Biblical rebuttals

sink

PDN wrote: »

I am happy to use statistics in an debate with people who claim to base their beliefs purely on the basis of evidence such as statistics. Then, if they choose to ignore the statistics, it exposes their hypocrisy as it becomes apparent that their position is really just faith-based.

However, as I have pointed out on other threads, for an atheist to argue with someone like a creationist on the basis of probabilities is pointless, since the creationist believes in a god who is not bound by probability.

If you stop to think about it, we all use different criteria toward others than apply to ourselves because we don't share the same presuppositions. So, for example, if you wanted to challenge my opinion on a particular subject then it might be effective for you to point out what the Bible says on that subject (providing you can quote the Bible properly, not like some of the poor examples in this thread). That would be an effective line of argument to use because I see the bible as an authority. However, it would not be profitable for me to cite the Bible as a 'clincher' or authority when debating with an atheist. Nor would it be necessary for you yourself to see the Bible as an authority in order to cite in in an argument against me.

I know my schooldays were a long time ago, but don't they teach basic debating skills in schools anymore? This all seems rather basic.

I see, I never received any lessons in debating so you will have to forgive my ignorance.

I accept your point that the Bears could not possibly have killed or maimed all 42 "children". But neither could they have scratched all 42 unless they were all paralysed by fear and could not get out of the way fast enough which through my presuppositions seems unlikely.

Moving on to the whole issue of the debate between Christians and atheists. It seems rather pointless if we stick rigidly to your rules of debate. The Christian has the presuppositions that god wrote the bible and they can bend passages of the bible to fit their beliefs. Evidenced by fundamentalists and moderates having different takes on the same passages. The atheist has no presuppositions only presumptions based on scientific theories that exist to explain the natural world. All atheists tend to interpret the bible the same way, that it was written by man and is full of crap.

The only way an atheist can convince you of anything is if you cast off your presuppositions all of which can't yet be disproved by science as science relies on natural explanation and your presuppositions are based on supernatural beliefs. You can't prove to atheist that your presuppositions are true because atheist rely purely on the presumptions that scientific theory provides. Therefore you can't convince atheists of anything that relies upon your presuppositions. Therefore neither can truly convince the other of anything because their unshakable presuppositions/presumptions fit their interpretations and not each others.

So why are we even arguing?

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Genealogies in the Ancient Near East did not give a comprehensive account of someone's descent.

Out of interest what do you mean by this? Do you get any more comprehensive genealogies than in the Jewish faith from the ancient middle east? How much more comprehensive do you want than the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles? In the 21st Century I can trace my family line back only a few generations, Chronicles traces the Jewish descent back to Adam. If I believed in Biblical inerrancy I would be pretty impressed, why aren't you?

However, since Joseph was his legal father (even if not biological) then Jesus would be a valid heir and son.

Wouldn't James, Jesus' brother, have been the valid heir to Joseph, as he actually was descended from Joseph (and presumably older if he was born in a previous marriage)?

I have to say I am not sure how the legality of adoption affected the ancestory of a person. Was there any precendent set in the OT which backs up your claim that an adopted child automatically takes the ancestral line of the stepfather?

Finally I never really understood the importance in Christianity of the virgin birth. Could God have not inhabited the body of a child born through a natural union of man and woman? Are there 23 chromosomes reserved only for God and this is why a virgin birth couldn't have been possible? And why are Christians so sure that Mary didn't have sex prior to the conception of Jesus? Its not like it would be something she would be boasting about at the time. Why don't you take by far the most likely explanation which is that she was a young woman who did have sex.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Out of interest what do you mean by this? Do you get any more comprehensive genealogies than in the Jewish faith from the ancient middle east? How much more comprehensive do you want than the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles? In the 21st Century I can trace my family line back only a few generations, Chronicles traces the Jewish descent back to Adam. If I believed in Biblical inerrancy I would be pretty impressed, why aren't you?

I am impressed. But I don't build it up to be something it isn't. Careful comparison of different genealogies in Scripture makes it clear that there are gaps and omissions. x might be described as the son of y, even though he was actually y's grandson. In the same way Jesus is called 'the Son of David' even though he was actually a descendent of David.

Wouldn't James, Jesus' brother, have been the valid heir to Joseph, as he actually was descended from Joseph (and presumably older if he was born in a previous marriage)?

The issue is simply whether Jesus was a legal son, not whether he was the only heir. Scripture is full of examples where a younger son had priority over the elder in terms of kingship or inheritance.

That's also a big 'if'. I see no reason to presume that James was the child of a previous marriage.

I have to say I am not sure how the legality of adoption affected the ancestory of a person. Was there any precendent set in the OT which backs up your claim that an adopted child automatically takes the ancestral line of the stepfather?

Abraham said that his servant Eliezer, not even a relative, would be his heir if he didn't have a biological child (Genesis 15:3). Also Jacob adopted two of Joseph's sons as his own children for inheritance and lineage purposes (Genesis 48:5).

Finally I never really understood the importance in Christianity of the virgin birth. Could God have not inhabited the body of a child born through a natural union of man and woman? Are there 23 chromosomes reserved only for God and this is why a virgin birth couldn't have been possible? And why are Christians so sure that Mary didn't have sex prior to the conception of Jesus? Its not like it would be something she would be boasting about at the time. Why don't you take by far the most likely explanation which is that she was a young woman who did have sex.

It is not a case of what God could have done, but what He did do. The Scripture says that Mary conceived as a virgin. That is the basis for Christian belief, not a weighing up of possibilities of what might have happened.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

I am impressed. But I don't build it up to be something it isn't. Careful comparison of different genealogies in Scripture makes it clear that there are gaps and omissions. x might be described as the son of y, even though he was actually y's grandson. In the same way Jesus is called 'the Son of David' even though he was actually a descendent of David.

It is funny how different people see the same thing in opposing ways. You see two genealogies which do not agree, for example those in Matthew and Luke, and conclude that they are both correct but just are not comprehensive and they just don't include the same people. I, on the other hand, see two genealogies which list entirely different ancestors and conclude that one or both are incorrect.

I wonder if your judgement that both are correct based primarily on your belief that the Bible is inerrant? I think a neutral observer would conclude that it is highly probable that both could not be correct, after all they agree on very little (if anything) in the chain between Joseph and David.

The idea that both genealogies are correct is hindered by the fact that one traces Joseph's line through David's son Heli whilst the other traces it through David's other son Nathan.

I think that ommissions really can not adequately cover the inconsistencies of the genealogies here, there must be mistakes.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

It is funny how different people see the same thing in opposing ways. You see two genealogies which do not agree, for example those in Matthew and Luke, and conclude that they are both correct but just are not comprehensive and they just don't include the same people. I, on the other hand, see two genealogies which list entirely different ancestors and conclude that one or both are incorrect.

I wonder if your judgement that both are correct based primarily on your belief that the Bible is inerrant? I think a neutral observer would conclude that it is highly probable that both could not be correct, after all they agree on very little (if anything) in the chain between Joseph and David.

The idea that both genealogies are correct is hindered by the fact that one traces Joseph's line through David's son Heli whilst the other traces it through David's other son Nathan.

I think that ommissions really can not adequately cover the inconsistencies of the genealogies here, there must be mistakes.

There are a number of possible reasons why that might be. One is that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary rather than Joseph. Therefore it mentions that Jesus was supposed by some to be the son of Joseph, but then proceeds to trace the genealogy through Heli (Mary's father).

It is true that I look for harmonisation instead of automatically assuming a contradiction. I do that with plenty of other sources - not just the Bible. I've heard too many bad debaters rip something out of context and then accuse their opponents of contradicting themselves. I've even had it done to me on these boards.

I am, of course, more prone to do so with the Bible because I do believe it to be inerrant. If a reasonable harmonisation exists then it is unreasonable to jump to a conclusion of contradiction or error.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

I'm always a little confused when an omniscient God designs his plans so that they look exactly as if it were a bunch of normal haphazard crap.

Let me guess, he made the whole Messiah thing so circuitous and counter intuitive to test our faith, right?

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Our senses are very limited, and the Universe seems to work in some very counter-intuitive ways

So, if an omniscient God exists He wouldn't possibly dare to structure anything that might seem counter-intuitive to Zillah?

We are finite beings. God is infinite. The universe, if not infinite, is certainly much bigger than we can comprehend. Of course both the workings of the universe and the ways of God will seem counter-intuitive to our feeble intellects.

dlofnep

Does PDN accept that the bible in it's current format is not what the bible in it's original format was? Disregarding language. Does he/she take onboard the chinese-whispers effect that 2000 years of translating and rewriting of the bible must have had on it's current format. And if so, would it be seriously possible to actually take onboard the bible - word for word?

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

So, if an omniscient God exists He wouldn't possibly dare to structure anything that might seem counter-intuitive to Zillah?

We are finite beings. God is infinite. The universe, if not infinite, is certainly much bigger than we can comprehend. Of course both the workings of the universe and the ways of God will seem counter-intuitive to our feeble intellects.

Well, its not so much that its "counter-intuitive" as it is that it "looks exactly as if nothing strange were going on and religious believers are desperately trying to string something together".

PDN wrote: »

In the same way Jesus is called 'the Son of David' even though he was actually a descendent of David.

No he isn't

PDN

dlofnep wrote: »

Does PDN accept that the bible in it's current format is not what the bible in it's original format was? Disregarding language. Does he/she take onboard the chinese-whispers effect that 2000 years of translating and rewriting of the bible must have had on it's current format. And if so, would it be seriously possible to actually take onboard the bible - word for word?

That depends on what you mean by " the Bible in its current format".

If you are referring to English translations, then of course not. If you are talking about the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts then I will be very happy to discuss their integrity and accuracy. Those who hold to biblical inerrancy believe that the original autographs of the Scriptures were without error. Comparisons with the abundance of existing manuscripts from various centuries demonstrate the remarkable accuracy and faithfulness of the copyists.

If you want to argue Chinese whispers then you may start by producing some evidence for such an assertion.

BTW, I'm definitely a he.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, if an omniscient God exists He wouldn't possibly dare to structure anything that might seem counter-intuitive to Zillah?

Well no, the question is if an omniscient God exists why would he create a universe that looks purely natural (with all the craziness that entails), and a religion that looks made up by humans (with all the contradiction and nonsense that entails).

Its almost as if he isn't real :eek:

But then as Zillah says, I'm sure that is to test our faith.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

There are a number of possible reasons why that might be. One is that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary rather than Joseph. Therefore it mentions that Jesus was supposed by some to be the son of Joseph, but then proceeds to trace the genealogy through Heli (Mary's father).

This is the pi debate all over again. Your are rewriting scripture to solve a problem that the obvious reading presents. Luke specifically says that Joseph was the son of Heli, not Mary the daughter of Heli. (Out of interest why is Luke's genealogy proposed as that of Mary and not Matthew's genealogy?)

If you are referring to English translations, then of course not. If you are talking about the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts then I will be very happy to discuss their integrity and accuracy. Those who hold to biblical inerrancy believe that the original autographs of the Scriptures were without error. Comparisons with the abundance of existing manuscripts from various centuries demonstrate the remarkable accuracy and faithfulness of the copyists.

Why would God perform the miracle of inspiring the words of the scriptures if he then neglects to perform the miracle of preserving exactly that what he originally wrote?

As for the copyists being remarkably accurate, I don't know how true this is. Firstly we can never know how accurate the copies we have today are because we do not have the originals. Secondly we have numerous examples of scribes changing Gospels to suit their needs (Matthew and Luke changing Mark is an example of this).

If you want to argue Chinese whispers then you may start by producing some evidence for such an assertion.

Just reading the canonical and non-canonical Christian writings provides pretty good evidence for Chinese whispers taking place over the early period of Christianity. There is a very obvious trend of exageration and embellishment occuring. The earliest writings, those of Paul, are pretty bland when it comes to Jesus. He mentions very little about the life and good works of Jesus. Then we have Mark a few decades later and we start seeing some miracles and a possible resurrection (albiet with no witnesses), the trend continues through Matthew and Luke and then we get John at the end of the 1st century which pretty much makes Jesus an equal with God. The non canonical Gospels continue with the embellishment as more and more miracles are attributed to Jesus.

By just looking at how the stories about Jesus spread and grew over the first few centuries the telltale signs of Chinese whispers become obvious.

--amadeus--

In law if there are two alternative readings of a statute or contract the judge is obliged to adopt the reading that would be the most "clear and obvious to teh common man". A variant on Occam's razor if you like - if there are two readings of a text, one straightforward and one complex with complex assumptions then surely common sense dictates that the simple reading is the corect one.

FWIW I think that wiggle room *may* be made on the whole Pi debate - I don't agree with the christian interpretation but I can see the case being made. On the geaneology thing the claim of matriarchal lineage goes against everything I have heard of the (very) patriarchal society of that time and the "missing links" and adopted son claims just seem like a stretch to justify that which can be more easily explained as contradictions or innacuracies.

Charco had some other good examples that have been skipped over. Any others?

Zillah

--amadeus-- wrote: »

On the geaneology thing the claim of matriarchal lineage goes against everything I have heard of the (very) patriarchal society of that time and the "missing links" and adopted son claims just seem like a stretch to justify that which can be more easily explained as contradictions or innacuracies.

Don't Jews count Jewishness via the Mother rather than the Father?

--amadeus--

Zillah wrote: »

Don't Jews count Jewishness via the Mother rather than the Father?

I don't know - raises questions about the value of putting in Jospehs bloodline at all if they can trace a line through Mary to David.

I assumed that the society was strongly patriarchal based on reading history and vising the modern Middle East as well as more specific commentary on the bible, eg:

in the patriarchal society in which Jesus lived, one’s identity, a person’s standing in society, was determined by his or her father.

from here

Not sure we'll get a definitive answer, for a change!

[edit] the other thing is that they had an incomplete understanding of biology. They assumed that the entire human was in the fathers sperm and that the mothers womb was simply the ground in which the seed grew. Hence the references to barren women and the prohibition on wasted "seed"

dlofnep

PDN wrote: »

If you want to argue Chinese whispers then you may start by producing some evidence for such an assertion.

I don't have to prove it, you have to disprove it. Chinese whispers is an effect, which is proven easily between a few friends. The only way you can disprove it is if you have an original, word for word copy of the bible - which you do not have. I maintain my original point and I put it to you that the bible in it's current format does not reflect whatever was originally written, language aside.

PDN

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I don't know - raises questions about the value of putting in Jospehs bloodline at all if they can trace a line through Mary to David.

I assumed that the society was strongly patriarchal based on reading history and vising the modern Middle East as well as more specific commentary on the bible,

Zillah is correct - Jewishness is and was reckoned through the mother. In modern Judaism this is strictly viewed on a biological basis (ie a baby adopted by a Jewess is still not properly Jewish). Historically it was not as strict and people became Jews by joining themselves to Israel by an act of faith (eg Rahab and Ruth in Scripture).

Kingship, however, was reckoned through the father.

PDN

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't have to prove it, you have to disprove it. Chinese whispers is an effect, which is proven easily between a few friends. The only way you can disprove it is if you have an original, word for word copy of the bible - which you do not have. I maintain my original point and I put it to you that the bible in it's current format does not reflect whatever was originally written, language aside.

I think you are confused. This thread is about atheists trying to prove something to Christians as a rebuttal - therefore the onus for proof is upon you. I am not concerned about having to prove anything to you because I don't give the proverbial fiddler's fart what unfounded theories or assertions drift around in your head.

If you want to offer a challenge to my beliefs, or that of Christians in general, then produce some evidence for it. Your refusal or inability to do so demonstrates that all you are doing is making a faith statement. Now, you are perfectly entitled to make faith statements without evidence that support your worldview, but you can't expect me to treat them as worthy of discussion.

Come on, it shouldn't be that hard. We have thousands of biblical manuscripts dating back many centuries. If your Chinese whispers theory is valid then it should be easy for you to show me examples where substantive and large-scale changes have been made from one manuscript to the next.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Now, you are perfectly entitled to make faith statements without evidence that support your worldview, but you can't expect me to treat them as worthy of discussion.

Heh

dlofnep

PDN wrote: »

If you want to offer a challenge to my beliefs, or that of Christians in general, then produce some evidence for it. Your refusal or inability to do so demonstrates that all you are doing is making a faith statement. Now, you are perfectly entitled to make faith statements without evidence that support your worldview, but you can't expect me to treat them as worthy of discussion.

Coming from a guy who believes in angels, heaven and yadda yadda. Faith is one thing you should be familiar with. Your entire belief system revolves around it.

PDN wrote: »

Come on, it shouldn't be that hard. We have thousands of biblical manuscripts dating back many centuries. If your Chinese whispers theory is valid then it should be easy for you to show me examples where substantive and large-scale changes have been made from one manuscript to the next.

To see a true effect, you'd need the original and the current. You'd then compare the two. Since you do not have the original bible, you cannot. So therefore, it is not possible. The bible is 2000 odd years old is it not? So in the grand scheme of things, manuscripts dating a few 100 years hardly qualify. The only thing that qualifies is the original piece. I really doubt that something written 2000 years ago has not lost accuracy over time, especially given that it has been passed down, and translated many times.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

This thread is about atheists trying to prove something to Christians as a rebuttal

Er, no its not.

This thread is about atheists rebutting the charge thrown around by Christians that the Bible is great but we don't like the Bible simply because we haven't read it properly or know very little about it. If we only looked at it we would see how wonderful, accurate and sensible it all is.

One of the assertions commonly made by Christians is that the New Testament has never been changed or altered and therefore can be trusted as an accurate historical document. That assertion is nonsense, there is no evidence that the New Testament we have now is a carbon copy of the one that was written.

Therefore dlofnep is perfectly correct to post what the phenomena of Chinese whispers, coupled with the totally lack of evidence for the Christian claim of an unaltered Bible, would seriously call into question the validity of any such a claim. That doesn't stop Christians constantly making it, but it is a reason why any thinking atheist or skeptic wouldn't give such an assertion any time.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Come on, it shouldn't be that hard. We have thousands of biblical manuscripts dating back many centuries. If your Chinese whispers theory is valid then it should be easy for you to show me examples where substantive and large-scale changes have been made from one manuscript to the next.

Jesus and the adulteress is one example. It isn't found in any of the oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John and is not mentioned by any of the early Greek commentators for centuries. It must have come from somewhere and the most likely explanation is that it was story told about Jesus that was in circulation in a certain area, originally spread verbally until one scribe decided to add it to the margin of a manuscript, this manuscript was copied and the margin note eventually was incorporated into the Gospel of John.

PDN

--amadeus-- wrote: »

In law if there are two alternative readings of a statute or contract the judge is obliged to adopt the reading that would be the most "clear and obvious to teh common man". A variant on Occam's razor if you like - if there are two readings of a text, one straightforward and one complex with complex assumptions then surely common sense dictates that the simple reading is the corect one.

An important qualification. The question is which reading would be most clear and obvious to the common man at the time when the document was written.

The whole point of biblical exegesis, and indeed other branches of textual criticism, is to determine how the text would have been understood by its original intended audience.

Therefore, we are not trying to discover which interpretation is most simple to an atheist, 2000 years after the event, having little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew language or culture, relying on a less than perfect 17th Century translation, and hoping to come up with an interpretation that will give them a useful stick with which to beat the next Christian they encounter.

Rather we need to discover which interpretation was most simple for the original hearers who were fully conversant with the biblical languages and culture and were open-minded enough to read an account about Jesus Christ with a view to either accepting it or rejecting it.

The problem in this and other threads is that when we start trying to make that discovery - and this is my field of academic study - then we are accused of wiggling. Then other posters come out with the silliest stuff (like saying that the Elisha/bears thing is 'clear enough' because the words 'little children' occur in a 17th Century translation). This is the equivalent of a Creationist dismissing any discussion of evolution by saying, "Well, I'm not descended from a monkey even if you are."

In fact the Creationist analogy holds good in regard to your comments that I've quoted above. Let's play with your statement:

A variant on Occam's razor if you like - if there are two understandings of human origins, one straightforward and one complex with complex assumptions then surely common sense dictates that the simple reading is the corect one.

The key question, of course, is simple to who? Someone who understands nothing of science will find Creationism to be much more simple than evolution. Therefore it must be true?

The argument that the correct theory should seem simpler than rival theories to someone who knows little or nothing about the subject matter is using Occam's razor to cut your own throat.

pH

Luke 2:1-7 wrote:

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The above is from the gospel of Luke, which is the main source for what Christians today call the Christmas story. The census of Quirinius is known to have taken place in 6-7 CE.

Matthew 2 wrote:

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

Herod died in 4 BCE.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The problem in this and other threads is that when we start trying to make that discovery - and this is my field of academic study - then we are accused of wiggling. Then other posters come out with the silliest stuff (like saying that the Elisha/bears thing is 'clear enough' because the words 'little children' occur in a 17th Century translation).

Well yes but then you didn't seem that interested in the correct version either, you were trying to find a way that made God come off not as bad.

The children were actually young adults and they were about to beat up an old man. And they only got grazed by the bears.

All that was simply to make your god look less evil. You can argue if you like that the atheists were trying to make god look more evil if you like, but it is a two way street. Neither seemed that concerned about what the original authors meant, though at least the atheists didn't have a fundamental religious belief that the story must make your god come off looking good.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

The whole point of biblical exegesis, and indeed other branches of textual criticism, is to determine how the text would have been understood by its original intended audience.

To bring the conversation back to its true heart, bear attacks, I think this is an interesting comment. When we look at the Old Testament we see a very wrathful God with little hesitation to take life. For example, we see his wrath poured down upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. We see him kill the first born of Egypt for defying Moses' request, and we see him smash the Pharaoh's army for attempting to give chase.

This is the mind set of the people at the time. When we consider the scenario of a group of young males mocking and belittling one of His prophets, is it not consistent that the bears would similarly express God's fury through violent revenge rather than a comical scratching?

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Then other posters come out with the silliest stuff (like saying that the Elisha/bears thing is 'clear enough' because the words 'little children' occur in a 17th Century translation).

Yet Christians are happy to use the later Greek mistranslation of "young woman" in Isaiah as being "virgin". Double standards perhaps?

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Jesus and the adulteress is one example. It isn't found in any of the oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John and is not mentioned by any of the early Greek commentators for centuries. It must have come from somewhere and the most likely explanation is that it was story told about Jesus that was in circulation in a certain area, originally spread verbally until one scribe decided to add it to the margin of a manuscript, this manuscript was copied and the margin note eventually was incorporated into the Gospel of John.

And that would be a good example, if you were trying to argue that people several hundred years ago possessed a Bible that had been altered by less than 0.1%. However, the allegation was that our current manuscripts are hopelessly affected by Chinese whispers.

The example you give above is actually a great example of how biblical scholarship has enabled us to be confident of the accuracy of our manuscripts. Modern translations carry a warning that the passage is not in many of the earliest manuscripts. The same goes for some disputed verses at the end of Mark's Gospel. The third example I can think of refers to a single verse that was inserted into some later manuscripts in the Johannine epistles. Apart from that, as far as I remember from my post-graduate studies in this subject, any variations in manuscripts amount to the occasional mis-spelled word, the insertion of a stray comma or full stop, or a single letter's difference at the end of a word (eg an omicron instead of an alpha).

dlofnep is in effect arguing that a lack of quality control allowed a process of Chinese whispers to take place which means that the manuscripts that we work off today are dramatically altered from the originals. He has refused to provide evidence for his assertion - understandable enough since no such evidence exists.

Your argument in support of dlofnep's unfounded faith statement is to refer to an incident where the quality control system has obviously worked very well. Biblical scholars have identified two suspect passages (still amounting to a fraction of way under 0.1% of the whole) and have marked those passages for our attention.

The evidence of the manuscripts is that Chinese whispers has not occurred, and that Biblical scholars are well able to reproduce a text that is wonderfully faithful to the original.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Yet Christians are happy to use the later Greek mistranslation of "young woman" in Isaiah as being "virgin". Double standards perhaps?

Get your facts right. The Hebrew word can mean either 'young woman' or 'virgin'. Therefore the Greek translation is not a mistranslation but rather a translator opting for one alternative over another, possibly on the grounds that one fits the context better.

The New Testament, of course, clearly states that 'virgin' is the correct translation. Therefore Christians who profess to believe the Bible will accept that is the better rendering.

dlofnep

PDN wrote: »

dlofnep is in effect arguing that a lack of quality control allowed a process of Chinese whispers to take place which means that the manuscripts that we work off today are dramatically altered from the originals. He has refused to provide evidence for his assertion - understandable enough since no such evidence exists.

Dlofnep is arguing that you do not have an original copy of the texts, and therefore cannot prove that the current version is in anyway, shape or form a carbon copy of the original. So - to follow the bible word for word is to accept that it is a carbon copy of the original. Something, I do not believe it is.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

To bring the conversation back to its true heart, bear attacks, I think this is an interesting comment. When we look at the Old Testament we see a very wrathful God with little hesitation to take life. For example, we see his wrath poured down upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. We see him kill the first born of Egypt for defying Moses' request, and we see him smash the Pharaoh's army for attempting to give chase.

This is the mind set of the people at the time. When we consider the scenario of a group of young males mocking and belittling one of His prophets, is it not consistent that the bears would similarly express God's fury through violent revenge rather than a comical scratching?

Dawkins' disciples often make the kind of wrong assumptions that you are making here. The majority of cases in the Old Testament where God intervenes to confound enemies and critics are non-lethal. For example, God judged Pharaoh's Egypt with lots of annoying and even comedic plagues (eg flies and frogs) before stuff got really heavy.

The problem for many atheists is that you never really try to understand what the Bible is saying. Instead you read authors who compile lists of the stuff that they think 'nasty' and never mention all the other stuff. Then you go thinking that very small percentage of incidents is representative of the whole.

I find the whole she-bears incident entertaining and poetic justice. I wish God had sent a couple of she bears to inflict a few scratches on the young thugs of Drimnagh who abused passers by. That way they might have learnt their lesson and not graduated to stabbing Polish immigrants through the skull with a screwdriver.