Christians can you be certain your bible is trust worthy?

[joelr]

What is a Fundamentalist, someone who operates within a certain set of beliefs. You use the term as a qualifier for faulty scholarship

Yet there are many Fundamentalist Christian historians, archaeologists, and Bible scholars who are highly respected and well known in their field their field. There are many hundreds less known, who do solid work and have the highest credentials.

Don¨t atheists operate within a set of fundamental beliefs ? If Christian fundamentalist research is inherently biased by their fundamental beliefs, why is the same not true of atheist fundamentalists ? It is.

Pagels work is primarily the result of research seeking a preconceived conclusion, rather than researching all the data to find a conclusion.

Various of her erroneous conclusions have been refuted adequately by other scholars.

Some of her conclusions are spot on, especially those around the manipulation the post Apostolic church by those with personal and group agendaś.

Interestingly, the Apostles warned that this would occur. They knew the subversion of Christianity would come very quickly.

Your dating for Thomas, the oldest of the the bogus gospels, is too early by 50 years, based on scholars I have read.

What conclusions by Pagels are wrong? Sounds like you read some apologist article that disagreed with any theories that would go against Christianity and it's history and agreed with everything else.
She studied the gospels, not some apologetics writer who went to Wiki to find out the "facts".
So be more specific.

I don't know what atheists believe exactly? Christian fundamentalist research is inherently biased for sure. I mean I've watched Richard Carrier debate 2 different Christian fundamentalist scholars, I can actually point out where they go all bias.
They will usually be pointing out something a gospel says and then Carrier says "well we don't know for sure if the gospels are reliable" and the response is "Well it says so in the gospel".....

so the bias at the end of the day is that a fundamentalist has to believe the gospels are the word of god. Despite the mythic structure, pagan similarities, they can never examine evidence honestly. It circles back to faith.
The Roman Catholic Church started out with a few creeds and one was basically - we are just going to take the current accepted canon and assume this is what god wanted to be in the bible and never question it again.
I can't expect everyone to just be on board with that thinking?

When Carrier began his historicity study he said he expected to prove what the field already knew - that Jesus was a man. But after 6 years he had to say that he put's the odds at 3 to 1 on mythicism.

Beyond that it doesn't make sense to just believe a supernatural story? If you started studying Mithras, even if you were non-religious and open minded, you would probably still be thinking it's likely a myth to start out with.
I researched Roswell with an open mind and discovered it was fake. Similar deal with Christianity being a former Christian.

 

[ChristineM]

The"field" of biblical Ph.D historians are in agreement about Moses and the patriarchs being myth and the general consensus is that Jesus was a man and the supernatural stories added later.
Richard Price, Earl Doherity, Elaine Pagels, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman,

There are guys like Gary Habermas who are believers and write apologetics and are educated but he's not a Ph.D scholar. That isn't just 3 random letters. From masters to Phd in historicity one spends 4 years learning almost exclusively how to work with source material, proving sources as accurate and so on. For a biblical historian one needs to read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic.

Richard Carrier is putting forth his work on the mythicist theory but it's not accepted in the field yet as the standard belief. Maybe it never will?

Yes. One would have thought so but it still leaves creationist PhDs spreading their confirmation bias in the name of science.

 

[shmogie]

What conclusions by Pagels are wrong? Sounds like you read some apologist article that disagreed with any theories that would go against Christianity and it's history and agreed with everything else.
She studied the gospels, not some apologetics writer who went to Wiki to find out the "facts".
So be more specific.

I don't know what atheists believe exactly? Christian fundamentalist research is inherently biased for sure. I mean I've watched Richard Carrier debate 2 different Christian fundamentalist scholars, I can actually point out where they go all bias.
They will usually be pointing out something a gospel says and then Carrier says "well we don't know for sure if the gospels are reliable" and the response is "Well it says so in the gospel".....

so the bias at the end of the day is that a fundamentalist has to believe the gospels are the word of god. Despite the mythic structure, pagan similarities, they can never examine evidence honestly. It circles back to faith.
The Roman Catholic Church started out with a few creeds and one was basically - we are just going to take the current accepted canon and assume this is what god wanted to be in the bible and never question it again.
I can't expect everyone to just be on board with that thinking?

When Carrier began his historicity study he said he expected to prove what the field already knew - that Jesus was a man. But after 6 years he had to say that he put's the odds at 3 to 1 on mythicism.

Beyond that it doesn't make sense to just believe a supernatural story? If you started studying Mithras, even if you were non-religious and open minded, you would probably still be thinking it's likely a myth to start out with.
I researched Roswell with an open mind and discovered it was fake. Similar deal with Christianity being a former Christian.

I was an atheist for years, then an agnostic. A philosophy course led me to other possible explanations for what is, other than the physical science approach..

I choose not to be ignorant, therefore I have studied mithraism, I know the claims of some re Christianity and mithraism, tenuous at best.

An intelligent person just doesn't believe a story, a critical one.

I was a criminal investigator for years before before moving through the management levels of law enforcement to the top level,

ANY story must be have evidence to be believed.

I studied, and study the evidence.

There are rules of evidence, you may consider some evidence inadmissible, if you limit it within the the physical science criteria. I don;'t have that limit, however, having a long standing interest in cosmology, and as far as a lay person can understand it, physics, I have found evidence for my belief there.

I researched in depth, the history of the Gospel manuscripts, history presented from various perspectives. The dating, the language tells, et.al. I have a fair idea of what I speak.

Ad to what you refer to as "mysticism", physical science says it everything only exists within the confines of the methods of science, ergo, anything outside those confines cannot exist. A bias.

I simply look at the evidence and draw a conclusion. Yes, I may have biases toward my own faith structure, but with good evidence to support them.

With respect, perhaps you are too enamored of scholars who support what you believe, and are too biased toward scholars who don';t. I certainly do not attack wholesale the credentials or objectivity of those who disagree with my position, and dismiss them without a hearing, I just consider and factor in possible biases. The bottom line is still the bottom line, to be supported or refuted based upon evidence.

I worked in a community with a huge university presence, so I interacted with scholars from a host of disciplines. They argued with each other all the time. None were the ultimate and final authority on anything.

I am sorry you lost your faith.

 

[joelr]

Yes. One would have thought so but it still leaves creationist PhDs spreading their confirmation bias in the name of science.

I don't think there are too many creationist Ph.Ds in history?
Or in biology.

If so they are extremely rare. It's mostly lower level scholars who are fundamentalist and write books for other fundamentalist. Whatever makes you happy I guess?
Every field is similar.

In quantum physics there are somewhat-educated people writing books about how physics proves eastern mysticism and consciousness creates reality. But within the field there is accepted work and people know what's real and what's wu-wu.

But the layperson doesn't always know what's real and what's being exaggerated.

 

[joelr]

I was an atheist for years, then an agnostic. A philosophy course led me to other possible explanations for what is, other than the physical science approach..

I choose not to be ignorant, therefore I have studied mithraism, I know the claims of some re Christianity and mithraism, tenuous at best.

Mithhraism is the least pagan religion like Christianity.
Some of the better one's are here:
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier

but this isn't Wiki or some amateur apologist, this is scholarship

An intelligent person just doesn't believe a story, a critical one.


There are rules of evidence, you may consider some evidence inadmissible, if you limit it within the the physical science criteria. I don;'t have that limit, however, having a long standing interest in cosmology, and as far as a lay person can understand it, physics, I have found evidence for my belief there.

Cosmological arguments have 2 issues. For one, assuming they are pointing to a creator they don't support any man-made mythology at all. Jesus and Romulus are neither more likely to be real.
A creator of the universe does not connect to any mythology.
In the Qu'ran it says Abraham was unhappy about all the solar gods because when they went out for the night how could they have influence?
So he started the Yahweh, guess how.....revelation. He made it up based on other myths.
Because the odds and evidence for revelations being real are very low.
Jewish theology was obsessed with the "sinful" nature of man. This has nothing to do with the cosmological arguments, it's just human created myth.

The cosmological constants do not suggest we need substitutionary sacrifice and blood atonement magic for the sky-god to be ok with us.


Now I personally like the cosmological arguments for thinking the universe may have been created.
However with keeping an open mind I have to admit that physicist Sean Caroll did a lecture on this topic as it relates to a god or creator and he raised some points that I'm not sure I can debunk.

I'm on the fence on this, he makes some really good points. I want to be some sort of a deist but he's making it hard.

I researched in depth, the history of the Gospel manuscripts, history presented from various perspectives. The dating, the language tells, et.al. I have a fair idea of what I speak.

I feel like you haven't because all scholars know the historicity of the gospels is 100% un-proveable.
All other gospels were copied from Mark and we have excellent evidence that the Jesus story is an update of Moses and Elija.

Ad to what you refer to as "mysticism", physical science says it everything only exists within the confines of the methods of science, ergo, anything outside those confines cannot exist. A bias.

Science never says that. Ever.

I simply look at the evidence and draw a conclusion. Yes, I may have biases toward my own faith structure, but with good evidence to support them.

With respect, perhaps you are too enamored of scholars who support what you believe, and are too biased toward scholars who don';t. I certainly do not attack wholesale the credentials or objectivity of those who disagree with my position, and dismiss them without a hearing, I just consider and factor in possible biases. The bottom line is still the bottom line, to be supported or refuted based upon evidence.

I worked in a community with a huge university presence, so I interacted with scholars from a host of disciplines. They argued with each other all the time. None were the ultimate and final authority on anything.

I am sorry you lost your faith.

What evidence? Archeology says the OT is myth and the NT is re-writes of pagan gods and the rest copied from the OT?

I didn't lose my faith. Since science cannot prove history 100% I have strong faith that there isn't a sky-father who accepts a blood atonement sacrifice of a son which is a ridiculous and archaic model of reality.

God commanded Isiah to kill his son, then at the last minute said "just kidding", kill this sheep/lamb every year and that will do for now. But go to temple everyday because your all sinners.
Then the temple is destroyed and they come up with a new, even better way to appease gods bloodthirst - the magic blood of Jesus will suffice for all time! YaY!
The "lamb of God? What?!? No, and stop killing lambs too!

This archaic blood appeasement goes back to early man and it should stay there.

In some ancient cultures they would sacrifice a young person and consume the flesh to gain their youth and vitality. It was very ritualized and all and tradition and served it's purpose.
What do you think communion is? Eating the body and blood of the sacrificed.
The Catholics actually believe the wafer turns into the actual body and blood?
WTF???


My faith tells me this is not this reality. There may be a creator but there is not a king in the sky

 

[nPeace]

@joelr I understand that there are those who choose to accept opinions, not because the opinions have any validity, but because those opinions suits their world view and preferences.

No matter how absurd, the opinions are. No matter how often they have been knocked down, and shown to be utterly flawed, and baseless, it makes no difference to those committed to their quest.

Spoiler: Futile Quest

Biblical minimalism, also known as the Copenhagen School because two of its most prominent figures taught at Copenhagen University, was a movement or trend in biblical scholarship that began in the 1990s with two main claims:
that the Bible cannot be considered reliable evidence for what had happened in ancient Israel; and
that "Israel" itself is a problematic subject for historical study.

Minimalism was not a unified movement, but rather a label that came to be applied to several scholars at different universities who held similar views, chiefly Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson at the University of Copenhagen, Philip R. Davies, and Keith Whitelam. Minimalism gave rise to intense debate during the 1990s—the term "minimalists" was in fact a derogatory one given by its opponents, who were consequently dubbed "maximalists", but in fact neither side accepted either label.

The so-called Maximalists, or neo-Albrightians, were composed of two quite distinct groups, the first represented by the archaeologist William Dever and the influential publication Biblical Archaeology Review, the second by biblical scholar Iain Provan and Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen. Although these debates were in some cases heated, most scholars occupied the middle ground evaluating the arguments of both schools critically.

Since the 1990s, while some of the minimalist arguments have been challenged or rejected, others have been refined and adopted into the mainstream of biblical scholarship.

I already showed you the ridiculous methods used in dating the Biblical texts.
The ideas are so extreme they cause fractions among the Bible's die-hard opponents. Take this example:

Spoiler: Fragmented Leaven

Documentary hypothesis
The documentary hypothesis (DH) is one of three models used to explain the origins and composition of the first five books of the Bible, called collectively the Torah or Pentateuch. The other two theories are the supplementary hypothesis and the fragmentary hypothesis.

All three agree that the Torah is not a unified work from a single author (traditionally Moses) but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands. They differ on the nature of these sources and how they were combined. According to the documentary hypothesis there were four sources, each originally a separate and independent book (a "document"), joined together at various points in time by a series of editors ("redactors"). Fragmentary hypotheses see the Torah as a collection of small fragments, and supplementary hypotheses as a single core document supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.

A version of the documentary hypothesis, frequently identified with the German scholar Julius Wellhausen, was almost universally accepted for most of the 20th century, but the consensus has now collapsed. As a result, there has been a revival of interest in fragmentary and supplementary approaches, frequently in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another.
Modern scholars increasingly see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Achaemenid Empire (probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place its production in the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE) or even the Hasmonean dynasty (140–37 BCE). Of its constituent sources, Deuteronomy is generally dated between the 7th and 5th centuries; there is much discussion of the unity, extent, nature, and date of the Priestly material. Deuteronomy continues to be seen as having had a history separate from the first four books, and there is a growing recognition that Genesis developed apart from the Exodus stories until joined to it by the Priestly writer.
...........
These documentary approaches were in competition with two other models, the fragmentary and the supplementary. The fragmentary hypothesis argued that fragments of varying lengths, rather than continuous documents, lay behind the Torah; this approach accounted for the Torah's diversity but could not account for its structural consistency, particularly regarding chronology. The supplementary hypothesis was better able to explain this unity: it maintained that the Torah was made up of a central core document, the Elohist, supplemented by fragments taken from many sources. The supplementary approach was dominant by the early 1860s, but it was challenged by an important book published by Hermann Hupfeld in 1853, who argued that the Pentateuch was made up of four documentary sources, the Priestly, Yahwist, and Elohist intertwined in Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and the stand-alone source of Deuteronomy. At around the same period Karl Heinrich Graf argued that the Yahwist and Elohist were the earliest sources and the Priestly source the latest, while Wilhelm Vatke linked the four to an evolutionary framework, the Yahwist and Elohist to a time of primitive nature and fertility cults, the Deuteronomist to the ethical religion of the Hebrew prophets, and the Priestly source to a form of religion dominated by ritual, sacrifice and law.

Collapse of the documentary consensus
The consensus around the documentary hypothesis collapsed in the last decades of the 20th century.

The final Torah is increasingly seen as a product of the Persian period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place it somewhat later, in the Hellenistic (333–164 BCE) or even Hasmonean (140–37 BCE) periods – the latter remains a minority view, but the Elephantine papyri, the records of a Jewish colony in Egypt dating from the last quarter of the 5th century BCE, show no knowledge of a Torah or of an exodus. There is also a growing recognition that Genesis developed separately from Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and was joined to the story of Moses by the Priestly writer.

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia
Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia

Do you know when this miserable failure will be realized?
By the way, you can't name one prophecy which has not been fulfilled.

A word to the critics...

Spoiler: Reaping the Spoils

Link

 

[ChristineM]

I don't think there are too many creationist Ph.Ds in history?
Or in biology.

If so they are extremely rare. It's mostly lower level scholars who are fundamentalist and write books for other fundamentalist. Whatever makes you happy I guess?
Every field is similar.

In quantum physics there are somewhat-educated people writing books about how physics proves eastern mysticism and consciousness creates reality. But within the field there is accepted work and people know what's real and what's wu-wu.

But the layperson doesn't always know what's real and what's being exaggerated.

There are enough to warrant several creationist websites advertising/promoting them. Feeding the layperson who visits those sites what they want to hear.

I am surprised that you have not been quoted "___________ phd says _________" on these very pages and known it to be total creationist nonsense.

Yes they are rare but creationists latch on to them like a drowning man does to a straw.

 

[shmogie]

There are enough to warrant several creationist websites advertising/promoting them. Feeding the layperson who visits those sites what they want to hear.

I am surprised that you have not been quoted "___________ phd says _________" on these very pages and known it to be total creationist nonsense.

Yes they are rare but creationists latch on to them like a drowning man does to a straw.

There have been 6 creationist Nobel prize winners in scientific disciplines.

There are thousands of solid creationist Phd's doing scientific work in a host of area's.

My best friend, a fully tenured professor in microbiology at a prominent California university is a creationist. He has dedicated his life to cancer research and has almost a hundred peer reviewed articles in various microbiology and other scientific journals.

You guy's choose to be provincial and ignorant ( meaning lacking knowledge) to bolster you sense of superiority over a belief you disdain.

 

[ChristineM]

There have been 6 creationist Nobel prize winners in scientific disciplines.

There are thousands of solid creationist Phd's doing scientific work in a host of area's.

My best friend, a fully tenured professor in microbiology at a prominent California university is a creationist. He has dedicated his life to cancer research and has almost a hundred peer reviewed articles in various microbiology and other scientific journals.

You guy's choose to be provincial and ignorant ( meaning lacking knowledge) to bolster you sense of superiority over a belief you disdain.

Out of 892 Nobel prizes in scientific disciplines i dont think 6 is much to dance about

And there is no problem if those creationist scientist work without there religion influencing their work. However there are those who are no so honest. Which are the ones i am talking about.

Jolly good, see previous paragraph

Dont talk bs because you refuse to comprehend the discussion

 

[shmogie]

Out of 892 Nobel prizes in scientific disciplines i dont think 6 is much to dance about

And there is no problem if those creationist scientist work without there religion influencing their work. However there are those who are no so honest. Which are the ones i am talking about.

Jolly good, see previous paragraph

Dont talk bs because you refuse to comprehend the discussion

Oh, I comprehend the discussion, and itś underlying message, thus, my post.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, I comprehend the discussion, and itś underlying message, thus, my post.

Oh right so you didnt see the bit i posted that stated

"There are enough to warrant several creationist websites advertising/promoting them. Feeding the layperson who visits those sites what they want to hear."

And the bit that stated

"Yes they are rare but creationists latch on to them like a drowning man does to a straw."

You know? From the post you replied to?

 

[shmogie]

Oh right so you didnt see the bit i posted that stated

"There are enough to warrant several creationist websites advertising/promoting them. Feeding the layperson who visits those sites what they want to hear."

And the bit that stated

"Yes they are rare but creationists latch on to them like a drowning man does to a straw."

You know? From the post you replied to?

You then by implication implicated PhDś who are creationists.

Once again, we disagree, so be it.

 

[ChristineM]

You then by implication implicated PhDś who are creationists.

Once again, we disagree, so be it.

What? Yes thats what the discussion was about,i was very fair in my posts but you seem to have taken exception to that. I wonder why?

 

[joelr]

Do you know when this miserable failure will be realized?
By the way, you can't name one prophecy which has not been fulfilled.

A word to the critics...

Spoiler: Reaping the Spoils

Link

As per the peer reviewed work of Thomas Thompson and archeologist William Denver we know he OT is not a historical book.

I can name prophecoes that have failed.

1. 
   Genesis
   
2. "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
   God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17
3. As a punishment for killing Abel, God says Cain will be "a fugitive and a vagabond." Yet in just a few verses (4:16-17) Cain will settle down, marry, have a son, and build a city. This is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond. 4:12
4. God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14
5. How long was the Egyptian captivity? This verse says 400 years, but Exodus 12:40 and Galatians 3:17 say 430 years. 15:13
6. "In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Isaac (Gen 21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen 35:22-23), Kohath (Ex 6:16), Amramn (Ex 6:18), and Moses (Ex 6:20). 15:16
7. God promises to make Isaac's descendents as numerous as "the stars of heaven", which, of course, never happened. The Jews have always been, and will always be, a small minority. 22:17-18, 26:4
8. God renames Jacob twice (32:28, 35:10 ). God says that Jacob will henceforth be called Israel, but the Bible continues to call him Jacob anyway (47:28-29). And even God himself calls him Jacob in 46:2. 32:28, 35:10
9. God calls Jacob Jacob, though he said in Gen.32:28 and 35:10 that he would no longer be called Jacob but Israel. 46:2
10. God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3
11. The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all. 49:10
12. "He washed his garments in wine ... His eyes shall be red with wine."
    Did Judah really wash his clothes in wine? Were his eyes bloodshot from drinking too much? Or is this a prophecy of Jesus? (I didn't know Jesus had a drinking problem.) 49:11-12
13. Contrary to the prophecy in 48:21, Joseph died in Egypt, not Israel. Gen.50:24

1. Exodus
   
   
2. God promises to cast out many nations including the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But he was unable to keep his promise. 33:2
3. In this verse God says he will write on the stone tablets, but in 34:27 he tells Moses to do the writing. 34:1
   
   
   Numbers
   
   
4. "If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will ... speak unto him in a dream." Now there's a reliable way to communicate with someone! 12:6
5. "There shall come a Star out of Jacob"
   This verse is called the "star prophecy" and is sometimes claimed to be a prophecy of the star of Bethlehem (Matthew 2:2). But this seems unlikely, since the verse refers to Moab, and the kingdom of Moab didn't exist in New Testament times. Jesus didn't smite Moab or kill the children of Sheth. ("Sheth" here refers to Seth -- the son of Adam, from whom Noah and, according to the Bible, all other humans descended. So if this is a prophecy about Jesus, then it prophesies that Jesus will someday kill everyone on earth.) 24:17
   Deuteronomy
   
   
6. God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But he was unable to keep his promise. 7:1, 7:23-24, 31:3
7. God's favorite people will never be infertile (neither will their cows!) and will never get sick. (God will send infertility and diseases on the other guys.) 7:14-15
8. Prophets and dreamers are to be executed if they say or dream the wrong things. 13:1-5
9. Who is the prophesied prophet? 18:18
10. False prophets are to be (you guessed it) executed. How do you know who is a false prophet? By whether or not their predictions come true. (Watch out Jehovah's Witnesses!) 18:20
11. Misquoted in Rom.10:8. 30:14
12. Choose life (!) 30:19
    Joshua
    1. God promises to give Joshua all of the land that his "foot shall tread upon." He says that none of the people he encounters will be able to resist him. But later we find that God didn't keep his promise, and that many tribes withstood Joshua's attempt to steal their land. 1:3-5, 3:10, 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-13, 17:17-18, 21:43-45
    2. This verse says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. 8:28
       Judges
       
       
    3. God promised many times that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they encountered. But he failed to keep that promise 1:19, 1:21-27, 3:1-5
       
       
       
       
       2 Samuel
       
       
    4. "Thy kingdom shall be established for ever."
       God says that Davids's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt. 7:13, 16
       1 Kings
13. and several hundred more

 

[joelr]

There have been 6 creationist Nobel prize winners in scientific disciplines.

There are thousands of solid creationist Phd's doing scientific work in a host of area's.

My best friend, a fully tenured professor in microbiology at a prominent California university is a creationist. He has dedicated his life to cancer research and has almost a hundred peer reviewed articles in various microbiology and other scientific journals.

You guy's choose to be provincial and ignorant ( meaning lacking knowledge) to bolster you sense of superiority over a belief you disdain.

I'm not ignorant of the creationist models. In fact it's that I understand what they say I know them to be ridiculous.
It's all a replay of the church insisting the earth was the center of the universe.

How hard is it for Christians to simply say the bible didn't get the age of the earth correct?

The bible calculates pi and it comes out to 3.
This is completely wrong. So the bible makes mistakes. It also speaks of the earth as if it's talking about a flat sphere.
Again, WRONG. So what, there can't be any MORE mistakes?

 

[nPeace]

As per the peer reviewed work of Thomas Thompson and archeologist William Denver we know he OT is not a historical book.

I can name prophecoes that have failed.

Sorry I took so long to respond. I actually forgot I was to return, being that I was busy on other threads.
So let me see how many marks you get.

1.
Adam died the same day.
From God’s standpoint, Adam and Eve died that day.
One thousand years is as a day to Jehovah. Adam did not live past a day, from God's standpoint.
Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8

God said, (Genesis 3:17) . . .In pain you will eat its produce all the days of your life.
So clearly day mentioned in the Genesis account, should be taken in context, as is seen from Genesis 2:2-4
So you are wrong. 0

2.
(Genesis 4:11-17) 11 And now you are cursed in banishment from the ground that has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you cultivate the ground, it will not give you back its produce. You will become a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth.” 13 At this Cain said to Jehovah: “The punishment for my error is too great to bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your face; and I will become a wanderer and a fugitive on the earth, and anyone who finds me will certainly kill me.” 15 So Jehovah said to him: “For that reason, anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times.” So Jehovah set up a sign for Cain in order that no one finding him would strike him. 16 Then Cain went away from before Jehovah and took up residence in the land of Exile, to the east of Eʹden. 17 Afterward Cain had sexual relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Then he engaged in building a city and named the city after his son Enoch.

Since this is all that is said concerning Cain, it is not reasonable to claim that one knows that what God said concerning Cain, was not fulfilled. We can't go by what you assume.
This is irrelevant. You score nothing here. 0

3.
I hate these kind of straw-grabbing arguments.
You are making interpretations, that has no relevance to your argument.
Oh man. I don't want to waste my time, so unless you have a list that makes sense, that you can put together, I don't want to continue.
The Bible says that God did not wipe out the Canaanites, and you are interpreting God's words.
This is childish imo.

If you want to challenge the truthfulness of the Bible, you need a better argument.
Of course I am sure you will never give up, no matter how evident your failures.
Dubious Presuppositions of critics

 

[OtherSheep]

Christianity derive from Judaism. Islam derive from Christianity and Judaism. These 3 religion got the same god and is the only 3 religion that believe there is only one god.

What is called Christianity largely consists of a Talmudic commentary called Paul's letters.

Islam doesn't come from Christ at all, since they don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but they've demoted Him to a prophet whom they don't often believe.

Judaism today often consists of Talmudic commentaries taking the place of the Law given to Moses... which was added to because of the hardness of their hearts, regarding marriage as one example.

You should try learn the tenants of that which you set out to mock, beforehand.
Just sayin'

____________
I follow Jesus' teachings in Matthew, John, and the Revelation.
They are common sense, and easy for even a child to learn and do.

 

[metis]

What is called Christianity largely consists of a Talmudic commentary called Paul's letters.

Paul's letters are not the Talmud since the latter involves commentaries on the Tanakh.

Judaism today often consists of Talmudic commentaries taking the place of the Law given to Moses... which was added to because of the hardness of their hearts, regarding marriage as one example.

Absolutely false as the commentaries in the Talmud largely deal with interpretation and application of Torah, amongst other things.

Also, a "get" (bill of divorce) is allowed in the Torah by the husband and, therefore, was not "added". Within rabbinic circles it was considered valid only as a last resort after everything else fails, and sometimes a rabbi may not recognize a "get" if he feels that the husband has not done enough to save the marriage. Personally, as much as I disdain divorce, having parents constantly fighting, especially with children around, is more harmful for all involved than just calling it quits if everything else has been tried.

 

[OtherSheep]

Paul's letters are not the Talmud since the latter involves commentaries on the Tanakh.
Absolutely false as the commentaries in the Talmud largely deal with interpretation and application of Torah, amongst other things.

Also, a "get" (bill of divorce) is allowed in the Torah by the husband and, therefore, was not "added". Within rabbinic circles it was considered valid only as a last resort after everything else fails, and sometimes a rabbi may not recognize a "get" if he feels that the husband has not done enough to save the marriage. Personally, as much as I disdain divorce, having parents constantly fighting, especially with children around, is more harmful for all involved than just calling it quits if everything else has been tried.

Paul said "I am a Pharisee" not "I was a Pharisee." And it was the traditions of the Pharisees against which Ἰησοῦς came and fought, and for which He was murdered.

Ἰησοῦς says marriage was not that way in the beginning, meaning the bill of divorce was added to that which was true in the beginning... because of the hardness of Pharisee hearts and of those who followed those blind guides.

Ἰησοῦς says He knows the blasphemy of those who claim to be Jews.

 

[joelr]

Sorry I took so long to respond. I actually forgot I was to return, being that I was busy on other threads.
So let me see how many marks you get.

3.
I hate these kind of straw-grabbing arguments.
You are making interpretations, that has no relevance to your argument.
Oh man. I don't want to waste my time, so unless you have a list that makes sense, that you can put together, I don't want to continue.
The Bible says that God did not wipe out the Canaanites, and you are interpreting God's words.
This is childish imo.

If you want to challenge the truthfulness of the Bible, you need a better argument.
Of course I am sure you will never give up, no matter how evident your failures.
Dubious Presuppositions of critics

https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/26.html#4
There are still over 200 failed prophecies, many you cannot explain. So your claims of prophecies coming true is simply "picking and choosing".
No matter how many apologetics you throw at them.
Pi isn't 3. Jesus didn't come back in "this generation". The passages about a savior was taken from the OT and modernized into a pagan re-write of Moses and Elijia.

But I agree there are better arguments against the bible.
In archeology we have a peer reviewed book now accepted in the field which confirms Moses and the Patriarchs to be mythical:
The biblical history field considers historicity but has ruled out divinity and we have more current scholarship explaining the pagan myths the Jews took Christianity from.

Justin Myrter even dealt with these similarities by saying the devil made history look that way. Effectively admitting it's a copy-cat of pagan religions.

In scholarship, it's fiction. Church goers can praise whomever and run around looking like wizards and speak enchantments and whatever, but the facts are in for the educated world. Religion is not real.




The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham
"Completely dismantles the historic patriarchal narratives. His impeccable scholarship, his astounding mastery of the sources, and rigorous detailed examination of the archaeological claims makes this book one I will immediately take with me in case of a flood. And it still hasn't been refuted. I am well aware of the excellent work of William G. Dever, and his critique of the "minimalists" and his harping against Thompson, but it is his other books Dever has the most beef against. This one stands stellar and strong. I was absolutely bowled over by it. The second time through is even more astonishing."
"Having stated, on page 1 of the Introduction of his book, the existing paradigm as it was in the early 1970s viz ""Nearly all [authors] accept the general claim that the historicity of the biblical traditions about the patriarchs has been substantiated by the archaeological and historical research of the last half-century" - Thompson then proceeds chapter by chapter to methodically and in great detail and with intricate scholarship to demolish that paradigm.
By the end of the book nothing remains of the assertion that the patriarchs actually existed as historical figures.
They are, as Thompson shows [and many other scholars since] part of a literary tradition written as expressions of religious faith, neither history nor ever intended to be so.
Thompson so conclusively demonstrated in this classic paradigm changing book that not only did archaeological research not substantiate the patriarchal stories, as described by apologists who allowed their faith to distort their research and conclusions, but that archaeology had actually refuted such claims.
So convincing and credible was his refuting of the old ideas that his PhD adviser, one Cardinal Ratzinger later pope Benedict, refused to ratify his PhD, from which this book is adapted, and Thompson was cast into an academic wilderness for many years until scholarship quite literally caught up.

This is a very important book, it swept away the accumulated dust of centuries and opened up a new, realistic, understanding of the past it described, an understanding that has thoroughly replaced the anachronism of the 'general claim' referred to in the opening line of the review"