			[ 36 ]

[Cyrus the Elder]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Why is Gho waving a bible? Is she hot?

Unconsciounably so. *dances to "La Tortura."

I think this calls for three snaps in a Z formation.

*does three snaps in a Z formation* mhmm, you go girl!

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Cyrus the Elder

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Why is Gho waving a bible? Is she hot?

Unconsciounably so. *dances to "La Tortura."

I think this calls for three snaps in a Z formation.

*does three snaps in a Z formation* mhmm, you go girl!

Please stop creeping me out, kthxbai.

[echoing8whisper]

Cyrus the Elder

echoing8whisper

Quote:

Nice straw man fallacy you have going here. What does the United States legal documents have to do with proving the existence of a deity? The correct answer is - it doesn't. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are the systems used to support a Country that it's common knowledge in international cartography DEFINITELY exists. God and His will is completely question of faith. And only the faith-believers say he definitely exists.

It's not a straw-man, it's an example given to show that the basis for the first statement, that something is not credible simply because it is written by men, is false. Perhaps you should take some basic lessons in logic and learn the difference between an example and a straw-man before you go spouting off about things you do not understand.

Edit: And where did Gho claim to be trying to prove that YHVH exists? Last I checked, Gho was merely trying to show that the post that was responded to wasn't cogent.

My point was that her point was irrelevant to the point and the meaning behind the original post, therefore a distraction.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, it can't be proved that it was modern fiction; however it can be proved that the people [or person] who wrote it was not alive for at least almost all of Genesis, as he wrote about the world before man existed, and covered the lives of men who lived over 200 years.

That doesn't really show anything regarding the point, however.
-The point, since you missed it is that it could very WELL be fiction written to understand. Ever played a game of telephone? over time, as oral history is told over and over and over, it often becomes distorted, and the end result is completely different, much like a giant game of telephone. The stories of the bible (at least the very first 5 books) came from oral tradition, and were written down hundreds of years later. So in parts, it could VERY WELL have been fiction, plus different wording used over time to help the masses understand it.

Quote:

Quote:

To be noted - The two accounts of creation - there was YHWH (singular, from the Southern Kingdom) who created the world, and then there was Elohim (plural, from the Northern former Pagan converts) tale. So what she is saying is - while poorly worded, not too far off.

Southern Kingdom of....what? neutral For that matter, Northern pagan converts of....where? neutral
No, you know what, screw it, reading that broke my brain too much, so:

Forgive me for not stating more clearly. The northern and southern kingdoms of ancient Israel. The northern Pagan converts were of the Canaanite and Mesopotamian traditional faiths.

Quote:

Poorly made point*cough cough* straw man.*cough*

You really need to go take that logic course to see the difference between showing an example intended to demonstrate that the argument presented isn't logically cogent, and a straw-man. Watching you bend fallacies over a table and have your way with them just isn't pleasant at all for those of us who've actually learned our s**t in logic.

I did. But still. It's an off-topic statement and a very poorly made point that was hard to follow.

Quote:

Quote:

wow. just wow. you completely missed the point of this post.

No, not really.

evidently so.

Quote:

Quote:

And what YOU wrote was pathetic, uneducated, loaded with fallacy and therefore is made of fail, so why were you so hungry to sound like a complete idiot?

No, what you wrote was "pathetic, uneducated, loaded with fallacy, and therefore is made of fail" you don't even seem to know the difference between an example addressing the cogency of an argument as opposed to a straw-man fallacy. "So why were you so hungry to sound like a complete idiot?"

Actually I do know the differnece, and actually I don't sound like an idiot considering you are typing and doing everything to defend your buddy getting flamed instead of concentrating on the true subject at hand:: "The Bible; Of God, or Men?"

Coming from a student with a Cultural Anthropology and Archeology major (me), I figured my input would help a little more and I saw something that needed noting and a more in-depth argument based on history and archeology.

Quote:

Quote:

Seriously, people come to forums because they want to learn. Not because they want to be bashed.

The two are not mutually exclusive for a start, and for a finish Gho hardly "bashed" them, merely disagreed in a rather blunt manner.

Talking to someone like they are stupid isn't terribly far off from the meaning. When someone is asking a question in search of information, a blunt, useless, sarcastic response isn't helping him find the information as it stands anyhow.

Quote:

Quote:

So why not teach and debate instead of being a uneducated Biblewaving jackass who most likely can't support (or even make) your points?? Jeez.

[/quote[

I'm sorry, you lost me at "uneducated Biblewaving jackass". I happen to know for a fact that Gho is far from uneducated, rarely waves a Bible, and is not really a jackass.

Good for you. But from the way he/she/it sounds when responding to an information inquiriy, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone of that one.

[Gho the Girl]

echoing8whisper

My point was that her point was irrelevant to the point and the meaning behind the original post, therefore a distraction.

She said that due to it being written by man, it's not credible.

In a very on topic way, I rebutted it.

If being on topic and rebutting a point is distracting, then I do apologise. wink

Quote:

That doesn't really show anything regarding the point, however.
-The point, since you missed it is that it could very WELL be fiction written to understand. Ever played a game of telephone? over time, as oral history is told over and over and over, it often becomes distorted, and the end result is completely different, much like a giant game of telephone. The stories of the bible (at least the very first 5 books) came from oral tradition, and were written down hundreds of years later. So in parts, it could VERY WELL have been fiction, plus different wording used over time to help the masses understand it.

Could have been, may have been . . . I may have been grown from a spore in a jar. It could be that this entire existance is merely an illusion I'm experiencing as a brain in a jar.

It doesn't prove it such though.

Further, plenty of things that are from oral tradition are of great worth, and I'm not just relagating this to epic poems like the Iliad.

Quote:

Forgive me for not stating more clearly. The northern and southern kingdoms of ancient Israel. The northern Pagan converts were of the Canaanite and Mesopotamian traditional faiths.

And this matters . . . why?

What does this have to do with my point about it being written and based on fiction having no bearing on it's credibility or worth?

Quote:

Poorly made point*cough cough* straw man.*cough*

If memory serves, you have yet to make one. You've also actually made straw men out of my posts by saying I'm arguing for the existance of YHVH.

Hm. Ironic, no?

Quote:

I did. But still. It's an off-topic statement and a very poorly made point that was hard to follow.

Or, hey, you made a mistake, but instead of owning up to it, you decide to blame it on me, instead of your lack of reading comprehension and poor grasp of the workings of logic.

Yeah, that'll work.

Quote:

Actually I do know the differnece, and actually I don't sound like an idiot considering you are typing and doing everything to defend your buddy getting flamed instead of concentrating on the true subject at hand:: "The Bible; Of God, or Men?"

You made a post, and he's responding to it. He's defending my argument.

If you don't like that, tough, this is the ED, we're allowed to make posts and comment on them and comment on the commentaries of others.

Quote:

Coming from a student with a Cultural Anthropology and Archeology major (me), I figured my input would help a little more and I saw something that needed noting and a more in-depth argument based on history and archeology.

Oh, you have a degree do you?

I have a degree in subliminal physics! And mind control! OBEY MEEEEEE!!!

Quote:

Quote:

Seriously, people come to forums because they want to learn. Not because they want to be bashed.

The two are not mutually exclusive for a start, and for a finish Gho hardly "bashed" them, merely disagreed in a rather blunt manner.

To be fair I was a little harsh, but the last paragraph was mainly a paraphrasing of her argument turned on her, for the same reasons as her. If you'll note, I even used the same descriptors and reasoning in it.

So it was more parody than an actual attack.

Quote:

Good for you. But from the way he/she/it

It?

I'm not anyone's property, nor am I an object.

Quote:

sounds when responding to an information inquiriy, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone of that one.

Oh, the ironies. They burn!

[Cyrus the Elder]

echoing8whisper

My point was that her point was irrelevant to the point and the meaning behind the original post, therefore a distraction.

No, it addresses the cogency of the argument. An argument without cogency has seriously ******** up problems to the point where it can't be counted as a reliable argument.

Quote:

-The point, since you missed it is that it could very WELL be fiction written to understand. Ever played a game of telephone? over time, as oral history is told over and over and over, it often becomes distorted, and the end result is completely different, much like a giant game of telephone. The stories of the bible (at least the very first 5 books) came from oral tradition, and were written down hundreds of years later. So in parts, it could VERY WELL have been fiction, plus different wording used over time to help the masses understand it.

I didn't miss your point, it just doesn't have any impact on the possible validity of the Bible. They're nice counter-examples and all, but they're not particularly backed up in a way that makes them any more likely than the Bible being true.

Quote:

Forgive me for not stating more clearly. The northern and southern kingdoms of ancient Israel. The northern Pagan converts were of the Canaanite and Mesopotamian traditional faiths.

Ok, and this is where you get to show your proof of your previous claim.

Quote:

I did. But still. It's an off-topic statement and a very poorly made point that was hard to follow.

It's not off-topic, it relates directly to the cogency of the arguments made via example. And I could grasp the point perfectly fine in my first read-through. Perhaps the problem doesn't lie with Gho?

Quote:

evidently so.

No, not really.

Quote:

Actually I do know the differnece, and actually I don't sound like an idiot considering you are typing and doing everything to defend your buddy getting flamed instead of concentrating on the true subject at hand:: "The Bible; Of God, or Men?"

I'm defending arguments made that are being attacked on grounds that firmly do not exist, the fact that I happen to know Gho has little bearing on my motives. And the point is, Gho's post concentrated on the subject at hand, in your haste to attack it for fallacies that it did not contain you are the one who deviated from the subject at hand, if anything.

Quote:

Coming from a student with a Cultural Anthropology and Archeology major (me), I figured my input would help a little more and I saw something that needed noting and a more in-depth argument based on history and archeology.

Then why did you attack it primarily on a logical basis which had no founding to begin with? Maybe one single point of yours in response to Gho questioned on the level of anthropology and archeology, the rest were all screaming straw-men where there were none.

Quote:

Talking to someone like they are stupid isn't terribly far off from the meaning.

Such a thing is absurdly subjective.

Quote:

When someone is asking a question in search of information, a blunt, useless, sarcastic response isn't helping him find the information as it stands anyhow.

It was blunt, yes, sarcastic, in parts, useless? ******** no. It addresses the main 4 argument points given in the OP, whether they were the OP's claim or not, it addressed their cogency, which is a very important part of any argument.

Quote:

Good for you. But from the way he/she/it sounds when responding to an information inquiriy, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone of that one.

No, I'll have a hard time convincing anyone who doesn't consider arguments on a reasonable basis of that one.

Also, going on about someone "bashing" another, and referring to them as a possible "it"? Very poor form.

[washu_2004]

Personally I think that certain parts of the bible are probably the result of someone eating psychedelic mushrooms.

Read the book of revelations then compare it to the written accounts of a hallucinogenic trip, they are uncannily similar. plus there are native magic mushrooms on the island of patmos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanita_muscaria#Christianity

[The Black Lamb]

world inside

Recently, I've noticed a few people saying a few things about the Bible.

1. It was written by men, and therefore is not credible.
2. Much of the Bible is Fiction, where pre-modern men try to explain what they don't understand.
3. Any who take the Bible's words to heart are simply stupid for the above stated reasons.
4. The Bible does not prove that there is a God.

I'm sure there are countless other views on the Bible (Care to add to that list up there?), so what I am wondering is if anyone can give me logical reasoning as to why the Bible is or is not a credible source from which to base our faith or belief in a God.

--Please try to explain your reasoning or ideals, because I'm going to respond to every reply I receive and I'd like to be able to at least understand what you're saying.--

I agree, Exept for #3, because you must be truly ignorant or arragant to actually believe that a fellow human being with any form of a belief upon our existence is "stupid". You can be highly intellegent, But if you're raised in a world were every singal human being around you believes in flying spagettes monsters, For example, you could easily without question join the popular beleif. Since the unknown creation of the bible, It has been the main belief and it hasn't changed due to that that principal. Or because, of atheists like me, Much rather a stereotype.
So not stupidity, Just a common ignorance. That can be corrected without such offencive down-grades. Have you not made mistakes?

[doctorjackal777]

The bible is a collection of a number of different text of the time. When it got to a point when believers weren't really sure which piece of peoples writing were genuine and which was people making stuff up a group of men (because no women had any say) put their foot down. They decided which texts would be holy and which would be heresy, they decided that Jesus would be seen as divine rather than a man, the invented the idea of the trinity etc. Like the gospels for example there were heaps of those things, there was even a gospel of Judas. The gospels in the bible were chosen because the conformed with the groups way of thinking. etc etc etc (it's so hot and my minds melting)

[Gho the Girl]

The Black Lamb

world inside

Recently, I've noticed a few people saying a few things about the Bible.

1. It was written by men, and therefore is not credible.
2. Much of the Bible is Fiction, where pre-modern men try to explain what they don't understand.
3. Any who take the Bible's words to heart are simply stupid for the above stated reasons.
4. The Bible does not prove that there is a God.

I'm sure there are countless other views on the Bible (Care to add to that list up there?), so what I am wondering is if anyone can give me logical reasoning as to why the Bible is or is not a credible source from which to base our faith or belief in a God.

--Please try to explain your reasoning or ideals, because I'm going to respond to every reply I receive and I'd like to be able to at least understand what you're saying.--

I agree, Exept for #3, because you must be truly ignorant or arragant to actually believe that a fellow human being with any form of a belief upon our existence is "stupid". You can be highly intellegent, But if you're raised in a world were every singal human being around you believes in flying spagettes monsters, For example, you could easily without question join the popular beleif. Since the unknown creation of the bible, It has been the main belief and it hasn't changed due to that that principal. Or because, of atheists like me, Much rather a stereotype.
So not stupidity, Just a common ignorance. That can be corrected without such offencive down-grades. Have you not made mistakes?

Belief in God is ignorance that needs correcting?

Please, do tell. Correct me.

[world inside]

Luz Melian

Also we can believe that the texts we have nowadys are genuine; for although we don't have any of the originals, there is a huge amount of very old copies, much more than of other ancient literature, that biblical scientist can study and compare. The frequently used argument that a lot of the original texts was lost or changed with time is not based on truth. The texts had always been rewritten with carefulness and accuracy.

Valid point. There are lots of very very old copies of these documents, some that were written even before Christ that we still have access to today. IE; the Dead Sea Scrolls. When compared to those copies, the words of some Bible translations and the Bible's message in general appears to be virtually unchanged.

[world inside]

Lokiogma

Lokiogma

world inside

Recently, I've noticed a few people saying a few things about the Bible.

1. It was written by men, and therefore is not credible.

As has already been pointed out, so has every book you have ever read... If being created by man makes something un-credible, all moder science is also un-credible

Thank you for restating a valid point.

Lokiogma

world inside

2. Much of the Bible is Fiction, where pre-modern men try to explain what they don't understand.

Proof that is is fiction and not myth please? Fiction implies that it is intentionaly false.

Most of the bible has NOTHING to do with explaining any phenomenon and deals mostly with morals, ethics and guidance for peoples lives. A great deal of it is also just teh history of the people and poems.

You're right, it really deosn't explain any phenomena. Good point.
But..how odd to base a life or religious belief on just a history book. What of the prophecies the Bible contains? Is it really so shallow and pointless a book? What about the overall theme of the Bible: God's Kingdom, and the promises it holds out to humanity? Why should any promises of a future time be found in that book at all, if it is just history.

Lokiogma

world inside

3. Any who take the Bible's words to heart are simply stupid for the above stated reasons.

If you prove that being writen by man disproves the Bible and that it is FICTION and mostly primitive man trying to eplain things he didn't understand...

I like other replies in this thread that state that even IF the Bible were proven to be fictional, (Which it is not, since Biblical characters have been proven through archaeological discoveries to have actually existed.) it still contains good wholesome information that can be beneficial regardless of it's fictitiousness. Therefore, it could never be considered a silly thing to take it's words to heart.

Lokiogma

world inside

4. The Bible does not prove that there is a God.

It doesn't claim to.

It eludes to the existence of one, especially in explanation of the beginnings of life. The book is etched with mentionings of an all powerful God. One would then conclude that the Book regards such a being as Fact. But I think the issue, is that it regards as fact something it introduces without proof.

Lokiogma

world inside

I'm sure there are countless other views on the Bible (Care to add to that list up there?), so what I am wondering is if anyone can give me logical reasoning as to why the Bible is or is not a credible source from which to base our faith or belief in a God.

--Please try to explain your reasoning or ideals, because I'm going to respond to every reply I receive and I'd like to be able to at least understand what you're saying.--

I am Hindu, and am not familiar enough woth the Bible to coment on how one can base their faith on it...

Thanks for your comments. :]

[world inside]

Vallus the Conqueror

world inside

Recently, I've noticed a few people saying a few things about the Bible.

1. It was written by men, and therefore is not credible.
2. Much of the Bible is Fiction, where pre-modern men try to explain what they don't understand.
3. Any who take the Bible's words to heart are simply stupid for the above stated reasons.
4. The Bible does not prove that there is a God.

I'm sure there are countless other views on the Bible (Care to add to that list up there?), so what I am wondering is if anyone can give me logical reasoning as to why the Bible is or is not a credible source from which to base our faith or belief in a God.

--Please try to explain your reasoning or ideals, because I'm going to respond to every reply I receive and I'd like to be able to at least understand what you're saying.--

I mean if you look at it that way then, the above stated reasons are all valid.

Why? Give me some back up info here. You can't just respond affirmatively without some kind of backup facts. That was stated in the OP. 'Please try to explain your reasoning or ideals' -.-"

[world inside]

ferret658

Every word in the Bible is God-breathed, meaning God was the one who dictated the message and man was the one who wrote it down.

How do you know? How are you convinced of this? Back it up. :]

ferret658

I agree with Lokiogma that fiction is intentionally false. But where I disagree is that the Bible is literal and figurative; an instruction manual and a corrective tool. When the writers give descriptions of things, we have take it as figurative because they described what they saw to the best of their abilities, maybe not accurately or literally. when the Bible's writers wrote prophecies 500 years before the prophecy was fulfilled to the T, this we can take as literal. When the Bible says that something is wrong, then it is wrong. When the Bible says that a child must honor and respect their parents, and fathers are not supposed to antoagonize their children, then these situations must be corrected.

Are you saying you think that the Bible is both figurative and literal? I couldn't quite understand what you said. If so, I agree, for there are several many parables found in the Bible which are figurative and illustrative. But there are also many historically correct recordings in the Bible that elude to the Bible being literal to some degree. Especially in regards to prophecy.

ferret658

In my personal opinion, anyone who does not take the Bible's words to heart is a fool. There is truth in those words that no one can disprove if they would stop closing their eyes and ears and hearts to God.

I agree. The Bible has great moral teachings. Even a person who does not believe in a God could take the information in the bible and put it to use, because it is practical.

ferret658

The Bible does prove there is a God. There are countless scriptures that God Himself says, "I am the LORD your God." There is one, definite way you can prove there is a God. But that is out of everyone's hands. When God returns, every single soul on this earth that has lived or is living will know that He is real. Other than God's return, there is conversion to prove the existence of God.
It's a good thing that people base their belief in God solely on what the Bible says of Him. But the Bible says to pursue a personal relationship with Him...So anyone reading the Bible that has already given their life to Jesus that is basing their belief in Him solely on the Bible and not their personal experience as well is in the wrong.

Am I making sense? I feel like I'm rambling...

Conversion? I have no idea what that means. Explain?
To base your belief in personal experience and not just the Bible alone? I've never heard that. How is that a wrong?

[world inside]

Irahatam

1. It was written by men, and therefore is not credible.2 Timothy 3:16... All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
This is where faith in God takes place. One either believes that God had men write what he wanted them to, or they don't. Faith is not a possession of all men.

2. Much of the Bible is Fiction, where pre-modern men try to explain what they don't understand. For a "fiction" book the bible even works for our day and did work in the days of it's being written. If people today just followed the last five ten commandments found at Exodus 20:13 - 17 the world would be a better place for all...
13 “You must not murder.
14 “You must not commit adultery.
15 “You must not steal.
16 “You must not testify falsely as a witness against your fellowman.
17 “You must not desire your fellowman’s house. You must not desire your fellowman’s wife, nor his slave man nor his slave girl nor his bull nor his a** nor anything that belongs to your fellowman.” granted we all don't have slave girls or asses anymore (lol, my husband would argue the latter) but the gist of the scripture is not to look longingly at what others have because it could lead you to commit a crime.
For not following those five rules, the world is a mess and one cannot turn the news on without hearing about all these crimes crimes in a single day. Often they lead to murder.

3. Any who take the Bible's words to heart are simply stupid for the above stated reasons. I might be inclined to think that oif I didn't know that it's the desire of most people I talk to to live without fear of being murdered. Most people just want to be left alone to live their lives and they have no ill will towards others.

4. The Bible does not prove that there is a God. For someone with faith that studies the bible regularly, it does. But again, faith is not a possession of all men. 2 Thessalonians 3: 2 and that we may be delivered from harmful and wicked men, for faith is not a possession of all people.

Nice response. Faith is not a possession of all people. And maybe this is where all of this leads.