The validity of the Christian Bible

[Mister Sandman]

Who are you to decide of important facts are being omitted? were you alive back then? DO you hold a history degree?

Your argument boils down to: Historians purposely omit and make up information as part of some conspiracy.

If i was an archeologist i would knock your block off.

Your questions are meaningless. With evidence it can be proven, that things are being omitted in the history books. Easiest evidence is shown that the additions and omitted facts in other history books.

With certain ideologies, belief systems, and prides a country will hide certain facts. And that is a fact.

You ask: Who are you to say that facts should not be hidden? As a free man, as a human and as a person with the right to choose and search for the real truth. The real truth being the Bible. I don't believe in propaganda. I believe in fact. The fact that the bible is valid. And the Fact that you still havent given evidence to disprove the Bible, with first noting the context, in anyway what so ever.

Was I there back then? No, I am not God. Your point being?

You ask: Do I hold a history degree? It doesnt matter if I have a degree or not. It is common sense, and though research it is also shown that historians do purposely omit facts. It wholly depends on the integrity of the historian and the publication.


Your summery or should i say mislead interpretation of my argument is absurd.

[Thriller]

Who are you to decide that important facts are being omitted? were you alive back then? DO you hold a history degree?

Your argument boils down to: Historians purposely omit and make up information as part of some conspiracy.

If i was an archeologist i would knock your block off.

Your questions are meaningless. With evidence it can be proven, that things are being omitted in the history books. Easiest evidence is shown that the additions and omitted facts in other history books.

With certain ideologies, belief systems, and prides a country will hide certain facts. And that is a fact.

You ask: Who are you to say that facts should not be hidden? As a free man, as a human and as a person with the right to choose and search for the real truth. The real truth being the Bible. I don't believe in propaganda. I believe in fact. The fact that the bible is valid. And the Fact that you still havent given evidence to disprove the Bible, with first noting the context, in anyway what so ever.

Was I there back then? No, I am not God. Your point being?

You ask: Do I hold a history degree? It doesnt matter if I have a degree or not. It is common sense, and though research it is also shown that historians do purposely omit facts. It wholly depends on the integrity of the historian and the publication.


Your summery or should i say mislead interpretation of my argument is absurd.

I did not say that facts should be hidden, but i did say who are you to decide that they are. Where is the proof for your conspiracies theory. I thought that was pretty clear in what i wrote but I'll clarify further if you want. Since you didn't understand my first question maybe you will understand the follow ups now that I have scarified further

Don't put words in my mouth

[Demeisen]

im guessing sandman means history books are accurate until they contradict the bible, and when they do it means things have been omitted and they are no longer valid. yeh that is sensible


this 'debate' continues to go in circles, possibly around a drain.

ppl post good arguments and others ignore them and spout repetitive religious retarded rubbish.



about the age of the earth:
the bible indicates the earth is <10,000 years old. some choose to ignore this even though its in their own bible. they pick and choose what to see and believe, regardless of the truth of it.

the undefined time point is one of the stupidest to ever to appear in this forum section. there is NO basis to think time is undefined. the bible does not say anything at all about undefined time. if it did, the bible club would have posted it as proof. by not posting such bible extracts its safe to assume theres no mention of undefined time in the bible.

so where does the idea come from? mans imagination and willing ignorance. thats where. it was made my some fool who thinks jesus is hiding in his wardrobe and that God keeps hiding his rambo dvd as punishment for sins. in short a religious nutter pulling points out his donkey to justify what he thinks and discredit what others think.



i think those of us who are not religious fanatics can consider the 'age of the earth' point won. well and truly won. the bible club are like a football team who loose and never admit it. that would be an annoying and pathetic thing to do in rl, yet apparently on this forum its kool.
we know that point has been proven. by proving that point alone we have proven that the bible can be wrong.

in conclusion:
the topic title is 'The validity of the Christian Bible' and it has been shown to be valid in ways. most people knew this already.

in the course of the debate many have learned that validity is quite different from veracity.

the bible is valid and has purpose and meaning. but it is not an entirely true and historically accurate book. any causal observer can see this.

the champions of sense, having shown their beliefs correct, can rest easy. let the bible club rant on while we relax.


God Bless Waffles

[Thade]

OK people who believe in atheism are not necessarily dumb but rather in my personal opinion blinded by their own foolishness and envy.
I in the real life am a Christian and I do believe the bible to be true and since it was never edited from its original production, I see that the believers then and now believe in the same GOD. Also another question to all people who want to argue for atheist's; WHY DO YOU CHOOSE A LIFE WITHOUT SPIRITUAL GUIDANCE WHEN EVEN AT A YOUNG AGE YOU NEEDED GUIDAnCE FOR THE MOST SIMPLE THINGS AND NOW THAT YOU CLEARLY NEEDED GUIDANCE YOU PEOPLE REJECT AND BECOME ENEMIES OF THOSE WHO CHOOSE THE TRUE PATH?

Got to agree with Semper on this. The bold and colors initially make it annoying to read and the baseless claims do little further the point.

im guessing sandman means history books are accurate until they contradict the bible, and when they do it means things have been omitted and they are no longer valid.

Actually he's probably refering to the fact that the winner of wars write a history and the losers often sugar-coat facts for their future generations. Point of order the fact that America at first (and to some degree still) attempts to hide the fact that citizens of Axis descent were rounded up into concentration camps during WW2. It is a fact that this occured yet few people are ever taught it because it was deemed a "bad" thing after the fact and thus hidden. (this is only one example)

this 'debate' continues to go in circles, possibly around a drain.

ppl post good arguments and others ignore them and spout repetitive religious retarded rubbish.

agreed and i have to say that some on the "The Bible is Valid" side have hurt that argument more than helped it.

about the age of the earth:
the bible indicates the earth is <10,000 years old. some choose to ignore this even though its in their own bible. they pick and choose what to see and believe, regardless of the truth of it.

the undefined time point is one of the stupidest to ever to appear in this forum section. there is NO basis to think time is undefined. the bible does not say anything at all about undefined time. if it did, the bible club would have posted it as proof. by not posting such bible extracts its safe to assume theres no mention of undefined time in the bible.

I have to say I'm really not sure how I haven't properly conveyed my point yet. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say the Earth is 10k yrs old. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say time is undefined. I was simply stating that attempting to prescribe an age based solely off of lineage charts is inconclusive because there is no mention of how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden prior to being banished (thus the length of time there is undefined). Also, the SIX days that God took to create the Earth shouldn't be viewed as six days but more as six ages (as proofed by the link I provided a few posts back).

In conclusion this debate is improperly defined for further argumentation. Valid having too many meanings and shades of gray invalidates all attempts to properly prove any point. (Not to mention both sides lack proper organization in order to facilitate easier argumentation.

[agapooka]

I have to agree with the "six ages" theory in the scope of the theoretical presuposition that the bible may be completely valid in all senses of the word. A "day" isn't even the same thing on every planet and there are some planets where the "day" is longer than its "year" (aka, the rotation takes longer to complete than the revolution around the "sun"). In our solar system, Venus is a good example of this. One will notice that the bible never specifies earth day, which, in the scope of the creation of a universe (as opposed to other events only directly involving the planet Earth), it cannot be assumed that the word day is used in the context of earth day.

Also, I should note that, according to the bible, there was no sun until the fourth "day" of creation, making the measurement of a ~24 hour time period even more unlikely. It is quite possible that the word day is used figuratively. In this sense, time is undefined prior to man's entry on the proverbial stage. Thereafter, lineage and recorded lifespans have been used to approximate a timeline.

This doesn't change the fact that nobody bothered to reply to my cutting arguments. I don't have a *side*. I'm just throwing observations out there for people to argue with and prove my arguments wrong. If they don't even try, they're essentially accepting my points as valid, as far as I'm concerned. Trust me, that's not what I want and, unlike a lot of you, I want to be proven wrong. It forces me to think, rethink and refine. Apparently that's not a very popular activity these days, though.

[Thade]

This doesn't change the fact that nobody bothered to reply to my cutting arguments. I don't have a *side*. I'm just throwing observations out there for people to argue with and prove my arguments wrong. If they don't even try, they're essentially accepting my points as valid, as far as I'm concerned. Trust me, that's not what I want and, unlike a lot of you, I want to be proven wrong. It forces me to think, rethink and refine. Apparently that's not a very popular activity these days, though.

Sorry you're just too mean to respond to. I'll try and look over them tomorrow since I believe I'll have some free time. I have to admit lately I've been going against the easiest points to counter in order to save time and so I've skipped most of yours and a few others. I'm in the same boat as you...surprised no one picked up on me changing arguments about the age of the Earth...initially stating that it was 10k by scientific evidence (lack of proper carbon 14 ratios) and then moving to my theoretical absence of time argument. I'm really only here to enjoy the argument and increase my personal knowledge of various areas that I may not explore without others pointing in that direction. I'm looking forward to Semper setting up the official debating area as that will be good fun. Especially knowing that there will be some really good back and forths in there. Well as stated I'll try and get most of my arguments in order tomorrow. (Though someone else may beat me to it I'll still respond to my best.)

[agapooka]

Well, please write something good. Just expect me to pick up on any assumptions or breaches of logic. Heck, I can find my own, but I leave them there to see if anyone else sees them. It makes the game much funner.

Note that I usually try to keep "facts" to a minimum. My major concern is coherence and congruency, which doesn't depend on the fallibility of an observer to record an observation, to use a redundant term. Mmm. Redundance. How redundant.

Also, circular arguments about the validity of historical sources are boring. Although, sometimes it's worth mentioning some details, especially where ignorance of those details would, in and of itself, put you in a position where it would be foolish to continue with your beliefs.

For example, if you don't know how the bible came to be as it is today and through whose hands it passed, whereupon do you base the assumption that it could remain accurate, had it even been accurate in the first place? We can't look at how accurate the texts were before, because we don't have the original manuscripts. We can only look at what we have and what we have has been through many hands. Whose? Can they be trusted? Can YOU trust them not to corrupt the information upon which you rely for your salvation? If so, then you are trusting humans.

You see, many Christians rely on circular reasoning and it is often the only thing upon which they rely. As a kid, I thought that if I sat on a chair and pulled up, the force of my pulling might counter the effect of gravity and the chair and I could essentially hover if I kept pulling. That's a good analogy for the following reasoning:

"The God in the Bible is God because the Bible says so." (more fallacies)

Notice that I said nothing about whether or not there IS a God, or whether or not the being called God in the Bible might exist, but actually not be divine. These are all theoretical possibilities, but essentially, there is no evidence of the above, quoted, specific claim whatsoever. I can argue for ages that there is a president of the United States, but that doesn't prove that I'M the president of the United States. I could imitate him, dress like him, talk like him and even do more impressive things, such as invading a middle eastern country, but none of those things would inherently make me president of the United States.

Why is the Bible more credible than a criminal who insists that he is innocent? Could someone gain from others believing something without logical grounds for believing it? The criminal gains freedom if his lie is believed. Likewise, many have controlled others through the concept of faith. Cults are microcosms to the level of control that the Catholic Church had in the middle ages. Now it's a bit more subtle and isn't limited to the Catholic Church*, but it goes without saying that if people are going to place their lives in the hands of a book and its wording, there will inevitably be someone who will find advantages in changing those words to control those very people. This is irrelevant of whether or not those words were true to begin with.

*I'm saying that for the record and it does not imply that it ever was limited to the Catholic Church before, either.

[n3M351s]

im guessing sandman means history books are accurate until they contradict the bible, and when they do it means things have been omitted and they are no longer valid. yeh that is sensible

I suggest you read over what this statement was in reply too. Thriller raised the issue about biblical statements contradicting known history, with his emphasis being that the Bible is incorrect. What your saying is not related to that at all. Sandman showed answers to these contradictions from consultation with history books. The history books are not wrong, but neither is the Bible. If you read what these contradictions were and the answers that were found from them you might understand that.

i think those of us who are not religious fanatics can consider the 'age of the earth' point won. well and truly won.

Because you've proven the Earth is billions of years old right?

the bible is valid and has purpose and meaning. but it is not an entirely true and historically accurate book. any causal observer can see this.

Point out some historically inaccurate examples for us please LiQuiD... No? I didn't think so.

let the bible club rant on while we relax.

LiQuiD, you in fact rant more than anyone else on this forum.

[Thriller]

NO sandman provided flawed historical analysis with presupposition that the bible was 100% accurate. Picking and choosing his historical criticisms out of context.

[n3M351s]

NO sandman provided flawed historical analysis with presupposition that the bible was 100% accurate. Picking and choosing his historical criticisms out of context.

The Bible has yet to be proven as inaccurate. As time has progressed through the ages the Bible has been proven accurate on many accounts formally disputed amongst historians and it has become more and more highly regarded as a historical document.

[Demeisen]

Because you've proven the Earth is billions of years old right?

no. because millions of scientists have proven this. im flattered you could think i could prove the age of the earth single handed. i dont mind a bit of worship so feel free to continue heaping praise upon my feats

trying to tell the bible club the correct age of the earth is like trying to teach bill gates a contact sport. tis not going to happen nor will work at all.

as i said. point won. the reasonable posters have proven beyond any doubt that the earth is older than the bible would suggest. if you want to pick out random bs points about undefined time and how long adam and eve (who were created by Gods magic finger) were in eden go for it. frankly they are weak points if ever i saw any.

Point out some historically inaccurate examples for us please LiQuiD... No? I didn't think so

.

i do believe thriller has already done so and had his valid points ignored or countered with insubstantial/convenient/silly responses.


no history book is truely accurate. it takes several to get a clearer picture of any events as well as other sources. yet people still claim the bible is accurate and proof enough alone to contradict every other source of information. if you were to look at this afresh without your huge bias you would see the truth. until that day ill be happy knowing im correct, and that you are the helpless pawns of a religion that aims to control every aspect of life. bonjour!

[agapooka]

LiQuiD, I hate to say this (read: I love to say this), but you're biased too.

The kind of confidence that you have in your point of view reveals that.

[lordernest]

OK , people need spiritual guidance because we already know how to physically and mentally guided. But Spiritualy WE know almost lttle to nothing on this subject and now that WE are in Dark Times it would be nice if you had the help of someone who is almighty and powerful, In My Case IT IS GOD. The bible has been a large debate topic since it was published and you know what happened to most f the unbelievers after a while THEY BECAME BELIEVERS BECAUSE OF A CERTAIN INCIDENT THAT OCURRED TO THEM!!
Therefore i say to all debaters against Christianity please read the Bible before you make any more agruements cause i have seen some posts that any person who has read the bible would be laughing in your faces.

[agapooka]

What really sucks is when a blind man leads a blind man...

Just because you believe that you need a guiding force doesn't mean that you've found an appropriate one.

[Thriller]

Ernest needs to inform himself more. Please read a history book about the emergence of the christian church as soon as possible.

I'll even link you to a great documentary on it's early history.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

just click on watch full program banner on the right. It's very informative and Frontline has a excellent reputation for quality research and reporting.

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death" -Joan D. Vinge