The Bible - Why Trust It

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 24, 2019

nPeace said:
Wow. So now there is bad evidence.

You weren't aware of that either?

I guess that was to be expected from someone who doesn't seem to comprehend the concept of "evidence".

I think it would be good if more people read the Bible before assuming to know anything about it. Noah and family included more than two people.

I was replying to a post that started with:

The Account of Adam and Eve are literal, for the following reasons.

You even put it in bold. Don't you even remember your own posts?

That's about as civil as some can be.

Just calling it as I see it. Note that I didn't call YOU stupid. I called your points stupid. And they were. I also motivated it point by point.

Beats me what the argument is here.

It might help if you could actually remember your own posts. Your point was about the bible being ancient and "older then any other book about creation" - these are your own words. And they are factually and demonstrably wrong.

From one who knows very little about what they are talking about, where the Bible is concerned, I can appreciate they would think that they can compare a book they understand, to one they don't... beside that, one they are extremely biased against.

I've read your bible from cover to cover twice.
Lord of the rings I read only once. Star wars, I just watched the movies

In any case, it is another invalid argument of yours. "the book is too detailed" to be "just a story"? Your bible isn't any more detailed then the quran, the bagavad ghita or Lord of the rings. In fact, it's less detailed in many ways. Neither is it coherent - the 4 gospels alone can't even agree with one another. It's riddled with self-contradictory plotholes from cover to cover.

The only one biased here, is obviously you. You WANT, nay - NEED, to believe these things about the bible. For you, it is a religious DUTY to believe such. I am free from such shackles and have no need to engage in special pleading and ostrich defenses.

This evidently is proof of one who reads the Bible, and puts their own confusing ideas to it... ideas that are wrong, of course.

Do you deny that there are 2 different creation accounts in genesis?
Do you deny that the 4 gospels disagree with one another on several major points?

Did you even read this book yourself?
Because I find it kind of baffling that someone can read that book and not notice these obvious contradictions. I noticed them in my first read through. Nobody brought it to my attention...

I was in high school and just transferred from a public school to a catholic school. It was my first real encounter with religion. It was my first time holding a bible. I got interested in it and read the entire thing. I must have been 16-17 at the time. This was 1996-97. So the internet back then wasn't what it was today. You couldn't type "bible contradictions" into google and get to a bazillion blog posts and papers detailing these contradictions.

Perhaps I immediatly noticed it on my first read-through because I went into it as a blank slate instead of as a person who's been brainwashed / indoctrinated from birth onwards into believing this stuff.

nPeace · Sep 24, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
You weren't aware of that either?

I guess that was to be expected from someone who doesn't seem to comprehend the concept of "evidence".

If that makes you feel better. You can have that one.
I just didn't think of evidence as bad, just not strong, or unsupported.

TagliatelliMonster said:
I was replying to a post that started with:

The Account of Adam and Eve are literal, for the following reasons.

You even put it in bold. Don't you even remember your own posts?

Irrelevant.

You said:
The species homo sapiens factually and demonstrably never consisted of just 2 humans.
That's just a genetic fact. It doesn't matter what your ancient mythology says. If it's wrong, it's wrong. And it is. Demonstrably so.

Well if I were making an argument that the Genesis account was wrong, based on that, I think it would be because I didn't take the Noah's account into consideration, not because someone mentioned that Adam and Eve were real people.

TagliatelliMonster said:
Just calling it as I see it. Note that I didn't call YOU stupid. I called your points stupid. And they were. I also motivated it point by point.

Again, that's irrelevant.
If I called your post stupid, which I didn't, how would that contribute to civil debate?
I addressed your post, without calling it what I think of it.
It's the same as not calling someone what you think they are.
Keep in mind that the way you feel about someone or something they said, may be the exact way they feel about you, or what you said... or worst.

Perhaps I will just ignore anything you say - without expressing what I think of it.

TagliatelliMonster said:
It might help if you could actually remember your own posts. Your point was about the bible being ancient and "older then any other book about creation" - these are your own words. And they are factually and demonstrably wrong.

You missed the point... again.... obviously.
No further comment.

TagliatelliMonster said:
I've read your bible from cover to cover twice.
Lord of the rings I read only once. Star wars, I just watched the movies

Yes. That is what I meant. You think the Bible is like a novel. It isn't.

TagliatelliMonster said:
In any case, it is another invalid argument of yours. "the book is too detailed" to be "just a story"? Your bible isn't any more detailed then the quran, the bagavad ghita or Lord of the rings. In fact, it's less detailed in many ways. Neither is it coherent - the 4 gospels alone can't even agree with one another. It's riddled with self-contradictory plotholes from cover to cover.

No. However, I take your opinion.

TagliatelliMonster said:
The only one biased here, is obviously you. You WANT, nay - NEED, to believe these things about the bible. For you, it is a religious DUTY to believe such. I am free from such shackles and have no need to engage in special pleading and ostrich defenses.

Ditto.

TagliatelliMonster said:
Do you deny that there are 2 different creation accounts in genesis?
Do you deny that the 4 gospels disagree with one another on several major points?

I said you are wrong already. Why do you want to hear it again?

TagliatelliMonster said:
Did you even read this book yourself?
Because I find it kind of baffling that someone can read that book and not notice these obvious contradictions. I noticed them in my first read through. Nobody brought it to my attention...

I suppose it is okay for you and I both to be baffled. I understand why there are obvious contradictions to you.

TagliatelliMonster said:
I was in high school and just transferred from a public school to a catholic school. It was my first real encounter with religion. It was my first time holding a bible. I got interested in it and read the entire thing. I must have been 16-17 at the time. This was 1996-97. So the internet back then wasn't what it was today. You couldn't type "bible contradictions" into google and get to a bazillion blog posts and papers detailing these contradictions.

Perhaps I immediatly noticed it on my first read-through because I went into it as a blank slate instead of as a person who's been brainwashed / indoctrinated from birth onwards into believing this stuff.

You would pay me no mind if I told you what is wrong here, so...

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 25, 2019

nPeace said:
If that makes you feel better. You can have that one.
I just didn't think of evidence as bad, just not strong, or unsupported.

Bad evidence in terms of quality thereof.

For example, "testimony" is bad evidence.

Irrelevant.

????????????????????

How is that irrelevant?????

YOU made a statement saying that the "adam and eve story is literal".
I reply by saying that it's a genetic fact that human population never consisted of just 2 people.
And then you reply by saying that "noah's group were more then 2 people".............
I then bring to your attention that YOU were talking about adam and eve and that THAT is what I responded to and now you call that irrelevant???????????????

LOL!

Well if I were making an argument that the Genesis account was wrong, based on that, I think it would be because I didn't take the Noah's account into consideration, not because someone mentioned that Adam and Eve were real people.

That's actually irrelevant. Human population size never consisted of just two people, as the adam and even story claims. And just to drive it home: it never consisted of 8 people either, like the Noah story claims.

The biggest genetic bottleneck that is detectable in the human genome dates to some 70.000 years ago and estimated population size at that time dropped to a few thousand individuals. The population drop was likely caused by the Toba volcano eruption.

Again, that's irrelevant.
If I called your post stupid, which I didn't, how would that contribute to civil debate?

It wouldn't, unless you then also go on to motivate it point by point. Which I did.

You missed the point... again.... obviously.
No further comment.

I know your point was something else. But that doesn't give you a free pass to state falsehoods and have them remain unchallenged.

YOU said that the bible is "the oldest creation story".
It factually isn't. That's just how it is.

Yes. That is what I meant. You think the Bible is like a novel. It isn't.

It doesn't matter if it's a novel or a true story or just a chaotic mix of ancient tales.
None of it matters in context of how the book is "detailed" or "coherent" or not.

Sounds to me like you are actively seeking any excuse that you feel allows you to avoid having to address the points being raised.

No. However, I take your opinion.

Yes. Read the 4 gospels and put them side by side.
You'ld have to be blind not to notice the contradictions.

Ditto.

Not at all "ditto".
You do have an emotional investment in your religious beliefs.

I said you are wrong already. Why do you want to hear it again?

Denial, not just a rivier in Egypt.....

I suppose it is okay for you and I both to be baffled. I understand why there are obvious contradictions to you.

Because I actually just read what it says instead of what I want it to say?
Off course, I'm not reading this book with a preconceived belief that it HAS to be true and that if something seems contradicting, that it MUST be me who's misunderstanding it because of this a priori faith based belief that it is "impossible" that the book is incorrect about anything.

This is the problem with fundamentalists. It's not just with the scriptures that this mentality surfaces.

I always summarize it like this:

When your beliefs don't match the evidence of reality, it's not the evidence of reality that is incorrect..........

You would pay me no mind if I told you what is wrong here, so...

[/QUOTE]

nPeace · Sep 25, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
Bad evidence in terms of quality thereof.

For example, "testimony" is bad evidence.

????????????????????

How is that irrelevant?????

YOU made a statement saying that the "adam and eve story is literal".
I reply by saying that it's a genetic fact that human population never consisted of just 2 people.
And then you reply by saying that "noah's group were more then 2 people".............
I then bring to your attention that YOU were talking about adam and eve and that THAT is what I responded to and now you call that irrelevant???????????????

LOL!

That's actually irrelevant. Human population size never consisted of just two people, as the adam and even story claims. And just to drive it home: it never consisted of 8 people either, like the Noah story claims.

The biggest genetic bottleneck that is detectable in the human genome dates to some 70.000 years ago and estimated population size at that time dropped to a few thousand individuals. The population drop was likely caused by the Toba volcano eruption.

I understand what your beliefs are.

TagliatelliMonster said:
It wouldn't, unless you then also go on to motivate it point by point. Which I did.

I know your point was something else. But that doesn't give you a free pass to state falsehoods and have them remain unchallenged.

YOU said that the bible is "the oldest creation story".
It factually isn't. That's just how it is.

It doesn't matter if it's a novel or a true story or just a chaotic mix of ancient tales.
None of it matters in context of how the book is "detailed" or "coherent" or not.

Sounds to me like you are actively seeking any excuse that you feel allows you to avoid having to address the points being raised.

Yes. Read the 4 gospels and put them side by side.
You'ld have to be blind not to notice the contradictions.

Not at all "ditto".
You do have an emotional investment in your religious beliefs.

Denial, not just a rivier in Egypt.....

I think you have an emotional investment in your philosophical beliefs.... Denial? Yes, that too.

TagliatelliMonster said:
Because I actually just read what it says instead of what I want it to say?
Off course, I'm not reading this book with a preconceived belief that it HAS to be true and that if something seems contradicting, that it MUST be me who's misunderstanding it because of this a priori faith based belief that it is "impossible" that the book is incorrect about anything.

This is the problem with fundamentalists. It's not just with the scriptures that this mentality surfaces.

A fifteen year old (A) reads and studies the Bible.
A fifteen year old (B) reads the Bible.

B comes to the conclusion the Bible is stupid.
A comes to the conclusion the Bible has truth.

B must be correct because B thinks he's so much more intelligent and smarter than A.

TagliatelliMonster said:
I always summarize it like this:

When your beliefs don't match the evidence of reality, it's not the evidence of reality that is incorrect..........

You would pay me no mind if I told you what is wrong here, so...

Exactly what I would say.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 25, 2019

nPeace said:
I think you have an emotional investment in your philosophical beliefs....

Really?
Tell me... what do you think are these beliefs?

This should be fun...

A fifteen year old (A) reads and studies the Bible.
A fifteen year old (B) reads the Bible.

B comes to the conclusion the Bible is stupid.
A comes to the conclusion the Bible has truth.

B must be correct because B thinks he's so much more intelligent and smarter than A.

No.

The contradictions in the two creation stories in genesis and between the 4 gospels (among others, btw), are very well documented. Not by me. By biblical scholars. Academics who study this stuff for a living.

Some contradictions are just so plainly obvious that I as a 17 year old spotted them in my first read of this book, ever.

You can easily look this stuff up, but you're going to have the courage to go ahead and read papers authored by people who are capable of being objective about this, and who aren't invested or dependend on the bible being true (or false, for that matter).

Exactly what I would say.

You may say it, but you're clearly not acting like it.

nPeace · Sep 25, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
Really?
Tell me... what do you think are these beliefs?

This should be fun...

No.

The contradictions in the two creation stories in genesis and between the 4 gospels (among others, btw), are very well documented. Not by me. By biblical scholars. Academics who study this stuff for a living.

Some contradictions are just so plainly obvious that I as a 17 year old spotted them in my first read of this book, ever.

You can easily look this stuff up, but you're going to have the courage to go ahead and read papers authored by people who are capable of being objective about this, and who aren't invested or dependend on the bible being true (or false, for that matter).

You may say it, but you're clearly not acting like it.

Ditto, to the last statement.
There are no two creation accounts in the Bible. If you like that idea, feel free to keep running with it. One way or other, every runner come to a halt. I can only hope the best for you, as I do for all.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 25, 2019

nPeace said:
There are no two creation accounts in the Bible.

Wow............................................

This has got to be the most severe case of denial I've seen on forums such as this one........

If you like that idea, feel free to keep running with it. One way or other, every runner come to a halt. I can only hope the best for you, as I do for all.

You forgot to answer my question.
You said that I have "emotional investment in philosophical beliefs".
I asked you what you think these believes are.

Care to answer or are you going to leave it at that bare assertions?

nPeace · Sep 25, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
Wow............................................

This has got to be the most severe case of denial I've seen on forums such as this one........

You forgot to answer my question.
You said that I have "emotional investment in philosophical beliefs".
I asked you what you think these believes are.

Care to answer or are you going to leave it at that bare assertions?

No. I did not forget to answer anything. I am not in the business of chipping hardened concrete from creatures that deliberately stick their head in wet concrete, then allow it to harden.
They likely will waste all my hard work, and go do it again.
Then I'll look like this.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 25, 2019

nPeace said:
No. I did not forget to answer anything. I am not in the business of chipping hardened concrete from creatures that deliberately stick their head in wet concrete, then allow it to harden.
They likely will waste all my hard work, and go do it again.
Then I'll look like this.

Sounds like you are more in the business of making empty accusation and then refusing to support these accusations when being called on it.

firedragon · Sep 26, 2019

TagliatelliMonster said:
You can easily look this stuff up, but you're going to have the courage to go ahead and read papers authored by people who are capable of being objective about this, and who aren't invested or dependend on the bible being true (or false, for that matter).

Could you call out one of these contradictions and if you can name the author you are referring to in this response it would great.

TagliatelliMonster · Sep 27, 2019

firedragon said:
Could you call out one of these contradictions and if you can name the author you are referring to in this response it would great.

Actually, no... I'm just not in the mood, nore do I have the time or the interest, to go dig into biblical scholary papers and articles and do your homework. I don't care about this book, but you do. So I'ld expect that you'ld certainly be interested enough to actually learn about the book that you hold so dear.

But here's a little wikipedia section anyway, which talks about a few inconsistencies. You'll find links in there that go to the references at the bottom of the page where you'll find the scholar's work on those points.

Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia

sooda · Sep 27, 2019

nPeace said:
Ditto, to the last statement.
There are no two creation accounts in the Bible. If you like that idea, feel free to keep running with it. One way or other, every runner come to a halt. I can only hope the best for you, as I do for all.