responding to common objections to bible

I love Mary, she is the playa of playa's...

I mean, normally when Your GF refuse sex, and get pregnant, suspicions might arise. But heck no, not in her case.

Sometimes I wish I had a time machine, I would love to learn ancient hewbrew and go back to give her a ski lesson. Having Joseph snoring in the next room as she thanks me for the experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I love Mary, she is the playa of playa's...

I mean, normally when Your GF refuse sex, and get pregnant, suspicions might arise. But heck no, not in her case.

Sometimes I wish I had a time machine, I would love to learn ancient hewbrew and go back to give her a ski lesson. Having Joseph snoring in the next room as she thanks me for the experience.

---

Careful, keep being funny like that and Jesus might let you into heaven.

I would just put on a Darth Vader mask and go: "Jesus, I am Your father..."

You'd probably be bored, Good Girls go to heaven.

Bad girls go to the Alps.

“Spelling mistakes, wrong punctuation... big deal”:
My father said: The teacher is an imbecile.
My father, said the teacher, is an imbecile.
Not a big deal?:laugh4:

On the internet, I try to look past poor grammar and language knowledge. That someone is weak in English does not have to be a sign of a weak brain, at all.

With that said, I am in no way defending the intellect of the OP. I just think we should bash him for the right reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So do I, but Cicero's core output was in Latin (which is easier to copy than Hebrew) of his works have been lost over the centuries, and his total corupus was never as great as the totality of surviving scripture.

---

I killed Cicero. I wanted his jester's suit.

ITT: So many edgy people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Spelling mistakes, wrong punctuation... big deal”:
My father said: The teacher is an imbecile.
My father, said the teacher, is an imbecile.
Not a big deal?:laugh4:

---

Punctuation errors of that sort would I think be pretty rare since the context would be obvious from the surrounding text.

Again - could you just provide some solid Biblical examples please?

jolt you have not given one piece of any evidence against my op or even against god, just unsupported claims. Would you debate me 1v1 in the fight club at twc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

It wasn't only in the modern age that people became gullible. Obviously, back at the time where the bible was written, people were far more supersticious and prone to believing in magical entities entities than in these days. You need only look at how many modern-day religions have took off the ground and compare it with Pre/Proto/Classical Times. Literally each group had its own religion. And none of them were Christian or even close to it.



Haha. It's really mindboggling how a human being can consider the overwhelming lack of proof of the existance of any magical entities unsupported in all areas of science, while thinking their own personal opinions, that were taught to them, about an invisible magical person in the sky is supported, justified, credible and legitimate. Never ceases to amaze me. And the video is related and has English subtitles. Unfortunately for you, contrary to English, which is an irrelevant language as far as historical liturgical scriptures go, Portuguese (Which is the language of the video) is far closer to languages relevant for historical Christianity. Even the title of the video is actually the word "God" written in a language which have been sanctioned by the Church for millenia. It's a pity your magical person did not embue you with the power to learn new languages. Just another thing you need to do it yourself, eh?



You need to realize that your religion's book has zero weight when fundamenting the existance of anything. It has as much weight proving the existance of god magic as the Harry Potter books have weight proving the existance of wizard magic.



"You have to accept God, otherwise he won't talk to you!" Impressive how brainwashed people can become. This is religious sect crazy level.



That's the crap you and other religious people are always spouting off, I'm not claiming anything.



God is your imagination because you have no proof of his existance besides what you're told to believe, and what you imagine.



Alas, this happens oh, so often to people who suffer from delusions. They imagine someone they remembered, and then that someone starts acting in ways they couldn't "imagine". :)



But for someone who's talking about how magic fairies exists, trying to say other opinions are unsupported comes at as particularly hilarious and crazy.

---

I agree the modern age people are the most gullible yet,they believe anything there told. But i think the belief in magic etc is more know than ever, aliens, witchcraft, horoscopes etc etc. But would we really aspect christian doctrine to arise know? i don't see that as any way possible as it already arose, not sure your point on that.



I think you misunderstand sir, i said your claim that there is somehow no evidence for god is false and you did not support at all. The fact you have been idocrintaed so bad to believe it is not my fault. As far as learning Portuguese and being a idiot for not learning....i guess we all have our opinions. But to claim the language has anything to do with biblical history or needed to understand shows your lack of knowledge of the area.



well if that is your unsupported opinion i care not, it holds zero weight with me, this is for people who object to bible for reasons given on op, if you think there not common read my other thread, over a dozen times they say cant trust bible it was not translated right etc etc. As i said, whenever i answer a objection it turns into something else fast.



well i would say your wrong given what i have said and tried to reference to you, but this just shows your unwillingness to think outside your own worldview.



only if we ignore your last post.



besides having much evidence for creator [another thread] what proof do you have for no god? than it must just be your imagination.


lol, nice dodge, know we cant remember owr own imagination, good way to protect your worldview.


i think you have posted on wrong thread, or replied to wrong one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Total relism has generally demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with, he uses the word "evidence" but he has about as much understanding of its meaning as ATPG has in this context.

If one wishes to examine the matter of translation, for example, one should examine in parallel multiple translation into the same language from the same period. This is easily done in English, and the only conclusion to be drawn is that the translator's bias influences the translation.

If one wishes to examine the stability of the Biblical corpus, one need only examine the variable canons, whereby we see that different Christian cults revere different Books to differing degrees.

If one wishes to consider additions or subtractions to the Books themselves, one need turn only to the Gospel of Mark, which has two extant endings, or to the Lord's Prayer, of which two version exist.

---

thanks for being on topic

could you support your claims, please show what evidence your referring to.
" demonstrated a refusal to examine any evidence which he disagrees with"


translation
I think you misunderstand, i never said every translation is perfect, in fact no english can really be 100% perfect from herbre/greek. Please reread op.



variable canons
please provide what you are referring to, apocrypha?. Also who cares if some see some books as more important? variety of doctrine in many books all have their fav etc.


mark
i think its generally accepted that marks ending was added on. The ordinal bible is there in full.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"There is also not a single semi-significant point of Christian faith that is challenged as a result of translation differences/errors." Probably why the need of the Orange Bible was not so accurate... And of course, the various streams in the Christianity never happened, nor Religious Wars. Just minors disagreements on Mary (Virgin or not), the holly Trinity, and marriage of the Priests...:laugh4:

---

orange bible? what is that, not to mention my op is on original bible, not any and all transitional of the bible. Do we have the original bible from witch to translate,yes.

various streams in the Christianity
why does that matter? that comes from theology not bible translation.


religious wars? has to do with?


all believe mary virgin


trinity is legit debate, not based on translation

priest marry is 100% in bible no one rejects that. Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

*cough*

What about salvation? you only need to compare King James Version (KJV) to the New English Bible (NEB) and you will run into reformation bias on this particular subject.

---

interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Also, the Norwegian Lutherans just turned the virgin Mary into the "young woman Mary"... And her virginity is kinda important to the catholics, isn't it?

---

as far as i know virgin=young woman.

Quote:

---

I think you misunderstand sir, i said your claim that there is somehow no evidence for god is false and you did not support at all.

---

Wait... You want us to... Prove that there are no evidence?

At all times, I have a invisible leprechaun floating above me. Not only invisible, but ethereal, You can't touch him. Also, he never speaks when others are around, or when there are recording devices on in the vicinity.

Now prove me wrong, mmmkay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

A little selection of commonly used scripture and proposed Pauline teaching of salvation. (KJV = King James Version / NEB = New English Bible)

....

So.. if we go by the NEB translation Paul consistently spoke of salvation as a process that is life long. The Reformationists liked to teach that salvation was attainable whilst in this life, that one could be considered saved or I am saved rather than you await your salvation.

---

Maybe we have a language barrier somehow, but for me, the first three do not show any difference on whether salvation would be an event or a process.

The last three though, I will grant.

How far this is down to mistranslation I cannot say - the poverty of language means that not each and every language may be able to make a direct translation.

I am not aware of what was said in the original language, if you know we might be able to see whether the tense used was somehow ambiguous - ie not indicating whether salvation was immediate or ongoing.

In such cases, the most honest thing to do would be to analyse the meaning from the context provided elsewhere in the source - in this cause the particular Epistle, followed by the Pauline Epistles more generally.

I trust that that is what the Reformationist translators did, hence the bias in the KJV. But it is also worth noting that these examples are passing references to the inferred established doctrines - not the basis of the doctrines themselves (since naturally, debates on such matter always address the original language).

Thank you though for providing the examples, they make the basis for meaningful debate. :bow:

This is fun...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total relism

Do we have the original bible from witch to translate,yes.

---

Do you? I think not. Are the various Bible translations on the marked today translated from the original? I think not.

Quote:

---

priest marry is 100% in bible no one rejects that. Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.

---

Was he now? So.. the guy didn't get married in the big gaping hole in his biography (12y - 30y)? A man at the end of his adult life never followed the very first commandment in the bible - to be fruitful and multiply?

Quote:

---

interesting, i read the kj, i got salvation the same way as any other.

---

See my follow up post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

This is fun...

Do you? I think not. Are the various Bible translations on the marked today translated from the original? I think not.

Was he now? So.. the guy didn't get married in the big gaping hole in his biography (12y - 30y)? A man at the end of his adult life never followed the very first commandment in the bible - to be fruitful and multiply?

See my follow up post

---

fun indeed

i think so, i suggest reading my op, and watching those debates i posted with bart herman.Do we have the original copies, no we dont, so how can we know we have original? read op/watch debates.


what do you base his supposed marriage on? when all documents say otherwise? certainly not biblical theology. The man jesus was unique if your aware. He followed all he was to do. Le tme ask you, should i build a big ark as commanded by god?. Do all laws apply to all people all times?did god ever tell jesus to have a wife? very much the opisite. Did paul the apostles have kids? in fact he told he would prefer people to not marry and focus on god.


Genesis 1:28 is not a commandment, but a blessing. It does not refer to what humans must do to please God, but to what God does for and through humankind. The text says, "God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply'" (RSV). Fertility is not a command but a blessing that God gives to his creatures, to animals as well as humans (Gen. 1:22).
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...er12/4.58.html


translation
remember i said more differences between 2 translation than manuscripts. But i think there saying same thing, your tacking common langue of the day from 100's of years ago and trying to compare, of course it is diffident,words meant different things, you claimed they said your saved a different way.

TR, My imaginary Leprechaun just beat Your imaginary God in armwrestling.

I guess my objection to the bible would be: Why believe in Your definition of God when my Leprechaun just beat him in armwrestling?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

TR, My imaginary Leprechaun just beat Your imaginary God in armwrestling.

I guess my objection to the bible would be: Why believe in Your definition of God when my Leprechaun just beat him in armwrestling?

---

i have many reasons, why believe in your unobserved creator? i will be doing post on this in future number 15 in fact, it get s it own thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Wait... You want us to... Prove that there are no evidence?

At all times, I have a invisible leprechaun floating above me. Not only invisible, but ethereal, You can't touch him. Also, he never speaks when others are around, or when there are recording devices on in the vicinity.

Now prove me wrong, mmmkay?

---

Comparing God to invisible leprechauns or unicorns or whatever doesn't work.

The concept of God (as most of us in this thread mean by it) is a response to existential questions like how the material universe came to be - namely his role as a creator that transcends time and space, which (the theory goes) must according to their nature have a beginning. The properties we attribute to God tend to derive from this - his omnipotence, omnipresence etc.

The same does not hold true for your invisible leprechaun. Why has this unique creature taken on the particular form of a leprechaun? How did it come to be? Why does it have such strange properties as invisibility?

To challenge the particulars of various religions is one thing, but the concept of God more generally is not as silly as you make it out to be.

“Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.” Nope: Council of Trento (ending in 1563), women being evil (no soul) they are leading men to perversion and perdition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Comparing God to invisible leprechauns or unicorns or whatever doesn't work.

---

Perhaps not, but he can certainly claim midi-chlorians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Many catholic dont do it, i think to be like jeusus unmarried.” Nope: Council of Trento (ending in 1563), women being evil (no soul) they are leading men to perversion and perdition.

---

please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.

The invisible leprechaun and the omnipresent yet not measurable god have the same level of proof.

Attaching desires such as how the universe was created or wishing to live forever to one of these does not decrease the burden of truth required. Nor does having an emotional attachement make it make it any easier to prove or disprove a negative.

Proof of the negative is not possible no matter how much importance is attached to the item.

KAV leprechaun and the Christian God having different size fan clubs doesn't change the ability to disprove either. At least with KAVs leprechaun we know where we are likely to find KAV searching for his pot of gold in the rainbow hued woman of the world...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The invisible leprechaun and the omnipresent yet not measurable god have the same level of proof.

Attaching desires such as how the universe was created or wishing to live forever to one of these does not decrease the burden of truth required.

---

To mention the creation of the universe by God is not necessarily expressing a desire or wishful thinking - it is an attempt at an explanation, a theory, in which a being with the properties we attribute to God is posited to exist based on its necessity for the existence of the material universe. As such, it should be assessed on its merits as a theory, and not speculation on an individual's motivations for believing in it.

The invisible leprechuan is not an attempt to explain anything, and no reasoning is offered to suggest why, in the absence of more direct evidence, this being must by necessity exist.

Furthermore, the concept of God as an omnipotent, omnipresent etc being is consistent in that it is based on his relationship with the universe.

On the other hand, the design of the invisible leprechuan seems to make no sense, far less have any basis for positing its existence. How, for example, does it manage to float above Kadagar's head, yet still retain the form of a creature designed to live on earth bound by gravity and similar things? How has its leprechaun skin managed to manipulate light in such a way as to achieve invisibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The invisible leprechaun and the omnipresent yet not measurable god have the same level of proof.

Attaching desires such as how the universe was created or wishing to live forever to one of these does not decrease the burden of truth required. Nor does having an emotional attachement make it make it any easier to prove or disprove a negative.

Proof of the negative is not possible no matter how much importance is attached to the item.

KAV leprechaun and the Christian God having different size fan clubs doesn't change the ability to disprove either. At least with KAVs leprechaun we know where we are likely to find KAV searching for his pot of gold in the rainbow hued woman of the world...

---

please bring this up when i do future thread, as i said before, i cant believe how much people today dont question things and believe what there told. Not to mention i will show you believe in things worse than a invisible leprechaun, assuming your atheist.

sorry

Quote:

---

Sometimes I wish I had a time machine, I would love to learn ancient hewbrew

---

Imperial Aramaic would be more useful I think.


Carry on​.

Big Bang posits no need for God.

The leprechaun does explain KAVs need for a Big Bang...

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” You don’t know the place of the Council of Trento in the Catholic Doctrine? Reinforcement of the dogma? The holly sacraments and place of the Church is the society? Really?~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” You don’t know the place of the Council of Trento in the Catholic Doctrine? Reinforcement of the dogma? The holly sacraments and place of the Church is the society? Really?~:confused:

---

He's a protestant extremist, I would think he considers Catholics to be satanic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.” You don’t know the place of the Council of Trento in the Catholic Doctrine? Reinforcement of the dogma? The holly sacraments and place of the Church is the society? Really?~:confused:

---

your claim was

"Nope: Council of Trento (ending in 1563), women being evil (no soul) they are leading men to perversion and perdition."


I simply asked
please provide.as i said before, today's age people believe anything they hear.