A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.

[QUOTE][B]I can't think of any other reason for them to persist in such hardships other than that they truely believed in Jesus Christ. [/QUOTE][/B]Mohammed had to leave his city in order to escape persecution.The Latter-day Saints had to cross the Great Plains because they were being killed off by the local Christian population. That was after Joseph Smith died for what he believed. [QUOTE][B] The events they talked about, did not happen somewhere in a cave (Like the revelations to Mohammed)[/QUOTE][/B]Or the work of John the Revelator, which *was* done in a cave? [QUOTE][B]After his resurrection, Jesus apeared to hundreds of people. Surely you can't get hundreds of people to tell exactly the same lie?[/QUOTE][/B]Historical sources (including, as I understand it, the work of Flavius Josephus) do indicate that the event was witnessed by thousands. Unfortunately only a few wrote about it so that point isn't terribly convincing now that those witnesses have died. [QUOTE][B]That is what some people wants us to believe about the moonlandings![/QUOTE][/B]Which were televised live across the globe, returned hundreds of pounds of lunar samples, and generated thousands of scientific papers. [QUOTE][B]Go to a nut house and look what you'll find. You won't find 5 crazy people telling the same crazy stories.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually they might as long as they are around each other enough.
I'm curious though, have you tried this or read any studies? [QUOTE][B]Crazy people don't work in concert.[/QUOTE][/B]So all I need to prove a church is true is multiple witnesses? There were 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon. What church do you attend?

[QUOTE][B]Again, there are no firsthand accounts in the NT of the life of Christ.[/QUOTE][/B]I don't think I even *have* to demonstrate that this is false. It goes right up there with Mormon arranged marriages, Smith's prophecy that he recorded 20 years after he was dead, and Shakespeare writing the KJV.Perhaps you meant that there were no accounts in the NT that were written while Christ was alive. But there are firsthand accounts, commonly known as the Gospels.This conflicts with the Forum Rules on two seperate issues: [QUOTE][B]Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE][B]Avoid any form of misrepresentation.[/QUOTE][/B]And what do we have here? Another inaccurate statement: [QUOTE]Hanno: [B]There is no other religion that grew under persucution, while the followers did not fight back with violence.Nos: Judaism. [/QUOTE][/B]Actually the Jews did fight back--on many occasions. (1) Throughout the OT. (2) Against the Romans at the Masada.I don't believe there was no violence on behalf of the Christians either. I also don't necessarily believe that no religion out there would refuse to fight back. But Nos' example is incorrect and most people would recognize that instantly.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-06-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Actually they're not even sure that these were even written by who they were said to be written by.[/QUOTE][/B]But you would have to prove that point before being correct in saying there were no firsthand accounts. My point is, as long as the Gospels are what they claim to be (and they are unto shown otherwise) the
claim that there are no firsthand accounts is without support. [QUOTE][B]These sources make the Gospels suspect as firsthand accounts since many of them didn't actually appear before the end of the 1st century AD. Also, considering that the average lifespan was around 30 years with a maximum of maybe in the 60's with the possibility of living into one's 70's for the very wealthy, at the time, it is not too likely that they were as they were claimed to be.[/QUOTE][/B]These are valid points--but it isn't terribly suprising if the manuscripts have been circulating in Palestine and Greece before they reach enough prominence to be referred to by other historical sources that happen to exist today. I would expect a religion to have to to reach a "critical mass" before many references begin to appear.
(This is similar to my response to the YEC 'missing link' argument, population size and the vagaries of fossilization)Also we don't know how long they lived but I think your age expectations are good though I think it is possible that they *could* have reached 70 if they were very lucky (again we don't know).If these Gospels are first known from the first century after 1 AD, which we suppose is the year of the crucifixion (and correct me if I'm getting that point mixed up) then these manuscripts would have been handed down from what, one generation? Two? I don't think that's a huge issue based upon the time scales we are working with an margins of error involved. (This is my response to YEC claims of inaccuracy in radiometric dating.) [QUOTE][B]Besides, I had actually meant Buddhism. [/QUOTE][/B]That makes much more sense. I also type too fast, it destroys my grammar (especially tenses), which keeps getting worse over time as I use my computer.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-07-2002]

[QUOTE][B]While Josephus probably mentioned Jesus in his original work, and I happen to think he did, it was probably only a brief mention and the story was almost certainly greatly enhanced by a Christian Monk who did a translation of Josephus in the third century IIRC.[/QUOTE][/B]Also a good point. I used the phrase "as I understand it" because
I haven't studied the work, and the thought of a monk inserting material seems very feasible. [QUOTE][B]While I believe that Jesus existed there is actually very little hard evidence of the fact that stands up to serious scrutiny[/QUOTE][/B]I realize that. He lived most of his life outdoors and wandered from place to place and never wrote anything. It could be that his enemies would write of him but the Bible mentions that there had been many others like him.

[QUOTE][B]It was also once claimed that the Earth was flat as well with plenty of "firsthand" accounts of this, until they made better ships and some put doubt into that belief. It took centuries for it to be accepted as a fact that it wasn't flat.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually the Greeks knew the Earth was roughly spherical and had even calculated the diameter. Don't they teach that in Canada? Preemptive strike along that line: Columbus did not "prove" the Earth was round either.The point here is that, though it doesn't prove me right, I have what claims to be a firsthand account and I'm waiting for it to be proven wrong.Actually I'm also waiting for you to prove there is no God or admit that your position is based upon faith. [QUOTE][B]On geographical scales a few million years is just a tick on the clock, but with the scale of a human life (Especially during a time when that was comparatively short) a few decades is a long time.[/QUOTE][/B]Also we are not looking looking at human life scales we are looking at the age of the religion (2000 years) and the uncertainty of when the crucifixion took places introduces an error margin. Finally you don't know how long the manuscripts existed before they were "found" by other writers of the time. The fossil record comparison and radiometric dating comparisons still stand.

[QUOTE][B]They were a seafaring people[/QUOTE][/B]That's irrelevant to their knowledge of the shape of the Earth and its diameter. [QUOTE][B]Until they can be shown to have been actually written by who they are said to be written by they are no different than an eyewitness account of a UFO sighting and anal probing. [/QUOTE][/B]Then by your reasoning we must write the British Museum immediately and inform them that Hammurabi's Code is a fake. After all it claims to be written under the order of Hammurabi but we really have no better testimony than that of some UFO abductee.Also I suppose we should throw out most Shakespearean plays and the works of Homer and Aeschylus. We can discard the works of Hippocrates and Plato's writings on philosophy. Pliny the Younger's account of the destruction of Pompeii? Worthless! We shouldn't fret over the loss of the Great Library after all, it was just a big stack of ancient tabloids... [QUOTE][B]Especially since the Romans had no record of a crucifixion of a rebel rabbi name Jesus and they were very good record keepers.[/QUOTE][/B]The Romans were generally good record keepers. Too bad the Vandals weren't. The quality of a record is irrelevant if the record does not survive. Also, how many people did you think the Romans crucified? Why, they are supposed to have crucified 6,000 of Spartacus' followers in a really big, macabre roadside display along the Appian Way--but can you name any by name? Do you expect that we have a full list, properly indexed, to check?

[QUOTE][B]One of the proofs of a spherical Earth is from ships appearing from under the curvature when they return from far at sea.[/QUOTE][/B]No, that's not a proof of a spherical earth any more than it is a proof of an egg-shaped Earth. The evidence of a spherical earth was from observations of lunar eclipses and elsewhere. Of course no one type of observation could "prove" a spherical Earth (the lunar eclipse observations supported a flat, round earth equally well as a spheroid) but a couple of different methods of observation did the trick. [QUOTE][B]Unlike Christ Hammurabi, or Gilgamish, has been shown to have lived.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually the references to these fellows are just names on pottery, no better than names in the Gospels. If the Gospels are not valid history than no classical works are valid history either, according to your logic, because they are just words on parchment. As you said, none of them are any better than somebody who claims to have gotten personal with a bunch of aliens.In fact, what piece of evidence can you give me that Hammurabi existed that is completely unlike any of the evidence that Jesus existed? In fact how do we know Hammurabi existed at all? (We have something that he caused-to-be-written and we have stories about him.)Now back to the point of the Roman records, were you going to name the compatriots of Spartacus or not? After all, you believe that the Romans kept records of all they crucified and they definately crucified a whole lot of these folks and since no record of Jesus is evidence that Jesus did not exist then no record of these people must be evidence that they did not exist. Hence, the rebellion of Spartacus was all made up. [QUOTE][B]I know what tactic you are trying to use again and it is nonsense. I believe that you are trying to use the Spotlight Fallacy.[/QUOTE][/B]I don't doubt that you "believe" it but you are incorrect. First, I'm going to give you some material that defines the "Spotlight Fallacy" and provides examples. This is the first hit Google brought up and I suppose it will do fine: Page not found - NizkorThe Spotlight Fallacy is at work when an extreme instance of something gets disproportionate attention and people begin to equate all instances of something as having the same qualities as the extreme instance. Basically it is a form of stereotyping.You used the Spotlight Fallacy in the thread, "Why people want to believe there is a god." when you blamed the missionaries of my church for violating the human rights of indigenous peoples. When I called you on it you simply "justified" that false claim by saying that missionaries from some churches had done that before and then you said: "Missionaries are missionaries". That is the Spotlight Fallacy. Thank you for the example.What my argument is is a reduction to absurdity (reducto ad absurdum) in which I simply took your argument and extrapolated it to instances with a known solution, and your argument generated solutions known or thought to be incorrect (that all the classical works known today are fake). [QUOTE][B]The execution of such an important person would have been recorded by many sources.[/QUOTE][/B]But most anyone who knows much about the NT would inform you that Jesus was not an important person to the Romans. In fact his very method of execution betrays this (important people were beheaded).Also the Bible time and again points out how insignificant the whole issue was to the Romans. Pilate couldn't care less and frankly, didn't seem to think he was worth killing. The Jewish priests were the ones that insisted upon the crucifixion, but to Pilate, what harm was there in some 'crazy' Jew when you have dreams of a cushy political office back home? [QUOTE]KJV Luke 23:4[B] Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE]KJV Mark 15:14 [B]Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE]KJV Luke 23:20 [B]Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE] KJV John 18:29 [B]Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE]KJV John 18:31 [B]Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death[/QUOTE][/B]Pilate didn't care and had the crowd not rallied against Jesus would most likely have found something better to do that afternoon than pronounce the death sentence upon Him. He also tried to set Jesus loose but the crowd wanted Barnabas instead. [QUOTE][B]Enough to survive such a destruction.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-08-2002]

[QUOTE][B]It has become quite apparent that it is usless to argue with you since you are a TRUE believer[/QUOTE][/B]Running away, are we? [QUOTE][B]and will more readily accept myth over reality.[/QUOTE][/B]Mere assertion: you have failed to demonstrate anything is a myth. [QUOTE][B]Get your characters straight.[/QUOTE][/B]Get your fallacies straight. Or better yet, stop using them. [QUOTE][B]The name used now is a mistranslation. [/QUOTE][/B]I believe Shakespeare once wrote something along this line.

[QUOTE][B]Irrelevant.[/QUOTE][/B]You know, YECs are known for getting scarce when they can't fight reason. [QUOTE][B]There are none so blind who will not see.[/QUOTE][/B]I agree. Absolutely. [QUOTE][B]I'm not the one using fallacies as arguements.[/QUOTE][/B]If we ignore the ones I've caught you in.

[QUOTE][B]If you agree than open your eyes.[/QUOTE][/B]I've been suggesting the same to you, but you absolutely refuse to accept even the possibility that I am right and have tried circular reasoning and all manner of fallacies to escape it. You're quite the one to tell me to "open my eyes". [QUOTE][B] You are projecting[/QUOTE][/B]Then why don't you try answering to my last post in this thread, in which I reduced your argument to absurdity, as opposed to plugging your ears, planting your head in the sand, and shouting, "Nah-nah-na-nahnah".

[QUOTE][B]I don't have to go to the Moon to know that it isn't made of green cheese There is enough real evidence that it isn't.[/QUOTE][/B]Apples and oranges.That can be done in a scientific matter because you are dealing with physical phenomena. This is metaphysics. You have no scientific evidence in favor of or against God. I'm waiting for you to either admit that your position is faith-based or take up the agnostic position and admit that you don't know if any God(s) are real and you don't know if any God(s) are not. [QUOTE][B]You're the one who is using fallacies as arguements[/QUOTE][/B]You're projecting again. Also, why are you so frustrated that you have to attack me instead of using logic? [QUOTE][B]and you're so deluded that you refuse to see this.[/QUOTE][/B]Speaking of fallacies, that's a circular argument, an ad-hominem, and a mere assertion.It is a mere assertion because you have not examined me in person and you lack the credentials to determine my mental state.Your reasoning that I am deluded *because* believe in God is a mere assertion because you cannot know that there is no God.It is an ad-hominem because you are trying to flee from the discussion by attacking my ability to reason.It is a circular argument because you assume that I am deluded because I believe in God and therefore I am wrong (your conclusion)
but your starting axiom is that there is no God.That's four fallacies in one complex, a record for you so far.Aside: the old stereotype is that atheists resort to logic and theists resort to fideism. I see the opposite here.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-10-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Which branch of science teaches "metaphysics"? The same one which teaches astrology, alchemy, and creationism? Want me to tell you your future by reading the bumps on your head? Where's that mallet? Pseudo-science is not credible science.[/QUOTE][/B]The average atheist, I've noticed, is significantly higher on the learning curve than the average YEC. Hence I never anticipated that I would have to point out to an atheist or agnostic what "science" deals with and what science does not deal with.Science is a fairly new branch of philosophy that deals exclusively with the natural world. Therefore it limits itself to natural phenomena and is irrelevant to any manner of supernatural phenomena, by definition.Therefore YECs that try to mix science and religious miracles are misguided. But they are no more misguided than the non-theists who try to use evidentialism and science to ponder the existence or non-existance of God. It just doesn't work either way."Metaphysics", as you should have noticed by the name, is a part of philosophy that is higher on the taxonomic scale than science. It is inclusive of logic but not limited to evidentialism. However it is not science because it attempts to do things that science cannot. Metaphysics, when the term is correctly applied, is no more "pseudoscience" than ethics is a pseudoscience (ethics is another branch of philosophy) or politics.Metaphysics, however, is the parent branch of science.http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/...m/sections/section1/branches.htmWhen you decided to get involved in this little debate you left science behind for metaphysics. It is a different playing field, defined by epistemology but not by evidence, at least not in the scientific sense. If you don't like that you need to stick to debating YECs, where you can work exclusively with science.

[QUOTE][B]Have you discovered another world besides the natural one?[/QUOTE][/B]Have you any evidence that there is none? Put another way, do you have any evidence that there is no God? [QUOTE][B]And philosophy isn't a hard science either. It is only one step along the process. Logic alone is not proof of anything. [/QUOTE][/B]Philosophy isn't a "hard science"? You're missing the point. We aren't talking about science, we have not been talking about science. [QUOTE][B]Like astrology is the parent branch of astronomy, and alchemy the parent of Chemistry, but as we have learned more and more about the real world these "branches" of science have lost credibility and moved to the wayside.[/QUOTE][/B]See above. [QUOTE][B]In other words it is nothing more than logic and word games which actually prove nothing in any real sense in the end when that is all you do in the process.[/QUOTE][/B]The only thing I can demonstrate here is that there may or may not be a God and any particular church may or not be true, and that you are wrong to throw out any possibilities. [QUOTE][B]What, you tring for the title of master debator?[/QUOTE][/B]Are you accusing me of sophism?

[QUOTE][B]Do you have any credible, verifible, or unbiased evidence that there is a so-called supernatural world or even a god?[/QUOTE][/B]Haven't we discussed this already? You didn't like the concept of a spirit witness so you labeled that incredible, unverifiable, and biased. Then I reminded you that science does not cover the supernatural because the supernatural does not involve the kinds of evidence you have in mind. Therefore the standard rules of science do not apply here because this isn't science. Most recently I have been asking you to justify a position of atheism towards Christianity which I am waiting on.This is how it breaks down as I see it:Premise: there is a God. (no physical evidence to support it)
vs
Premise: there is no God.(no physical evidence to support it)The only real difference is that one side claims to have a subjective form of witness. [QUOTE][B]Using your "logic" my assertion that the universe was created by a Big Blue Banana is just as valid as your assertion that it was your god.[/QUOTE][/B]Or no God for that matter. Atheism does not appear to be a bit superior to Bananaism either. (Of course I don't have any subjective witnesses for either Bananaism or atheism.) [QUOTE][B]Irrelevant.[/QUOTE][/B]Bald assertion. [QUOTE][B]Without going further in the process you are only speculating. Again, using your "logic" I could put forth that the planet Pluto is made of vanilla ice cream.[/QUOTE][/B]But there is a historical precedence for my perspective.Using your logic Descartes could have railed against the existance of radio waves and many intellectuals of the seventeenth century would have railed against the germ theory of disease. Sagan did not say only one thing, he also mentioned that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."As for Pluto being made out of ice cream we can rule that out because of cometary spectrometry. Since this is science we work with theories and can collect evidence, we already have enough theoretical and circumstantial evidence to make a vanilla-flavored Pluto unlikely, barring new discoveries in organic chemistry.[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-14-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Sure you will.There are lots of men in there who say they are Jesus.[/QUOTE][/B]Thanks for defending me again but please note that it was never my position that patients in an asylum would not tell the same stories.I actually pointed this out in the message you replied to.