Is The Author God or Is It Humans?

[RedEye]

Christians often tell us that their holy book is the true and unadulterated word of their god (the one true god). Here is an opportunity for you to give your reasons as to why you believe this.

So, Christians how exactly do you know that the Bible is the word of God and not simply an invention of human minds?

Bear in mind that Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of Allah, the Jews believe the Tanakh is the word of Yahweh and so on. At least one of you must be wrong since all of these books cannot be the work of the one true god. (Why would he need two or more wildly different books?).

Would it be a reasonable expectation that if a holy book was dictated by God then it would reveal some knowledge of the world which was beyond the humans of the time? We see no evidence of this. In fact, we see the reverse. Holy books contain information which has been demonstrated to be wrong by science.

Therefore, what is the key piece of evidence which convinces you that God authored a holy book and it could not possibly be an entirely human construct?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by RedEye]

#1 best seller and most influential book in the history of humanity.. is not inconsistent with a divine creation!

That said, the concept of faith is always important; you have faith your car will get you safely to your destination, not proof. So when you get in, you are committing to an act of faith - based on reasonable evidence.

So too with the Bible, for most I would say.

Some book has to be #1 best seller and most influential. That's just how book sales and influence works. Someone or something has to be #1, ahead of everything else.

Does that by itself establish that the thing in the #1 position is of divine origin? If I point out that Jim Clark
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Clark
is called the greatest Formula One racer of all time, does his position at #1 mean he's of divine origin?

Speaking of having faith in cars...no-one operates that way. Least of all governments. Governments these days tend to require you to keep your car in good condition, and not only that, to be able to prove such. Here in Ireland, we have the NCT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Car_Test

Is there any such requirement of evidence or proof with regards to Christianity?

[RedEye]

It's still hate.

What do you think hate means and why do you think it is wrong?

We both know what "hate" means and the issue is not whether it is right or wrong. The issue is that you claimed the Bible contained knowledge, wisdom and love and this was your stated reason for believing it was authored by God. I merely pointed out that it also contained misinformation, foolishness and hate. Do you now accept that what I said is true (pertaining to hate specifically)? If so, what does that do to your reasoning?

It is chock full of false information.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_ ... fic_errors

If modern people make new definitions to old matters, it is easy to make Bible to look wrong. Anything can be made look false, if words are defined in new way so that it looks bad for old texts. It doesn’t mean Bible has false information. It only means that modern people have defined reality in the way that they like.

It has nothing to do with definitions and everything to do with the Bible making claims about the world which science has discovered to be woefully wrong.

One example of those “scientific errors� is the number of insect legs. Many insects have 6 limbs and modern people think they are all legs. However, those who told the Bible message, may have taught that four of them are legs and two of them are arms. And actually, if you look at the insects, four of the limbs are used as legs and two of the limbs are used as arms and arms can be also used to get support when moving. So, Bible is more accurate than science in this. It may be that “science� and Bible are contradictory, but it doesn’t mean Bible is wrong.

The beetle and the ant (like all insects) walk on all six legs. There are no arms. (Some insects have feelers and mandibles for manipulating objects). The Bible is wrong.

That “Biblical scientific errors� page is not very smart. It really can’t show even one real error in the Bible. Like for example the smallest seed point, Matthew 13:32 says “least� and it is used in meaning that it is the smallest in size. Least can also mean it is least in rank, not valued much. But maybe even more important is to notice that Jesus was speaking about herbs, which is why it is kind of stupid to then compare it to all possible seeds.

Jesus did indeed say that it was the smallest and he was not just talking about herbs:

• Matthew 13 NIV
  31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.�

The RationalWiki article refutes both of your assertions. It also goes on to point out that there is no such thing as a Mustard Tree (it is a shrub) which is another blatant error by Jesus.

I think the “Biblical scientific errors� page is just one sign of that atheists have really nothing to support their anti-God propaganda.

Your opinion is noted and dismissed as an argument from ignorance.

You must be thinking of monkeys. No monkey wrote Lord of the Rings.

I think Lord of the Rings is mimicking history and old stories.

It is still a uniquely creative work and not "mimicking" anything as you claimed. You may need to look up what the word "mimic" means. (Also people in glass houses should not throw stones. The Hebrews borrowed all kinds of stories from the cultures around them to make up what became the OT. That includes the creation myth in Genesis, Hebrew cosmology, the Flood myth and so on. The NT continues that tradition by rehashing stories from the OT and presenting them as episodes in the alleged life of Jesus).

I think you missed the point. If it had been the creative work of one person you might have been able to mount a case for your argument from personal incredulity, ie. that it could not have been produced by a human being without help. Since it was written by dozens of people (often contradicting each other) it weakens the case dramatically.

But because they don’t contradict each other, it makes it even stronger evidence.

You missed the point again.
(No contradictions? https://infidels.org/library/modern/don ... tions.html )

Lastly, there are a whole series of threats made (by a loving God!) in Leviticus 26:14-39. You cherry-pick one of them and ignore the others. Did Jews resort to cannibalism as in Leviticus 26:29?

No response means that you concede this point. One score was all I needed.

You seem to be really desperate.

No, just stating a fact.

It is possible that Jews have resorted to cannibalism at some point, or that time is coming. I have no means to prove it. But it doesn’t mean it has not happened.

LOL.

Because there is no evidence for it. If you are making that claim then you have the burden of proof. You would also need to explain how God's alleged influence could not keep nearly 7 million Jews out of the gas ovens. Go ahead. Explain.

I don't see any explanation.

[rikuoamero]

1213 says

I think Lord of the Rings is mimicking history and old stories.

You're not wrong. That was Papa Tolkien's entire reason behind his legendarium. In his opinion, he thought that Britain lacked a mythology of its own. Being a professor of Anglo-Saxon and English at Oxford, he had enormous knowledge of stories like Beowulf (which is where he got the idea for the dragon Smaug sleeping on a pile of gold from).
Tolkien certainly never tried to hide the reason for his work, as you imply here.

[otseng]

that you concede this point. One score was all I needed.

You seem to be really desperate.

Moderator Comment

To both of you, please don't accuse another of conceding a point and don't accuse another of being desperate.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tart]

Ya good question. So i think for me, a part of it is prophecy...

I invite you to start a thread where you lay out some rules for what would constitute a valid prophecy (something secular minds can agree to) and then quote your single best candidate from the Bible. I will be more than happy to refute why whatever it is does not qualify as a valid prophecy. There is no authentic prophecy in the Bible despite your assertions.

You do know this is projecting biases right off the bat, right? Essentially you are saying, before we even begin to look the prophecy, that it is not true. You have already determined a conclusion to evidence that has not been presented yet. That is clearly showing cognitive biases in how you plan to interpret the evidence...

[RedEye]

Ya good question. So i think for me, a part of it is prophecy...

I invite you to start a thread where you lay out some rules for what would constitute a valid prophecy (something secular minds can agree to) and then quote your single best candidate from the Bible. I will be more than happy to refute why whatever it is does not qualify as a valid prophecy. There is no authentic prophecy in the Bible despite your assertions.

You do know this is projecting biases right off the bat, right? Essentially you are saying, before we even begin to look the prophecy, that it is not true. You have already determined a conclusion to evidence that has not been presented yet. That is clearly showing cognitive biases in how you plan to interpret the evidence...

I am basing my claim on experience. I have debated Christians many, many times on their assertions of prophecy in the Bible. I have yet to see a valid one (when appropriate criteria are used). Therefore my comment is not necessarily a case of bias (although I readily admit to having bias --- we all have our biases) but merely a summary of the failure of Christians to make a compelling case. However, I could still be proved wrong. Are you willing to give it a shot?

[1213]

It has nothing to do with definitions and everything to do with the Bible making claims about the world which science has discovered to be woefully wrong.

If “science� claims insects arms are legs, it doesn’t make Bible wrong.

Jesus did indeed say that it was the smallest and he was not just talking about herbs:

The original word means pot herb or vegetable, which could be clear also from the context.

The RationalWiki article refutes both of your assertions. It also goes on to point out that there is no such thing as a Mustard Tree (it is a shrub) which is another blatant error by Jesus.

Again, if you give new meaning to old word, any text can be made look wrong. I think it is self-deception.

The Hebrews borrowed all kinds of stories from the cultures around them to make up what became the OT.

Can you prove that claim?

[Tart]

Ya good question. So i think for me, a part of it is prophecy...

I invite you to start a thread where you lay out some rules for what would constitute a valid prophecy (something secular minds can agree to) and then quote your single best candidate from the Bible. I will be more than happy to refute why whatever it is does not qualify as a valid prophecy. There is no authentic prophecy in the Bible despite your assertions.

You do know this is projecting biases right off the bat, right? Essentially you are saying, before we even begin to look the prophecy, that it is not true. You have already determined a conclusion to evidence that has not been presented yet. That is clearly showing cognitive biases in how you plan to interpret the evidence...

I am basing my claim on experience. I have debated Christians many, many times on their assertions of prophecy in the Bible. I have yet to see a valid one (when appropriate criteria are used). Therefore my comment is not necessarily a case of bias (although I readily admit to having bias --- we all have our biases) but merely a summary of the failure of Christians to make a compelling case. However, I could still be proved wrong. Are you willing to give it a shot?

Good that you recognize being bias... You are right, we all have biases and I think if we come from a perspective that is not bias in concluding judgement about the scripture, that it is sufficient in demonstrating its Word.

Ya, so lets look at the prophecy... What is your criteria for prophecy?

Lets start with Jeremiahs prophecy about Jerusalem (Jeremiah 31)... You believe this is false prophecy?

38 “The days are coming,� declares the Lord, “when this city will be rebuilt for me from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The measuring line will stretch from there straight to the hill of Gareb and then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley where dead bodies and ashes are thrown, and all the terraces out to the Kidron Valley on the east as far as the corner of the Horse Gate, will be holy to the Lord. The city will never again be uprooted or demolished.�

[RedEye]

It has nothing to do with definitions and everything to do with the Bible making claims about the world which science has discovered to be woefully wrong.

If “science� claims insects arms are legs, it doesn’t make Bible wrong.

It does when there is no such thing as insect "arms" except in your imagination.

Jesus did indeed say that it was the smallest and he was not just talking about herbs:

The original word means pot herb or vegetable, which could be clear also from the context.

The RationalWiki article refuted that claim. I suggest you read it.

The RationalWiki article refutes both of your assertions. It also goes on to point out that there is no such thing as a Mustard Tree (it is a shrub) which is another blatant error by Jesus.

Again, if you give new meaning to old word, any text can be made look wrong. I think it is self-deception.

A shrub has always been a shrub and a tree has always been a tree unless you can prove otherwise. Don't just assert it.

The Hebrews borrowed all kinds of stories from the cultures around them to make up what became the OT.

Can you prove that claim?

Sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_c ... _influence

• Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[19][20] but adapted them to their belief in one God,[2] establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors.[21][22]

That's just one example.

[RedEye]

Ya good question. So i think for me, a part of it is prophecy...

I invite you to start a thread where you lay out some rules for what would constitute a valid prophecy (something secular minds can agree to) and then quote your single best candidate from the Bible. I will be more than happy to refute why whatever it is does not qualify as a valid prophecy. There is no authentic prophecy in the Bible despite your assertions.

You do know this is projecting biases right off the bat, right? Essentially you are saying, before we even begin to look the prophecy, that it is not true. You have already determined a conclusion to evidence that has not been presented yet. That is clearly showing cognitive biases in how you plan to interpret the evidence...

I am basing my claim on experience. I have debated Christians many, many times on their assertions of prophecy in the Bible. I have yet to see a valid one (when appropriate criteria are used). Therefore my comment is not necessarily a case of bias (although I readily admit to having bias --- we all have our biases) but merely a summary of the failure of Christians to make a compelling case. However, I could still be proved wrong. Are you willing to give it a shot?

Good that you recognize being bias... You are right, we all have biases and I think if we come from a perspective that is not bias in concluding judgement about the scripture, that it is sufficient in demonstrating its Word.

Ya, so lets look at the prophecy... What is your criteria for prophecy?

Since you have left it up to me I suggest these:

viewtopic.php?t=2142&lofi=1

Lets start with Jeremiahs prophecy about Jerusalem (Jeremiah 31)... You believe this is false prophecy?

38 “The days are coming,� declares the Lord, “when this city will be rebuilt for me from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 The measuring line will stretch from there straight to the hill of Gareb and then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley where dead bodies and ashes are thrown, and all the terraces out to the Kidron Valley on the east as far as the corner of the Horse Gate, will be holy to the Lord. The city will never again be uprooted or demolished.�

Of course it is false prophecy. It fails multiple criteria. There are no specifics given on when this prophecy will come to pass --- it is completely open-ended because we can never know if Jerusalem will be destroyed again (as it was about 70CE). There is also no agreement among modern scholars on the location of most of the landmarks referred to in this passage — the Tower of Hananel, the Hill of Gareb, Goah, and so on. That makes it impossible to verify against present day Jerusalem (which has expanded to the north of the ancient city). Jerusalem has been captured and desolated several times from 2600 years ago and its current state still cannot be described as fully restored. Arab Muslims still control some areas of Jerusalem.

Was this really your best shot?