Is the bible the word of God or men?

Here is another classic example of a contradiction. Numbers 12:3 says

quote:

---

Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.

---

If he wrote that himself, about himself, then surely Moses must have been the most arrogant of men. This was pointed out by Thomas Paine over two centuries ago. I find it hard to believe that people in this day and age still take the word of the bible as the word of god, via Moses. It is clearly written much later, by multiple authors.

---

Mutate and Survive

I don't really see why. Tradition has held that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, as personally revealed to him by god. My post presented a logical argument that this could not be so, given the content, thus undermining the notion that the bible is the word of god.
Seems pretty on topic to me. Obvious contradictions like those above show that either god did not write the bible, or that he is prone to some quite startling mistakes. OK, I suppose that I am stating the obvious here. I did not mean to imply that anyone believes the bible to have been physically written down by a single author. Perhaps I should be more specific; the Pentateuch was written by multiple, unknown human authors and not the Moses/God dream-team. It was not written during the lifetime of Moses. It was not handed down on Mt. Sinai. It was not authored by god. The etymology of the word bible is based on phrases meaning "holy books" (in the plural) it is true, and this would certainly imply multiple authorship, though it is not explicit. The word "bible" however is singular and carries no such implication.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi there tthzr3,
Firstly, from wiktionary.comI have to say that this is getting off the point. Lets not get bogged down in semantic squabbles.
As for your question, yes, funnily enough I am aware that there are many books in the Bible. I have chosen to address what I consider to be an inconsistency in Numbers. You have chosen to ignore that point, as well as the point made before about Moses' death and instead choose to argue over my use of language. If you insist on bringing up every linguistic slip-up I make, we are never going to get to the point. I hope I have made my position reasonably clear.
If the Bible comes direct from God, then any inconsistency, at any point, seems strange and calls the whole thing into question. Do you believe that there is no contradiction in Moses describing himself as superlatively modest or writing of his own death? If so, how so?

---

Mutate and Survive

Hello Joseph, Fair play! I can't agree with that. Just because Genesis attempts to describe the creation of the universe in an ordered way, that does not mean that it is science. Science makes progress by seeking evidence and testing it; and inviting others to test it as well. Science is testable. Science is independently verifiable. Genesis fails on these counts and is therefore not science. I also can't agree with your description of Genesis as "orderly, sequenced and logical". That may be its intention, but in fact Genesis repeats itself, events are described out of sequence and it is far from logical. There is evidence that the OT had multiple authors. Scholarly analysis of the OT in its earliest available forms suggests four separate authors, identifiable due to their differences in writing style, preoccupations and especially, the name they give to God. The OT contains many duplications (such as the similarities between Gen 20 and Gen 26), suggesting multiple authorship. There are also many impossibilities, such as housing the entirety of the world's animals on a boat only measuring about 135 metres long ("The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits" Gen 6:15 - I'm assuming typical a 45cm cubit). This is plainly nonsense, and suggests that the OT was written by fallible mortals. Scientifically verified by whom? 2000 years ago from when exactly? The bible has been independently verified in places, but remains unverified in plenty more. You are implying a degree of scientific verification that simply does not exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that some is true, but some of it is clearly false. Where exactly? Where does Genesis mention this? Erm, yes there is. It's called the Big Bang. Please don't try to tell me that you were unaware of this theory. As with your assertion that there is no evidence for multiple authorship of the OT, you do not have to believe the theory, but denying its existence does your argument no favours.
As for your Einstein bit, it is very interesting and I could talk all day about why it is dishonest, but the truth is that it is completely irrelevant to this topic.
Cheers, Granny.

---

Mutate and Survive

Joseph, None of that is verifiable I'm afraid. No-one knows exactly when Moses lived, if he ever did. As tthzr3 says, you can't prove the Bible with the Bible. When people speak of verifying the Bible, they are usually talking about independent verification. Just staggeringly wrong. There aren't even "millions" of potential facts in the OT, there simply aren't enough verses. A cursory google says there are 23,145 verses in the OT (give or take a bit, OK). Just 2 million facts would require a staggering 86.41 facts per verse.
A million is very big Joseph.

---

Mutate and Survive

tthzr3, I am glad that we understand each other better. No, but it does seem a little strange used this way. More like an account long after the fact, by someone else. Referring to ones own death and period of mourning etc. is going way beyond using the third person, and into the realm of the seriously bizarre. All very well in a modern novel perhaps, but not believable in a purportedly factual document of such antiquity.
Now back to the world of dreams, as I valiantly attempt to talk sense into IamJoseph...

---

Mutate and Survive

No, this is the math test. 23,145 verses (including Micah, including the lot) divided by 200,000 dates (the smallest possible interpretation of your claim) gives us 8.64 dates per verse. Go to your Torah and see if there 8.64 dates per bloody verse.Also, for the record, the Sumerians had a working calendar some 17 thousand years before the epoch date of the Hebrew calendar, but I expect you are going to say that I am wrong, because that would be "pre-universe". I'm off to bed now, sleep tight!

---

Mutate and Survive

Joseph, In other words then, we are not allowed to use anything that exists, or anything that we can imagine, to disagree with you.
Well, that sounds absolutely fair (if you live in the Bizarro world).
Please either get a grip, or borrow one from a friend.

---

Mutate and Survive

I'll be honest; I don't know whether the universe is finite or not. I don't even know what the latest scientific thinking is on that. The problem is that you don't know either, unless you are somehow able to observe the whole universe throughout time. If you can do this, please tell me where Bin Laden is, I could do with the reward money. So again, you are only listening to arguments that take your assertion as their starting point. Do you have any idea how insulting and arrogant that is? Why certainly, since you asked so nicely, but I don't imagine that you'll pay any attention to it. How about this one;

quote:

---

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

---

Somehow those careless archaeologists have managed to miss the remains of these giants, and angel DNA is yet to be identified. I'm sure you will point them out to me.
Also, I know you asked for unconfirmed stuff from Genesis, but I couldn't resist posting this little beauty;

quote:

---

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

---

That would make the value of pi equal to 3. It's not. Close, but no cigar.
Of course I don't expect you to accept any of this, since you appear to have a bit of a blind spot for numbers (except for the Book of Numbers that is).

---

Mutate and Survive

sigh... It is unreasonable because no-one knows whether the universe is finite or infinite, least of all you. We can't observe the entire universe. Your "reasoned preamble" consists of simply quoting Genesis. I'm after something a little for empirical than that I'm afraid. For the last time; you can't prove the Bible with the Bible!
You are only willing to listen to answers that agree with your assertions. That is arrogant and childish. It is not debate, its just shouting.
Finite or Infinite? One of those answers is indeed "sci-fi", but neither of us knows which. Just for the record, I think that the universe probably is finite, but I'm not willing to except it as a starting premise, because we don't bloody well know! Again Joseph, I don't know for sure do I? Neither do you. It is not up to me to disprove any Biblical name you care to mention, not least, because proving such things beyond doubt, would be impossible whether they were true or not. It is up to you to provide evidence of your claims. Mind you, I would hazard a guess that Noah was fictional.
You asked; I did. The ark. The ark story is "not vindicated by science". Your failure to notice this very obvious fact amazes me. You have no evidence in its favour, you just ramble on about it. Even if you believe it to be true, to say that it is "vindicated by science" is a denial of reality and is, frankly, hilarious. I encourage you to continue with this line of un-reasoning. You are doing more to discredit religion than I could ever manage.
Your explanation of Goliath as an unusually tall human is also a bit of a stretch.

quote:

---

1 Samuel 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

---

That's 9'9" ({18"x6}+9"=117"). It's not very convincing when the tallest living person at the moment is a mere 8foot 5+1/2inches. That hardly counts as scientific vindication. The mentions of giants in the Bible make much more sense when viewed as myths written by superstitious men. You admit then, that angels and giants are not provable? In that case, they are not "verified by science". That was what you asked for wasn't it?.Oh, and I notice that you have repeated your "millions of stats" claim. Are you going to explain how millions of stat's can be squeezed into a mere 23,145 verses, or are you just going to ignore it again?

---

Mutate and Survive

Let's get back to the point here. I am trying to demonstrate that absurdities and contradictions in the Bible prove that it was not written by god, at least not by an inerrant god. They also highlight the fact that the Bible is not scientific. Further, I have argued that contradictions in the Torah prove that Moses did not write it either.
Do you accept that an inaccuracy in the Bible would disprove the claim of an divine author or not? That is exactly why I can't accept your finite universe premise as 100% correct (ToE is off topic). Scientific consensus currently leans toward a finite, but ever expanding universe I believe. The universe may well be finite, but we can never be 100% sure of that, or indeed, anything else. It is only reasonable to leave open the possibility that we might be wrong. Nothing is 100% in science, only the best explanation that we can provide, based on the evidence available. As you point out, observing the entire universe is not possible, therefore we must retain an element of doubt.
Einstein did not claim that the universe is 100% certainly finite, as demonstrated by this quote;

quote:

---

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. - Albert Einstein

---

Note that he says "not sure". As for Hubble, you mentioned him earlier, but never brought up an actual quote to prove your case. Hubble's work on red-shift doesn't prove the finite-infinite question either way, and I doubt that he was ever foolish enough to say that he knew for 100% certain either way. If I'm wrong, show me the quote. Sure. Infinite means without limit, boundless, continuing without end. In maths infinity refers to an imaginary number larger than any other. Of course, if you insist that the "only true definition" is in the OT, then I suppose I am probably wrong by default again. You say you do not prove the Bible with the Bible, yet you have not provided any evidence for the veracity of its accounts from any other source. In your city example, it would indeed lend weight to the Bible's account if it described your cities and then independent corroboration were found. You have not provided such evidence, despite the fact that there is plenty of it. It is not my job to provide evidence for your arguments.
Anyway, some of the Bible is true. I don't deny that. The problem is, proving one Biblical fact does not prove that the rest is true, or that the Bible is the word of god; only that the relevant section was true. To demonstrate that the Bible is not the work of an inerrant deity, I need only demonstrate one item that is not true. To prove the Bible account itself inerrant would require that one prove every last bit of it true, an impossible task. A finite universe is one in which space-time is bounded. This is all irrelevant anyway. The universe is either finite or infinite. The Bible has a 50/50 chance either way, so it's hardly amazing if it is right. If it is vindicated it proves nothing, any more than similarities with modern physics prove that ancient Hindu texts are reliable(some mention an expanding/contracting universe).
Your point about red-shift is strange. Light comes in our direction and we physically observe those photons when they reach telescopes here on Earth. This is empiricism. The entire universe can't be observed. Light from a specific star can. What we know about a single star is far more reliable than what we know about the entire universe, where we can observe that star. Go ahead and prove it then. If the OT is 100% authentic in detail, this should be easy. I don't see how it advances an argument about whether the bible is the word of god or men, though. Proving a specific piece of Biblical genealogy true does not negate the inconsistencies I have mentioned. Yes you do, yes you have and yes it is (here for example Flood geology - Wikipedia ). I say again, you don't have to agree with the refutations, but to say that they do not exist is just silly. You are right about one thing though; the flood is a secondary issue here. Show me the evidence then, and note that evidence of the existence of Goliath's people would not be relevant. Only proof that a ten-foot man could exist would be relevant here, since that is the point I raised. You said, in message 90; Angels and giants are not vindicated by science. You asked, I answered. Don't sulk just because you don't like the answer you got. As for your goalpost-shifting request for empirically disprovable stuff, I have already given you the pi=3 bit. Try measuring a circle, and see if pi=3. So just to clarify, you are withdrawing your claim that there are millions of statistics in the Bible? Is that right? I wouldn't blame you, since it is an almighty piece of crap.

---

Mutate and Survive

Well we'd better tell the nice people at Webster's that they've got it wrong then.
Actually, I suggest you learn a bit more English before trying to explain it to a native speaker. Then learn some maths. Then do some research into any of the guff that you've been talking. If you are just going to rant and repeat yourself, this is going to get really boring for me and you are going to look increasingly foolish.
By the way, you have never quoted Hubble on this thread. Go back and check (I did). You are a bearer of false witness Joseph, and God is gonna be pissed with you...Edited by Granny Magda, : Fixed quote box.

---

Mutate and Survive

Gee thanks, that's much clearer now.
The above comments almost resemble English, but stop short of making even a scintilla of sense. I have no idea what you are talking about, and I doubt that it is because I lack the wit to grasp your lofty argument.
Infinite = without limit or end, boundless.
Right? It's that simple. Your "definition" is no more than "words mean what I choose them to mean" gobbledegook. Stop blathering.
I normally wouldn't criticise someone's English when they are clearly using it as a second language, but you seem to think that you have the right to redefine what words mean, when in fact, you have such a poor command of English that you can hardly string together a comprehensible post. Sorry to talk like that Joseph, but it needed saying. If you want to make your point clearly, try shorter, less rambling sentences. Try an in-line spell-checker.Edited by Granny Magda, : Minor tinkering.

---

Mutate and Survive

Joseph,
Nimrod is doing such a sterling job of showing up your incredible (and wilful) ignorance that I feel unable to add much. But this steaming pile of crap really needs dealing with; How dare you tell such callous lies? Do you honestly believe that people living in the Gaza Strip are not suffering? Do you believe that people stuck in crappy refugee camps in Lebanon are "just fine thank you"? Those people can barely scrape together a subsistence existence. Talking crap about history is one thing, but denying the reality of the hardship that the Palestinians face, whilst it goes on right under your own nose, is just sickening. Innocent kids are growing up in poverty, without a home, without a future and you say they are not suffering? That is monstrous. Shame on you.
I'm not saying that Israelis do not suffer from the conflict, or that Israel is solely responsible for all this; the Palestinians' own leaders are pretty adept at screwing things up as well. I'm saying that pretending no-one is suffering is akin to holocaust denial, in fact worse, since you can find out the truth any time you like. Actually, I find it hard to credit that you actually believe what you say here. I think you are just bullshitting.
Your previous nonsense about the Bible was just funny, but this racist propagandising is truly appalling. If you want to do the state of Israel a favour, I suggest that you keep your sick racist lies to yourself, because you aren't doing a very good job of representing your nation. This kind of shit is one of the things that makes people abroad lose sympathy with Israel.

---

Mutate and Survive