Creationists

[Lonestar_logic]

Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.

What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.

YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment against its credibility.

One way to find out if the Bible is credible is to compare it with other sources of history. There are, in fact, many examples of other nations chronicling the wars and deeds of the Israelites. Though they are too numerous to spell out, one example where biblical history is corroborated with other sources is the story of Hezekiah.

Hezekiah, a brave king of Judah, faced a devastating onslaught from Assyria. Scripture records that Hezekiah built a massive wall around Jerusalem to fortify the city. He also diverted the Gihon spring so that a water supply could be found within the wall (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32:30). God promised that Jerusalem would not fall to the Assyrians; and though the majority of Judah did surrender to Sennacherib, Jerusalem did not.

Second Chronicles 32:9, 21 reports, "Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem while he was besieging Lachish with all his forces with him, against Hezekiah king of Judah . . . The Lord sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So [Sennacherib] returned in shame to his own land."

The physical existence of the wall and the water tunnel can be confirmed in Jerusalem. You can still see both of the striking structures today. However, it seems that if this account were true, Assyrian history would confirm the event. And, in fact, it does. On an artifact called the Lachish Frieze, reliefs depict Sennacherib’s attempts to take Jerusalem.

This is just one example; however, celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright affirms, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

There are also many instances of corroboration in the New Testament. One striking confirmation is of the darkness and earthquake that occurred while Christ was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:45-52). In his book Pontius Pilate, Paul Maier writes, "Phlegon, a Greek author . . . reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia."

One of the leading concerns in viewing the Bible as a reliable source is in its transmission. How can we be sure that the sources we rely upon are authentic? This is answered by determining the quality of the manuscripts.

To analyze this, a comparison is in order. One of history’s treasured possessions is Caesar’s recounting of the Gallic Wars, which he penned during the first century. Without his account, we would know barely anything of these important conflicts.

However, the actual papyri Caesar recorded his history on are no longer in existence. The earliest copies one might examine are from A.D. 900—950. In fact, there are only 10 complete copies and fragments available for inspection. Even so, these documents are taught as historical fact.

The Bible, on the other hand, has many manuscripts to rely upon. Burnett H. Streeter has assured, "The degree of security that . . . the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima facie, very high."

There are in existence more than 14,000 Old Testament manuscripts–some dating back as far as 400 B.C.! As for the New Testament, there are over 5,300 manuscripts in existence, with nearly 800 of them written before 1000 A.D.!

F. F. Bruce sums up the case by saying, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."

 

[Youwerecreated]

Nothing about Creation can be proven. Get over it already.

Nothing about naturalistic processes producing life can be proven so get over it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm a creationist and according to my notes, the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

Just saying...

Where did your notes originate ?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Pining to get your slaves back?

I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.

Thank you for the offer though.

Oh and why did you ignore the questions?

I politely answered yours.

Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.

And that also answered my second question. Which would be a definite. "yes".

 

[ima]

I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.

Thank you for the offer though.

Oh and why did you ignore the questions?

I politely answered yours.

Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.

And that also answered my second question. Which would be a definite. "yes".

What up? The revenuers take away your still?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Fundie Christians don't react well to challenges to their bible tales.

What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.

YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment against its credibility. For instance, Matt, Mark, Luke and John, were not the authors of their respective gospels. We have no signatures on those documents. Those names were assigned to those gospels later. Who's to say the same wasn't done to books in the OT? Until you can provide justification for someone else to believe the bible is credible, citing passages from it is really pointless.

I believe the bible has survived all the attacks it has been faced with. I believe it has proven to be a reliable source about the past. I believe it can stand scientific scrutiny. The bible is the only reliable text that provides an eyewitness to the beginning.

The bible has been a credible source to archaeologist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Pining to get your slaves back?

I have no use for slaves. I prefer to do my own work.

Thank you for the offer though.

Oh and why did you ignore the questions?

I politely answered yours.

Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.

Wow talk about stereotyping.

 

[newpolitics]

What challenge have you offered ,you run from my questions, you copy and paste things that have nothing to do with my ????. You are bold writing some of the things you write knowing people are reading this thread.

YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment against its credibility.

One way to find out if the Bible is credible is to compare it with other sources of history. There are, in fact, many examples of other nations chronicling the wars and deeds of the Israelites. Though they are too numerous to spell out, one example where biblical history is corroborated with other sources is the story of Hezekiah.

Hezekiah, a brave king of Judah, faced a devastating onslaught from Assyria. Scripture records that Hezekiah built a massive wall around Jerusalem to fortify the city. He also diverted the Gihon spring so that a water supply could be found within the wall (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32:30). God promised that Jerusalem would not fall to the Assyrians; and though the majority of Judah did surrender to Sennacherib, Jerusalem did not.

Second Chronicles 32:9, 21 reports, "Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem while he was besieging Lachish with all his forces with him, against Hezekiah king of Judah . . . The Lord sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So [Sennacherib] returned in shame to his own land."

The physical existence of the wall and the water tunnel can be confirmed in Jerusalem. You can still see both of the striking structures today. However, it seems that if this account were true, Assyrian history would confirm the event. And, in fact, it does. On an artifact called the Lachish Frieze, reliefs depict Sennacherib’s attempts to take Jerusalem.

This is just one example; however, celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright affirms, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

There are also many instances of corroboration in the New Testament. One striking confirmation is of the darkness and earthquake that occurred while Christ was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:45-52). In his book Pontius Pilate, Paul Maier writes, "Phlegon, a Greek author . . . reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia."

One of the leading concerns in viewing the Bible as a reliable source is in its transmission. How can we be sure that the sources we rely upon are authentic? This is answered by determining the quality of the manuscripts.

To analyze this, a comparison is in order. One of history’s treasured possessions is Caesar’s recounting of the Gallic Wars, which he penned during the first century. Without his account, we would know barely anything of these important conflicts.

However, the actual papyri Caesar recorded his history on are no longer in existence. The earliest copies one might examine are from A.D. 900—950. In fact, there are only 10 complete copies and fragments available for inspection. Even so, these documents are taught as historical fact.

The Bible, on the other hand, has many manuscripts to rely upon. Burnett H. Streeter has assured, "The degree of security that . . . the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima facie, very high."

There are in existence more than 14,000 Old Testament manuscripts–some dating back as far as 400 B.C.! As for the New Testament, there are over 5,300 manuscripts in existence, with nearly 800 of them written before 1000 A.D.!

F. F. Bruce sums up the case by saying, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."

As the writers of the bible were real people, they are bound to have been privy to what was going on around them. As such, it is reasonable that they will be accurate about certain parts of history, but this has nothing to do with the supernatural claims about god, and does nothing to prove that. Many parts of the bible are also historically unproven or simply false, such as there being no evidence that the exodus ever took place, and is actually refuted by the fact that the egyptian slaves were well paid and well fed, which is not what was indicated in the bible, and contradicts its story.

Here's a response to what you wrote about the darkness and the crucification. (wikipedia)

Historicity

During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was “too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.”[45] His arguments stemmed from Gibbon’s comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.[46]
The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John.[47] One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:
"It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".[48]
In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two.[49] Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama.[49][50] To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints.[51] The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun.[37]:150[52] The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion.

...

The point is, there is no reason to believe that this occurrence lends any more credibility to the supernatural claims of the bible about jesus or god. It is highly possible that a memorable lunar event was incorporated into the story of jesus to make it see more incredible, as this would not have been hard to do, more likely than god having willed it into being.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Do I have something against a southern heritage? Aside from inbreeding, pig fucking and bad moonshine? No.

And that also answered my second question. Which would be a definite. "yes".

What up? The revenuers take away your still?

I've never owned a still.

Your vision of the south and of the southern people show your utter ignorance and bigotry.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

Science has shown that the/a world can't be made in 6 days. THE FIRST FUCKING PAGE!!!!!!

Yeah if you leave out the part of a being that is beyond our comprehension. Genesis say's ten times kinds bring forth adfter their own kind and after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kind.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

YWC, if you want to use the bible as a credible source, it has to be demonstrated as being a credible source first. You, nor anyone else, can do that, because it simply is not, just like the Koran is not a credible source, or the Bhagavad Gita. It is special pleading to simply ask people to accept the bible as authority without justification. There is plenty reason to think the bible is not credible. It is an ancient book. We know none of the authors, have no signatures, and they are all translations or translations of copies of translations by authors with an agenda. You can not demonstrate empirically that any of it is the word of god, and therefore, that any of it, is actually true, hence why you must take it on faith. So, stop using the bible in this thread as if it means anything here in terms of proving you're point, because it doesn't. You can't use the bible to prove the bible.

You can't demonstrate that all of those different authors, are who they say they are. The historicity of the bible does not even bear out with what we know to be true about history, which is another indictment against its credibility.

One way to find out if the Bible is credible is to compare it with other sources of history. There are, in fact, many examples of other nations chronicling the wars and deeds of the Israelites. Though they are too numerous to spell out, one example where biblical history is corroborated with other sources is the story of Hezekiah.

Hezekiah, a brave king of Judah, faced a devastating onslaught from Assyria. Scripture records that Hezekiah built a massive wall around Jerusalem to fortify the city. He also diverted the Gihon spring so that a water supply could be found within the wall (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32:30). God promised that Jerusalem would not fall to the Assyrians; and though the majority of Judah did surrender to Sennacherib, Jerusalem did not.

Second Chronicles 32:9, 21 reports, "Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem while he was besieging Lachish with all his forces with him, against Hezekiah king of Judah . . . The Lord sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So [Sennacherib] returned in shame to his own land."

The physical existence of the wall and the water tunnel can be confirmed in Jerusalem. You can still see both of the striking structures today. However, it seems that if this account were true, Assyrian history would confirm the event. And, in fact, it does. On an artifact called the Lachish Frieze, reliefs depict Sennacherib’s attempts to take Jerusalem.

This is just one example; however, celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright affirms, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

There are also many instances of corroboration in the New Testament. One striking confirmation is of the darkness and earthquake that occurred while Christ was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:45-52). In his book Pontius Pilate, Paul Maier writes, "Phlegon, a Greek author . . . reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia."

One of the leading concerns in viewing the Bible as a reliable source is in its transmission. How can we be sure that the sources we rely upon are authentic? This is answered by determining the quality of the manuscripts.

To analyze this, a comparison is in order. One of history’s treasured possessions is Caesar’s recounting of the Gallic Wars, which he penned during the first century. Without his account, we would know barely anything of these important conflicts.

However, the actual papyri Caesar recorded his history on are no longer in existence. The earliest copies one might examine are from A.D. 900—950. In fact, there are only 10 complete copies and fragments available for inspection. Even so, these documents are taught as historical fact.

The Bible, on the other hand, has many manuscripts to rely upon. Burnett H. Streeter has assured, "The degree of security that . . . the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima facie, very high."

There are in existence more than 14,000 Old Testament manuscripts–some dating back as far as 400 B.C.! As for the New Testament, there are over 5,300 manuscripts in existence, with nearly 800 of them written before 1000 A.D.!

F. F. Bruce sums up the case by saying, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."

As the writers of the bible were real people, they are bound to have been privy to what was going on around them. As such, it is reasonable that they will be accurate about certain parts of history, but this has nothing to do with the supernatural claims about god, and does nothing to prove that. Many parts of the bible are also historically unproven or simply false, such as there being no evidence that the exodus ever took place, and is actually refuted by the fact that the egyptian slaves were well paid and well fed, which is not what was indicated in the bible, and contradicts its story.

Here's a response to what you wrote about the darkness and the crucification. (wikipedia)

Historicity

During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was “too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.”[45] His arguments stemmed from Gibbon’s comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.[46]
The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John.[47] One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:
"It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".[48]
In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two.[49] Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama.[49][50] To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints.[51] The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun.[37]:150[52] The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion.

...

The point is, there is no reason to believe that this occurrence lends any more credibility to the supernatural claims of the bible about jesus or god.

You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.

So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?

Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?

 

[Hollie]

Not really. Not consistent with the Bible story. Sorry.

For good reason.

You weren't there either. Explain yourself.

Right. You need neither verifiable evidence nor valid logic to hold your belief, but you insist upon absolute conclusive proof to change your mind.

We are well aware of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the faithful.

Nonsense.

C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.

In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

C'mon Loki!! Noah "might have" built an ark [we see many modern day men building ships] and he "could have" taken two of every animal in with him [we see lots of animals rounded up by men for modern day zoo's] and a flood that covered the whole earth "might have" happened [we've seen some pretty big modern day floods with the tsunami's and all]. Sheesh, that sounds just like one of them there just so Darwin stories you are always spoutin' off about. Guess I've outlaid irrefutable scientific evidence of Noah and the Ark using some good old Darwinian magic. Yep, it's a fact alright.

In fact, by some mistake on Noah's part, the giraffe's cages had no food. They had to try and get food from the Hippo's pen above. Only the giraffe's with the long necks survived the boat ride. The short necked giraffes on the Ark died of starvation.

Either we believe the scriptures or we do not.

Either you accept biblical absurdities or you pretend they don't exist to preserve blind, unquestioning allegiance to an ancient book of tales and fables.

Why are you in a religious forum if you think that it's absurd?

 

[newpolitics]

One way to find out if the Bible is credible is to compare it with other sources of history. There are, in fact, many examples of other nations chronicling the wars and deeds of the Israelites. Though they are too numerous to spell out, one example where biblical history is corroborated with other sources is the story of Hezekiah.

Hezekiah, a brave king of Judah, faced a devastating onslaught from Assyria. Scripture records that Hezekiah built a massive wall around Jerusalem to fortify the city. He also diverted the Gihon spring so that a water supply could be found within the wall (2 Kings 20:20, 2 Chronicles 32:30). God promised that Jerusalem would not fall to the Assyrians; and though the majority of Judah did surrender to Sennacherib, Jerusalem did not.

Second Chronicles 32:9, 21 reports, "Sennacherib king of Assyria sent his servants to Jerusalem while he was besieging Lachish with all his forces with him, against Hezekiah king of Judah . . . The Lord sent an angel who destroyed every mighty warrior, commander and officer in the camp of the king of Assyria. So [Sennacherib] returned in shame to his own land."

The physical existence of the wall and the water tunnel can be confirmed in Jerusalem. You can still see both of the striking structures today. However, it seems that if this account were true, Assyrian history would confirm the event. And, in fact, it does. On an artifact called the Lachish Frieze, reliefs depict Sennacherib’s attempts to take Jerusalem.

This is just one example; however, celebrated archaeologist William F. Albright affirms, "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

There are also many instances of corroboration in the New Testament. One striking confirmation is of the darkness and earthquake that occurred while Christ was dying on the cross (Matthew 27:45-52). In his book Pontius Pilate, Paul Maier writes, "Phlegon, a Greek author . . . reported that in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., 33 A.D.) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia."

One of the leading concerns in viewing the Bible as a reliable source is in its transmission. How can we be sure that the sources we rely upon are authentic? This is answered by determining the quality of the manuscripts.

To analyze this, a comparison is in order. One of history’s treasured possessions is Caesar’s recounting of the Gallic Wars, which he penned during the first century. Without his account, we would know barely anything of these important conflicts.

However, the actual papyri Caesar recorded his history on are no longer in existence. The earliest copies one might examine are from A.D. 900—950. In fact, there are only 10 complete copies and fragments available for inspection. Even so, these documents are taught as historical fact.

The Bible, on the other hand, has many manuscripts to rely upon. Burnett H. Streeter has assured, "The degree of security that . . . the text has been handed down to us in a reliable form is prima facie, very high."

There are in existence more than 14,000 Old Testament manuscripts–some dating back as far as 400 B.C.! As for the New Testament, there are over 5,300 manuscripts in existence, with nearly 800 of them written before 1000 A.D.!

F. F. Bruce sums up the case by saying, "Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the New Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands."

As the writers of the bible were real people, they are bound to have been privy to what was going on around them. As such, it is reasonable that they will be accurate about certain parts of history, but this has nothing to do with the supernatural claims about god, and does nothing to prove that. Many parts of the bible are also historically unproven or simply false, such as there being no evidence that the exodus ever took place, and is actually refuted by the fact that the egyptian slaves were well paid and well fed, which is not what was indicated in the bible, and contradicts its story.

Here's a response to what you wrote about the darkness and the crucification. (wikipedia)

Historicity

During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was “too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.”[45] His arguments stemmed from Gibbon’s comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.[46]
The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John.[47] One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:
"It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".[48]
In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two.[49] Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama.[49][50] To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints.[51] The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun.[37]:150[52] The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion.

...

The point is, there is no reason to believe that this occurrence lends any more credibility to the supernatural claims of the bible about jesus or god.

You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.

So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?

Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?

Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in my opinion.


As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.

 

[LOki]

Please provide a scientifically workable definition of fitness to be applied to these "traits" to make this falsifiable.

Fuck you.

All you have to do is identify an organism whose traits are suited to surviving in the environment it lives in, and then put that organism in an environment that the organisms traits are NOT suited to survive in.

If the organism survives anyway, then "fitness" is falsified.

Can you grasp that, Skippy?

Also, please show me definitive proof of even one trait that is responsible for a species surviving not in the last 10,000 years?

No.

I'm done chasing down your retarded questions. If you had the decency of intellectual integrity to answer just one of mine, I would treat you differently. But I have answered all of your dumbass "stumpers" and what do I get in return when I ask you a question?

NOTHING. No quote, no link, no fucking answer.

So loki where are all the supposed transitional species that were better adapted to pass on their traits from one species to a destinctly new organism ? Why do we have the beginning species and none of of the transitional species that passed on their better adapted traits ?

Demonstrated for you dozens of times already.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

As the writers of the bible were real people, they are bound to have been privy to what was going on around them. As such, it is reasonable that they will be accurate about certain parts of history, but this has nothing to do with the supernatural claims about god, and does nothing to prove that. Many parts of the bible are also historically unproven or simply false, such as there being no evidence that the exodus ever took place, and is actually refuted by the fact that the egyptian slaves were well paid and well fed, which is not what was indicated in the bible, and contradicts its story.

Here's a response to what you wrote about the darkness and the crucification. (wikipedia)

Historicity

During the nineteenth century, Kersey Graves argued the biblical account was “too incredible and too ludicrous to merit serious notice.”[45] His arguments stemmed from Gibbon’s comments on the silence of Seneca and Pliny about the crucifixion darkness. Burton Mack suggests the story was an invention originated by the author of the Gospel of Mark.[46]
The unusually long length of time the eclipse is supposed to have lasted has been used as an argument against its historicity, as has the lack of mention of the darkness in secular accounts and the Gospel of John.[47] One view is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the sense of importance of a theologically significant event by taking a recent remembered event and applying it to the story of Jesus, just as eclipses were associated in accounts of other historical figures:
"It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".[48]
In the Gospel of Mark, the miraculous darkness accompanies the temple curtain being torn in two.[49] Some scholars question the historicity of the darkness in the Gospel of Mark and suggest that it may have been a literary creation intended to add drama.[49][50] To Mark's account, Matthew adds an earthquake and the resurrection of saints.[51] The Gospel of Luke and the Seven Books of History Against the Pagans by Orosius refer specifically to the darkening of the sun.[37]:150[52] The Gospel of John does not report any wondrous miracles associated with Jesus' crucifixion.

...

The point is, there is no reason to believe that this occurrence lends any more credibility to the supernatural claims of the bible about jesus or god.

You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.

So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?

Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?

Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in my opinion.


As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.

I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?

If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?

 

[newpolitics]

You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.

So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?

Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?

Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in my opinion.


As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.

I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?

If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?

It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me.

You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims? This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in my opinion.


As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.

I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?

If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?

It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me.

You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims? This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.

What would it take for you to believe?

Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?

As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO

 

[newpolitics]

I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?

If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?

It doesn't hurt me. This is a debate. It is fun to exchange ideas. I am still technically open to the idea of a god, if I am convinced. I hold no presuppositions that a god necessarily doesn't exist, since I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I simply don't hold the belief that one does. This distinction may seem non-existent, but it is very important. I tried for many years to be a christian, talking to pastors in college, reading the bible, praying... I was never convinced that any of it was true. I never felt anything, and it never helped me.

You believe in the god of the Koran too, in the teachings, in the claims? This is impossible, as the propositions of Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. If Jesus said "I am the only way to god," That means that there is no other way, excluding all other possibilities. Muslims believe the Koran is the final word from god, so what it says in that book supercedes anything written in the bible. Christianity and Islam can not both be true. If it can, please tell me how.

What would it take for you to believe?

Do you need a miracle? Do you need to see God with your own eyes?

As a Christian I believe the only way to The Father is through the Son. So both Chistianity and Islam cannot be true. IMO

It would take a miracle for me to believe, because at this point, I think the christian god is a logical impossibility, by its very own definition. It is claimed to be a perfect being, yet needs a relationship with us. That is a contradiction. A perfect being wouldn't need anything, and wouldn't be jealous. These are all very human attributes, and so, imperfect. I am therefore absolutely certain that the christian god does not exist. However, I can not be certain that some kind of deity does exist somewhere within, or even outside the universe, such as a deist god. There is so much about the christian god that seems so highly implausible to me at this point. To be honest, I want to believe because I struggle with mental health quite a bit and it causes me a lot of suffering, and an all loving god is a really nice thought, but that doesn't mean it exists. I refuse to let my emotional needs create something to alleviate personal suffering. In other words, I am not going to believe something because it feels good. I want it to be true. I care more about truth, than about what feels good to my limited mind.

 

[Hollie]

You will never concede the credibility of the Bible no matter what evidence is shown to you.

So why do you even bother debating a subject you no doubt don't believe in?

Why are you in a religious forum to begin with?

Yes, you're right, because it is special pleading. Why don't you believe in the Koran, or the Bhagavad-Gita? Simply because you were born, geographically where the bible is taught. There is no more evidence to assume the bible is correct over the Koran. They are supernatural claims that can not be backed up. What's worse, is that if this god does exist, why on earth would he be rely on ancient peoples to pass this on in the way that it happened? If this god is omnipotent, and wanted to communicate his message to his beings, he could have chosen a less controversial way to do so. There are too many glaring questions such as these if I were to accept the bible, and so I remain unconvinced about the truth of the bible whatsoever. I think it is an interesting document, but I don't see how anybody could actually think it was inspired by an all-knowing, ever-present, loving deity. It would seem the opposite, made by a god who doesn't care enough to use better mediums to transmit his message. There is plenty of room for doubt in assessing the bible, and the excuse of faith is not a justification for believing, and it is not virtuous to have faith. It is gullibility, in my opinion.


As for why I am here, this is a creationist DEBATE thread made by someone who questioned creationism.

I do believe in both the Quran and the Bhagavad-Gita. I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But since you're so convinced that God doesn't exist, why do you spend so much effort trying to persuade us that we are wrong?

If we are wrong then let us be wrong. How does it hurt you?

It's not so simple to "leave you alone" because the actions of religious people affect others.
Plenty of people think Bibles and korrans and Mafioso Books of the Dead do relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals’ freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.

Yet one cannot, according to you, apply the same strictures humans gain for knowledge against your holy book. Your particular interpretation, you argue, "gets a pass".

No, it doesn't. Your argument highlights the notion that "I've heard some who say that you have some sort of body in the afterlife" is not a firm requirement of all knowledge-based issues of human endeavor. Just because Christians claim the bible has a reputation of "holiness" doesn't qualify it as having some sort of special dispensation. It boils down to facts: Either these things happened, or they didn't. Either the message is a true one, or it's a false one.

Logic allows us to read and understand the contextual message of Bibles at the very start. Without logic and reason, you wouldn't understand the thing at all. I see no reason then, halfway through, to jettison the same rules of logic and reason as magically inapplicable, simply because the book has some sort of special reputation as being "holy".

Read it like fiction. Because that is what it is. How do we know this? Because from the outset, it tells a tale that is demonstrably false, as false as the Origin fables of Valhalla, or the sky lodge of the Iroquois. We never have any debates over the whole "It's turtles all the way down" creation myths, do we?It's always the “holy text” of the week mythology we wrestle over.

Which is completely without merit.