Biblical rebuttals

PDN

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

So you choose to believe that an unsubstantiated process of Chinese whispers has occurred. And you are free to make that particular leap of faith. Fair play to you. I defend the right of anyone to hold their particular religious belief. However, your faith does not amount to a rebuttal.

Let's get something clear. This is not a case of me coming into the A&A forum and trying to convert anyone. There is no burden for me to prove anything. You guys started a thread that claimed you had rebuttals. I was invited over to comment on your 'rebuttals'. That is the extent of my participation in this thread.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

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.

I agree! Though any means of intervention would have redeemed Him in that situation.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

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.

I sorry but it is a mistranslation as it does not give the full meaning that the original passage presented.

An equivalent off the top of my head would be if a passage said "I saw an animal in the zoo today" and a later translation gave the passage as "I saw a duck billed platypus in the zoo today". A duck billed platypus is an animal alright but this isn't what the original passage said. Similarly for the Isaiah passage Almah can mean virgin just like animal can mean duck billed platypus but neither of these are explicitly referred to in the original so to translate them as such is dishonest.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

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.

I would just like to add that the case of Chinese whispers affecting the Gospels after the autographs were written is a minor problem when compared with Chinese whispers leading up to the writing of the Gospels. between 30 - 65 years passed between the death of Jesus and the accounts of his life being written. The accounts we have are anonymous, you might believe that some of the authors were eye witnesses, but this is a belief and not supported by reliable evidence. Even if the accounts were written by eye witnesses you are still dependant on their memories being accurate after such long periods of time and that the authors were reputable people whose word could be trusted.

But if, as seems likely, the Gospels were written by scribes living hundreds of miles away from the locations they are writing about and whose only source of information was through word of mouth, then the real fun starts. This means that every person who formed the chain between the author of the Gospel and the eye witness who was at the event, would have to be reliable and you would have to trust that they did not exaggerate or falsify events. This is where the Chinese whispers phenomenon really come into play, those decades after the death of Jesus and before the creation of the Gospels.

Tim_Murphy

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 wouldn’t be sure about this. I agree with you about people compiling lists of the ‘nasty’ stuff but I don’t think that people then think this is representative of the book as a whole. The bible is a book, or more accurately a collection of books, which was written by different (mainly unknown) people over many years, I don’t see how any rational person would take 1 piece and say that it was representative of the rest. Well I suppose believers can and do alright but it wouldn’t be a valid position for a nonbeliever.
There is plenty in the Bible that I would personally find distasteful but that is not universally true of the book, or what I have read of it at least.

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.

Sorry but if we don’t have the original then how do we know this? Genuine question. Or has this been discussed already and I missed it?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

We have thousands of biblical manuscripts dating back many centuries.

Very carefully put. And we have nothing from the first century, almost nothing from the second or third centuries, and only complete manuscripts -- themselves with suspicious edits -- from the fourth century. And of course, not so much as a single stroke penned by Jesus himself.

Many people, quite reasonably, find that christian claims to textual purity are unconvincing.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

The majority of cases in the Old Testament where God intervenes to confound enemies and critics are non-lethal.

"Confound"...yes, I'm sure the means he employs to "confound" enemies are quite mild. But when he sends a firestorm he means to destroy cities, when he sends the sea crashing down on an army he means to drown them, and it seems logical that when he sends bears he means for them to maul.

But while we're discussing God's various awful crimes, I would like to return to Egypt and comment on his callous execution of Egypt's firstborn. Also, while we're on it, Job's family seemed to get rather harsh treatment.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

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.

Annoying? Comedic? I'm sure the Egyptians were giggling as their drinking water was turned to blood and unusable and all their fish died. The probably had a good old laugh as their livestock died and many livelihoods were ruined as well as being a major blow to their diet. When the locusts destroyed their crops and the famine that would have resulted probably had the Egyptians rolling aound the floor in stitches. They then probably wet themselves with laughter as their eldest children all died.

If the plagues of Egypt are regarded as God's attempt at comedy then I would have to advice him not to give up his day job. He is about as funny as Dawn French.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Let's get something clear. This is not a case of me coming into the A&A forum and trying to convert anyone. There is no burden for me to prove anything. You guys started a thread that claimed you had rebuttals. I was invited over to comment on your 'rebuttals'. That is the extent of my participation in this thread.

The rebuttal is to the nonsense claim Christians often make that the New Testament we have to day is the one that was written. There is no evidence that this is the case and that it is almost impossible to imagine a situation where the copiers would actually manage to get all the details correct without the process of Chinese whispers.

That is the rebuttal. You then come on and say that there is no evidence they didn't get the details perfect because we don't have the original manuscripts. Which is just being silly.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

"Confound"...yes, I'm sure the means he employs to "confound" enemies are quite mild. But when he sends a firestorm he means to destroy cities, when he sends the sea crashing down on an army he means to drown them, and it seems logical that when he sends bears he means for them to maul.

That is a good point. Why would God send bears to scratch at a group of boys? :rolleyes:

I must say I find it rather humorous how after all the bluster about "context" and looking at what the original authors meant, this grand purpose is so easily dropped by believers if one stumbles across something that is deemed unpleasant.

pH

Biblical bear attack (as seen by PDN).

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

Biblical bear attack (as seen by PDN).

Oh the humanity

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That is a good point. Why would God send bears to scratch at a group of boys? :rolleyes:

I must say I find it rather humorous how after all the bluster about "context" and looking at what the original authors meant, this grand purpose is so easily dropped by believers if one stumbles across something that is deemed unpleasant.

No, linguistically and contextually both Zillah's interpretation (bears kill 42 children) and mine (bears scratch 42 young men) are perfectly possible.

Zillah, quite naturally, chooses the interpretation which suits his beliefs and makes God seems as nasty as possible. I, equally naturally, choose the interpretation which suits my beliefs and makes God seem as nice as possible. Either Zillah or I may be correct.

That means that this passsage is unlikely to be useful for the purposes of theodicy or as a rebuttal to anything.

BTW, guys, apologies if I miss anyone's posts. The circling of many wagons here makes it impossible to enter into a multi-post debate on every issue. While I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate I have a job to do.

PDN

pH wrote: »

Biblical bear attack (as seen by PDN).

Aw that's cute - and your board appears to have found a poster to rival JC. Kudos all round.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, linguistically and contextually both Zillah's interpretation (bears kill 42 children) and mine (bears scratch 42 young men) are perfectly possible.

Anything is "perfectly possible" PDN if you are prepared to search for any meaning that suits your agenda from the combination of words (shall we bring up 9.6 = 10 again?)

This is exactly the type of thing you give out about skeptics and non-Christians doing on the Christian forum over passages like Jesus saying he brings a sword, people taking the words and jumping to any conclusion they like that they can fit with the actual words.

I would be very interested to see any serious Biblical scholar look at that passage and think the purpose of the story is that God send two bears to mildly scratch the boys teasing the old man.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

No, linguistically and contextually both Zillah's interpretation (bears kill 42 children) and mine (bears scratch 42 young men) are perfectly possible.

Zillah, quite naturally, chooses the interpretation which suits his beliefs and makes God seems as nasty as possible. I, equally naturally, choose the interpretation which suits my beliefs and makes God seem as nice as possible. Either Zillah or I may be correct.

Pick a number between one and one hundred thousand. Now, when I try to guess it I have a 99,999 out of 100,000 chance of being wrong, but I might be right. Both are perfectly possible.

What we must consider is which is more likely. The King James version of the Bible states that they "tare" 42 [young males]. Tare being an old past tense version of "tear" from what I can gather. Of course, these young males are likely to try to escape, so for them all to be "torn" they must either have been trapped, petrified or attacked so quickly they had no chance to flee. Whichever scenario we're dealing with, we're looking at at least 42 individual attacks from jaws and claws, quite possibly more.

Now, according to the Bible the she bears simply emerge from the woods and attack, we're not told in any way that these are supernaturally pacified or limited bears. Are you proposing that the bears went to each person, made a small attack that left a minor wound, and then immediately abandoned that victim and went to the next, and between them did so 21 times, never once inflicting more than a minor scrape? Seriously? With all that in mind, which do you honestly think is more likely.

As an anti-religious Atheist I'm eager to interpret the version where God is horrible, but even if I do my best to put that aside and ponder what might happen when two bears and forty young people face off its nothing but carnage. Like, a nightmarish charnel house filled with screams, faceless bleeding skulls and dismembered corpses.

MrPudding

After a bit more research, perhaps the kids might have been OK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_VlVckrUgY

MrP

5uspect

Just a couple of points that struck me:

PDN wrote:

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.

Aren't you just saying, "God moves in mysterious ways" here?

I don't think any ration person completely discounts the notion that every word in any particular version of any holy book is literally true. The possibility is probably smaller than we can comprehend. Why even consider it unless we can at least see something approaching an effect? I suppose that's what Behe et al claim to do.

PDN wrote:

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.

Wouldn't your God be better to shame the thugs into seeing the error of their ways through some sort of revelation rather than, well, resort to physical violence and intimidation? Seems rather a human response to fight fire with fire. Then again he does move in mysterious ways...:pac:

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

Pick a number between one and one hundred thousand. Now, when I try to guess it I have a 99,999 out of 100,000 chance of being wrong, but I might be right. Both are perfectly possible.

What we must consider is which is more likely. The King James version of the Bible states that they "tare" 42 [young males]. Tare being an old past tense version of "tear" from what I can gather. Of course, these young males are likely to try to escape, so for them all to be "torn" they must either have been trapped, petrified or attacked so quickly they had no chance to flee. Whichever scenario we're dealing with, we're looking at at least 42 individual attacks from jaws and claws, quite possibly more.

Now, according to the Bible the she bears simply emerge from the woods and attack, we're not told in any way that these are supernaturally pacified or limited bears. Are you proposing that the bears went to each person, made a small attack that left a minor wound, and then immediately abandoned that victim and went to the next, and between them did so 21 times, never once inflicting more than a minor scrape? Seriously? With all that in mind, which do you honestly think is more likely.

As an anti-religious Atheist I'm eager to interpret the version where God is horrible, but even if I do my best to put that aside and ponder what might happen when two bears and forty young people face off its nothing but carnage. Like, a nightmarish charnel house filled with screams, faceless bleeding skulls and dismembered corpses.

I see the most likely scenario as a couple of bears charging into a crowd of youths with claws slashing and jaws biting all around them. In such a setting, with lots of screaming and shouting, it would be highly probable that the bears would not concentrate on one victim at a time, but would rather just cause injuries to a number of people. We don't, of course, know how many youths were in the crowd - but 42 of them sustained injuries of one sort or another.

I think that is more likely than supposing that 2 bears managed to kill 42 people in one attack. However, anything is possible if you believe hard enough - so I will allow that your scenario is hypothetically possible. I admire your faith, even though I am too sceptical to share it.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

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.

So ignoring for the time being, whether or not the bears ripped kids to shreds or merely scratched them playfully, how do you think we should react to things like that post of Jimitime from earlier on in which he said that both kids being killed and men being mauled are fine with him?

Should we laugh it off as you did, or should we view it more seriously as an example of the morality-warping effects of religion?

PDN

5uspect wrote: »

Aren't you just saying, "God moves in mysterious ways" here?

I'm saying that it is incredibly arrogant for us to think that everything has to fit in with our sense of how things should be. That is true whether we are speaking of God or of the universe.

Why even consider it unless we can at least see something approaching an effect? I suppose that's what Behe et al claim to do.

Actually I see a great similarity between Behe's arguments and the way some of the posters here approach things.

Behe describes a phenomenon (eg blood clotting) and says, "I don't how this could have happened by undirected evolutionism alone. Therefore there must be a contradiction in the theory of evolution. Therefore there must be an Intelligent Designer.

Critics of Behe then suggest ways in which a blood clotting system might have developed. His response, which I think to be singularly weak, says, "What evidence have you got to say that actually happened?"

Behe is missing the point that his opponents, by suggesting that a viable path of such evolution exists, have exploded his contradiction. It is not necessary for them to show it actually did evolve that way - the verey fact that a possible solution exists means that his 'contradiction' is no longer a contradiction at all.

I don't know if Wicknight or Zillah are consciously aping Behe - but they use a carbon copy approach to debate. They make a claim (God killed 42 children with by bear attack, or the Bible miscalculates pi). Then, when I show a possible alternative, they say, "You're just making assumptions! Prove that scenario is actually the correct one!"

Logically, of course, I do not need to prove that my alternative explanation (the bears scratched 42 youths, or a writer actually rounded distances up or down in a non-scientific description) actually happened. The very fact that they exist as a perfectly plausible alternative means that Wicknight's and Zillah's claims ring hollow - just as hollow as those of Michael Behe.

Wicknight appears to be an especially avid disciple of the Behe debating technique in that he thinks that if he keeps repeating an assertion then it somehow becomes more believable.

5uspect

Anyone seen Grizzly man?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

So ignoring for the time being, whether or not the bears ripped kids to shreds or merely scratched them playfully, how do you think we should react to things like that post of Jimitime from earlier on in which he said that both kids being killed and men being mauled are fine with him?

Should we laugh it off as you did, or should we view it more seriously as an example of the morality-warping effects of religion?

I think you should state your disagreement with him. Jimi believes that it is OK for God to do certain things. He does not advocate that he, or anyone else should do anything immoral, so his belief has zero influence on actual behaviour.

You disagree with Jimi in that you don't agree that a non-existent (in your eyes) entity has the right to do certain things without being condemned by us. Why should that cause you to get your knickers in a twist?

Someone who believes in Santa Claus believes that Santa has the right to enter other people's houses in the middle of the night by means of the chimney. I disagree - I think that would be trespassing. However, since I don't believe in the existence of Santa then it makes no difference to me whatsoever whether such chimney incursions are morally justified or not. It would seem silly to me to argue the issue with any believer in Santa. But then again I am a tolerant sort of chap. I realise that others can't bear (no pun intended) for others to hold different beliefs or viewpoints.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

I see the most likely scenario as a couple of bears charging into a crowd of youths with claws slashing and jaws biting all around them. In such a setting, with lots of screaming and shouting, it would be highly probable that the bears would not concentrate on one victim at a time, but would rather just cause injuries to a number of people. We don't, of course, know how many youths were in the crowd - but 42 of them sustained injuries of one sort or another.

And you're happy to assume that after at least 42 individual swipes from gigantic talons and snaps from mighty jaws that none of them suffered anything more than scratches? Do you at least concede that some of them may have been injured more badly?

5uspect

PDN wrote: »

Wicknight appears to be an especially avid disciple of the Behe debating technique in that he thinks that if he keeps repeating an assertion then it somehow becomes more believable.

Not quite, you provide conjecture and interpretation, biologists have provided experimental evidence to falsify Behe's claims.

I'm saying that it is incredibly arrogant for us to think that everything has to fit in with our sense of how things should be. That is true whether we are speaking of God or of the universe.

This is a problem I have with theists. They assume God exists then claim that we are arrogant to claim to understand him without considering that the notion of God itself is quite vain.

To look for patterns in what we observe allows us to slowly scrape at the surface, it prevents us from flying away from that surface with wild ideas. Our sense of how things should be must always be open to change, when the evidence is presented.

I don't find this an anyway arrogant, it is simply the most cautious way of probing our surroundings.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Someone who believes in Santa Claus believes that Santa has the right to enter other people's houses in the middle of the night by means of the chimney. I disagree - I think that would be trespassing. However, since I don't believe in the existence of Santa then it makes no difference to me whatsoever whether such chimney incursions are morally justified or not.

What if someone was basing their entire world view, morality and day-to-day behaviour on what they believed Santa wanted them to do?

It would seem silly to me to argue the issue with any believer in Santa. But then again I am a tolerant sort of chap. I realise that others can't bear (no pun intended) for others to hold different beliefs or viewpoints.

Did you not specifically say previously that your reason for being here was to learn to better proselytize?

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

And you're happy to assume that after at least 42 individual swipes from gigantic talons and snaps from mighty jaws that none of them suffered anything more than scratches? Do you at least concede that some of them may have been injured more badly?

Yes, of course some of them may have been. That's my whole point - we don't know one way or another. It would be silly for me to base an argument on the basis of no-one being killed or seriously injured - just as silly as it would be for you to base an argument on the unwarranted assumption that anyone was actually killed or seriously injured.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

What if someone was basing their entire world view, morality and day-to-day behaviour on what they believed Santa wanted them to do?

If they were happy and it worked for them then fair play to them.

Did you not specifically say previously that your reason for being here was to learn to better proselytize?

Yes, and it's working wonderfully. I baptised a few converted atheists just a few weeks ago.

I am perfectly tolerant of atheists, and if they are not interested in Christianity then I am happy to respect their privacy and let them get on with it. That is why I generally only post on this forum whenever posters make false or misleading statements abvout Christianity.

However, if an atheist expresses an interest in the Christian faith then I will gladly discuss their concerns with them and help them overcome their difficulties. Most of you guys on this board seem pretty set in your ways, but I encounter a lot of 'soft' atheists who have read a few pages of the God Delusion and actually have no sensible rationale for their position. They usually seem pretty happy when someone helps them into a more fulfilling way of approaching life.

I'll help anyone who comes to me for help - but I've no interest in trying to pick arguments with everyone who holds different beliefs to myself.

BrianCalgary

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Which society would that be?

Our lovely Canadian one that the liberal government continually tells us that we are.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I think you should state your disagreement with him. Jimi believes that it is OK for God to do certain things. He does not advocate that he, or anyone else should do anything immoral, so his belief has zero influence on actual behaviour.

Er, so you think that his belief that it's ok for kids to be killed doesn't influence his outlook? And you also think that it's ok for church leaders, such as yourself, to make light of this belief? And joking aside, would you be happy to trust your kid to somebody with these views?

PDN wrote: »

I realise that others can't bear [...] for others to hold different beliefs or viewpoints.

A strange thing to say for somebody who spends his life trying to make other people believe the same things he does