Bible = Santa Claus

[Blacknad]

Hi all,

Another question. I am debating on http://www.scienceagogo.com and below is a post from the Origins forum. It is a response to another Christian's post, and before I compose and post a response I thought I would get some input from people here (which has been very helpful already - thanks).


[POST:

rlb wrote:
"The Bible is the evidence, and whether you believe the Bible or not is purely Opinion."

Lets examine your statement.

1. Who wrote the bible? Name please.
2. When precisely did this person write it?
3. In what language?
4. Who translated it into the language(s) you read?
5. What evidence do you have that the translations were 100% faithful and accurate?
6. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Latin Volgate?
7. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Torah of the Jews?
8. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the version of every other Chrisitian denomination whose version is different from your?

So what you have, as evidence, is an authorless book, with not a single known original text, written in a language you could never have read, mistranslated into other language you could never have read, mistranslated multiple times into English of which you accept only a single version.
Wouldn't get you out of a parking ticket now would it?

rlb wrote:
"Once again you show how you are right without proving that you are right."

I will presume this translates into something meaningful and respond accordingly. The burden is not upon me to prove that your authorless book is the true and perfect work of the deity that created the heavens and the earth. I'm not the one making that claim.

rlb wrote:
p.s. DA, have you studied your Bible lately?

Yes. But have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh from which it was plagiarized?

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mes ... gilgamesh/

Well it is about time you did.

Your Bible is as much of a work of fiction copied from a heathen mythology as Santa Claus is Christmas and the Easter Bunny is the resurrection.]

......................................................................................................................

As I say, any help would be much appreciated.

Regards,

Blacknad.

[SUGAAAAA]

very briefly:


1. Not one person wrote the bible. It has several authors, Jesus' apostles being the authors of most of the New Testament. (ex. Corinthians was written by St.Paul, Revelation by St.John, and the Gospels are self explanatory)
2. Each Bible book has a different date. But they all date to within the lifetime of Jesus' apostles (ex. Romans date to 57 CE, Thessalonians to 50-60 CE). The Old Testament had already been written long before this time.
3. Greek.

Questions 4-8 are answered on this site;

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html


From reading the very early Christian writings by the early church fathers, we can tell that the manuscripts have remained the same througout all these years. The goal of the church was to preserve the truth, if Bible authenticity is the issue, you might find this site really helpful:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Writings from early church fathers that site the New Testament.

[Jac3510]

To prove 1-3 of Sugaaa's above, refer this guy to any NT intro for NT books. Thomas D. Lea's The New Testament: Its Background and Message (2nd ed.) is really good. Carson, Moo, and Douglas also have an outstanding volume in An introduction to the New Testament. If your atheist friend has not heard of these, then he has never looked into NT introduction. Other great authors on this subject include Hiebert, Thiessen, DeSilva, Miller, Zahn, Goodspeed, Tenney, Metzger, etc.

As far as OT Introductions go, the standard work is A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Rev. ed) by Gleason Archer. Soggin, McFadyen, Wright, Harrison, Childs, Howard, Swete, Wolf, Bullock, Fohrer, Pfeiffer, Young, Dillard, and West all have books worth checking into on this subject as well.

If you can't find bibliographic info and he just insists on it, I can provide it for all of these.

The point: the Bible, both the OT and the NT, is extremely reliable. We have, for all intents and purposes, the original texts, so there is little to no doubt about the manuscripts.

God bless

[Canuckster1127]

Hi all,

Another question. I am debating on http://www.scienceagogo.com and below is a post from the Origins forum. It is a response to another Christian's post, and before I compose and post a response I thought I would get some input from people here (which has been very helpful already - thanks).


[POST:

rlb wrote:
"The Bible is the evidence, and whether you believe the Bible or not is purely Opinion."

Lets examine your statement.

1. Who wrote the bible? Name please.
2. When precisely did this person write it?
3. In what language?
4. Who translated it into the language(s) you read?
5. What evidence do you have that the translations were 100% faithful and accurate?
6. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Latin Volgate?
7. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Torah of the Jews?
8. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the version of every other Chrisitian denomination whose version is different from your?

So what you have, as evidence, is an authorless book, with not a single known original text, written in a language you could never have read, mistranslated into other language you could never have read, mistranslated multiple times into English of which you accept only a single version.
Wouldn't get you out of a parking ticket now would it?

rlb wrote:
"Once again you show how you are right without proving that you are right."

I will presume this translates into something meaningful and respond accordingly. The burden is not upon me to prove that your authorless book is the true and perfect work of the deity that created the heavens and the earth. I'm not the one making that claim.

rlb wrote:
p.s. DA, have you studied your Bible lately?

Yes. But have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh from which it was plagiarized?

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mes ... gilgamesh/

Well it is about time you did.

Your Bible is as much of a work of fiction copied from a heathen mythology as Santa Claus is Christmas and the Easter Bunny is the resurrection.]

......................................................................................................................

As I say, any help would be much appreciated.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Well, Obviously this person is on a fishing expedition. They know the answers to this. They are employing rhetorical questions in order to divert the person arguing with them and wrapping them around the axel by planning, no doubt, to ask endless why questions to whatever response the person gives them. It's a debating technique relying upon the underpinnings of epistemology, if you want to look it up.

The answers above are pretty much accurate, although in addition to Greek, the Bible was written in Hebrew and portions in Aramaic.

The question to respond with, would be to ask the person what the foundation of their system of beliefs are and to present them to the same standard.

Atheistic philosophy is very good, and correct as far as it goes, that you cannot prove a negative. The challenge then is to ask them to present positively what their world view is built upon, and then to defend it to the same standard they demand of Christians. Be sure to ask them what prevents their views, logically extended from embracing anarchy and nihilism. That usually generates some excitement along the way and provides them the opportunity to be as uncomfortable as they like making others.

Jesus was very astute in know what to answer and what not to answer. The trick is to read between the lines and then ask a question that begs the question and puts the disingenuous antogonist back on the defensive.

My opinion, for what it is worth.

[Phoenix]

Hi all,

Another question. I am debating on http://www.scienceagogo.com and below is a post from the Origins forum. It is a response to another Christian's post, and before I compose and post a response I thought I would get some input from people here (which has been very helpful already - thanks).


[POST:

rlb wrote:
"The Bible is the evidence, and whether you believe the Bible or not is purely Opinion."

Lets examine your statement.

1. Who wrote the bible? Name please.
2. When precisely did this person write it?
3. In what language?
4. Who translated it into the language(s) you read?
5. What evidence do you have that the translations were 100% faithful and accurate?
6. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Latin Volgate?
7. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Torah of the Jews?
8. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the version of every other Chrisitian denomination whose version is different from your?

So what you have, as evidence, is an authorless book, with not a single known original text, written in a language you could never have read, mistranslated into other language you could never have read, mistranslated multiple times into English of which you accept only a single version.
Wouldn't get you out of a parking ticket now would it?

rlb wrote:
"Once again you show how you are right without proving that you are right."

I will presume this translates into something meaningful and respond accordingly. The burden is not upon me to prove that your authorless book is the true and perfect work of the deity that created the heavens and the earth. I'm not the one making that claim.

rlb wrote:
p.s. DA, have you studied your Bible lately?

Yes. But have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh from which it was plagiarized?

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mes ... gilgamesh/

Well it is about time you did.

Your Bible is as much of a work of fiction copied from a heathen mythology as Santa Claus is Christmas and the Easter Bunny is the resurrection.]

......................................................................................................................

As I say, any help would be much appreciated.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Check out this site Blacknad

http://www.geocities.com/Metagetics/

This link talks about Biblical revalation

http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Men ... enue2.html

[Phoenix]

Hi all,

Another question. I am debating on http://www.scienceagogo.com and below is a post from the Origins forum. It is a response to another Christian's post, and before I compose and post a response I thought I would get some input from people here (which has been very helpful already - thanks).


[POST:

rlb wrote:
"The Bible is the evidence, and whether you believe the Bible or not is purely Opinion."

Lets examine your statement.

1. Who wrote the bible? Name please.
2. When precisely did this person write it?
3. In what language?
4. Who translated it into the language(s) you read?
5. What evidence do you have that the translations were 100% faithful and accurate?
6. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Latin Volgate?
7. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the Torah of the Jews?
8. Why is the version you read more authoritative than the version of every other Chrisitian denomination whose version is different from your?

So what you have, as evidence, is an authorless book, with not a single known original text, written in a language you could never have read, mistranslated into other language you could never have read, mistranslated multiple times into English of which you accept only a single version.
Wouldn't get you out of a parking ticket now would it?

rlb wrote:
"Once again you show how you are right without proving that you are right."

I will presume this translates into something meaningful and respond accordingly. The burden is not upon me to prove that your authorless book is the true and perfect work of the deity that created the heavens and the earth. I'm not the one making that claim.

rlb wrote:
p.s. DA, have you studied your Bible lately?

Yes. But have you ever read the Epic of Gilgamesh from which it was plagiarized?

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mes ... gilgamesh/

Well it is about time you did.

Your Bible is as much of a work of fiction copied from a heathen mythology as Santa Claus is Christmas and the Easter Bunny is the resurrection.]

......................................................................................................................

As I say, any help would be much appreciated.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Check out this site Blacknad

http://www.geocities.com/Metagetics/

This link talks about Biblical revalation

http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/Men ... enue2.html

[Blacknad]

Thanks for the responses to this one.

I probably have to say that the Craig debates have been the most helpful.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

It seems that the argument about a loving God not being able to create people that will end up in Hell rests upon a few assumptions and is primarily an argument from emotion, and not a rationally defensible one.

Regards,

Blacknad.

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks for the responses to this one.

I probably have to say that the Craig debates have been the most helpful.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

It seems that the argument about a loving God not being able to create people that will end up in Hell rests upon a few assumptions and is primarily an argument from emotion, and not a rationally defensible one.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Glad some of this helped. Atheists often overstate their positions from an emotional need to dismiss Christianity. Any reaonable Atheist or Agnostic will acknowledge the value of the Bible historically etc. When you get an emotionally charged person who makes gross overstatements in an attempt to minimize any value whatsoever, then you have to ask, what are they afraid of?

[aa118816]

I would say to your friend:

Wow, you really have been brainwashed by your philosophy professor and your response is juvenile. The Bible is not a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh-have you ever read the EOG?

The EOG is a theogany which describes a polytheistic world and how those gods were created in this world. It also is a world where matter and gods are eternal. The EOG shows how gods fought to divide the waters and how they astral beings navigate the highways of the heavens. In EOG and ANE myths, man is incidental and there as a plaything for the gods. Your analysis is really crude my friend and are you really that weak minded that you cannot see these differences.

The Bible shows how God is separate from his creation and created matter out of nothing. God revealed Genesis to Moses to show that God was not the sun, the rock and the moon and the waters were not divided because God's were fighting over them. God had an organized plan that he executed for his glory. He is also outside of time and his crowing jewel was man.

It is so easy to counter this foolishness. I recommend an excellent book called Creation out of Nothing from Paul Copan and WL Craig.

dan

[Kurieuo]

I recommend an excellent book called Creation out of Nothing from Paul Copan and WL Craig.

Got it. Would recommend it too. Only still yet to read it...

Kurieuo

[aa118816]

Great book Kurieuo and what I liked about it was that it covered many topics effectively and fairly.

Dan

[meforevidence]

Historical and Archeological Scholars from the California Institute of Ancient History refute the dating of the Hebrew, Babylonian, and Assyrian tablets (also Ugarit Tablets). They provide ample evidence to show that it is possible that the Assyrians and Babylonians borrowed from the Ancient Hebrew (Sumerian) writings.


see: http://specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html

and: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/ugarit.html


and also: http://biblehistoryevi.freeforumsite.co ... um-12.html