Disproving the Bible

[psychoslice]

I think the OP makes a lot of sense, its good to see some one using their brains.

 

[Glaurung]

I think the OP makes a lot of sense, its good to see some one using their brains.

In other words, he's preaching to your choir. You really don't need brains to do that.

 

[psychoslice]

In other words, he's preaching to your choir. You really don't need brains to do that.

And who is preaching to you choir lol.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1. A redundant phrase only stresses a point. It in no way indicates fallibility.
2. As we all know, the serpent (Satan) started out as an angel, and is therefore among the creatures God made. But he had been a creature of heaven before he was cast out. Genesis 3:1 is saying that he was more subtle than "any of the beasts of the earth." It doesn't suggest that the serpent is not a creature made by God; it indicates that the serpent has capabilities that surpass those of the earthly creatures.

The text leaves all of that out. The fact that you had to supply it indicates that there is a deficiency. Otherwise why do you need to fill in the blank?

Unless you're just kidding about this, check the various meanings of "blind" in a dictionary. One of them is lacking understanding, judgment, perception, etc. So yes, since this is the obvious contextual meaning, they were not blind in the physical sense. It's also indisputably obvious in the rest of Genesis that Adam and Eve had perfect physical health, including good eyesight.

'Infallible' is no small thing, so if a book is called infallible then it has to meet an infallible standard. The book says their eyes were opened. It does not say that their understanding was opened, and it says that they were naked and didn't know it. You'd like to think otherwise, but you merely show that you don't accept what the text says. Certainly in any other book I could accept an alternate understanding from what was written, but we are talking about an infallible book. It should mean what it says. It says they were naked but did not know it, but when their eyes were opened they then knew it. It specifically does not say that their understanding was enabled but that their eyes were opened.

I think you're just playing around here too, but if not:

Absolutely right. And it wouldn't be wrong, as far as I know, to have said "all authorities."

A supposedly infallible book must be interpreted by your authorities, meaning it cannot hold its own. "Let Baal defend himself if he is really a god." (Judges 6:31)

 

[Glaurung]

And who is preaching to you choir lol.

Very few actually. I live in a very irreligious society in a very irreligious time. Being a hostile atheist would actually be following the conventional wisdom.

But I'm too cool to be mainstream.

 

[psychoslice]

Very few actually. I live in a very irreligious society in a very irreligious time. Being a hostile atheist would actually be following the conventional wisdom.

But I'm too cool to be mainstream.

And so am I, that maybe why we are not seeing each other as we are ?.

 

[Yoshua]

Point 1

If Yahweh demands that the punishment for Sin is Damnation/Eternal Death then why did he have to send himself in the form of a man to die in order to change forgive his believers?

Why could he not have said that all of those who follow the Jewish faith are now forgiven?

John 3:16
16. For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

How can He do the salvation of our sins if Jesus will not be in the form of man? Now, if you will ask me why He should do this? The answer is still in John 3:16, Gos so loved the world (people-sinners).

God has a wonderful plan and that is to save the Jew and Gentiles (non-Jews) to be with Him forever in eternal life.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Point 2

If evil exist so that Yahweh could give humans free-will, and in heaven there is no evil, then that means there is no free-will in heaven.

If the absence of free-will is a good thing as heaven is clearly made out to be, then why would he make free-will in the first place.

Yahweh created the first man and women with free-will, and does not have any connection with the existence of evil. God does not create a puppet. If God created us like a puppet, we are now (not) into discussion, you will not ask questions because we have a similar design of mind as a puppet or a robot.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Point 3

In the new testament at Mathew 5:17, Jesus declares that he is not going to destroy the laws of the old testament but to fulfill them.

Later in in the bible Jesus is asked if they should stone an adulterating woman, he asks for the first without sin to throw the first stone, clearly implying that no one should do this but Yahweh.

However the old testament law clearly states to stone adulterating woman and he says not to do so, therefore he did destroy the old laws.

Therefore either the Bible has false information in it, Jesus was a liar, or both.

Either way this proves that the bible is fallible.

Jesus did not destroy the law but rather expand it and corrected the legalistic attitude towards the law. The stoning to the woman who committed adultery is an example for the Pharisee/Jew (at that time) who looks judgmentally on the sin of a woman, without realizing that they themselves are hypocrites--fashioned themselves as the teacher of the laws--as not sinning due to the strict law observance. If Jesus destroy the law, why he should used the law in the New Testament such as honor thy Father/Mother, not killing, love the Lord thy God, not stealing and others? Jesus would not like people to be buried into the law as blinding themselves to the New Covenant--the hope of salvation for the Jews and Gentiles.

Thanks

 

[rusra02]

Point 1

If Yahweh demands that the punishment for Sin is Damnation/Eternal Death then why did he have to send himself in the form of a man to die in order to change forgive his believers?

Why could he not have said that all of those who follow the Jewish faith are now forgiven?

I appreciate your questions. Jehovah did not send himself. He sent his Son. (John 3:16) That verse cited also show why God sent his Son. It is because he loves us and does not want us to be destroyed.

 

[rusra02]

Point 2

If evil exist so that Yahweh could give humans free-will, and in heaven there is no evil, then that means there is no free-will in heaven.

If the absence of free-will is a good thing as heaven is clearly made out to be, then why would he make free-will in the first place.

In fact, I believe evil started with a spirit son of God, who rebelled and became a liar and murderer. (John 8:44) The Bible shows angels have the same free will as humans, and some have chosen to follow Satan in his rebellion. (Revelation 12:9)

 

[Brickjectivity]

Jesus did not destroy the law but rather expand it and corrected the legalistic attitude towards the law. The stoning to the woman who committed adultery is an example for the Pharisee/Jew (at that time) who looks judgmentally on the sin of a woman, without realizing that they themselves are hypocrites--fashioned themselves as the teacher of the laws--as not sinning due to the strict law observance. If Jesus destroy the law, why he should used the law in the New Testament such as honor thy Father/Mother, not killing, love the Lord thy God, not stealing and others? Jesus would not like people to be buried into the law as blinding themselves to the New Covenant--the hope of salvation for the Jews and Gentiles.

Thanks

The Pharisees were a sect who loved people and constantly did good deeds. They taught people, too. They were the charity workers of their day. Actually the law did say to kill adulterers, but the law also taught mercy. The Pharisees were aware of the apparent tension between mercy and truth, a subject that they studied and discussed since it appeared(s) in the law. So when they bring this case to Jesus they do so because it is in unsolvable case, and they expect to stump him. In the law there are cases that are unsolvable, and so frequently people are not prosecuted who have done acts with death as a sentence. There is no way to partially kill someone, so the question of how to mete out justice is more difficult when the judgment is execution. I think if you ask anyone today who is skilled in the law or passingly familiar (like myself) they can tell you that there is no clear decision about what to do in a case like the one in this story. Where are the witnesses? How was this person caught in the act, etc? So its clearly a test case, and they are testing Jesus to see if he has wisdom like Moses.

Its unfair though to look at the gospels as a definition of who the Pharisees were. For example you mentioned the times Jesus calls them hypocrites. Many times Jesus accuses them of hypocrisy, but often its hyperbole. When they come out to see John the Baptist, John calls them 'Vipers'. Now, what does it mean to call someone a 'Viper' who has dedicated their life to doing good? Well it is outside the scope of the thread, but something to point out is that the Pharisees were not snooty or judgmental. They were opposed to John the Baptist and Jesus, however. They did not agree with them, and they were resisting the things Jesus said. Calling them a 'Viper' is likely an allusion to Genesis 49:17. In other words it was a difficult accusation to understand. Many of the things John and Jesus did seemed insane. Many of the things Jesus did seemed inexplicable to people, Pharisees included. A really good movie about Jesus would emphasize this, but there are no good movies about him. Nothing he did made sense to anyone except on rare occasions, so these conversations he has with the Pharisees are hard to grasp as it is. We can't take them and then think that we understand what Pharisees were like or what following the law is like.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

The text leaves all of that out. The fact that you had to supply it indicates that there is a deficiency. Otherwise why do you need to fill in the blank?

A single sentence extracted from scripture or from any book does not explain everything else associated with it, because it is only one element of the whole picture. That's not a deficiency. Filling in the blank is only necessary for someone who does not know anything about the subject beyond what the single sentence says. That applies to you because you said "It is unclear and requires further clarification."

'Infallible' is no small thing, so if a book is called infallible then it has to meet an infallible standard. The book says their eyes were opened. It does not say that their understanding was opened, and it says that they were naked and didn't know it. You'd like to think otherwise, but you merely show that you don't accept what the text says. Certainly in any other book I could accept an alternate understanding from what was written, but we are talking about an infallible book. It should mean what it says. It says they were naked but did not know it, but when their eyes were opened they then knew it. It specifically does not say that their understanding was enabled but that their eyes were opened.

After eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve perceived what they had not perceived in their innocent, sanctified state. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7) There's nothing complicated here. Eyes were opened = perceived. This wording was understood in Hebrew when Moses wrote it, and has been understood in Greek, Latin, English, and every other language. It has been understood by everyone throughout the ages. You are the only person in history who has not understood it. That is, if you're really serious in making this argument, which I don't think you are. Either way, it's an infallible verse.

A supposedly infallible book must be interpreted by your authorities, meaning it cannot hold its own. "Let Baal defend himself if he is really a god." (Judges 6:31)

First of all, we're not talking about the whole bible here. In this case, you only brought up one word to debate. And secondly, it's common knowledge that to "know" a person in the biblical sense is a euphemism that means to have sex with them. In the previous post by lostwanderingsoul, he referenced biblical authorities on that point, probably just as a certification for something everyone but you already understands. Except that I'm sure you really do understand it. You're only trying too hard to find a biblical error.

A supposedly infallible book must be interpreted by your authorities, meaning it cannot hold its own. "Let Baal defend himself if he is really a god." (Judges 6:31)

So far, you have not disproven anything, but you have proven by demonstration that biblical interpretation by authorities is needed for those who would not otherwise comprehend it.

 

[sojourner]

Point 3

In the new testament at Mathew 5:17, Jesus declares that he is not going to destroy the laws of the old testament but to fulfill them.

Later in in the bible Jesus is asked if they should stone an adulterating woman, he asks for the first without sin to throw the first stone, clearly implying that no one should do this but Yahweh.

However the old testament law clearly states to stone adulterating woman and he says not to do so, therefore he did destroy the old laws.

Therefore either the Bible has false information in it, Jesus was a liar, or both.

Either way this proves that the bible is fallible.

The very fact that the bible was written, redacted, compiled, and otherwise edited by human beings, and translated into many languages, is proof that the bible is fallible.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus was a liar,

The jesus character had no part in any NT writing what so ever.

It would be impossible for that man to tell any lie as found in the NT.

So your quote is non sequitur.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A single sentence extracted from scripture or from any book does not explain everything else associated with it, because it is only one element of the whole picture. That's not a deficiency. Filling in the blank is only necessary for someone who does not know anything about the subject beyond what the single sentence says. That applies to you because you said "It is unclear and requires further clarification."

You mean a single sentence from what you call an infallible Bible. You aren't talking about just any book but are arguing the book is infallible, yet you hold it to the low standards of other books that are not infallible in order to make your point? That is because it can only pass under a lower standard than infallibility. For other books this would not be a deficiency but for a supposedly infallible book it is a deficiency. Besides I am not only talking about a single sentence extracted from scripture. I am talking about Genesis and using Genesis 3:1 as an example plus three additional examples. Your 'Explanation' of the verse completely transforms both it and Genesis, but you are comfortable with that so long as lots of other people agree with you. This is fine except that it doesn't indicate an infallible book. Rather it indicates abdication of an infallible standard for the book. If it is infallible then its meaning should be plain, not something completely transformed during exposition until it means something completely different from what it plainly says. You have merely completely transformed the text to mean what you would like.

After eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve perceived what they had not perceived in their innocent, sanctified state. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:7) There's nothing complicated here. Eyes were opened = perceived. This wording was understood in Hebrew when Moses wrote it, and has been understood in Greek, Latin, English, and every other language. It has been understood by everyone throughout the ages. You are the only person in history who has not understood it. That is, if you're really serious in making this argument, which I don't think you are. Either way, it's an infallible verse.

It doesn't matter what Moses understanding of the word is, because the book is supposed to be infallible. Additionally Moses was declared to be fallible in the very Bible that you propose is infallible, so how can you accept Moses as a guide to explaining it? He is fallible, so your interpretation based upon what he says is fallible. It is sinking sand not solid rock. If infallible then its meaning should be plain regardless of what Moses thinks. Moses is not here with us to interpret it, by the way; since it is recorded that he died and probably was buried, too. You say that Genesis 3:7 says it was not their eyes but their understanding that opened, and in a normal book I might think the same. Yes, for a normal fallible book like the Bible, I completely understand that the meaning probably has been fudged; but you contend the book is infallible. How can it be infallible if it completely misspells "Eyes" so that it is read as a completely different word "Understanding." It is only the ancient Roman government who values the ideal of an infallible book. The Bible does not seem to value the concept, and perhaps the idea of an infallible book is merely a political idea not a spiritual one.

First of all, we're not talking about the whole bible here. In this case, you only brought up one word to debate. And secondly, it's common knowledge that to "know" a person in the biblical sense is a euphemism that means to have sex with them. In the previous post by lostwanderingsoul, he referenced biblical authorities on that point, probably just as a certification for something everyone but you already understands. Except that I'm sure you really do understand it. You're only trying too hard to find a biblical error.

We are talking about a supposedly infallible book, so it is a book that you propose has no faults. In addition to Genesis 3:1 and 3:7 I have brought up Genesis 4:1 For this paragraph I was discussing a word in Genesis 4:1, which is part of a supposedly infallible sentence in a book in the Bible. In an infallible sense this word 'Know' implies you must merely know someone to conceive a child. It is only in a debatable, changeable and unprovable sense that it could be said to mean 'Sex'. A child or an Asperger's sufferer might understandably be mislead about the meaning and go through life thinking that children were produced through friendship. In fact there are historical notes proving that some people having read the Bible came to the conclusion that sex was evil, and this could have been avoided had the book Genesis not been considered to be infallible by Roman governors. Recently in the USA and entire religious colony called the 'Shakers' lived and died childless, believing sex to be evil based upon their belief in an infallible Genesis. Now there are no Shakers, anymore. Their supposedly infallible book failed to educate them.

So far, you have not disproven anything, but you have proven by demonstration that biblical interpretation by authorities is needed for those who would not otherwise comprehend it.

You have merely made excuses for every conceivable objection. Rather than infallible, the ambiguities and outright deceitful word swapping in the Bible is excused by you under the prejudice that this is acceptable in other fallible books. You continually compare the Bible with fallible sources saying that it is as good as them while claiming this upholds its infallibility in the face of its clear disregard for clear and transparent transmission of information. All of your sources go to extremes to attempt to make sense of an otherwise nonsensical instrument.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Sorry, but once I get going I'm a real gas-bag. Therefore... So far I have given practical examples, but since you won't accept those I will give you theological arguments made by or based upon statements by major figures in the Bible itself.

Paul himself shows that the 'New Testament' books are not at all the 'New Testament' when he writes "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (KJV 2Cor 3:6) Clearly the new testament is not a matter of words, but you deny this by saying the Bible is infallible, making words more important than people. In fact it is the people who are the testament to the apostleship of Paul if any, and it is the blood of Jesus that is the 'New testament' and not a set of books. Since the New Testament is not a set of books, those books are not central; so it doesn't matter that they are fallible, corrupted or even destroyed. Its ok if they are fallible, because the New Testament remains.

What about the Law, since Jesus says nothing in Moses law can change? Is that infallible? What about the things the Jesus is quoted as saying? Are they infallible? There is a story about a day when Moses took the 10 commandments and broke the tablets they were written on, destroying them; but then the LORD simply made more tablets. In between however there was a period of time when there were only broken tablets, so the tablets were fallible and Moses was the instrument that broke them. Only the LORD was infallible, so the Law can be broken, copied incorrectly and destroyed. The only assurance you have is that once destroyed, the LORD will write it again.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

The very fact that the bible was written, redacted, compiled, and otherwise edited by human beings, and translated into many languages, is proof that the bible is fallible.

This is a very good point, but the key word is "human." Any and all fallibility is in human error and especially editing, not in the bible itself. Martin Luther removed entire books from the Old Testament that Jesus and the Apostles used and quoted from when he rewrote the bible to suit himself and reworded New Testament verses to support his own false theologies. Further heretical revisions have followed ever since. Even at best, most English-language bible versions deviate to some extent from the original texts and from the Latin Vulgate, which is still the definitive Christian Bible since the year 405. The most direct and accurate English translation of that is the Douay-Rheims Bible. It predates the King James version by a few years and like all Catholic bibles, it includes the deuterocanonical books that Martin Luther arrogantly rejected and Protestant bibles omit.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

You mean a single sentence from what you call an infallible Bible. You aren't talking about just any book but are arguing the book is infallible, yet you hold it to the low standards of other books that are not infallible in order to make your point?

Low standards? Can you name a book of such high standards that everything in it is said in a single sentence?

Additionally Moses was declared to be fallible in the very Bible that you propose is infallible, so how can you accept Moses as a guide to explaining it?

Every human is fallible. God's word in infallible.

You say that Genesis 3:7 says it was not their eyes but their understanding that opened, and in a normal book I might think the same.

It's only natural that there are figures of speech in sacred texts that were commonly used and understood by those writing and reading them in their time. In some cases, the meanings are still commonly known; in others, they are not, but this figure of speech is still in use.

How can it be infallible if it completely misspells "Eyes" so that it is read as a completely different word "Understanding."

"Eyes" is correctly spelled. Is every word exclusively literal, having only one possible meaning, and is there only one way to to convey a thought? You know perfectly well what figurative or metaphorical language is.

Recently in the USA and entire religious colony called the 'Shakers' lived and died childless, believing sex to be evil based upon their belief in an infallible Genesis. Now there are no Shakers, anymore. Their supposedly infallible book failed to educate them.

The Shakers were mistaken about that and many other theological points. I guess we could say they were "blind" to the truth.

You have merely made excuses for every conceivable objection. Rather than infallible, the ambiguities and outright deceitful word swapping in the Bible is excused by you under the prejudice that this is acceptable in other fallible books. You continually compare the Bible with fallible sources saying that it is as good as them while claiming this upholds its infallibility in the face of its clear disregard for clear and transparent transmission of information. All of your sources go to extremes to attempt to make sense of an otherwise nonsensical instrument.

No, I have not made any excuses. Haven't gone to extremes either, but have been thinking that about you.

Paul himself shows that the 'New Testament' books are not at all the 'New Testament' when he writes "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (KJV 2Cor 3:6) Clearly the new testament is not a matter of words, but you deny this by saying the Bible is infallible, making words more important than people. In fact it is the people who are the testament to the apostleship of Paul if any, and it is the blood of Jesus that is the 'New testament' and not a set of books. Since the New Testament is not a set of books, those books are not central; so it doesn't matter that they are fallible, corrupted or even destroyed. Its ok if they are fallible, because the New Testament remains.

I agree with Saint Paul of course, but the new testament he was talking about about was the new covenant of Christ. The actual books of what we call the New Testament had not all been written and compiled when he said that, so he couldn't have been talking about the bible.

What about the Law, since Jesus says nothing in Moses law can change?

Did Jesus say that Moses' law can not change or did he say that the law given to Moses can not change? The laws of men and the laws of God are not necessarily the same. And this is where I think we agree.

Only the LORD was infallible, so the Law can be broken, copied incorrectly and destroyed. The only assurance you have is that once destroyed, the LORD will write it again.

Yes, very good. I like that.

 

[AlchemicalSoul]

Mankind could not have possibly restored the union between God and man that was broken by the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Since we could not atone sufficiently, God the Son atoned in our place. This was a profound act of love. It was not just for the sake of forgiveness, but to make sanctifying grace available to us again.


Evil does not exist so that humans can have free will. It exists as a result of free will. There is free will in heaven, but it is fixed in place by souls themselves, who have no greater or more permanent desire than to be with God. There is a lot more to this essay question, but that’s the bottom line.

And there is free will in the first place because God wants us to love him by choice, and to therefore participate with him by choice in accomplishing his will. One of the properties of having been created in the image and likeness of God is that we have independent minds. If he wanted robots instead, he would have made them instead.


It absolutely does not prove that the bible is fallible. For one thing Jewish laws were far more extensive and complex than the laws given to them by God, and they were not always compatible with God’s will because the Jews incorporated their own spin on everything as they established for themselves the particulars of what was lawful and what was not.

God commands that we not commit adultery, but does not command that we execute people for it. God also specified that in a marriage of a man and woman, the two become one. That didn’t stop the Jews from practicing polygamy, as if five or six or more could also become one. It didn’t stop them from divorcing either, but Jesus clarified that the law given by Moses on divorce was never God’s will. (Matthew 19:8) So the law on stoning a person for adultery was not God's will either, as Jesus demonstrated.

God calls Israel a whore in Jeremiah 3:1, but still offers forgiveness. “Thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless return to me, saith the Lord, and I will receive thee.” Love, mercy and forgiveness are what God offers us, and what he wants us to give to others. That is all consistently expressed throughout the bible.


Already covered above. You’re still wrong about it and also wrong in stating that God created evil. Evil is a willful choice made by creatures. It does not exist in God’s nature and is always contrary to his will.

And your last point is a very dangerous form of blasphemy, but If you had any knowledge of God at all, I'm sure you wouldn't accuse him of being evil. You should pray for forgiveness and a better understanding of who God is..

If God is omnipotent does that not mean thet he allows evil to exist?