Polygamy as Judeo-Christian doctrine.

[Cooperstown]

The following is obviously tongue in cheek but the sad fact is the Torah and Old Testament really do contain the doctrine discussed below.

The recent news coverage of the Warren Jeffs polygamy trial reminded me of several pieces of doctrine that are contained in the Old Testament/Torah. The notorious Warren Jeffs, Brigham Young, and Joseph Smith were actually living the Jewish/Christian doctrine outlined in the Torah/Bible. If Christians and Jews really knew and supported what their "sacred" texts contained they would react very differently. They would have been congratulating Warren Jeffs for standing up for Jewish and Christian doctrine. Jeffs should be a frequent guest speaker in synagogues, churches, and religious universities around the world. He should have honorary degrees from Notre Dame, Hofstra, Southern Methodist, Brandeis, Baylor, etc. What a wonderful opportunity that is being missed by Christians and Jews alike; finally someone to stand up for the forgotten and suppressed doctrines given from the mouth of god.  

Why do I say this you ask? Well I will just use the doctrine straight out of their revered scriptures.

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Genesis 25:6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.  

Genesis 32:22 And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two womenservants, and his eleven sons, and passed over the ford Jabbok.

Deuteronomy 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:…

Judges 8:30 And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

1 Samuel 1:2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

1 Samuel 25:43 David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of them his wives.

2 Samuel

3:2 And unto David were sons born in Hebron: and his firstborn was Amnon, of Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;

3:3 And his second, Chileab, of Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of Maacah the daughter of Talmai king of Geshur;  

3:4 And the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;  

3:5 And the sixth, Ithream, by Eglah David's wife. These were born to David in Hebron.

2 Samuel 5:13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

1 Kings 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.


The Torah is the core of Judaism and this core includes polygamy. The Christians who claim Biblical inerrancy are accepting this same doctrine of polygamy. This adds all new meaning to the commandment to “go and do thou likewise.”

[Anchor of Life]

The following is obviously tongue in cheek but the sad fact is the Torah and Old Testament really do contain the doctrine discussed below.

The Torah is the core of Judaism and this core includes polygamy. The Christians who claim Biblical inerrancy are accepting this same doctrine of polygamy.

Marriage was ordained by the Creator Himself.  It was God’s will that a man and a woman become one in marriage.  No provision was made for either polygamy or divorce.  Marriage was intended by God to be for life.  "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."  (Genesis 2:24)  God's plan, as given in the beginning, was:  "one man, one wife--for life!"

It was not long, however, until men departed from God’s original plan.  The first person to be a polygamist was Lamech.  "Lamech took to himself two wives:  the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah."  (Genesis 4:19)  He lived six generations after Adam.  He was a murderer.  Nothing good is said about him.

There are many examples of polygamy in the Bible.  Abraham was also a polygamist.  Another polygamist was Esau.  Gideon was a great and brave leader.  He had 70 sons from many wives.  King Solomon had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines.  However, nowhere in the Bible can we find polygamy doing any good.  Everything that is said about it shows it causes troubles.  Polygamy causes strife and jealousy.  Second, no man can be a proper husband by being a polygamist.  Third, he can’t be a proper father as God intended.  Fourth, polygamy causes a man to go away from God rather than closer to God.  Fifth, it makes man master over woman.  God never intended that in marriage.   Man is to be the head of the wife and family.  God said that a man is to love his wife, not wives, as Christ loved the church.  Christ died for the church.   A man must be willing to die for his wife.

When Jesus came into the world and gave His law for all mankind, He did not give a new and different law of marriage.  Instead He called mankind back to God’s original plan.  Jesus Himself commanded, "Haven't you read that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female', for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?  So they are no longer two, but one.  Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."  (Matthew 19:4-6)

So, polygamy is a “man-made” idea.  It is NOT in agreement with God’s plan for marriage.  Anything that does not agree with what God has done or said is sin.  God’s plan is one man and woman (wife) for life.

http://www.tftw2.org/Tracts/marriage.htm
http://www.tftw2.org/Tracts/morethan1wife.htm

[ergo123]

The following is obviously tongue in cheek but the sad fact is the Torah and Old Testament really do contain the doctrine discussed below.

The Torah is the core of Judaism and this core includes polygamy. The Christians who claim Biblical inerrancy are accepting this same doctrine of polygamy.

Marriage was ordained by the Creator Himself.  It was God’s will that a man and a woman become one in marriage.  No provision was made for either polygamy or divorce.  Marriage was intended by God to be for life.  "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."  (Genesis 2:24)  God's plan, as given in the beginning, was:  "one man, one wife--for life!"

You have yet to show any credible evidence that your claim is true.  

When Jesus came into the world and gave His law for all mankind...

And why should we believe this Jesus guy and not some other guy from the same era that said "having many wives is the way to go?"  Please, show us some credible evidence that this Jesus guy is someone we should listen to, and someone we should consider a god.

So, polygamy is a “man-made” idea.  It is NOT in agreement with God’s plan for marriage.  Anything that does not agree with what God has done or said is sin.  God’s plan is one man and woman (wife) for life.

Again, your point of view here has no credible evidence to support it.  Please support your claims.

[Paul Anthony]

Thank you, AOL, for demonstrating what most of us already know (and you, apparently, don't).

The Bible was written by many authors, contradictory in many areas, and lends itself to many interpretations - any of which are supportable by various different parts of the ambiguity that is the Bible. This is why there are 681 different "Christian" sects in the US alone. All of them claim to be the Truth, and defend their claims with the same Bible!

[Anchor of Life]

The Bible was written by many authors, contradictory in many areas, and lends itself to many interpretations - any of which are supportable by various different parts of the ambiguity that is the Bible. This is why there are 681 different "Christian" sects in the US alone. All of them claim to be the Truth, and defend their claims with the same Bible!

Actually, one of the most compelling and miraculous features of the Bible is it's incredible unity.  The Bible is one book, and yet it is made up of 66 books, was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years, in 13 different countries and on 3 different continents.  It was written in at least three different languages by people in all types of professions, and from cover to cover reads as one book.  The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

Jesus Himself prayed for the unity of all who would believe in Him:  "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.  May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:  I in them and you in me.  May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.  Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.  Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me.  I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."  (John 17:20-26)

Many often attempt to force God’s Word into what they want the Bible to say or what they have been taught from childhood.  The differences and confusion in Christianity today come from man’s own desires and ideas.  For example, Cooperstown attempted to illustrate that the Old Testament promotes polygamy as a Biblical doctrine by simply posting passages of Scripture where occurances of polygamy took place.  Everything in the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God.  However, these inspired writers sometimes recorded by inspiration the words/actions of evil men.  Even the words of Satan are found in the Bible.  These words are accurately recorded, but they are obviously not recommended for us to follow today.  Furthermore, the first 17 books of the Bible trace the history of man from creation through the inception and destruction of the nation of Israel.  In the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), Israel is chosen, redeemed, and prepared to enter a promised homeland.  The remaining 12 historical books record the conquest of that land, a transition period in which judges ruled over the nation, the formation of the kingdom, and the division of that kingdom into northern (Israel) and southern (Judah) kingdoms, and finally the destruction and captivity of both kingdoms.  For the Christian doctrinal books, Cooperstown should have reviewed the New Testament and read the epistles for Christian teaching, instruction, truth, and practice.  

http://www.christianity.com/Christian%2 ... /11542346/
http://www.tftw2.org/Tracts/studyBible.htm
http://www.christianity.com/Christian%2 ... /11528149/

[ergo123]

Actually, one of the most compelling and miraculous features of the Bible is it's incredible unity.  The Bible is one book, and yet it is made up of 66 books, was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years, in 13 different countries and on 3 different continents.  It was written in at least three different languages by people in all types of professions, and from cover to cover reads as one book.  The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

If it is a temple of truth, how come you avoid my requests for evidence of its truthiness?

[DeusEx_Humana]

Actually, one of the most compelling and miraculous features of the Bible is it's incredible unity........The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

Your pronouncement represents a basic assurance that I do not in the least take lightly. Doubtlessly, you should be able to resolve the 388 apparent contradictions below with no problems whatsoever:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

[Anchor of Life]

Actually, one of the most compelling and miraculous features of the Bible is it's incredible unity.  The Bible is one book, and yet it is made up of 66 books, was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years, in 13 different countries and on 3 different continents.  It was written in at least three different languages by people in all types of professions, and from cover to cover reads as one book.  The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

If it is a temple of truth, how come you avoid my requests for evidence of its truthiness?

Not avoiding.  Just giving you ample and sufficient time to review the evidence I provided you in another thread (i.e. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius among several others).  Anyway, I have a feeling you are not sincerely searching for the truth or have any desire to hear the truth.  However, if you genuinely do you may find it here:

http://www.bible.com/

or here:

http://www.christianity.com/

or here:

http://www.tftw.org/

[Anchor of Life]

Actually, one of the most compelling and miraculous features of the Bible is it's incredible unity........The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

Your pronouncement represents a basic assurance that I do not in the least take lightly. Doubtlessly, you should be able to resolve the 388 apparent contradictions below with no problems whatsoever:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

First, familiarize yourself with the law of contradiction, then attempt to find some actual Biblical contradictions preferably not from a website whose editor has no education in the fields of apologetics, theology, ancient civilizations, or the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages which are required to do Bible exegesis.  Also make sure they are not utilizing the King James Version like Steve Wells has, which is considered an inferior English translation of the Bible.  If you apply the principles of logic and symbolic logic to the Bible, you will realize that the Bible is in harmony and it is logically compatible with itself.

[Pyrrho]

It's all about inducing cognitive dissonance, a state in which people are highly suggestible and easier to manipulate by those in the guise of authority.

[DeusEx_Humana]

Actually, one of the most compelling and miraculous features of the Bible is it's incredible unity........The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

Your pronouncement represents a basic assurance that I do not in the least take lightly. Doubtlessly, you should be able to resolve the 388 apparent contradictions below with no problems whatsoever:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

First, familiarize yourself with the law of contradiction, then attempt to find some actual Biblical contradictions preferably not from a website whose editor has no education in the fields of apologetics, theology, ancient civilizations, or the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages which are required to do Bible exegesis.  Also make sure they are not utilizing the King James Version like Steve Wells has, which is considered an inferior English translation of the Bible.  If you apply the principles of logic and symbolic logic to the Bible, you will realize that the Bible is in harmony and it is logically compatible with itself.

Or, to put it another way, you can't.

[Anchor of Life]

Actually, one of the most compelling and miraculous features of the Bible is it's incredible unity........The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

Your pronouncement represents a basic assurance that I do not in the least take lightly. Doubtlessly, you should be able to resolve the 388 apparent contradictions below with no problems whatsoever:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

First, familiarize yourself with the law of contradiction, then attempt to find some actual Biblical contradictions preferably not from a website whose editor has no education in the fields of apologetics, theology, ancient civilizations, or the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages which are required to do Bible exegesis.  Also make sure they are not utilizing the King James Version like Steve Wells has, which is considered an inferior English translation of the Bible.  If you apply the principles of logic and symbolic logic to the Bible, you will realize that the Bible is in harmony and it is logically compatible with itself.

Or, to put it another way, you can't.

Correct.  One cannot resolve an issue/problem that does not exist.

[DeusEx_Humana]

Actually, one of the most compelling and miraculous features of the Bible is it's incredible unity........The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

Your pronouncement represents a basic assurance that I do not in the least take lightly. Doubtlessly, you should be able to resolve the 388 apparent contradictions below with no problems whatsoever:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

First, familiarize yourself with the law of contradiction, then attempt to find some actual Biblical contradictions preferably not from a website whose editor has no education in the fields of apologetics, theology, ancient civilizations, or the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages which are required to do Bible exegesis.  Also make sure they are not utilizing the King James Version like Steve Wells has, which is considered an inferior English translation of the Bible.  If you apply the principles of logic and symbolic logic to the Bible, you will realize that the Bible is in harmony and it is logically compatible with itself.

Or, to put it another way, you can't.

Correct.  One cannot resolve an issue/problem that does not exist.

No issues/problems must explain why there are so many fractured Christian faiths.

How about starting with #1 and working our way down?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/300or800.html

And the Christian response:

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20050306.htm

Maybe you can educate "lookingintoJesus.Net" and inform them why their response is not adequate.

How about #388?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/zion.html

And the response:

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20040815.htm

Is this response an example of equivocation? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equivocation

I think some logic classes are in order.

Here is a relevant one:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/believe.html

Does this sort of response satisfy you?

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20040606.htm

Also, AOL, maybe you should inform "LookingIntoJesus.Net" about the inferior Bible versions they are using.


Do you think you could find so many contradictions in say a modern college textbook? I am sure I could find a few in say a math text, maybe 1 or 2 slipped passed the editors. But 388? If a math text had that many, would you say it should be replaced by something better next year?

[ergo123]

Actually, one of the most compelling and miraculous features of the Bible is it's incredible unity.  The Bible is one book, and yet it is made up of 66 books, was written by at least 40 different authors over a period of about 1600 years, in 13 different countries and on 3 different continents.  It was written in at least three different languages by people in all types of professions, and from cover to cover reads as one book.  The Bible forms one beautiful temple of truth that does not contradict itself theologically, morally, ethically, doctrinally, scientifically, historically, or in any other way.

If it is a temple of truth, how come you avoid my requests for evidence of its truthiness?

Not avoiding.  Just giving you ample and sufficient time to review the evidence I provided you in another thread (i.e. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius among several others).  Anyway, I have a feeling you are not sincerely searching for the truth or have any desire to hear the truth.  However, if you genuinely do you may find it here:

http://www.bible.com/

or here:

http://www.christianity.com/

or here:

http://www.tftw.org/

Yes, I've explored the links you have provided.  But none show any credible evidence for the existence of god or any credible evidence that Jesus was a god.  If you think i've missed a specific piece of credible evidence, please show it here.  If you have no credible evidence, just stop responding to my requests--I'll know to take that as you saying "I can't."

[Jay Hoover]

First, familiarize yourself with the law of contradiction, then attempt to find some actual Biblical contradictions preferably not from a website whose editor has no education in the fields of apologetics, theology, ancient civilizations, or the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages which are required to do Bible exegesis.  Also make sure they are not utilizing the King James Version like Steve Wells has, which is considered an inferior English translation of the Bible.  If you apply the principles of logic and symbolic logic to the Bible, you will realize that the Bible is in harmony and it is logically compatible with itself.

Why does the bible need translations at all?

Why can't we all read and understand Greek and Hebrew naturally, so we can read these so-called untainted versions of God's immutable, never-changing, holy word designed to give us salvation?

Why does god allow his word to be corrupted by inferior men?  What about all those people who cannot read at all, or who can't read Hebrew or Greek?  

Where are the original documents?

Why isn't the word of god within us at birth, naturally, unfilitered, undisputed.

Why were there no Incans who knew of Jesus independant of Europeans?  Not one instance of a person independantly "realizing" that the god of the bible was the god of the bible, which Christians claim we all know, but some people ignore.  Some people, ok.  b\ut everyone... always?  when a single exmaple of independant Christianity developing in Meso America circa 345 CE would be incredibly hard to explain?

Not a single one of these things are outside the power of a god to acheive, yet none of them are done.  Instead, we have no original documents, nothing that independantly corroborates any biblical tenet, a dearth of historians from the time period that reliably corrborates the story of the SAVIOR OF ALL HUMANITY! in a contemporary manner, and endless translations that lead to endless contradictions on top of contradictions -- even you admit the English versions will be a mess of inferiority; that your average person needs to be a Rhoades scholar with the ability to read ancient languages before they can read the real (sic) bible (Make sure you don't use this bible or that bible, or this other one over here, or those 10 over there, etc. etc. etc.).

If that's the case, then god must only want ivory tower intellectuals in heaven; and given the endless calls to abandon reason and believe based on uncritical faith, even this strange requirement is an inherent contradiction in the whole "game-plan".  Interestingly, the more likely one is to be an intellectual who could read such dead langauges, the more likely such a person would recognize the bible as a mish-mash of bronze-age desert mythology and not believe a single word of it.

God might as well have put the bible on Mars, he's allowed it to be so impossible to accurately access.

In fact, if there is a copy of it on Mars, that would stand as a shred of evidence that the book had some valid claims.

[Anchor of Life]

No issues/problems must explain why there are so many fractured Christian faiths.

As I explained to Paul Anthony above, it is NOT because of the Bible.  It is because of man.  Many often attempt to force God’s Word into what they want the Bible to say or what they have been taught from childhood. The differences and confusion in Christianity today come from man’s own desires and ideas.

How about starting with #1 and working our way down?

Actually, I want to start with #10 simply because we are covering Genesis in my Bible study group.  Steve Wells claims that there are two contradictory creation accounts:  http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Genesis 1:27 does not state that the man and the woman were created at the same time. It simply says that God created them male and female. It is a narrative of the second part of the sixth day's work. Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:22-23 explains how they were created and in what order.  Chapter one focuses on the order of the creation events.  It is actually titled "The Creation" according to the New American Standard Bible.  Chapter two simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—i.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings.  It is titled "The Creation of Man and Woman" according to the NASB.  Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day.  Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made.  Conclusion:  There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2!

Also, AOL, maybe you should inform "LookingIntoJesus.Net" about the inferior Bible versions they are using.

I did not say it did not have any value.  We’re not talking about bad versus good, we’re talking about good versus better.  All the essential truths are there. They haven’t been distorted.  However, the point is, after 1840–from 1840 and following–we discovered a lot of earlier manuscripts. When the King James Bible was translated in 1611, we had no manuscripts of the Bible that went back into the second, third, fourth, or fifth, even the sixth century. All of the manuscripts were very late.  So, it is not the BEST translation available when doing Bible exegesis.  

Do you think you could find so many contradictions in say a modern college textbook?

Maybe Steve wells could.  I suspect the other 387 or whatever "apparent contradictions" that your Bible "expert" exposed are as ridiculous as the "Genesis creation contradiction".

[Jay Hoover]

No issues/problems must explain why there are so many fractured Christian faiths.

As I explained to Paul Anthony above, it is NOT because of the Bible.  It is because of man.  Many often attempt to force God’s Word into what they want the Bible to say or what they have been taught from childhood. The differences and confusion in Christianity today come from man’s own desires and ideas.

Weak god.  Isis and Osiris had their "holy word" carved into stone and they've lasted thousands of years without any changes at all, save some weathering.  But the information has transpired throughout eons without any intermediaries and no questions of provenance.  

Yahweh never seemed to figure ths out.

[ergo123]

No issues/problems must explain why there are so many fractured Christian faiths.

As I explained to Paul Anthony above, it is NOT because of the Bible.  It is because of man.  Many often attempt to force God’s Word into what they want the Bible to say or what they have been taught from childhood. The differences and confusion in Christianity today come from man’s own desires and ideas.

How do you know the parts of the bible that state the bible is the word of god are not the parts men put in there for their own desires?

[ergo123]

No issues/problems must explain why there are so many fractured Christian faiths.

As I explained to Paul Anthony above, it is NOT because of the Bible.  It is because of man.  Many often attempt to force God’s Word into what they want the Bible to say or what they have been taught from childhood. The differences and confusion in Christianity today come from man’s own desires and ideas.

Weak god.  Isis and Osiris had their "holy word" carved into stone and they've lasted thousands of years without any changes at all, save some weathering.  But the information has transpired throughout eons without any intermediaries and no questions of provenance.  

Yahweh never seemed to figure ths out.

Yahweh, I guess, failed to anticipate what we would all come to learn on "Antiques Road Show."

[Jay Hoover]

I did not say it did not have any value. We’re not talking about bad versus good, we’re talking about good versus better. All the essential truths are there. They haven’t been distorted. However, the point is, after 1840–from 1840 and following–we discovered a lot of earlier manuscripts. When the King James Bible was translated in 1611, we had no manuscripts of the Bible that went back into the second, third, fourth, or fifth, even the sixth century. All of the manuscripts were very late. So, it is not the BEST translation available when doing Bible exegesis.

You consider manuscripts that were written in the second century to be good?  Why are there none written during Jesus' alleged time on earth?  Why no records from Rome at the exact time?  Don't claim that "in the context of the times, the Romans wouldn't have considered Jesus important" -- it's not what they Romans would consider important, it would be what GOD would consider important.  Why didn't god compel the Romans to write records that would support the story in the NT, instead of there being

N-o-t-h-i-n-g?

(particularly when you consider-- WE DO have records from that very time-- but nada about Jesus!)

Manuscripts decades or hundreds of years later are not originals, and they are not even remotely compelling.  In fact, appeal to such "authority" is laughable.  There is no comparable example to this dearth of information, and please refrain from making comparisons to perfectly natural people and their historical existence.

When you talk about gods, you are removing yourself from the standards that would apply to any other human thing, such as the reality of George Washington or Lincoln.  We have plenty of evidence these men existed, and can even dig up their happily rotting bones if need be, but even if we couldn't, there is no comparing the assertions of gods versus the assertions of mortals.  Mortals make no special claims to exist against nautral law, gods do.  So not only should there be a lot of corroborative evidence supporting your theistic contentions, such evidence should surpass all known laws of nature.  

Instead, you have laughable standards like, "Well, here's a bible that is from 150 CE."  As if something written 150 years after the event would somehow be more accurate than something written 500 year later.  Here's the problem you face:  It's ALL inaccurate; even your earliest manuscripts are many decades beyond the deaths of those involved, and there's not a shred of evidence to support they lived either.

And it doesn't get any better as you go back.  Even weeks after events, we know people change things and memory fails.  If you appeal to "divine intervention", then scratch your complaint about the King James version, because apparently god felt it unnecessary to "divinely intervene" until 1840, and how many people went to their graves with "the wrong bible" thanks to that brilliant plan?

But now, hey!  You know the REAL story!  You have the real truth, because you were lucky to be born after 1840, the magical date god chose to allow earlier manuscripts come to light.  

By the way...what happens if a new earlier manuscript pops up in a hundred years, long after you're dead and can't do anything about it -- which shows you to be wrong about what you believe?  I suppose we shall see you in hell, too.

[ergo123]

Come on, AOL…  it clearly states that the fish, water mammals (because I guess god didn’t realize back then that whales aren’t fish…) and birds were all made on the 4th day; and land creatures and Man (in that order) were made on the 5th day.

1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.  

1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  

1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.  

1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.  

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
 
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.    

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  

But in Chapter 2, god makes man before the other creatures—sees that’s a mistake (god is fallible after all!)—and then makes all the creatures as potential “help meets” for Adam.

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

So, in Chapter 1, god makes fish and birds on day 4 and Adam and Eve on day 5.  But in Chapter 2, god makes Adam, then all the creatures—including the birds he made the day before he made Adam—after Adam is made.  And Eve doesn’t show up until the end in Chapter 2.

And what kind of idiot is god for thinking Adam would rather have a cow as a help meet than a woman!  When you think of how many times god tries with the help meets and fails, it makes you wonder…  And did Adam “try out” each creature before rejecting them as help meets…  Not a pretty image when it comes to porcupines, and how did he manage it with the giraffe?    

It’s all here, AOL.  What aren’t I picking up here—or what am I missing.

[Jay Hoover]

And what kind of idiot is god for thinking Adam would rather have a cow as a help meet than a woman!

I suppose this depends if you like beef, or beaver.

[Anchor of Life]

What aren’t I picking up here—or what am I missing.

Well, you are either mis-reading, mis-counting, or you have some pages missing from your Bible.  Genesis 1 provides a chronological order of creation.  
Day 1 - light, day/night
Day 2 - heaven
Day 3 - waters (seas), dry land (earth), vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees
Day 4 - sun, moon, stars
Day 5 - sea creatures, birds
Day 6 - animals, man
Day 7 - rest

So, the second part of Day 6 is the creation of man.  Man was made last of all the creatures, which was both an honour and a favour to him.  Regarding Day 6, the Scripture does not say that man and woman was made "at the same time".  They were created in the same day, but not at the same time.  http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.p ... es&b=1&c=1  

Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be.  In Genesis 2, Moses records the works of God's creation in relation to man.  God planted a garden and put the man in it.  God brought the beasts of the field before the man to be named.  God took a rib from man, and created woman for him.  http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.p ... es&b=1&c=2

[Pyrrho]

Mark Twain nailed it all shut long ago.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/twainlfe.htm

[ergo123]

Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be.  In Genesis 2, Moses records the works of God's creation in relation to man.  God planted a garden and put the man in it.  God brought the beasts of the field before the man to be named.  God took a rib from man, and created woman for him.  http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.p ... es&b=1&c=2

What you seem to have missed is that in the original text--written in ancient Hebrew (Aramaic, I think)--the language has no "tense."  So, no past tense, present tense of future tense for any of the verbs.  Because of this, writers of the times were very careful to write about events in chronological order.  So, Genesis 2 IS a chronological account of creation by virtue of the order in which events were described.  So when Man shows up before birds in Genesis 2, it is a direct contradiction to brids preceeding Man in Genesis 1.

It's interesting that in the 30 years I've know this about it, I've yet to come across a bible studies person (student or teacher) that is aware of this aspect of ancient Hebrew.  Kind of makes you think there is a concerted effort to not make this fact known within the bible studies community...

[DeusEx_Humana]

Well, you are either mis-reading, mis-counting, or you have some pages missing from your Bible.  Genesis 1 provides a chronological order of creation.  
Day 1 - light, day/night
Day 2 - heaven
Day 3 - waters (seas), dry land (earth), vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees
Day 4 - sun, moon, stars
Day 5 - sea creatures, birds
Day 6 - animals, man
Day 7 - rest

Light before sun and stars...is this what God really did, or is this unscientific man writing stuff down without really thinking about it?

Nowadays someone making up a Bible probably would not make this kind of mistake because of all the astronomy classes. But back then it was not something they would automatically think about.

I would order it something like this:

"Day 4" - sun, moon, stars (Really no such thing as "Days" until the earth rotation cycle is set up)
"Day 1" - light, day/night (actually not much to do here, this is just a consequence of #1, but I never turn down free credit)
Day 3 - waters (seas), dry land (earth), vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees
Day 7 - rest (To contemplate what is the purpose of "fruit" before there were animals to eat and spread the seeds)
Day 5 - sea creatures, birds
Day 6 - animals, man
Day 2 - heaven (have to stick this somewhere I suppose)

Alos, I would add about 10 billion years between Step 1 and Step 3. Also, stick about a billion years in between each of the remaining steps. Also, as an omnipotent being, I don't think I need rest so lets do away with the rest "day".

Also, I need to edit 5 and 6, since it makes no sense to place "birds" before "Animals". It should read :

Day 5 AM - sea creatures
Day 5 PM - animals
Day 6 AM - birds
Day 6 PM - Man

My ordering makes more sense, so I propose it as a change to the Bible.

What? Don't you think I know just a little bit more about earth history and science than the buffoons who were responsible for the original disastrous chronology?

Tell me honestly, would this not improve the Bible?

Easy test, would not your argument be easier if this is how the Bible really read? Then you could say "See? We knew all this stuff before astronomy and Darwin and all the rest!". Since the answer is "Yes, it would make your argument more convincing", it is trivial to conclude my change would only help the Bible.

But will the Pope listen to me? No. Because he thinks he knows better. His arrogance will be his undoing!

[ergo123]

Well, you are either mis-reading, mis-counting, or you have some pages missing from your Bible.  Genesis 1 provides a chronological order of creation.  
Day 1 - light, day/night
Day 2 - heaven
Day 3 - waters (seas), dry land (earth), vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees
Day 4 - sun, moon, stars
Day 5 - sea creatures, birds
Day 6 - animals, man
Day 7 - rest

Light before sun and stars...is this what God really did, or is this unscientific man writing stuff down without really thinking about it?

Nowadays someone making up a Bible probably would not make this kind of mistake because of all the astronomy classes. But back then it was not something they would automatically think about.

I would order it something like this:

"Day 4" - sun, moon, stars (Really no such thing as "Days" until the earth rotation cycle is set up)
"Day 1" - light, day/night (actually not much to do here, this is just a consequence of #1, but I never turn down free credit)
Day 3 - waters (seas), dry land (earth), vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees
Day 7 - rest (To contemplate what is the purpose of "fruit" before there were animals to eat and spread the seeds)
Day 5 - sea creatures, birds
Day 6 - animals, man
Day 2 - heaven (have to stick this somewhere I suppose)

Alos, I would add about 10 billion years between Step 1 and Step 3. Also, stick about a billion years in between each of the remaining steps. Also, as an omnipotent being, I don't think I need rest so lets do away with the rest "day".

Also, I need to edit 5 and 6, since it makes no sense to place "birds" before "Animals". It should read :

Day 5 AM - sea creatures
Day 5 PM - animals
Day 6 AM - birds
Day 6 PM - Man

My ordering makes more sense, so I propose it as a change to the Bible.

What? Don't you think I know just a little bit more about earth history and science than the buffoons who were responsible for the original disastrous chronology?

Tell me honestly, would this not improve the Bible?

Easy test, would not your argument be easier if this is how the Bible really read? Then you could say "See? We knew all this stuff before astronomy and Darwin and all the rest!". Since the answer is "Yes, it would make your argument more convincing", it is trivial to conclude my change would only help the Bible.

But will the Pope listen to me? No. Because he thinks he knows better. His arrogance will be his undoing!

Excellent re-write!  I also like how in the original god has plants growing (appearing!?) before the sun is made.  So much for photosynthesis...

And the whole need for 6 days seems un-godly long for an all-powerful god.  I had no idea god was a slacker.

And even if you buy the "6,000 years ago" myth--god makes everything in six days and does squat for the rest of time save for smiting people here and there and raising a couple into heaven while they are alive.  You'd think god might fix the tendency for the Earth to experience "natural disasters"--which is just a nice way of saying god's design flaw...  That's the problem with having no supervision.  You get complacent.  Good enough becomes great...

[Anchor of Life]

Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be.  In Genesis 2, Moses records the works of God's creation in relation to man.  God planted a garden and put the man in it.  God brought the beasts of the field before the man to be named.  God took a rib from man, and created woman for him.  http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.p ... es&b=1&c=2

What you seem to have missed is that in the original text--written in ancient Hebrew (Aramaic, I think)--the language has no "tense."  So, no past tense, present tense of future tense for any of the verbs.  Because of this, writers of the times were very careful to write about events in chronological order.  So, Genesis 2 IS a chronological account of creation by virtue of the order in which events were described.  So when Man shows up before birds in Genesis 2, it is a direct contradiction to brids preceeding Man in Genesis 1.

You may want to inform Hebrew scholars Herbert C. Leupold, Victor P. Hamilton, C.F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch of this fact.  According to them, in Genesis the Hebrew verb translated “formed” could easily have been translated “had formed”.

"Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man.  That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation.  But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here.  It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded”.  The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible."  (Herbert C. Leupold)

"God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed"
"Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air"

Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed”, the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the New International Version of the Bible all believe that it should be rendered “had formed”.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513

[ergo123]

Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be.  In Genesis 2, Moses records the works of God's creation in relation to man.  God planted a garden and put the man in it.  God brought the beasts of the field before the man to be named.  God took a rib from man, and created woman for him.  http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.p ... es&b=1&c=2

What you seem to have missed is that in the original text--written in ancient Hebrew (Aramaic, I think)--the language has no "tense."  So, no past tense, present tense of future tense for any of the verbs.  Because of this, writers of the times were very careful to write about events in chronological order.  So, Genesis 2 IS a chronological account of creation by virtue of the order in which events were described.  So when Man shows up before birds in Genesis 2, it is a direct contradiction to brids preceeding Man in Genesis 1.

You may want to inform Hebrew scholars Herbert C. Leupold, Victor P. Hamilton, C.F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch of this fact.  According to them, in Genesis the Hebrew verb translated “formed” could easily have been translated “had formed”.

Right...  The fact that one word in Genesis could be translated as a past-tense verb counters what linguists have known for centuries.     And it's not that the people of the time didn't understand past, present and future--their language just didn't reflect this understanding.  The same is true for Chinese.  They have no past-tense or future tense for verbs.  Chronology is inferred from context:  We say "I went to the store yesterday;" they say "I go to the store yesterday," (but thy say it in Chinese...)

You heap translation upon translation and copy upon copy--each with a human being in charge--each human being with an agenda.  And people still believe it is the word of a god.  You really have to want to believe to believe that.  

BTW:  Your god came to me in a dream last night and said I was to tell you to ignore everything in the bible and only listen to his word as translated by me.  Do you believe me?  There is as much credible evidence that what I said is true as there is that the bible is the word of a god.  When faced with such a decision, how does one chose what to believe?

[Anchor of Life]

Genesis 2 is not a chronological account, nor is there anything in the text which would cause us to consider it to be.  In Genesis 2, Moses records the works of God's creation in relation to man.  God planted a garden and put the man in it.  God brought the beasts of the field before the man to be named.  God took a rib from man, and created woman for him.  http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.p ... es&b=1&c=2

What you seem to have missed is that in the original text--written in ancient Hebrew (Aramaic, I think)--the language has no "tense."  So, no past tense, present tense of future tense for any of the verbs.  Because of this, writers of the times were very careful to write about events in chronological order.  So, Genesis 2 IS a chronological account of creation by virtue of the order in which events were described.  So when Man shows up before birds in Genesis 2, it is a direct contradiction to brids preceeding Man in Genesis 1.

You may want to inform Hebrew scholars Herbert C. Leupold, Victor P. Hamilton, C.F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch of this fact.  According to them, in Genesis the Hebrew verb translated “formed” could easily have been translated “had formed”.

You heap translation upon translation and copy upon copy--each with a human being in charge--each human being with an agenda.  And people still believe it is the word of a god.  You really have to want to believe to believe that.

The original writings came directly from God through human authors.  The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament was penned in Greek.  After the Old and New Testament books were written, scribes produced and distributed copies of the original manuscripts.  They took painstaking care to craft those copies by hand, long before the days of the printing press.  Although we no longer have the original documents because they disappeared over time.  What we have available now are copies of those original documents--copies produced over a number of centuries.  By comparing and analyzing those copies through a process called textual criticism, we are able to determine what the original manuscripts said and where variations crept into the copies.  That process has confirmed that God has accurately preserved His Word for us.  While we can't handle the original documents today, we can have confidence that most English Bibles faithfully represent what was contained in those documents.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/issues/645

[Anchor of Life]

BTW:  Your god came to me in a dream last night and said I was to tell you to ignore everything in the bible and only listen to his word as translated by me.  Do you believe me?  There is as much credible evidence that what I said is true as there is that the bible is the word of a god.  When faced with such a decision, how does one chose what to believe?

From a careful study of 1 John 4, the great theologian and pastor Jonathan Edwards was able to identify five distinguishing characteristics of the Holy Spirit's work.  In short, a true work of the Holy Spirit can be distinguished from that which is false because it:  (1) Exalts the true Christ, (2) Opposes Satan's interests, (3) Points people to the Scriptures, (4) Elevates truth, and (5) Results in love for God and others.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/issues/611

[ergo123]

 

You heap translation upon translation and copy upon copy--each with a human being in charge--each human being with an agenda.  And people still believe it is the word of a god.  You really have to want to believe to believe that.

The original writings came directly from God through human authors.  

What credible evidence do you have of this?  I'll tell you--you have none.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament was penned in Greek.  After the Old and New Testament books were written, scribes produced and distributed copies of the original manuscripts.  They took painstaking care to craft those copies by hand, long before the days of the printing press.

Indeed.  And these people could have (just like formed could have been translated...) put in their own ( or their owner's) twist on what they were copying.  Now if we only had the originals, we could compare them and verify the accuracy of the copies.  Of course this would say nothing about whether it was the word of god--just that it was accurately coppied.  You still have no credible evidence that the any portion of the bible was the word of a god.

Although we no longer have the original documents because they disappeared over time.

Well, I guess our only chance to test the accuracy of the copies is lost.  I guess it makes sense that something so important would just disappear.  I know my glasses are always disappearing on me...

What we have available now are copies of those original documents--copies produced over a number of centuries.

Copies for which the accuracy cannot be determined because, as you point out, the originals are gone.

By comparing and analyzing those copies through a process called textual criticism, we are able to determine what the original manuscripts said and where variations crept into the copies.

How's that?  Is "textual criticism" some miracle process?  Look at what you are suggesting!  You admit the original documents are gone.  All that is left are copies of unknown accuracy.  For all you know, the original document is a cook book that the first person who copied it converted into the bible.  So all the subsequent copies are inaccurate from the start.  If the original no longer exists you cannot measure the accuracy of the copies.  It's like saying you are going to verify what Tarzan really looked like by examining all the films and comic books that character was in.

That process has confirmed that God has accurately preserved His Word for us.  While we can't handle the original documents today, we can have confidence that most English Bibles faithfully represent what was contained in those documents.

You can only have confidence in what you said if you throw out any sense of intellectual understanding in what you said.

[ergo123]

BTW:  Your god came to me in a dream last night and said I was to tell you to ignore everything in the bible and only listen to his word as translated by me.  Do you believe me?  There is as much credible evidence that what I said is true as there is that the bible is the word of a god.  When faced with such a decision, how does one chose what to believe?

From a careful study of 1 John 4, the great theologian and pastor Jonathan Edwards was able to identify five distinguishing characteristics of the Holy Spirit's work.  In short, a true work of the Holy Spirit can be distinguished from that which is false because it:  (1) Exalts the true Christ, (2) Opposes Satan's interests, (3) Points people to the Scriptures, (4) Elevates truth, and (5) Results in love for God and others.

http://www.gty.org/Resources/issues/611

Of course.  And my dream was all over those 5 things.  It's just that those poor copies of the bible got things screwed up.  God told me to tell you (in the everyone sense of the word--not just you, personally) that I am the true Christ (and should, thereby, be exalted); I'm totally against Satan--he's not making one red cent off of me being the true Christ.  In fact, if he's smart he'll skip tow... er... universe cuz I know dis guy that knows some people--if ya know wadd I mean...

God totally told me to point people to the scriptures.  He said to point at them and say fagettabout them.  Everyone's supposed to sit tight and wait for the new scriptures I'm writing--due out this Spring from Simon & Schuster.  Just in time for Easter!

I totally elevate Truth--at least high enough to look up her skirt!    And following me as the true Christ will result in love as many ways as you can imagine it and then some.

So now do you believe me?

[Jay Hoover]

What credible evidence do you have of this?  I'll tell you--you have none. (Etc.)

Generally, theists like AOL don't understand that when you build your entire premise on a wispy cloud of nothingness (his conveniently missing "originals"), your conclusion by definition is equally empty nothingness.  But AOL won't admit this relentlessly flawed approach, because he wants his worldview to be real.  Puff the magic, drag on!

[ergo123]

What credible evidence do you have of this?  I'll tell you--you have none. (Etc.)

Generally, theists like AOL don't understand that when you build your entire premise on a wispy cloud of nothingness (his conveniently missing "originals"), your conclusion by definition is equally empty nothingness.  But AOL won't admit this relentlessly flawed approach, because he wants his worldview to be real.  Puff the magic, drag on!

Yes--I realize AOL is lost to the dark side.  After all, isn't it Satan who tricks people into believing what isn't true?  And doesn't the god of the bible instruct us to use our intellect?  AOL certainly isn't using his intellect (at least I hope he isn't!).  And he's falling for Satan's trick bible hook, line and sinker...  

But i'm doing this more for those who have not yet sunk to the bottom of the abyss like an anchor...

[Anchor of Life]

 

You heap translation upon translation and copy upon copy--each with a human being in charge--each human being with an agenda.  And people still believe it is the word of a god.  You really have to want to believe to believe that.

The original writings came directly from God through human authors.  

What credible evidence do you have of this?  I'll tell you--you have none.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the New Testament was penned in Greek.  After the Old and New Testament books were written, scribes produced and distributed copies of the original manuscripts.  They took painstaking care to craft those copies by hand, long before the days of the printing press.

Indeed.  And these people could have (just like formed could have been translated...) put in their own ( or their owner's) twist on what they were copying.  Now if we only had the originals, we could compare them and verify the accuracy of the copies.  Of course this would say nothing about whether it was the word of god--just that it was accurately coppied.  You still have no credible evidence that the any portion of the bible was the word of a god.

Although we no longer have the original documents because they disappeared over time.

Well, I guess our only chance to test the accuracy of the copies is lost.  I guess it makes sense that something so important would just disappear.  I know my glasses are always disappearing on me...

What we have available now are copies of those original documents--copies produced over a number of centuries.

Copies for which the accuracy cannot be determined because, as you point out, the originals are gone.

By comparing and analyzing those copies through a process called textual criticism, we are able to determine what the original manuscripts said and where variations crept into the copies.

How's that?  Is "textual criticism" some miracle process?  Look at what you are suggesting!  You admit the original documents are gone.  All that is left are copies of unknown accuracy.  For all you know, the original document is a cook book that the first person who copied it converted into the bible.  So all the subsequent copies are inaccurate from the start.  If the original no longer exists you cannot measure the accuracy of the copies.  It's like saying you are going to verify what Tarzan really looked like by examining all the films and comic books that character was in.

That process has confirmed that God has accurately preserved His Word for us.  While we can't handle the original documents today, we can have confidence that most English Bibles faithfully represent what was contained in those documents.

You can only have confidence in what you said if you throw out any sense of intellectual understanding in what you said.

The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity.  Obviously no printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents.  Regarding the Old Testament, the task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew.  The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying.  They did not just hastily write things down.  They were meticulous in their copying.  When the scribes were through completing a copy, they would total up the number of letters.  Then they would find the middle letter of the book.  If it was not the same, they made a new copy.  We can be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy.  Regarding the New Testament, it has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,300 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian.  This compares to less than 700 manuscripts for Homer's Iliad, the next most well-documented work from antiquity.  Critics allege that there was a long span of time between the events recorded in the New Testament and the writing down of those events.  Then they say another gap exists archaeologically between the earliest copies made from the autographs (originals) of the New Testament.  In reality, the alleged spaces and so called gaps exist only in the minds of the critics.  Jesus was crucified in 30 AD.  The New Testament was written between 48-95 AD.  The oldest manuscripts date to the last quarter of the first century, and the second oldest 125 AD.  This gives us a narrow gap of 35 to 40 years from the originals written by the apostles.  So the bottom line is, there was no great time period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings.  Nor is there a great lapse of time between the original writings and the oldest copies.  This means that with the great body of manuscripts evidence, it can also be proved, beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2000 years ago.

So, now that the Bible's authenticity has been established and confirmed, let's discuss it's authority.  The first fact is that the Bible claims to be the Word of God.  The authors knew they were writing the words of God.  "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."  (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."  (2 Peter 1:20-21)
Second, the Holy Spirit confirms to us that the Bible is the Word of God.  The Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin also assures the believer that the Bible is God's Word.  Third, the Bible's transforming ability.  The Word of God and the Spirit of God actually transforms the lives of people. The Bible has changed the lives of murderers, drug addicts, top government officials, business people, students, atheists, to name just a few people from every walk of life who have been transformed by the Bible.  Fourth, the unity of the Bible.  Fifth, the Bible's indestructibility.  No book has ever had as much opposition as the Bible.  No book has been attacked more.  Men have laughed at it, scorned it, burned it, ridiculed it, and made laws against it.  Yet, despite all these attacks, the Bible proves itself to be true again and again.  Sixth, Middle Eastern archaeological investigations have proven the Bible to be true and unerringly accurate in its historical descriptions.  Lastly, evidence from prophecy.  There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament.  To say that these are fulfilled by chance is an astronomical impossibility!

So, the Bible IS true, and it is applicable today as much as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
http://www.drfalesbaa.com/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=31
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/auth-bib.html
http://www.christianity.com/Christian%2 ... /11542346/

[Jay Hoover]

The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity.

So was the Astrologer.  And later the alchemist.  These "professionals" were still pre-industrial people with a limited range of knowledge of nature and its machinations, and primarily superstitious beliefs were used to explain what they didn't -- or couldn't -- understand.

Meanwhile, the "supreme being" COULD have inspired someone to invent the printing press; it's not like it was so advanced it was beyond bronze-age man, it just wasn't thought of.  (Levers, screws, and certainly writing all existed, just no one thought to harmonize them.)

Yahweh could have inspired the creation of the printing press, and he could have allowed pristine, unchanging originals to exist, he simple didn't.  In other words, Yahweh's disinterest in his own divine word is completely indistinguishable from an asserted entity that doesn't actually exist, and never has.  From just this story of the bible and the mess of misinterpretations and somersaults one must do to make it "harmonize" (which it never does), we can see a complete dearth of any interferences by a supreme being.  The provenance of the bible looks exactly as if it were human beings muddling around, and there is no god whatsoever having anything to do with it.

[ergo123]

The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity.  Obviously no printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents.  Regarding the Old Testament, the task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew.  The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying.  They did not just hastily write things down.  They were meticulous in their copying.  When the scribes were through completing a copy, they would total up the number of letters.  Then they would find the middle letter of the book.  If it was not the same, they made a new copy.  We can be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy.  

What you describe here took place over 1,000 years ago.  You can't be certain of any of it.  I don't doubt that the official process was as you state.  But we all know that official processes are not always followed, and that corruption exists with the realm of the "official."  Beyond that, the method you describe for checking is simple to fool.

Regarding the New Testament, it has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,300 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian.

And every one of them is a copy.

This compares to less than 700 manuscripts for Homer's Iliad, the next most well-documented work from antiquity.

Well, when accepted as a work of fiction (or do you also believe everything described in the Iliad actually happened, too!), it doesn't really matter how accurate the copies are.  The problem with inaccurate copies of the bible is that people like you actually believe they are the word of a god.  

Critics allege that there was a long span of time between the events recorded in the New Testament and the writing down of those events.  Then they say another gap exists archaeologically between the earliest copies made from the autographs (originals) of the New Testament.  In reality, the alleged spaces and so called gaps exist only in the minds of the critics.  Jesus was crucified in 30 AD.  The New Testament was written between 48-95 AD.  The oldest manuscripts date to the last quarter of the first century, and the second oldest 125 AD.  This gives us a narrow gap of 35 to 40 years from the originals written by the apostles.  So the bottom line is, there was no great time period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings.  Nor is there a great lapse of time between the original writings and the oldest copies.  This means that with the great body of manuscripts evidence, it can also be proved, beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2000 years ago.

You talk about gaps and non-gaps.  But where is your proof--beyond a doubt--that the NT "says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2000 years ago."  Quibbling over what is a large gap versus a small gap doesn't prove anything.  The fact remains that while in your head you have no doubt, there is actually no proof of what you believe.

So, now that the Bible's authenticity has been established and confirmed, let's discuss it's authority.

But you have failed to establish or confirm the authenticity of the bible.  All you have established and confirmed is that we have a lot of copies of the various parts of the bible--but all the originals are gone.  So not only have you failed to establish or confirm the authenticity of the bible, you admit to the one fact that will prevent the very establishment and confirmation you desire--all the originals are gone.

The first fact is that the Bible claims to be the Word of God.

Big deal.  The fact that the bible claims to be the word of a god does not mean the bible is the word of a god.  It is a fact that yesterday I claimed to have been approached by your god in a dream.  So, do you believe I was approached by your god in a dream?  No, you don't.  In fact, you looked for evidence that my claim was true.  And even though I claimed to have the evidence of truthiness you were looking for, you still didn't believe me.  And you were right to not accept my claims--because I had no credible evidence of my claim.  That is exactly the same issue we have with the bible.  The book itself has claims that it is the word of a god.  But there is no credible evidence that those claims are true.  We, therefore, must not believe them to be true.  

If you accept the bible's claim that it is the word of god, why not accept the Koran's claim that it is the word of god? Or why not believe the Gospels of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?  I think even you can appreciate the slippery slope of "belief without proof."

The authors knew they were writing the words of God.

No, the authors said they were writing the words of god--and they offered no proof of doing so.  I said I was the true Christ but you didn't believe that...

Second, the Holy Spirit confirms to us that the Bible is the Word of God.  The Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin also assures the believer that the Bible is God's Word.

The holy spirit is a character in the bible.  That's like saying the claims in The DaVinci Code are true because Robert Langdon (the main character) says they are true.

Third, the Bible's transforming ability.  The Word of God and the Spirit of God actually transforms the lives of people.

The Catcher in the Rye actually ransformed the lives of people.  Does that make Holder Caulfield real and J. D. Salinger a god?  Mein Kampf transformed the lives of people--does that make Hitler a god?

 Fourth, the unity of the Bible.

What about the unity of The Lord of the Rings trilogy...?

Fifth, the Bible's indestructibility.  No book has ever had as much opposition as the Bible.  No book has been attacked more.  Men have laughed at it, scorned it, burned it, ridiculed it, and made laws against it.  Yet, despite all these attacks, the Bible proves itself to be true again and again.

Where is your proof?  You yap and yap about all this proof--but you don't show any actual, credible evidence for any of your claims.

Sixth, Middle Eastern archaeological investigations have proven the Bible to be true and unerringly accurate in its historical descriptions.

Even if this was true, it does NOT prove the bible is the word of god.  I gave an unerring description of being asleep the other night when god came to me in my dream.  Does that make my claim of being the true Christ true?

Lastly, evidence from prophecy.  There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament.  To say that these are fulfilled by chance is an astronomical impossibility!

But to disregard the possibility that those writing what would become the NT "wrote to the prophecy" is idiotic.  And again, we have no credible evidence that the fulfillment of prophetic claims actually happened.

So, the Bible IS true, and it is applicable today as much as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow.

No, we are still at you believe the bible to be true.  You have failed to prove it IS true.  As for its applicability, I take it the bible was followed to the letter when it first came out, right?  And over the centuries, various prescripts contained in the bible have been walked away from--like stoning kids for being sassy, allowing incest in some cases while killing the perpitrator and the victim of incest in other cases, slavery, etc.  So, in fact, the bible is LESS applicable today than it was yesterday.  Mankind can hope that this trend in applicability will continue to the point where the bible is seen as a good door-stop and little else.

[Major Malfunction]

Dear Cooperstown,

The Missus won't let me marry her sisters. What, in THE LORD JESUS' name, can I do to change her mind, y'all?

Desperately Monogamous.

[DeusEx_Humana]

Lastly, evidence from prophecy.  There are over 300 precise prophecies that deal with the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament.  To say that these are fulfilled by chance is an astronomical impossibility!

Ergot123 did an excellent job of showing what is wrong with AOL's post, but I wanted to add a tiny bit about the "prophecies".

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.--Mark 9:1

Some samples of false predictions:

These verses falsely predict that Babylon will never again be inhabited.  

13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.  (13:19-20)

13:20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.  


"Under the Parthian, and later, Sassanid Persians, Babylon remained a province of the Persian Empire for nine centuries, until around 650 AD. It continued to have its own culture and peoples, who spoke varieties of Aramaic, and who continued to refer to their homeland as Babylon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon


Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there.     :

13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.    (13:21-22)

13:22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.  

Satyrs!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyr
"Hence satyrs are most commonly described as having the upper half of a man and the lower half of a goat. They are also described as possessing a long, thick tail, either that of a goat or a horse. Mature satyrs are often depicted with goat's horns, while juveniles are often shown with bony nubs on their foreheads."

AOL, are you aware of any Satyr bones dug up in the Babylon region? Can you provide, in your next post, evidence for the existence of Satyrs?


34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Maybe the Unicorns killed off all the Satyrs?

60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

Ugh. Breast of Kings? Not even if it was offered by KFC.


14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

What, you believed my BS? Die, idiot prophet! Thus sayeth the Lord!

30:11 He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, shall be brought to destroy the land: and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.
30:12 And I will make the rivers dry, and sell the land into the hand of the wicked: and I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the LORD have spoken it.

2000 years later and still waiting for da Nile to run dry. Last I checked its still a little damp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile

Now, I think this one is true:
9:7 The days of visitation are come, the days of recompence are come; Israel shall know it: the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred.


3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

Nope.

1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

I guess this depends on what your definition of "is" is.

2:6 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land;

Still waiting. Maybe by "little while" he meant thousands of years. Just trying to scare the locals at the time, I guess.


I bet I could do better predictions. I predict a war in the middle east "soon". Also, many will die in a roadside bombing in the great nation of Iraq. This will happen very soon. Also, I will go out on a limb and predict NO unicorns or Satyrs will appear in the middle east for the next 10 generations. Thus sayeth DeusEx_Humana.