Evidence for the Bible / God [W536; 634]

[Logicman]

The hundreds of ancient works describing greek mythology doesnt make any of that crap real either.

FFA introduces another strawman and drags that dead dog around the arena for show and tell. LOL!

Sorry, your reach isn't worth a tinker's dam.

 

[Quag]

FFA introduces another strawman and drags that dead dog around the arena for show and tell. LOL!

Sorry, your reach isn't worth a tinker's dam.

Worth a whole not more than the nonsense you spew.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I, and the rest of us, and this thread are not asking for proof.

What is being asked for is evidence. Any evidence. Such as some claim in the Bible which is unique to that religion and which is independently verifiable and not common knowledge at the time. If the Bible had said that there was lands for the taking far to the west of the pillars of Hercules that would have done. Something I can check.

Okay the Bible speaks of the rivers of Mesopotamia. Check to see if there are some. The Bible speaks of Jerusalem. Check to see if there is such a place. The Hebrews who became the Israelites who became the Jews speak of residing in numerous places in the Old and New Testaments. Check to see if their progeny is still in those places.

If you want evidence that there was a Mount Sinai or Mount Horeb that could have been the mountain that Moses was said to have ascended to receive the Ten Commandments, that becomes a bit more problematic, because the ancient ones left us no maps to refer to. So now the historians are more speculative about the route Moses would have taken, if that event did in fact happen, and what mountain the scriptures might be referring to. But the routes and the mountain are both feasible in the pertinent area of a people traveling from the southern parts of the Nile in Egypt headed for Canaan.

For some of history, both ancient history and modern history, we have no choice but to rely on the writings of the historians. There are no photos and no video or audio footage--no evidence whatsoever-- of George Washington leading his troops to the Potomac and crossing it, but we believe that event happened because of the histories that have been written. What gives those histories credibility, however, is that items or images presented fit with the scene that is being described. And because we have no reason or purpose not to believe it, we believe it. But we are also reading those histories in a language and culture that was not all that different from our own, and in a setting that is familiar and believable to us.

How much more difficult is it to develop accurate images from an event of 3000 to 4000 or more years ago, written by a people of a very different culture, and written in a primitive language devoid of spaces between words, devoid of any form of punctuation, devoid of vowels. Not pen and ink on paper to record the events but painstakingly written onto scrolls made from animal skins or parchments--an estimated some 2000 man hours to complete a single copy of a single scroll. Much of the detail and description was omitted because those writing those initial scrolls certainly didn't think they were writing text to be read and understood by people in the 21st Century who are studying that time and culture. Just as we would feel no need to describe or explain Santa Claus or a telephone or what happened between breakfast and dinner on any given day, they saw no need to explain or describe those things that were common knowledge and familiar to all either.

So to demand irrefutable evidence? Not going to happen any more than irrefutable evidence is possible re anything in history unless we were there ourselves to witness what happened. But just because there is no irrefutable evidence does not mean there is no evidence at all.

 

[Logicman]

Worth a whole not more than the nonsense you spew.

What would you know?

 

[Quag]

What would you know?

That your arguments are basless.

 

[blarg]

Your pathetic response is what's irrelevant. Saying 500 separate, individual New Testament works wouldn't change a thing only shows there's no written evidence from the first century you will ever accept. Might as well be wearing a blindfold.

no just righting down god exists and did x doesn't make the story true

the entire collection of hairy potter fan fiction doesn't prove wizards

 

[Logicman]

no just righting down god exists and did x doesn't make the story true

the entire collection of hairy potter fan fiction doesn't prove wizards

Right back at you.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Your pathetic response is what's irrelevant. Saying 500 separate, individual New Testament works wouldn't change a thing only shows there's no written evidence from the first century you will ever accept. Might as well be wearing a blindfold.

FFA introduces another strawman and drags that dead dog around the arena for show and tell. LOL!

Sorry, your reach isn't worth a tinker's dam.

Ok lets just assume that those 27 books were written by people that actually believe they were telling the truth, and that those writings were accurate to what they perceived to have happened. What evidence is there that their perceptions were correct? Perhaps them living in a primitive middle eastern world had some influence on how they perceived events? Some people swear up and down that they saw a ghost or aliens. Sometimes groups of people swear honestly that they saw something that turned out to be false. This is why real evidence must be obtained and why subjective writings from primitive times are interesting historically but taken with a grain of salt. Five people can see something happen and give different accounts of what happened. Who do we believe? Did it even happen at all? Were they all lying? Telling me that you believe they were not lying isnt good enough not unless I take your word on blind faith alone.

And Logicman I have no faith in you at all. I dont trust that you are even telling the truth much less anonymous writers from such a primitive time in human history.

 

[Logicman]

Ok lets just assume that those 27 books were written by people that actually believe they were telling the truth, and that those writings were accurate to what they perceived to have happened. What evidence is there that their perceptions were correct?

The massive spread of Christianity, including no doubt many skeptics who initially didn't believe in it, like James, the brother of Christ.

Perhaps them living in a primitive middle eastern world had some influence on how they perceived events? Some people swear up and down that they saw a ghost or aliens. Sometimes groups of people swear honestly that they saw something that turned out to be false. This is why real evidence must be obtained and why subjective writings from primitive times are interesting historically but taken with a grain of salt. Five people can see something happen and give different accounts of what happened. Who do we believe? Did it even happen at all? Were they all lying? Telling me that you believe they were not lying isnt good enough not unless I take your word on blind faith alone.

And Logicman I have no faith in you at all. I dont trust that you are even telling the truth much less anonymous writers from such a primitive time in human history.

What you have is faith in a lot of nonsensical denials. Everything presented to you gets swept right under the rug.

When you can bust the resurrection then hop out here and let's see it. Otherwise all your rants and misinformation, etc., are all for nothing.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The massive spread of Christianity, including no doubt many skeptics who initially didn't believe in it, like James, the brother of Christ.

So says the bible, right? I already claimed that I dont trust the bible, why would I now somehow take it has a answer?

What you have is faith in a lot of nonsensical denials. Everything presented to you gets swept right under the rug.

Ah the irony.

When you can bust the resurrection then hop out here and let's see it. Otherwise all your rants and misinformation, etc., are all for nothing.

Why is it that I must believe what you believe? Did I ask for your opinion? No, this is a thread that solicits evidence for biblical events. You repeating that you have a opinion that the bible proves itself has been duly noted and round filed for future use. It is unfortunate for you that you are unable to show us indisputable evidence for the events in a book and must resort lame tactics, but give it up you had your chance and failed. The fact that you do not accept that failure and feel compelled to continue insulting me is of no value to this so called debate.

The bible makes claims that itself cannot be the evidence of. You can call it 27 books if you want but it isnt printed as 27 different books it is printed as one book which includes the old testament with the new testament in ALL bibles. Churches compiled those writing together and declared them canon. The bible wasnt complied by the character jesus or any of the people that wrote any of those passages. The writings that make up the bible were chosen for a specific reason. ANd that is to convince people that a man existed named jesus was more than just a man. SO they cherry picked the writings that suited that end.

But I dont buy any of that BS because first most it isnt even my damn culture. I dont care what a bunch of ancient people believed out in the desert someplace. And what they believed was some really strange messed up ****. And damn most of the New Testament is aimed at getting me uptight about the Romans I mean WTF? Havent Christians noticed that they are not all living in the middle east, are not Hebrews or even the decedents of the Hebrews and Isreal was never their home? Suckers!

 

[Logicman]

So says the bible, right? I already claimed that I dont trust the bible, why would I now somehow take it has a answer?

Ah the irony.

Why is it that I must believe what you believe? Did I ask for your opinion? No, this is a thread that solicits evidence for biblical events. You repeating that you have a opinion that the bible proves itself has been duly noted and round filed for future use. It is unfortunate for you that you are unable to show us indisputable evidence for the events in a book and must resort lame tactics, but give it up you had your chance and failed. The fact that you do not accept that failure and feel compelled to continue insulting me is of no value to this so called debate.

The bible makes claims that itself cannot be the evidence of. You can call it 27 books if you want but it isnt printed as 27 different books it is printed as one book which includes the old testament with the new testament in ALL bibles. Churches compiled those writing together and declared them canon. The bible wasnt complied by the character jesus or any of the people that wrote any of those passages. The writings that make up the bible were chosen for a specific reason. ANd that is to convince people that a man existed named jesus was more than just a man. SO they cherry picked the writings that suited that end.

But I dont buy any of that BS because first most it isnt even my damn culture. I dont care what a bunch of ancient people believed out in the desert someplace. And what they believed was some really strange messed up ****. And damn most of the New Testament is aimed at getting me uptight about the Romans I mean WTF? Havent Christians noticed that they are not all living in the middle east, are not Hebrews or even the decedents of the Hebrews and Isreal was never their home? Suckers!

All that and nothing but more knee-jerk denials. You should save your energy.

 

[Cephus]

Right back at you.

In other words, you had no rational response. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, you never have one.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

All that and nothing but more knee-jerk denials. You should save your energy.

Meh, your case failed I didnt need to do anything from there.

 

[Cephus]

All that and nothing but more knee-jerk denials. You should save your energy.

Says the king of knee-jerk denials? :roll:

 

[Logicman]

Meh, your case failed I didnt need to do anything from there.

You know, a good many of you skeptics love to argue how ignorant the disciples and/or Gospel writers were. We hear accusations such as "uneducated," "ignorant," and "illiterate;" "Bronze-age ignoramuses" and "unlearned, common fishermen." Yet what we find in the Gospels is anything but. We have the magnificent parables of Jesus. We find literary masterpieces such as "The Prodigal Son," and "The Good Samaritan," and the "Sermon on the Mount," just to name a few. And these are found in the earliest manuscripts, which the early church fathers attest were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In addition, there are many other critical, literary devices found in the Gospels.

LITERARY-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPELS

And you have no real explanation for that. You just belch out your standard denial and scurry right on down the pike like you really said something intelligent. We say they wrote down what Jesus taught. But you deny it.

Well, it's not working for you folks, and you need to come up with some better explanations than what we've seen so far from your side.

Nor do you have a viable motive, backed by evidence, for each of the Gospel writers if what they wrote about were untrue.

As many have said, it would take a Jesus to create a Jesus.

Think on that one.

p.s. Also check your consciences. In there you will find the conviction of sins.

 

[Somerville]

What I love about your second link is the following:

"Gerald E. Aardsma, Ph.D., has proposed an alternate solution, one that solves these problems and does justice to both biblical and secular scientific evidence. He has shown that the correct biblical chronology date for the Conquest is ca. 2400 B.C., not ca. 1400 B.C. By this solution, it is the ca. 2400 B.C. destruction at Jericho, shown in the charts above, which must be credited to Joshua."

Dr. Aardsma is not only a physicist and a chronologist, he is also a conservative Christian.

Gotta love it!

Jesus is Lord!

and there are few if any Egyptologists who agree with Dr Aardsma's dating for the supposed exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt. Dr Wood belongs to a group which states the Bible is inerrant but for some reason another Christian True Believer, Dr Aardsma says Dr Wood is all wrong. Hmmm, how is a non-believer to decide..... oh maybe, by ignoring both and going with the secular and Jewish archaeologists on dating the ruins of Jericho City IV

 

[Somerville]

You know, a good many of you skeptics love to argue how ignorant the disciples and/or Gospel writers were. We hear accusations such as "uneducated," "ignorant," and "illiterate;" "Bronze-age ignoramuses" and "unlearned, common fishermen." Yet what we find in the Gospels is anything but. We have the magnificent parables of Jesus. We find literary masterpieces such as "The Prodigal Son," and "The Good Samaritan," and the "Sermon on the Mount," just to name a few. And these are found in the earliest manuscripts, which the early church fathers attest were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In addition, there are many other critical, literary devices found in the Gospels.

LITERARY-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPELS

And you have no real explanation for that. You just belch out your standard denial and scurry right on down the pike like you really said something intelligent. We say they wrote down what Jesus taught. But you deny it.

Well, it's not working for you folks, and you need to come up with some better explanations than what we've seen so far from your side.

Nor do you have a viable motive, backed by evidence, for each of the Gospel writers if what they wrote about were untrue.

As many have said, it would take a Jesus to create a Jesus.

Think on that one.

p.s. Also check your consciences. In there you will find the conviction of sins.

The early church fathers do not "attest" that the Gospels were written by the men whose names are now attached to them. Certainly most modern scholars agree that the authors are anonymous, the names weren't attached until nearly a century had passed from the dates of composition... then there is the problem of editing and interpolations during the first couple of centuries. Mark for instance has at least three known endings, endings so studied they each have a name: Original Ending, Long Ending and Short Ending.

Unsure of the point for your Lit-Crit link, it is simply standard critiquing of a written piece, explaining the place of the narrator and the characters within the story being written. It has nothing to say about the historicity of the story itself or the characters named.

 

[blarg]

The massive spread of Christianity, including no doubt many skeptics who initially didn't believe in it, like James, the brother of Christ.



What you have is faith in a lot of nonsensical denials. Everything presented to you gets swept right under the rug.

When you can bust the resurrection then hop out here and let's see it. Otherwise all your rants and misinformation, etc., are all for nothing.

no one has been shown to be resurrected

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

You know, a good many of you skeptics love to argue how ignorant the disciples and/or Gospel writers were. We hear accusations such as "uneducated," "ignorant," and "illiterate;" "Bronze-age ignoramuses" and "unlearned, common fishermen." Yet what we find in the Gospels is anything but. We have the magnificent parables of Jesus. We find literary masterpieces such as "The Prodigal Son," and "The Good Samaritan," and the "Sermon on the Mount," just to name a few. And these are found in the earliest manuscripts, which the early church fathers attest were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In addition, there are many other critical, literary devices found in the Gospels.

LITERARY-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPELS

And you have no real explanation for that. You just belch out your standard denial and scurry right on down the pike like you really said something intelligent. We say they wrote down what Jesus taught. But you deny it.

Well, it's not working for you folks, and you need to come up with some better explanations than what we've seen so far from your side.

Nor do you have a viable motive, backed by evidence, for each of the Gospel writers if what they wrote about were untrue.

As many have said, it would take a Jesus to create a Jesus.

Think on that one.

p.s. Also check your consciences. In there you will find the conviction of sins.

Because the gospels were not written by any of the disciples but by men who wrote in Greek.

 

[Kreton]

The bible makes a set of claims. Therefore the bible cannot be evidence of those claims. I would suggest that you learn something about logic.

You should also learn what a debate forum is for. This forum certainly isnt for your sad ass attempt at attacking me instead of addressing the subject at hand.

BTW I do know that someone that is claimed to exist does not exist unless the person(s) making the claim of the someones existence has real evidence for their claim. The New Testament makes a specific claim about the existence of a group of people and a god (or three depending who you are talking too). There is no vague god in the new testament, the description is specific. WHich makes the claim specific enough that logic demands evidence. So when one asks if there is sufficient evidence to support the claims that bible makes then logic dictates that the answer is no.

Now if you could or anyone could show some real evidence to back the claims made it the bible I would change tune.

BTW I am very content with my beliefs, I have no doubts like you are trying to claim. Where you got such a asinine I could only guess, since you are not the first to try and parrot such a lame ass argument. I bet you believed that entire sermon and thought that it would work in the real world and everyone would bow down to your doubting Thomas story?

You typed an awful lot to say absolutely nothing. There are 180 pages here of people stating that there is no God and not one of you has presented one statement of proof. As with anything that is a belief, no one has to prove anything to you. You claim you are content with your beliefs but as far as I can tell you walk around demanding that people prove things to you to change your mind. I doubt anyone gives a **** what you think or about your beliefs. You are the one demanding answers. If you are content with your beliefs you wouldn't still be doing that. I am not sure which sermon you are betting that I believed all of.

 

[Manc Skipper]

You typed an awful lot to say absolutely nothing. There are 180 pages here of people stating that there is no God and not one of you has presented one statement of proof. As with anything that is a belief, no one has to prove anything to you. You claim you are content with your beliefs but as far as I can tell you walk around demanding that people prove things to you to change your mind. I doubt anyone gives a **** what you think or about your beliefs. You are the one demanding answers. If you are content with your beliefs you wouldn't still be doing that. I am not sure which sermon you are betting that I believed all of.

Look at the thread title. A believer asserts that proof exists. We're still waiting for some.

 

[RogueWarrior]

You typed an awful lot to say absolutely nothing. There are 180 pages here of people stating that there is no God and not one of you has presented one statement of proof. As with anything that is a belief, no one has to prove anything to you. You claim you are content with your beliefs but as far as I can tell you walk around demanding that people prove things to you to change your mind. I doubt anyone gives a **** what you think or about your beliefs. You are the one demanding answers. If you are content with your beliefs you wouldn't still be doing that. I am not sure which sermon you are betting that I believed all of.

FFS
Not believing is not denial. I know FFA is among the group who do so but most atheists do not.
Asking people to back up their assertions does not mean someone is not content with their beliefs. This is something theists/religions teach their children because asking questions sometimes leads to embarrassing answers. All part of the indoctrinantion. Only unhappy people ask questions don't ya know!
If people had asked Bernie Madoff for more proof of his assertions....
If people had asked that guy on the phone more questions about their 'free cruise'....

No one has to prove anything to anyone unless they expect these people to give any credence to their assertions. So if you are expecting us to believe your assertions about god/jesus/bible, you will have to support your assertions with demonstrable, empirical evidence. Otherwise you are just like background hiss from a phonograph.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

You typed an awful lot to say absolutely nothing. There are 180 pages here of people stating that there is no God and not one of you has presented one statement of proof. As with anything that is a belief, no one has to prove anything to you. You claim you are content with your beliefs but as far as I can tell you walk around demanding that people prove things to you to change your mind. I doubt anyone gives a **** what you think or about your beliefs. You are the one demanding answers. If you are content with your beliefs you wouldn't still be doing that. I am not sure which sermon you are betting that I believed all of.

You seem unaware of a simple fact: this is a debate site. I rarely talk about religion and beliefs outside of a debate setting. And the point of this debate that you decided to join is indeed about evidence for the bible.

So far mostly people have sited the bible as their evidence for the bible. They believe that since there isnt just one author that, that alone is enough evidence. While others have sited that they believe that historians have said that its true. add to that some asserted that scholars agree on the bibles accuracy. Each time though they fail to provide actual evidence for their claims. Add this up and all I need to do as a debater point out that no one has provided a real argument yet for any evidence that proves anything in the bible is more than fiction.

So yes if one wants to win this debate they need to provide evidence for their claims that the bible is anything more than fiction. Up for the challenge or is attacking me your only strategy?

 

[Logicman]

The early church fathers do not "attest" that the Gospels were written by the men whose names are now attached to them.

Yeah, they do.

For instance, were you familiar with Eusebius (who quotes Origen), you would know that "the first (Gospel) was written by Matthew...and was prepared for the converts from Judaism" (Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). There is also additional evidence that it was originally written in Hebrew. Eusebius quotes Papias as stating, “"Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Irenaeus wrote, "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church."

Between 110 and 130 AD, the following statement was recorded by Papias, whose words are passed on to us by the church historian Eusebius:

“Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them.”

More on Mark in the link.

Mark, The Gospel According To, 1 (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) - Bible Tools

And one other thing you should know: All four Gospels confirm the Resurrection.

 

[Logicman]

Quote Originally Posted by Logicman
You know, a good many of you skeptics love to argue how ignorant the disciples and/or Gospel writers were. We hear accusations such as "uneducated," "ignorant," and "illiterate;" "Bronze-age ignoramuses" and "unlearned, common fishermen." Yet what we find in the Gospels is anything but. We have the magnificent parables of Jesus. We find literary masterpieces such as "The Prodigal Son," and "The Good Samaritan," and the "Sermon on the Mount," just to name a few. And these are found in the earliest manuscripts, which the early church fathers attest were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In addition, there are many other critical, literary devices found in the Gospels.

LITERARY-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPELS

And you have no real explanation for that. You just belch out your standard denial and scurry right on down the pike like you really said something intelligent. We say they wrote down what Jesus taught. But you deny it.

Well, it's not working for you folks, and you need to come up with some better explanations than what we've seen so far from your side.

Because the gospels were not written by any of the disciples but by men who wrote in Greek.

Nuts. See my post # 1124 just prior to this one for just two examples of why you're wrong.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-bible-god-w536-634-a-193.html#post1063068482