you're seriously asking me to support every single claim made in the entire Bible in this thread
?
ahahahahhahahahhahahhahaha
no
Bring a question and I'd be happy to give you the answer that you could simply have googled yourself because its so obvious.
The tournament is today. I'll answer this evening or tomorrow "OGOB HE DIDN'T ANSWER I MUST HAVE STUMPDED HIM TROLLOLOLOLOL" seriously stop.
In the bible, it states that Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Are we all supposed to believe that? That dinosaurs and cavemen and stuff never existed?
The bible should not be used in debates today, because there's absolutely no validity to it whatsoever.
you're seriously asking me to support every single claim made in the entire Bible in this thread
Not necessarily. The different books were written by different people over vast differences of time. Doesn't mean that whoever compiled the books couldn't have taken true ones and false ones. If I make a book containing Einstein's theory of relativity and a conspiracy theory published by the Flat Earth Society, that doesn't invalidate Einstein's theory.
The above argument, especially the last sentence, is completely incorrect. It assumes that the people who collected the books could not have made a mistake. Since so many atheists use the argument that "how do you know there wasn't some conspiracy to keep certain books out?" then that should be obviously invalid. I have repeatedly used the example that the Bible says plenty about Jesus that is reliable. Even if one rejects supernatural claims, one can't allege that if a literal view of Genesis is impossible, then obviously Jesus didn't really teach anything about love, help anyone, or die by crucifixion. It just doesn't work that way.The Bible is made up of multiple books. If one of the books says something that is obviously false, that endangers the validity of the rest of the Bible. Why was that section there? If someone randomly added fiction to the Bible, how do we know that the rest isn't also fiction?
The Bible is only as credible as its least credible book.
I completely agree.If the meaning of the Bible (or any source) boils down to a subjective interpretation it is useless as a source in debating.
First of all, I think mattj probably did contradict himself regarding the issue of the homosexuality and the death penalty today. This doesn't make mattj an unreliable person. That kinda forms an analogy for what I'm saying. If mattj can make one mistake, or if I can make one mistake, or if you can make one mistake, would you seriously argue that anyone discount everything we say?I don't see your point. I know the Bible wasn't written by just one person. What I'm trying to make clear is that EITHER the entire Bible is to be taken literally OR you have to come up with an objective way of interpreting it.
Profesco has already shown how mattj contradicted himself by claiming in one case that the Bible didn't have to be taken literally and that it did in another. So far, mattj refused to answer by providing excuses like "unlike you I have a life" and "VGC Tournament". I suppose he forgot that we can simply click the "previous page" link, reread the posts and see that he has yet to respond.
You ignored the post, on the same page as yours, where I pointed out that the word "lie" in that sort of context actually indicates sexual actions.We already know there are contradictions in the Bible, even within books. We cannot rationally take its every word literally. So, if the Bible is to be a book that we are to 'live by', it should be interpreted consistently. If your neighbour is gay how should you act? Should you love thy neighbour or should you hate him for his sins? Suppose a man has a female friend with whom he lies in a purely platonic way - can he then lie next to a man in this way?
Yet your opinion also contains unsubstantiated rumors. Most modern translations are not translated out of secondary translations, no matter how often skeptics repeat this claim.The Bible has been translated so many times now that a lot of the verses don't even say what they originally said anyway. In my honest opinion, people should just learn to develop opinions of their own instead of letting a book do the talking for them. The Bible to me is no different than a fantasy book. If you believe a heaven and hell exists, why not believe there's a paraworld where dragons rule the skies?
I know I may get flamed for this, but keep in mind IT IS ONLY MY OPINION! If my opinion really urks you so much that you have to lash out at me for it in order to defend your religion, I have to question your faith. If you really honestly believe in your religion, surely what other people say shouldn't matter anyway because their opinions wouldn't be able to tilt your faith, right?
In the bible, it states that Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Are we all supposed to believe that? That dinosaurs and cavemen and stuff never existed?
The bible should not be used in debates today, because there's absolutely no validity to it whatsoever.
I do not take issue with the fact the mattj made a mistake, in fact I expect it from him. I do take issue with the hypocritical nature of his argument.First of all, I think mattj probably did contradict himself regarding the issue of the homosexuality and the death penalty today. This doesn't make mattj an unreliable person. That kinda forms an analogy for what I'm saying. If mattj can make one mistake, or if I can make one mistake, or if you can make one mistake, would you seriously argue that anyone discount everything we say?
I don't believe it is a false dilemma fallacy. You yourself said a source that cannot be interpreted literally is useless in a debate. That's obvious; if someone can just backup their opinion with another opinion then they have not proven anything.It is a false dilemma fallacy to claim that everything in the Bible must be literal or it must be unreliable. I believe that recognizing figures of speech and non-literal usage is important. I'd like to point out that there are even some non-theistic evolutionary scientists who don't think the early chapters of Genesis should be taken literally. Whether I agree with this is another matter.
Objective methods of interpreting the Bible exist. And even if one were to say "I don't think Genesis is reliable at all" there are still compelling reasons for seeing the gospels as literal records of a very unusual person and His teachings, actions, death, and even resurrection.
You ignored the post, on the same page as yours, where I pointed out that the word "lie" in that sort of context actually indicates sexual actions.
There's a difference between interpreting literally and interpreting overly literally. Quite a number of alleged contradictions result from that. This includes your reference to hating gays--prohibiting certain actions is not the same as hating anyone.
It never said that. People made stupid assumptions and started spouting that.
The above argument, especially the last sentence, is completely incorrect. It assumes that the people who collected the books could not have made a mistake. Since so many atheists use the argument that "how do you know there wasn't some conspiracy to keep certain books out?" then that should be obviously invalid. I have repeatedly used the example that the Bible says plenty about Jesus that is reliable. Even if one rejects supernatural claims, one can't allege that if a literal view of Genesis is impossible, then obviously Jesus didn't really teach anything about love, help anyone, or die by crucifixion. It just doesn't work that way.
First of all, I think mattj probably did contradict himself regarding the issue of the homosexuality and the death penalty today. This doesn't make mattj an unreliable person. That kinda forms an analogy for what I'm saying. If mattj can make one mistake, or if I can make one mistake, or if you can make one mistake, would you seriously argue that anyone discount everything we say?
It is a false dilemma fallacy to claim that everything in the Bible must be literal or it must be unreliable. I believe that recognizing figures of speech and non-literal usage is important. I'd like to point out that there are even some non-theistic evolutionary scientists who don't think the early chapters of Genesis should be taken literally. Whether I agree with this is another matter.
Objective methods of interpreting the Bible exist. And even if one were to say "I don't think Genesis is reliable at all" there are still compelling reasons for seeing the gospels as literal records of a very unusual person and His teachings, actions, death, and even resurrection.
The bible says that god created Earth in a few days time. Then he created the first two humans, Adam and Eve. The bible spans from that point, up until about 4,000 years later, when Jesus Christ was killed.
Now, you add on the 2000 or so years since Christ was killed. It adds up to a little more than 6,000 years. Sure, it's not mentioned in the bible as being exactly 6,000 years, but any idiot who can do math can figure that one out.
It should not have a place in today's debates, because it's basically saying that fossils and cavemen are fake. Clearly, it's a book written by some sad old man and the world knew nothing about fossils at the time.
Yet your opinion also contains unsubstantiated rumors. Most modern translations are not translated out of secondary translations, no matter how often skeptics repeat this claim.
So just to clarify, you support stoning children to death?
It's not child abuse because he wasn't injured, he and his father both grew closer to God, and he and his children for generations were blessed. Was Isaac physically injured? Thank you.It wasn't. Can you provide evidence that this child was somehow damaged by this act? I can't. Assumptions without evidence is baseless speculation.
You're a better debater than to make ignorant remarks like this. Make what you want of the Christian religion (which you're doing badly and stepping out of context of Christianity, and just saying 'screw it, I don't believe an ounce of this anyway so let's try and explain why he shouldn't believe that religion' which is moving the goalposts) but it's not productive at all to tell someone they don't believe what they tried exhaustively to explain they do believe. Mattj does not support stoning people - what is so hard to understand about this and why is it an issue?