The Ultimate Conundrum.

[Scratchtown]

 

And it always points back to the Bible

No, it doesn't. This is the biggest problem facing rational conversation - the uninformed fall back on a specific position, using the circular logic of "the bible says the bible is true and infallible," and there's nothing more to be said.

 

The bible is not a historical document, and was never intended to be. It's a collection of stories about a group of people who believe something. It's not a textbook, it's not verified, and it's not proof of anything.

 

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. Who else has the authority to say otherwise? Why do we need another document from some earthly being to say what the Bible is. When the Bible tells us exactly what it is.

 

Its a never ending process. If we had this mythological document confirming what the Bible is, then those of you who refute the bible would ask for yet ANOTHER document and another for that one, and another for that one...

 

The problem is, you'll never get to the end and the idea of "Faith" has to come into play at some point. Until God shows himself (which then makes it completely way to easy to chose) the evidence we have or don't have, will never be enough.

 

 

 

 

[NUance]

 

 

And it always points back to the Bible

No, it doesn't. This is the biggest problem facing rational conversation - the uninformed fall back on a specific position, using the circular logic of "the bible says the bible is true and infallible," and there's nothing more to be said.

 

The bible is not a historical document, and was never intended to be. It's a collection of stories about a group of people who believe something. It's not a textbook, it's not verified, and it's not proof of anything.

 

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. Who else has the authority to say otherwise? Why do we need another document from some earthly being to say what the Bible is. When the Bible tells us exactly what it is.

 

Its a never ending process. If we had this mythological document confirming what the Bible is, then those of you who refute the bible would ask for yet ANOTHER document and another for that one, and another for that one...

 

The problem is, you'll never get to the end and the idea of "Faith" has to come into play at some point. Until God shows himself (which then makes it completely way to easy to chose) the evidence we have or don't have, will never be enough.

 

I'll bet if the original scrolls had tomato pasta sauce stains on it, then those doubters would believe in its authenticity.

[knapplc]

I'll bet if the original scrolls weren't datable to after stories like the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh were written, which contains a flood story just like Noah, and the original texts of Genesis weren't likely written while the Israelites were held in captivity in Babylon, that it would be a lot easier to believe that it was an original story and not something the Hebrews co-opted from their captors.

 

But little silly details like that are insignificant, right?

[ZRod]

 

 

And it always points back to the Bible

No, it doesn't. This is the biggest problem facing rational conversation - the uninformed fall back on a specific position, using the circular logic of "the bible says the bible is true and infallible," and there's nothing more to be said.

 

The bible is not a historical document, and was never intended to be. It's a collection of stories about a group of people who believe something. It's not a textbook, it's not verified, and it's not proof of anything.

 

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. Who else has the authority to say otherwise? Why do we need another document from some earthly being to say what the Bible is. When the Bible tells us exactly what it is.

 

Its a never ending process. If we had this mythological document confirming what the Bible is, then those of you who refute the bible would ask for yet ANOTHER document and another for that one, and another for that one...

 

The problem is, you'll never get to the end and the idea of "Faith" has to come into play at some point. Until God shows himself (which then makes it completely way to easy to chose) the evidence we have or don't have, will never be enough.

 

 

 

 

 

This made me laugh. Why shouldn't it be way to easy to choose?

[Junior]

I'll bet if the original scrolls weren't datable to after stories like the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh were written, which contains a flood story just like Noah, and the original texts of Genesis weren't likely written while the Israelites were held in captivity in Babylon, that it would be a lot easier to believe that it was an original story and not something the Hebrews co-opted from their captors.

 

But little silly details like that are insignificant, right?

 

Minor details.

[C N Red]

Another thread about who believes in God and who doesn't. Just end it. Those who wish to believe, let believe and respect it, those who don't believe, let don't believe and respect it. There's never a winner in these arguments because people are set in their ways and beliefs, which is fine.

 

Why continue to argue??

 

Damn, I told myself I would stay out of the P&R forum. Thanks a lot guys.

[Landlord]

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. Who else has the authority to say otherwise? Why do we need another document from some earthly being to say what the Bible is. When the Bible tells us exactly what it is.

 

 

 

I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

 

 

Do you want to know why?

 

 

Because I said that I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

[ZRod]

 

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. Who else has the authority to say otherwise? Why do we need another document from some earthly being to say what the Bible is. When the Bible tells us exactly what it is.

 

 

 

I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

 

 

Do you want to know why?

 

 

Because I said that I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

 

I believe it!

[Scratchtown]

 

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. Who else has the authority to say otherwise? Why do we need another document from some earthly being to say what the Bible is. When the Bible tells us exactly what it is.

 

 

 

I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

 

 

Do you want to know why?

 

 

Because I said that I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

 

Nice attempt.

[tschu]

What about all those books that didn't quite make it into the Bible because some people decided they didn't like them? Are those the word of god?

 

When the Pope says stuff, is that the word of God?

 

Is the Koran the word of God too?

 

I farted earlier, was that the word of God?

[Landlord]

 

 

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. Who else has the authority to say otherwise? Why do we need another document from some earthly being to say what the Bible is. When the Bible tells us exactly what it is.

 

 

 

I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

 

 

Do you want to know why?

 

 

Because I said that I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

 

Nice attempt.

 

 

 

Explain to me how this is different than biblical claims that lack any outside verification.

[NUance]

I'll bet if the original scrolls weren't datable to after stories like the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh were written, which contains a flood story just like Noah, and the original texts of Genesis weren't likely written while the Israelites were held in captivity in Babylon, that it would be a lot easier to believe that it was an original story and not something the Hebrews co-opted from their captors.

 

But little silly details like that are insignificant, right?

I wasn't aware that any original scrolls existed.

 

As for the Babylonian writings, does this mean that when corroborating information exists--even if it differs somewhat in the details--that makes the truth of the bible less likely? Do the Babylonian writings pre-date the original Jewish writings? (Not that we know when the books of the Pentateuch were originally written.)

[NUance]

Explain to me how this is different than biblical claims that lack any outside verification.

First of all, I'd say the likelihood of you being God is about the same as tschu's ass being god.

[Scratchtown]

 

 

 

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. Who else has the authority to say otherwise? Why do we need another document from some earthly being to say what the Bible is. When the Bible tells us exactly what it is.

 

 

 

I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

 

 

Do you want to know why?

 

 

Because I said that I am the best and most respected poster on this site.

 

Nice attempt.

 

 

 

Explain to me how this is different than biblical claims that lack any outside verification.

 

You aren't the Creator dude. Therefore your merit of such a claim is ridiculous. Some thought maybe would be better next time.

 

Edit:

Here comes the...neither were these authors! Blah blah blah...Ya, which all comes back to the point of Faith.

[carlfense]

It is either the inspired Word of God or it isn't. Who else has the authority to say otherwise? Why do we need another document from some earthly being to say what the Bible is. When the Bible tells us exactly what it is.

 

My word is the inspired Word of God. How could any other document from an earthly being disputing the Word of Carlfense. Carlfense himself will tell you exactly what his word is.

 

And so it was spaketh. Let the craft ales and the braised meats be upon us.

 

 

 

Edit. Should have kept reading. LoMS beat me to it.