Board index ‹ Christianity

[Electric Wire]

> This statement is so general I can't speak to it

I wrote more than just "it doesn't really though". Let me rephrase. The ONLY parts of the bible that accurately describes reality are the parts that mention actual historical people and places. The rest is just myth, legend, exaggerated stories and opinions from people that quite frankly don't matter in 2017.

Also even with the bible mentioning actual places, that doesn't make the rest of it even close to true. Spiderman comics take place in New York. That's a real place, but Spiderman doesn't exist nor does his story anywhere outside of comics, books, movies etc.
Where's the fiction?

Well, the whole thing is likely fiction, but I mean anything revolving around jesus having super powers, people living past 30 let alone 100 as many are described. I mean things like noah's ark and the flood are obviously false. Not to mention anything that claims god did anything since there isn't any proof of a god in the first place.

> What has the Bible made up, and how can you prove it?

The bible has to prove its claims or you need to prove the bible's claims. It's not my responsibility to disprove things that have never been proven in the first place.

> I do. We've all seen evil. We read about it and witness it

I said a literal evil not a metaphorical one.

> On what ground can you verify there is no devil, antichrist, God, Jesus, or angels?

I said there are none of the above that can be proven. Prove they exist then come back and ask if I still don't believe in them.
Where does the Bible teach hate, ignorance, and lies?

Have you read anything past the first page of the bible? Mysogny, Violence, and Inaccuracies in the Bible

> His claim was that it was contrary to reality, not that Christianity taught it was the only representation of life and history, politics, and people, truth and learning.

But you are justifying it being contrary to reality because it can represent what you said above. I'm saying you can get all of those things elsewhere so there is no justification for it being contrary to reality.

> We can solve many social problems whether or not we subscribe to the same definition of truth.

We cannot. Because even if what we view as a solution comes to pass, there will still be people who disagree and fight it, thus making the problem persist. If we can agree on truth then we can start figuring out the best way to solve the problems, instead of arguing about if there is a problem in the first place.

> Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism all have different approaches to truth.

and they are all wrong unless they acknowledge observable reality and science. Which in most cases, none of them do.

> Christianity conforms to a partial presuppositionalism, partially evidentiary, scientific worldview

I agree with the presuppositions but what evidence or science is involved in a christian world view? You can be a christian and have those in your world view but what inherently is evidential or scientific in christianity?

> "facts are just opinions they disagree with," this is an absurdly incorrect statement that doesn't represent Christianity in any sense or at any level.

Well, a lot of christians and religious people don't understand actually scientific fact and continue to hold their own, false, beliefs simply because they think their holy book is true for some reason.

Examples include how old the earth is, our origin of species (e.g evolution), the idea that marriage is just between a man and a woman etc...

Religious people use their beliefs and what they think is "god's word" to simply disregard actual facts. That is a problem.

> You accuse it of many things that are not what it teaches, and you strip it of the things it does teach.

I haven't made any accusations that don't stand, and although there are certain parts you can cherry pick from the bible that teach love and kindness etc. there is no reason to not just abandon religion and teach those things without all of the ignornace, lies and hatred that the bible has as well.

Just want to point out I say the same things about other holy books but we are talking about christianity specifically.

[jimwalton]

One problem is that this conversation could spread so wide we won't be able to keep tabs on all of it. I can at least try to comment minimally (though it's probably impossible to be as thorough as I would prefer) to keep the conversation going.

> The rest is just myth, legend, exaggerated stories and opinions from people that quite frankly don't matter in 2017.

I understand that this is your opinion, but there's nothing verifiable about it. How can you substantiate that it's myth, legend, exaggerated stories and opinions? For you to make the claim you must support your claim. You need to be more specific. Such generalities are impossible to comment on.

> but I mean anything revolving around jesus having super powers,

How do you know? What evidence to you have that Jesus did no such thing? You need to support your theses. Every record we have of Jesus says that he did have super powers. What evidence do you have to support your proposition that this is fictional?

> people living past 30 let alone 100 as many are described.

Archaeologists dug up a Sumerian kings list (completely extrabiblical, dated around 2000-3000 BC) that reports lives of the same lengths the Bible describes.

> I mean things like noah's ark and the flood are obviously false.

I take the flood to have been massively regional, perhaps even continental, and therefore not global. It's a separate conversation. The flood itself isn't "obviously false". Possibly we are just taking the account incorrectly.

> The bible has to prove its claims or you need to prove the bible's claims.

I can substantiate many of the Bible's claims, but you are the one who made the proposition that the Bible is made up. The one who made the claim needs to support the claim. I'll be glad to read the evidence you have that the Bible is made up.

> there is no devil, antichrist, god, jesus, or angels

See, when you speak with such confidence, I like to know how you can be so confident. I like to know what your evidence is that you can stand with such certainty on those claims. Otherwise you're just spouting opinions as if it's proven truth.

> Have you read anything past the first page of the bible?

Whole thing, many times, deep study. The Misogyny, Violence, and Inaccuracies of the Bible link is written by people who have NOT. I have traced through these sites, and they are riddled with ridiculous misunderstandings, shallow scholarship, and downright stupidities. Anyone who believes sites like these without doing the homework is just a fool.

> "We can solve many social problems whether or not we subscribe to the same definition of truth." ... We cannot.

The people of the world have never subscribed to the same definition of truth, and yet there are times when the people of the world work together in both small and large contexts to solve social problems. Though people will always disagree and fight, we have to continue to work for peace and justice.

> and they are all wrong unless they acknowledge observable reality and science.

You speak with such determined confidence, but you don't say things with bearing. Christianity, referring back to an early claim of mine in the thread, "doesn't place any effort on anything contrary to reality. The evidences for God conform to reality, though they are scientifically unprovable (as is your and my existence). Science is actually more concordant with theism than with atheism. Christianity has a credible description of the spectrum of reality. Any notion that Christianity is contrary to reality is ultimately unprovable, but is instead your opinion."

> what evidence or science is involved in a christian world view?

For instance, Christianity claims that nature has order, regularity, purpose, beauty, predictability, some elements of design, and laws. So does science. Christianity asserts the reality of nature (as opposed to religions that say the material world is an illusion). Remember, the scientific revolution grew out of the cultural milieu of Christian Europe, not out of the animism of Africa or the Islamic context of the Middle East. Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Pascal were all Christians.

> a lot of christians and religious people don't understand actually scientific fact and continue to hold their own, false, beliefs simply because they think their holy book is true for some reason.

Yeah, I can't endorse ignorance. Every movement has its extremists and unlearned. Unfortunately, every village has its...

> I haven't made any accusations that don't stand

You've made about a dozen accusations you didn't and can't substantiate, so I would count that as "that don't stand."

[Electric Wire]

> How can you substantiate that it's myth, legend, exaggerated stories and opinions?

There is no reason to believe any of it to be true. If you can prove any of it IS true, then my position would change.

> What evidence to you have that Jesus did no such thing?

You need to prove that he had powers I don't need to prove he didn't. haha

> Every record we have of Jesus says that he did have super powers.

We don't have any record of Jesus that's the point. We don't even know for sure that he ever existed and if he did there is certainly no reason to think he ever died and came back to life, or had any special powers outside of the normal biology that the average human holds.

To be fair I acknowledge it is probable that a person named jesus existed, I don't feel like debating that but my point stands.

> reports lives of the same lengths the Bible describes.

People did not live to be hundreds of years old. That's just not factual at all. Living to 30? sure a little older than that? Maybe. But 100 yrs old back then is incredibly hard to believe.

> The flood itself isn't "obviously false".

The flood as described in the bible is impossible for a ridiculously long list of reasons. Even if it were "regional" or something it still doesn't make total sense, and to believe anything other than a global flood would be to interpret the bible how YOU want to.

> I'll be glad to read the evidence you have that the Bible is made up.

Let me rephrase. The bible is not a "god's word". It is human created, human written. With that being clear there are a number of stories that just couldn't have happened or scientific inaccuracies. Again the bible (or parts of it) needs to be proven true before they are proven false.

> there is no devil, antichrist, god, jesus, or angels...See, when you speak with such confidence

You keep cutting out the last part of that sentence. I will type it again. "There is devil, satan, antichrist or god, jesus, angels, saints THAT CAN BE PROVEN TO EXIST"

I'm not saying I know they don't exist, I'm saying there is no proof of any of them existing and so there is no reason to believe any of them exist.

> Whole thing, many times, deep study. The Misogyny, Violence, and Inaccuracies of the Bible link is written by people who have NOT.

I suppose I could take your word that you have read through the bible, but I think you have read through it with a bias.

That site has had numerous people go through and mark a ton of contradictions in the bible, mark lines that show uncalled for violence and murder, bigotry and discrimination etc. They also have read through it entirely at least once each.

If you choose to ignore all that and only read the good parts about love and what not, that's fine, but you have to acknowledge that it's there and that you are picking and choosing what parts of the bible you support or believe. IF someone is going to be a christian I would much prefer them to "take the good and leave the bad" in the bible, but you still need to realize all the terrible stuff that is in there.

> Anyone who believes sites like these without doing the homework is just a fool.

I've done my research, read the bible compared notes and have not found anything on that site that is incorrect. If anything you simply disagree or interpret things differently. They take everything literally for the most part, as a lot of christians do as well.
doesn't place any effort on anything contrary to reality.

> I've already responded to this. The bible does contradict reality. And of course is not compatible with science really at all.
Christianity claims that nature has order, regularity, purpose, beauty, predictability, some elements of design, and laws.

I would simply argue the men who wrote the bible knew those things and thus wrote the bible to know those things.

Again you don't need religion or a holy book in order to know those things.

> Christianity asserts the reality of nature (as opposed to religions that say the material world is an illusion

I'm sorry? Christianity is a religion so what exactly do you mean?

> You've made about a dozen accusations you didn't and can't substantiate,

Feel free to point them out.

[jimwalton]

> There is no reason to believe any of it to be true. If you can prove any of it IS true, then my position would change.

It depends what you're talking about. Again, specifics are needed. I'm not just going to write a wall. But, of course, I'll assume you know the nature of history. Most of the time we have one anonymous source telling us something. We have to weigh the possibility, reliability, and corroborate what we can. Most can't be corroborated. We piece together history as best we are able, with many contradictions, solitary sources, anonymous sources, and many unknowns. We have to be consistent across the board—secular and biblical history included—of the principles and demands we place on each. It depends what you mean by proof, what constitutes proof, and how you arrive at "reason to believe," before we can deal with these matters. You seem to so quickly and easily brush them aside when there's nothing quick or easy about it.

> We don't have any record of Jesus that's the point.

As to his miracles, we have Josephus and the four Gospels.

> We don't even know for sure that he ever existed

We have Suetonius, Josephus, Tacitus, the James ossuary, Thallus, Ignatius, Pliny the Younger, Mara bar Sarapion, and Lucian. On the basis of historical sources, there is no reasonable doubt that Jesus existed as a man. There is no evidence from antiquity that the existence of Jesus was ever denied by those who opposed Christianity. Today nearly all historians, whether Christian or not, accept that Jesus existed.

> People did not live to be hundreds of years old.

You keep making statements with no substantiation. Is this an opinion? The Sumerians say people lived long lives, as does the Bible. The further back we go in history the more scant the record becomes, and for the pre-historical population and early historical era, we know very little. How can you say with such certainty, "That's just not factual at all," when you have no information?

> to believe anything other than a global flood would be to interpret the bible how YOU want to.

Again, you're drawing conclusion before investigation. It's not a responsible approach to scholarship.

> Misogyny, violence and inaccuracies

We would have to talk about the specifics. I'd read those websites; I've researched the biblical texts. I wrote a book about it. Without specifics, our conversation can't go any further on this point.

> The bible does contradict reality. And of course is not compatible with science really at all.

I need specifics. I can't respond without specifics. I already had this conversation with the original poster, further up the thread. But if you'd like to have it again, I'll be glad to, but I need specifics.

> "You've made about a dozen accusation." ... Feel free to point them out.

Sure

- "The majority of the Bible is fiction"
- "The rest [of the Bible] is just myth, legend, exaggerated stories..."
- "Noah's ark and the flood are obviously false."
- "Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism are all wrong."
- "People did not live to be hundreds of years old. That's just not factual at all."

So, as I said, I'd be glad to read your research behind these statements.

> Bible contradictions

OK, I'm on the BibViz.com site. It starts with "How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?" It links me to 1 Chr. 11.11 and 2 Sam. 23.8. That all it says. And then there are comments from people, who knows who they are and what they know.

Yeah, there's no way to know the correct number. The Masoretic Text and the Septuagint B of 2 Sam. 23.8 both say 800. The Septuagint L, the Old Latin Translation, and Josephus say 900. 1 Chr. 11.11 says 300. Most likely the text of 2 Samuel 23.8 is a scribal corruption. 1 Chr. 11.11 (300) is the more reasonable number. There's no way to know.

#2: Who was Abijam's mother? 1 Ki. 15.1-2 says it was Maachah; 2 Chr. 13.1-2 says Michaiah. 2 Chr. 11.20-21 also says Maachah. What's most likely is that her name was changed when she became queen, a very common practice, to include the "God marker" (some reference to YHWH): Michai-YA. She would have been the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chr. 13.2) and Thamar (2 Sam. 14.27), the only daughter of Absalom (also known as Abishalom, 1 Ki. 15.2). People in those days were often called by various names. To list her as the daughter of Abishalom (aka Absalom) in 1 Ki. 15.2 is a case of telescoping (leaving out a generation, very common in ancient genealogies).

#3: How many sons did Absalom have? 2 Samuel 14.27 says that Absalom had three sons and one daughter, but in 2 Samuel 18.18, Absalom grieves that he has no son to carry on the memory of his name. One would think Absalom knew how many sons he had.

This is no contradiction at all. Absalom did indeed give birth to three sons, but they all died in childhood and none were left to carry on his name at the time of his death. The accusation that this is a contradiction is a clear indication of an accuser not having a clue, and making a superficial judgment without the slightest bit of research—a strategy typically characteristic of these "contradiction" accusations.

#4: The children of Adin. Ezra 2.15 and Neh. 7.20. There are actually a number of discrepancies between the lists of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, not just the children of Adin. The explanation is that Ezra claims to be writing a census (the true number; Ezra 2.1), while Nehemiah is reading off a register that he found (Neh. 7.5). Nehemiah is merely reporting numbers in a document he found, which was obviously inaccurate in several places. The true numbers are the ones in Ezra.

And so it goes. We could do this for a LONG time, but that website is just outrageously superficial and unscholarly.

[Electric Wire]

> It depends what you mean by proof

"Proof is a process in which we assemble evidence, test it, refine it, and reinforce it until that body of evidence is solid enough to withstand contradictions and counterclaims."

This is not possible with the bible. Therefore it is not a source you can prove (or completely disprove for that matter)

> how you arrive at "reason to believe,"

There needs to be evidence or at least a way to prove something in order for me to believe it. You can't and shouldn't use faith if you want to know something.

> As to his miracles, we have the four Gospels.

As I said the bible is not a reliable source of information. It's untestable.

> and Josephus

Are you referring to the Testimonium Flavianum? That is not a good source. It was forged by Eusebius. So Joesphus isn't really any proof of jesus.
If you want some reading on this I can link you.

> Suetonius

Referring to his Life of Claudius? He mentions "Chresto," not Christ and was born after christ would have been crucified. Does not provide evidence of Jesus.

> Pliny the Younger, Tacitus

I really don't have time to go through all my sources atm but here's some info on why they are not evidence of jesus either.

> Lucian

He wouldn't have been an eye witness and didn't specify his sources which could mean a list of things. Again not proof of jesus existing.

>Mara bar Sarapion

Didn't write anything that could be interpreted as about jesus until 40+ years after the crucifixion would have happened. He seems to simply regurgitate info from other christians and also got information wrong about Pythagoras and Samos, so he could easily have been mistaken on anything else he mentioned in those passages.

> Ignatius

I'll need more specifics as to what you are referring to with him.

> James ossuary

Conflicting reports over the authenticity and even if it is real there is still no solid link to who we think of as jesus or a christ for that matter.

> there is no reasonable doubt that Jesus existed as a man.

There is certainly doubt that he existed since there is no solid proof to show that he existed. And again, even if a man named jesus existed he wouldn't have had super powers and came back from the dead. THAT is false in every sense of the word. And if there isn't even solid evidence for the man's existence then proving the christ's existence will be incredibly difficult.

More info if you care to read up.

> How can you say with such certainty?

People don't live to be hundreds of years old. That's nonsense and you should know that. Our lifespans have gradually expanded over the course of our history, but even today we don't usually live past 100. There is absolutely no reason to believe people DID way back then. Seriously that's silly at best.

> I need specifics

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

> "The majority of the Bible is fiction"

Yes. To be clear I don't have a statistical number to show that "more than 50%" is fiction, but the most important parts very much are which is what i mean to say.

> ...Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism are all wrong

I stated after that, "unless they acknowledge observable reality and science." Which for the most part they don't. I have less of a problem with Buddhism and, Taoism and Daoism than I do Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If you want to delve into other religions, by all means, we can, but I would say that the former 3 I more disagree with, while the latter 3 are mostly wrong either morally or factually.

> It starts with "How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?"

So the Giants arch that you see on the main page is pointing towards contradictions. The example you saw showed you the 2 verses on the same topic and how they contradict one another.

1 Chronicles 11:11
And this [is] the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain [by him] at one time.
2 Samuel 23:8
These [be] the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same [was] Adino the Eznite: [he lift up his spear] against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

>1 Chr. 11.11 (300) is the more reasonable number. There's no way to know.

Ok but that's a problem if it is to be believed as something that actually happened.

There are a crap ton of examples on that site, both examples of "important" things and less important things, but any contradiction at all makes it hard to believe it is directly the word of god.

> Absalom did indeed give birth to three sons, but they all died in childhood

That is a fair enough conclusion but what evidence is there to support it? And even so was it mentioned anywhere in the bible that they died?

> Nehemiah is reading off a register that he found

Sure, but why include this in the bible if the numbers are false?

We could do this forever but I feel like even if there is an explanation for some of the contradicitons found there is still no explantion for how they were allowed in the bible in the first place? Isn't it supposed to be the word of god??

[jimwalton]

> "Proof is a process in which we assemble evidence, test it, refine it, and reinforce it until that body of evidence is solid enough to withstand contradictions and counterclaims."

Sure, that definition works. In a court of law, proof can be based on material evidence, 2nd-hand accounts, eyewitness testimony, and even circumstantial evidence. It's not the science lab that determines what happened (though substantial evidence can sometimes be found there), but a group of people who can reason through motive, circumstance, means, and emotions. Hard sciences and math tell us provable facts (chemistry, physics, biology), but you can't prove who ran the red light with test tubes and a calculator. The science lab is also not necessarily the best place for testing the claims of the Bible. The issues of history are cold cases with limited resource material. Historical cases are rarely provable in a science lab. There is weight of evidence, nuance, supplementary materials, etc. Science may tell us sort of how far the car skidded and probably how fast it was going, but it can't make the hard conclusions about guilt and innocence in what happened at the intersection that day.

> This is not possible with the bible. Therefore it is not a source you can prove

The Bible has been shown to have credibility beyond a reasonable doubt in what can be substantiated by external corroboration.

> You can't and shouldn't use faith if you want to know something.

Faith, according to the Bible and Christians, is making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable. In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You’ve sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That’s faith, and it was a conscious choice based in evidence (science, if you will).

> As I said the bible is not a reliable source of information. It's untestable.

Much of the Bible has been shown to be a very reliable source of information. What is testable has stood the test and found to be accurate.

> Josephus...Testimonium Flavianum.

Yes. As you are well aware, the works of Josephus have been gone over and over with a fine-toothed comb, analyzed and evaluated. In the Testimonium Flavianum, there are phrases that are widely regarded as authentic, and others that are widely regarded as edits planted in later by Christians. I will quote the Testimonium Flavianum, and bold the suspicious readings that are considered to be additions/edits by Christians after the fact:

"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, **if indeed one ought to call him a man**. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. **He was the Christ**. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. **He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him**. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."

You should know that all surviving manuscripts of the Testimonium Flavianum contain the same versions of this passage, with no significant differences. So we have three options:

1. Josephus wrote all of it.
2. Josephus didn't write any of it.
3. Some of it is his, and some of it was edited later.

Nobody of any merit agrees with #1 or #2. What is most intriguing, pertaining to our conversation, is that the line about Jesus doing miracles is one of the lines that is widely considered to be authentic Josephus, and not a later addition by Christians.

> Suetonius..."Chrestus" Life of Claudius?

Yes. There is debate about whether or not it was a reference to Jesus' of Nazareth's followers or a great misunderstanding, since Jesus had never been to Rome. But in another passage (Nero 16) he speaks again of Christians. Wikipedia says, "As it is highly unlikely that a Christian interpolater would have called Jesus 'chrestus', placed him in Rome in AD 49, or called him a 'troublemaker,' the overwhelming majority of scholars conclude that the passage is genuine." In any case, his writings give evidence for the historical Jesus.

> Pliny the younger

Three times he mentions a man named "Christ." You're welcome to question the source. It's the cumulative weight of these evidences, not this one in particular.

> Tacitus

Since Tacitus used the name “Christus” instead of “Jesus of Nazareth,” he is almost certainly getting his information from hearsay and not from official records of any kind. We don’t know his source of information. But he is obviously aware of the religion of Christianity and has heard the stories of the man associated with the movement. His writing shows that stories of the man known to him as “Christus” were in wide enough circulation to have reached a senator who was official historian at Rome. The point of interest for us is that a careful historian who is known to have checked his sources, and is regarded by modern scholars as reliable, has heard of a man known as “Christ” associated with the Christian movement. If he were just using logic (“Well, the name ‘Christians’ must have come from a guy named ‘Christi...’ ”), he likely would not have included the references to Tiberius and Pilate. Those historical references give credence to the factuality of a historical Jesus who lived during the reign of Emperor Tiberius Caesar (Emperor of Rome from AD 14-37) and who was executed by Pontius Pilate.

Although the authenticity of this text is occasionally questioned, the vast majority of scholars support it.

> Lucian

Granted, a weak source, but still another possible entry.

> Ignatius

Writing in the late 1st or early 2nd c., mentions Jesus specifically in his Epistle to the Trallians.

> James Ossuary

Deemed authentic by Shimon Ilane (geophysicist with the Geological Survey of Israel), André Lemaire (paleographer at the Sorbonne), Edward Keal and Ewa Dziadowiec (curator and conservator, respectively, of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, Joseph Fitzmyer (Aramaicist), Ada Yardeni (the leading Israeli authority on Hebrew and Aramaic script), Wolfgang Krumbein (Carl von Ossietzky University in Oldenburg, Germany), James Herrell (University of Toledo).

A statistician has said that "while the three names were all common during that era (about a quarter of the population had one of those three names), only 2 families from Jerusalem might fit the category of James, the son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus." Also, though it was common to mention the deceased and possibly even his father on a bone box, it was extremely unusual to mention a brother unless the brother was an important figure in society, giving the bone box strong probability that it mentions the person we know as Jesus of Nazareth.

> People don't live to be hundreds of years old.

It's my understanding the the condition of our atmosphere and environment were different enough in ancient days that longer lives may have been the norm. In any case, the evidence was have from Sumer corroborates the Bible. You have no evidence to the contrary except that it seems silly to you. That doesn't seem to be a reliable source of information to me.

> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

Yeah, another blah-blah site. We would need to talk about specifics.

> Ok but that's a problem if it is to be believed as something that actually happened.

It's not really a problem. Somewhere along the path the text of 2 Sam. 23.8 became corrupted, and we know that. So we know what the text is supposed to read.

> That is a fair enough conclusion but what evidence is there to support it? And even so was it mentioned anywhere in the bible that they died?

The evidence to support it is that Ab gave birth to 3 sons, and then later in life he acknowledged that he had no heirs. Certainly the Bible doesn't mention the birth and death of every individual. Using our brains is an important resource.

> Sure, but why include this in the bible if the numbers are false?

Because it's an accurate record of what he found. He found this list, and he publishes it. That's honest.

> We could do this forever but I feel like even if there is an explanation for some of the contradicitons found there is still no explantion for how they were allowed in the bible in the first place? Isn't it supposed to be the word of god??

Sure it's supposed to be the word of God, and I believe it is. You need to understand the concept of inspiration and the process of transmission. That we know there are manuscript discrepancies doesn't detract from the authority of the text.

[Electric Wire]

> You can't prove who ran the red light with test tubes and a calculator.

Well, no, you would use the camera that took a picture of them or I guess a police officer that witnessed the event would write a ticket to document the incident.

> The science lab is also not necessarily the best place for testing the claims of the Bible.

How else do you test it?

> The Bible has been shown to have credibility beyond a reasonable doubt

Well, i disagree. The bible not only makes ridiculous claims throughout but isn't testable in any way.

> substantiated by external corroboration.

Referring to?

> Faith, according to the Bible and Christians, is making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable.

OK but that is false. Faith is believing without reasons, to believe without proof. If you know something you do not have any need for faith. Faith is only used when someone wants to believe something but has no reason to.

> In my opinion, belief is always a choice

Belief is not subject to will. It should not be a choice. You should believe something because there is evidence or testable proof, and not believe something unless there is evidence or testable proof.

> You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes.

No not faith. You had reason to believe the chair would support you since it and other pieces of furniture similar to it have supported you in the past. That is evidence based and so faith has nothing to do with that.

> but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time

Again, you have good reason to believe it will.

> you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That’s faith,

Everything you said there was correct except mentioning faith. Take that out and replace it with reason and we agree.

> Much of the Bible has been shown to be a very reliable source of information.

Like what?


Testimonium Flavianum and Josephus

Some of it is his, and some of it was edited later.

I would agree, but as I mentioned Eusebius forged the parts mentioning Jesus. The reason I say this is as follows.

1. "It (Jesus) was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
2. "Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
3. "Since Josephus was not a Christian but an Orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
4. "The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
5. "The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
6. "It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
7. "It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
8. "Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defense of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
9. "Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
10. "This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."

When the earliest Greek texts are analyzed, it is obvious that the Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the flow of the primary material and that the style of the language is different from that of Josephus. There is other evidence that the TF never appeared in the original Josephus. As G.A Wells says: "There is an ancient table of contents in the Antiquities which omits all mention of the Testimonium. Feldman (in Feldman and Hata, 1987, p. 57) says that this table is already mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version of the Antiquities, and he finds it 'hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian summarizing the work.'" (Wells, JM, 201)

And on top of all this we have:

"The following is a list of important Christian authorities who studied and/or mentioned Josephus but not the Jesus passage:"

1. Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), who obviously pored over Josephus's works, makes no mention of the TF.
2. Theophilus (d. 180), Bishop of Antioch--no mention of the TF.
3. Irenaeus (c. 120/140-c. 200/203), saint and compiler of the New Testament, has not a word about the TF.
4. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-211/215), influential Greek theologian and prolific Christian writer, head of the Alexandrian school, says nothing about the TF.
5. Origen (c. 185-c. 254), no mention of the TF and specifically states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was "the Christ."
6. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), saint and martyr, nothing about the TF.
7. The author of the ancient Syriac text, "History of Armenia," refers to Josephus but not the TF.
8. Minucius Felix (d. c. 250), lawyer and Christian convert--no mention of the TF.
9. Anatolius (230-c. 270/280)--no mention of TF.
10. Chrysostom (c. 347-407), saint and Syrian prelate, not a word about the TF.
11. Methodius, saint of the 9th century--even at this late date there were apparently copies of Josephus without the TF, as Methodius makes no mention of it.
12. Photius (c. 820-891), Patriarch of Constantinople, not a word about the TF, again indicating copies of Josephus devoid of the passage, or, perhaps, a rejection of it because it was understood to be fraudulent.

I think I've done enough to prove my point on Josephus. If you disagree feel free to respond on the topic.

I'm going to stop here and start another reply because these are getting too long. So look out for another response in a bit.

[jimwalton]

> How else do you test [the Bible]?

The same way we test other historical documents. First, we have to talk about what "historical" means. There are at least five different senses of history (these come from N.T. Wright):

- History as event. It happened whether or not we can prove it (such as the death of the last pterodactyl).
- History as significant event. Not all events are significant; "history" consists of the ones that are.
- History as provable event. We can confirm it with hard sciences. It's only historical if we have hard evidence of it.
- History as writing-about-events-in-the-past. It's historical if it's written about. That raises the question of oral history, and whether we reject anything merely spoken. But what makes written accounts reliable and spoken renditions of the same events unreliable?
- History as a combination of 3 & 4, which is often what people mean when speaking of the Bible, where people imagine a correlation between not only what is written but can be proved by other means.

Then, of course, we have to determine our approach (these come from Mike Licona).

- Do we assume something is true until we can prove it to be false? (There's a severe problem with this approach, in that we may assume far too much, and evidence is not as complete as we would like it to be.)
- Do we assume something is false until we can prove it to be true? (There's a severe problem with this approach as well, since a vast majority of historical records may be the sole account of the person or event.)
- Neutrality. Don't assume anything. The one making the claim, positive or negative, assumes the burden of proof for his/her assertion.

There are numerous challenges to knowing what happened in the far-gone-away past. We can't go back and examine it again. We are stuck with the evidences at hand, though we might like photos, videos, or even more hard evidences. So saying, even historians struggle to verify the truth of a hypothesis or an event in an absolute sense. We are always looking at partial records through the eyes of a writer who may have had his own biases, agendas, or inadequacies. We know that opinions can be biased, memories selective, content edited, or testimonies unreliable. What sources are credible, and which are unreliable—and how do we know?

Rather than insisting on absolute truth, we are better to reason our way to probable truth. All historiography is interpretive, and therefore subjective. But we can reason together that, given the available information, the best explanation should have a reasonable degree of certainty against competing interpretations in such a way that we have a rational basis for believing such an event actually happened or that such a person existed. Absolute certainty may be perpetually outside of our grasp, but adequate certainty could be considered as reliable history.

We are looking for interpretations of history that seem to correspond best to all the information we have, cohere with as wide a circle of known "facts" as possible, and eliminate as much bias as is achievable.

> "The Bible has been shown to have credibility beyond a reasonable doubt" ... Well, i disagree. The bible not only makes ridiculous claims throughout but isn't testable in any way. ... "substantiated by external corroboration." Referring to?

Referring to historiography. The Bible speaks of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Shishak, Neco, Rezin, Jeroboam. It tells us about Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt. It gives us cultural facts about treaties, practices, religions. And it has been shown to be reliable.

> Faith is believing without reasons, to believe without proof.

Not in the Bible. Faith in the Bible is as I said, corroborated by Hebrews 11.1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." The term "sure of" means conforming to reality. The term "certain" means proof. Your definition isn't a valid expression of what the Bible talks about when it uses the word faith.

> Josephus and Eusebius

I know that the works of Josephus are much debated, and you and I are neither going to resolve the issue for the academic community nor be swayed by each other's arguments, because even the scholars cannot agree.

> as I mentioned Eusebius forged the parts mentioning Jesus

Again, you speak with such confidence when this has not been proved, nor is there scholastic consensus about this matter. I thank you for all your work and the information, but the jury is still out and possibly will always be.

[Electric Wire]

Suetonius

So "Chrestians" existed before the creation of Christianity. Just as "Chrestians" was morphed into "Christian," so too did "Chresto" become "Christo" or "Christ."

They are not the same thing.

> But in another passage (Nero 16) he speaks again of Christians.

So again "Christians" here, was almost certainly meant to be "Chrestians".

After having confirmed the long-known fact, that in the earliest extant manuscript of the Roman historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus' Annales 15:44, in which he depicts the Great Fire in Rome in the reign of Nero (64 CE) and its aftermaths, the word Chrestianos was altered into Christianos (Christians), and after having found that, if correctly dated (c. 37 CE), a supposedly early Roman inscription mentioning one Iucundus Chrestianus, most likely does not refer to an early Christian,

"I will now examine another famous Chrest-sentence, which has been connected to ancient Christianity – the one in the Lives of the Twelve Caesars by the Roman historian and biographer Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 70-after 130 CE)...."

"...Moreover, the sloppiness of the scribes copying the Suetonian text, as if they were oblivious to its importance serves as further indication that this sentence was not believed to represent Christ. "

Regardless of what you think, there is more than enough controversy surrounding these writings and shouldn't be used to try and prove something as important as the existence of jesus. Not to mention that we are discussing if "christian" was mentioned not "jesus".

Pliny the younger

"While proconsul of Bithynia, a province in the northwest of Asia Minor, Pliny purportedly wrote a letter in 110 CE to the Emperor Trajan requesting his assistance in determining the proper punishment for "Christiani" who were causing trouble and would not renounce "Christo" as their god or bow down to the image of the Emperor. These recalcitrant Christiani, according to the Pliny letter, met "together before daylight" and sang "hymns with responses to Christ as a god," binding themselves "by a solemn institution, not to any wrong act.""

"Regarding this letter, Rev. Robert Taylor remarks:

If this letter be genuine, these nocturnal meetings were what no prudent government could allow; they fully justify the charges of Caecilius in Minutius Felix, of Celsus in Origen, and of Lucian, that the primitive Christians were a skulking, light-shunning, secret, mystical, freemasonry sort of confederation, against the general welfare and peace of society."

"Taylor also comments that, at the time this letter was purportedly written, "Christians" were considered to be followers of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis and that "the name of Christ [was] common to the whole rabblement of gods, kings, and priests." Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated: "The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money.""

"It is thus possible that the "Christos" or "Anointed" god Pliny's "Christiani" were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE. In any case, this god "Christos" was not a man who had been crucified in Judea.
Moreover, like his earlier incarnation Osiris, Serapis—both popular gods in the Roman Empire—was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Indeed, Osiris was styled "Chrestos," centuries before his Jewish copycat Jesus was ever conceived...."

"In any event, the value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed. As Taylor remarks, "We have the name of Christ, and nothing else but the name, where the name of Apollo or Bacchus would have filled up the sense quite as well." Taylor then casts doubt on the authenticity of the letter as a whole, recounting the work of German critics, who "have maintained that this celebrated letter is another instance to be added to the long list of Christian forgeries..." One of these German luminaries, Dr. Semler of Leipsic provided "nine arguments against its authenticity..." He also notes that the Pliny epistle is quite similar to that allegedly written by "Tiberianus, Governor of Syria" to Trajan, which has been universally denounced as a forgery.

Also, like the Testimonium Flavianum, Pliny's letter is not quoted by any early Church father, including Justin Martyr. Tertullian briefly mentions its existence, noting that it refers to terrible persecutions of Christians. However, the actual text used today comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century, Iucundus of Verona, whose composition apparently was based on Tertullian's assertions. Concurring that the Pliny letter is suspicious, Drews terms "doubtful" Tertullian's "supposed reference to it." Drews then names several authorities who likewise doubted its authenticity, "either as a whole or in material points," including Semler, Aub, Havet, Hochart, Bruno Bauer and Edwin Johnson. Citing the work of Hochart specifically, Drews pronounces Pliny's letter "in all probability" a "later Christian forgery." Even if it is genuine, Pliny's letter is useless in determining any "historical" Jesus."

Third reply coming shortly.

[jimwalton]

> Suetonius

Suetonius wrote after the founding of the Church, not before it. You say, "So 'Chrestians' existed before the creation of Christianity. Just as 'Chrestians' was morphed into 'Christian,' so too did 'Chresto' become 'Christo' or 'Christ.' " But this cannot be so. Suetonius didn't write until around AD 100, when Christianity and the Church were well established. Christians were first called Christians, as far as we know, in the AD 30s, within several years of Jesus' death.

Suetonius's Nero 16 writing refers to events in AD 64 when Christianity was well known in Rome.

I granted that some of Suetonius's references are weaker and some are stronger, but they are still evidence for this historical Jesus.

> Pliny the Younger

It sounds like your Robert Taylor source is the work of a fact-denying minimalist. I tried to look him up on Wikipedia, but there are 6 Robert Taylors, so I don't know which one he is. His opinion is certainly not mainstream.

From a website possibly similar to the one you referenced I found:

Hadrian to Servianus, 134A.D. (Quoted by Giles, ii p86)

In fact, it appears that some followers of Serapis were eventually expelled from Rome when, in 19 AD, Tiberius also expelled the Jews.

Nevertheless, how great confusion between Serapis and Christ could have existed is really somewhat questionable. In 68 AD, a mob of pagans is said to have formed at the Serapis Temple in Alexandria, who then descended on the Christians who were celebrating Easter at Baucalis. There, they sized St. Mark, dragging him through the streets, before throwing him in prison. Clearly those worshippers of Serapis and Christ were aware of each other and the differences within their religions, though perhaps at a later date, some amongst the worshippers of either may have chosen to cover all of their options.

On the other hand, some have pointed out that Chrestus (Christus) was another name for the Egyptian god, Serapis. Chrestus may be translated as "Messiah", though the term need not apply to any specific Messiah, such as Jesus. It therefore could have simply been applied to "Lord Serapis", so that in fact, there was never any connection at all between the early Christians and the worshippers of Serapis.

The key phrases are "how great confusion between Serapis and Christ could have existed is really somewhat questionable" and "in fact, there was never any connection at all between the early Christians and the worshippers of Serapis." In other words, I doubt the credibility of your source and your analysis.