Bible Disproved By One Scripture

[Moontanman]

Hey guys especially moontanman I just want to apologize for some very rude and disrespectful comments I have made lately I guess I just have been very frustrated because I can't stack to anybody here on top of recent family troubles but none of those things are an excuse to be an absolute jerk

 

 

You are forgiven, I never take this stuff personally, life is too short for that...

[Ultimate Infinity]

 

 

You are forgiven, I never take this stuff personally, life is too short for that...

Agreed friend

[granpa]

Mark 13:25

 

King James Bible

And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

 

Question...

 

How Can The Stars Fall From The Sky? 2000 years ago they didnt know what the stars were.. They looked up and saw specs of light in the night sky.. Didnt know they were huge balls of fire billions and trillions of miles away. The Scripture is Literal, It means those specs of light, Not comets or metors, but the specs of light they called stars..

 

If one single scripture has been disproved it undermines the whole bible and the belief system. How can God be wrong?

 

stars "falling"

 

[dimreepr]

The bible is a book out of its time, we don't understand what it was trying to say, we've no idea which verse was intended as a metaphor, which were analogous and which literal, but to dismiss it out of hand is being closed minded.

 

The bible didn't say it was meant to be taken literally, people did; read the NT with an open mind and there's much to be learnt, without a need for god.

[Moontanman]

The bible is a book out of its time, we don't understand what it was trying to say, we've no idea which verse was intended as a metaphor, which were analogous and which literal, but to dismiss it out of hand is being closed minded.

 

The bible didn't say it was meant to be taken literally, people did; read the NT with an open mind and there's much to be learnt, without a need for god.

 

 

I am curious, between murder, rape, genocide, slavery, sex slavery, sex slavery of underage girls, bigotry, pillage, and the portrayal of God as a jealous vindictive monster what do you think there is to learn?

[dimreepr]

 

 

I am curious, between murder, rape, genocide, slavery, sex slavery, sex slavery of underage girls, bigotry, pillage, and the portrayal of God as a jealous vindictive monster

 

 

I'm curious as to the verses in the NT that suggest any of that, care to provide one?

Edited July 3, 2016 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

 

 

I'm curious as to the verses in the NT that suggest any of that, care to provide one?

 

 

Are you asserting that the Old Testament can be ignored? If you ignore the Old testament then you lose original sin and the need for a savoir... You lose the Ten commandments, of which only three have anything to do with sin anyway. Having said that the NT has it's own problems, from Jesus asserting that he would return within the life time of his apostles to many things happening that should have been recorded but were not, like the dead saints getting up out of their tombs to walk the street of Jerusalem to hours of complete darkness during his crucifixion to earth quakes. None of which were recorded by the people of that time. The Romans kept good records, if those things had happened they would have been noticed I am quite sure... Jesus himself was supposed to have said that all the laws of the old testament would not change.

[dimreepr]

 

 

Are you asserting that the Old Testament can be ignored?

 

 

Not only ignored but shown as a shining example of what not to do, BTW, any luck with that verse yet?

If you ignore the Old testament then you lose original sin and the need for a savoir

 

 

Like I said "without a need for god."

Jesus himself was supposed to have said that all the laws of the old testament would not change.

 

 

 

No he didn't, he said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

 

Why would he need to say that if the people of his time didn't think he had?

Imagine if both, NT and OT, sought to teach people how to live a contented life; then this "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." makes sense.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Not only ignored but shown as a shining example of what not to do, BTW, any luck with that verse yet?

 

 

Like I said "without a need for god."

 

 

 

No he didn't, he said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

 

Why would he need to say that if the people of his time didn't think he had?

Imagine if both, NT and OT, sought to teach people how to live a contented life; then this "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." makes sense.

Perhaps I can help here.

The verse is the one immediately after the one you referred to. It's the one that says

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

That's a pretty clear statement that the old laws- the OT laws- carry on.

Now, the interesting question is how did you miss that (or were you just hoping that everyone else would miss it)?

[dimreepr]

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

 

 

 

"Imagine if both, NT and OT, sought to teach people how to live a contented life"

 

 

That's a pretty clear statement that the old laws- the OT laws- carry on.

 

 

Not laws.

Ideas.

You can't fulfill a law but you can fulfill an idea.

[John Cuthber]

You can't fulfill a law

He said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

"

 

So, you are saying Christ got it wrong.

He said he was here to fulfil the laws, but you say that's impossible.

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

 

"Imagine if both, NT and OT, sought to teach people how to live a contented life"

 

Then they screwed up royally.

The OT tells you that rape and slavery are OK. The NT tells you that the first one was right and that not a jot or a tittle of it will ever change.

Edited July 3, 2016 by John Cuthber

[Ultimate Infinity]

"

 

So, you are saying Christ got it wrong.

He said he was here to fulfil the laws, but you say that's impossible.

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

 

Then they screwed up royally.

The OT tells you that rape and slavery are OK. The NT tells you that the first one was right and that not a jot or a tittle of it will ever change.

I am a Catholic that has read a large amount of the bible I'd I will admit that I understand it as much as I understand why people would put clothes on pets(it's a disgrace). As a Catholic I think that the bible is probably even harder to completely get than sentience miracles the universe or even the idea of heaven . Therefore I will not sit here and pretend like I have all the answers but I see both sides of the argument here despite not exactly being neutral.

[John Cuthber]

I am a Catholic that has read a large amount of the bible I'd I will admit that I understand it as much as I understand why people would put clothes on pets(it's a disgrace). As a Catholic I think that the bible is probably even harder to completely get than sentience miracles the universe or even the idea of heaven . Therefore I will not sit here and pretend like I have all the answers but I see both sides of the argument here despite not exactly being neutral.

Have you noticed that only one side of the argument has actual evidence?

[Moontanman]

 

 

I'm curious as to the verses in the NT that suggest any of that, care to provide one?

 

 

So who died and put you in charge of deciding what part of the bible were correct and what parts are not correct? I do not see how you can assert that the old testament no longer holds sway, as I said if the old testament no longer holds sway then you lose the creation story, original sin, any need to for give said original sin. I gave you parts of the NT that simply are not true, from supporting slavery to dead saints walking around Jerusalem, the hours of total darkness, the earth quake, none of those things happened. If they had happened sources other than the bible would have written about them. Jesus flatly says that some of his apostles would still be alive when he returned.

 

The bible is not evidence of anything, it is the claim that requires evidence and Jesus did indeed claim things that simply were not true, from disease being caused by demons to telling people not to wash their hands.

 

As John said, Jesus said under no uncertain terms that the old laws still had to be followed.

I am a Catholic that has read a large amount of the bible I'd I will admit that I understand it as much as I understand why people would put clothes on pets(it's a disgrace). As a Catholic I think that the bible is probably even harder to completely get than sentience miracles the universe or even the idea of heaven . Therefore I will not sit here and pretend like I have all the answers but I see both sides of the argument here despite not exactly being neutral.

 

 

I have read the bible in it's entirety several times, the bible claims all sorts of nonsense, it's why there has to be apologetics to explain the bible..

[Ultimate Infinity]

Have you noticed that only one side of the argument has actual evidence?

Ya you are right you atheists are making completely unsupportable claims( note the sarcasm)

[ajb]

Ya you are right you atheists are making completely unsupportable claims( note the sarcasm)

About what?

 

Anyway, you are young and have been heavily influenced by the beliefs of your family and community. In fact, we can go as far as to say brainwashed.

 

For yourself, and for yourself only please re-examine what you have been told. Think about it openely, but logically. Think about the notion of objective evidence. Think about what is really proved in the bible, and just because it is in the bible does not by itself mean it is true. You work on a farm - think about all the science that goes into that. How do you know your methods of farming are working? What evidence would you give to support this? Please think about this for yourself and your own sake.

Edited July 4, 2016 by ajb

[granpa]

Yes be a non conformist like us. Just dress and act exactly like we do and listen to all the same music we do.

 

Atheism/Theism is a false dichotomy.

 

The question is not whether you should believe this or believe that. The real question is why should you believe anything. Why not know instead? Why believe it will rain today when you can know that it might rain today?

 

Believing anything is completely unnecessary

 

If you really want to study the Bible scientifically then start here

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/At-a-glance/The_Bible/101

Edited July 4, 2016 by granpa

[Memammal]

If you really want to study the Bible scientifically then start here

http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/At-a-glance/The_Bible/101

I scrolled through the above website and at first glance it seems like pseudo theoscience could be a fitting description thereof. Not recommended reading i.m.o.

[granpa]

You won't take us hot or cold

[ajb]

The real question is why should you believe anything.

You can beleive something if there is evidence for it. This is in contrast to 'blind faith' as seen in religion.

 

I beleive in the philosophy known as the scientific method. I beleive this because this method has shown us a new way to view the Universe and produced wonderful technologies.

 

As a philosophy one can not do much more than state that 'as it has worked so far, I see no reason why it will not continue to work'.

 

Why not know instead?

By 'know' we mean in agreement with science? (as more-or-less defined by the scientific method)

Edited July 4, 2016 by ajb

[granpa]

Something is known Beyond a reasonable doubt if the laws of cause and effect make it impossible for it not to be true.

 

 

I KNOW with certainty that a 2 headed coin will come up heads if flipped.

If the coin has a heads and a tails then I dont know what it will come up as but I KNOW the probability is 50/50.

If I have 3 coins in my pocket, one with 2 heads, another with 2 tails, and another with one head and one tail and I pull one out at random and, without looking at it, flip it then I dont know the probability but I still KNOW the bayesian probability is 50/50.

Edited July 4, 2016 by granpa

[ajb]

Something is known Beyond a reasonable doubt if the laws of cause and effect make it impossible for it not to be true.

Right, so something is 'known' if it is not going against the laws of science and mathematics as we understand them.

 

This allows some flexibility as our understanding of the Universe grows and changes.

 

This seems really at odds with a religious point of view that the bible (or other old book) is truth and cannot change - though interpretations thereof seem to change.

[Ultimate Infinity]

About what?

 

Anyway, you are young and have been heavily influenced by the beliefs of your family and community. In fact, we can go as far as to say brainwashed.

 

For yourself, and for yourself only please re-examine what you have been told. Think about it openely, but logically. Think about the notion of objective evidence. Think about what is really proved in the bible, and just because it is in the bible does not by itself mean it is true. You work on a farm - think about all the science that goes into that. How do you know your methods of farming are working? What evidence would you give to support this? Please think about this for yourself and your own sake.

Sorry but I don't see how not believing in God would benefit me

[DrP]

Sorry but I don't see how not believing in God would benefit me

 

Apart from basing your entire life on reality rather than a lie..?

 

I agree - stay honest and kind, merciful and loving like the bible says... but celibacy? How does that benefit anyone. ;-)

Edited July 4, 2016 by DrP

[Phi for All]

Sorry but I don't see how not believing in God would benefit me

 

Actually, the argument isn't that you should not believe in God. The argument is that there's no evidence for God, so the default position is, "We don't know". The benefit is that your perspective on the rest of the universe isn't based on unstable foundations. You can start forming your knowledge based on observable reality, and grow from there.

 

It's more like a lack of belief rather than active disbelief. Does that make sense? Or rather a lack of using faith to believe, preferring trust instead.

 

Do you make a distinction between faith and "blind" faith? Blind faith would be believing something that has absolutely nothing to support it at all, nothing to trust. Many people make this distinction, so I think having faith requires some sort of justification in most people's minds, even if it's just the fact that lots of others believe too, or that there's been so much written on the subject. Personally, I think all faith is blind, since there isn't any evidence for any of the claims made to support such faith.

 

Many early religions believed in many gods. Then came those, including the Abrahamic religions, that believed in just one god. I think it was inevitable that it would dawn on people that there might be even fewer gods than that.