View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 31st, 2014, 7:36 am



Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9499
Location: Dallas
Post Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-eh ... 40301.html

Quote:
Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?

Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."

And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.

The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.

This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the "Paul" of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as "the word of truth" (1:13); he indicates that the "truth is in Jesus"; he tells his readers to "speak the truth" to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to "fasten the belt of truth around your waist" (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.

It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author of 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Jesus, Interrupted'. His latest book, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are', is now available from HarperOne.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


March 29th, 2011, 11:27 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
Quote:
Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?


Nonsense, to say it is contradictory or mistake means you have to assume the INTENT of that section was to document historical events. Parables do NOT intend to document historical events but rather use the story to get a point across. The "contradiction" in Genesis is 2 chapters apart, written by the same person. The article acts as if we are too dumb to realize that if the same person wrote chapter 1 and chapter 3 that they are too stupid to realize they couldn't even copy their first story correctly. Even worse, the article acts as if anyone could right something in someones name and get it in the Bible or even chagne scripture... but over the thousands of years no one took the time to tidy this discrepency up!? HUH? it's completely contradictory... and I'll show that the rest of the artciel is as well.

Quote:
Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.?


Oh yeah, were is the proof. This is another example of skipping the discussion of "who wrote the book" and creating an axium assuming they didn't because a group of "experts" decided that someone did or didn't write it. This will fit together below. But my point here is that you cannot assume something is true then build a case on it when the REAL point of contention is who the authors are. It is bad logic becuase it is based on shaky axium(s):

(1)Some books of the Bible are not from their identified authors,
(2)the Bible insist on truth,
(3)therefore the Bible is full of lies

Point (1) is under contention and to say "most scholars" BELIEVE something (not fact, believe) doesn't prove anything or establish the axium as truth. The logic is built on questionable logic.

Quote:
Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."

And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.



Really, care to explain why they think 2 Peter wasn't written by the same person? No need I will sum it up.

1 Peter and 2 Peter writting styles are distinctly different. When you read them, it is clear that a single person who wrote the pen to paper would not change their writting style so much as to see this big of a difference. So the assumption made is that the same person did not take pen to paper for each book and since Peter took pen to paper he must not have wrote it..... WAIT... did you catch that:

"Since PETER took pen to paper..."

What an assumption... can we assume that Peter literally wrote the two books? It seems to be a reasonable assumption... until you ACTUALLY study the Bible! The article and "expert" scholars though for some reason seem to want to ignore some key pieces in information in the Bible.

Romans 16:21-23
" 21 Timothy, my co-worker, sends his greetings to you, as do Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, my fellow Jews.
22 I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord. 23 Gaius, whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy, sends you his greetings. "

Wha Wha Wha What!? You mean Paul didn't physically write the letter? That means he is not the author!!! Holy crap, LIES!!! All over!!!

...wait... does the author have to physically write down the ideas or thoughts to be the author? Hmm...

"Dictation of letters was standard in Paul's day"

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qoc_HH ... on&f=false

WHAT!? So if Paul dictates to someone, is he still the author!? Hmmm... DUH!

So, if it is common practice to dictate to someone, wouldn't that mean different people can pen the words for someone... let's say Peter as well as leader of the early church... and the person dictating would still be the author!? EUREKA!!!

Why are we so hell bent on refusing to acknowledge common practices when "experts" make conclusions? What morons are we putting in in these areas of expertise!? They refuse to acknowledge common practice they agree happened as an explination. The most PROBABLE explination of who wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter is that PETER himself wrote it. That is the most probable explination in CONTEXT. If we see discrepencies on how it is written, then we should conclude maybe he used a common practice to accomplish the letter being written. The LEAST likely option is that he didn't use a common practice even though he was the HEAD of a group of people and lesser individuals used the practice.

Where do we get the idiotic logic that we assume the least likely option as the explination!?

Quote:
The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.


Further, the books that are decidely NOT by certain authors are CLEARLY stated to be CO-AUTHORED and would have been INFLUENCIAL or CRUCIAL to the style and content. WHY?

Let's get these out on the table:

"little or no dispute that Paul actually wrote at least seven, those being Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon"

What is disputed:

Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Ephesians, Titus

What do some books identify as the author?

2 Corinthians 1:1 "1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, "

1 Thessalonians 1:1 "1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy,"

2 Thessalonians 1:1 "1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, "

Colossians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,"

etc...

So, if it is clearly identified to be co-authored... WHY THE HECK would our conclusion be Paul didn't write something? Its dumb and illogical on our part. Why do we come to such stupid conclusions!? When you group author something it will obviously be influenced by all those involved.

Quote:
This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the "Paul" of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as "the word of truth" (1:13); he indicates that the "truth is in Jesus"; he tells his readers to "speak the truth" to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to "fasten the belt of truth around your waist" (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.

It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author of 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Jesus, Interrupted'. His latest book, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are', is now available from HarperOne.
[/quote]

Here is my thoughts. We don't WANT those thigs to be true, therefore we pick the least logical conclusion to say they weren't so we do not have to address them. It started as queestioning the authenticity, then when enoug peolpe agreed it became a fact, now someone honestly thinks he can say "They were NOT written by Paul." Bologna... what completely illogical and untrue conclusion.

This article feeds of the misconeptions and bias thinking completely rampent in the world today. No longer do we critically put things into context, we take our new fangled technologies and "science" and blindly apply them out of context to support our previously already defined conclusions. It's a mess...

But the real trick is, it doesn't matter if Paul or Peter wrote those books if you personally don't believe what they say anyways. The only reason it matters so someone is if they NEED confirmation that they are not true because they are worried they might be wrong. So we concoct nonsense conclusions out of context to make us feel better about not believing in something...

Just say you don't believe in something and move on... don't concoct lies and illogical conclusions, call them fact, then spread misconceptions around till people believe it... what a joke...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 30th, 2011, 1:07 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9499
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
more on the authorship of the bibile can be found on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

Gotta luv a born-again evangelical Christian who upon open minded intense studies of the "good book" comes to an agnostic conclusion - you know that is gonna rile some believers up.

As for steensn, bravo - a well thought out response and I salute you even though I don't agree with much of it - I certainly respect it.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


March 30th, 2011, 2:08 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
That is the problem Pablo... it isn't that you question the authorship of the Bible, it is that people take it to the extreme and put unrealistic expectations on proof of authorship. We do not question or conclude more questionable pieces of literature with less evidence to back them up from an authorship standpoint.

For some reason, the Bible is target bad "opinion" and "anything goes" that is not even considered for less supported text. And by supported test, I am not even considereing the fact whether or not it is true or not. This is the only thing people seem to feel the need to go past questioning the truth and feel the need to question the more than that.

Just liek your responce, "As for steensn, bravo - a well thought out response and I salute you even though I don't agree with much of it - I certainly respect it." If you don't "agree" with much if it then you are blind. I only pointed out MORE context to the the pieces in question and provided MORE options to the "readers." The options were not even considered int he article or even given a chance, not because they wre found incorrect, but because they disuade from what the preconsieved notions are. You can say you "disagree with much of waht I said" but what you are really saying is: "there is a reasnable and more probably explination to the issue I brought up but I am unwilling to accept it because I have concluded that they are not true even thought they have more supporting evidence than the half informed claims the artilce I posted makes."

Sorry Pablo, but this is pure trash and missing a WHOLE LOt of information to come to a conclusion. I have an opene mind, you PROVE to me they are not from the authors noted they were from and I am open to it. If you CHOOSE to select a conclusion by eliminating (without anything but opinion) the other options and choose to say I am not open minded for considering it be my guest. The problem is that your definition of "open minded" is not "Willingness to accept alternative ideas or new facts" but rather "Accepting alternative ideas and unproven conjecture."

Pablo, you cannot throw up a possbility and act like it holds any ground and should be treated with complete respect. It is nonsense red herring. Instead of focusing ON the actual claim itself we focus on "open mindedness" and the conclusions from those claims. It is a silly parlor trick attempt to muddy the waters and color the opposition negatively instead of dealing with the facts.

You say that this conclusion... that is complete BS. An agnostic conclusion is simply that the authors are WRONG. You go farther than an agnostic conclusion and attempt to muddy the waters on the authorship themselves without any proof or factual basis to back it up. You simply cannot make the claim that the proposed writers did not actually write these books until you have properly disposed of the more resonable explinations based on the CONTEXTUAL practices os that time period. Because the topic int he book is religious by nature we somehow find it open for religious discretion instead of real historical conclusions. That is total BS and you know it, you cannot make a historical claim and then us religious level opinions to claim another opinion. That is total crao because the issue presented is not religious in nature... only the material is. It is terrible, yet normal in our culture to accept different standards if the Bible or other religious text is involved than what we would apply to everything else.

I call cop out, but I doubt that matters. You are going to believe what you want, btu I cannot let misinformation and bad logic not be addressed which is exactly what is happening here.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 30th, 2011, 2:48 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
I'll add this...

The article claims it is important to get the authorship of the Bible correct bcause it matters. Where I totally agree... it lacks any attempt to address the issue or the rigor and contextual discussion to address it. It is a fly by attempt to spread logical fallacies and bad information. It is in bad form and not at all a truthful attempt to question truth. The article in itself it ironic and does not even apply it's own rigor to itself.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 30th, 2011, 2:51 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9499
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
Wow, I tried to explain that I respected your opinion and response - didn't try to elicit an emotional response.

Truthfully, at this point I think you are overreacting a bit. This is a short article, you want a lot more. Well the author has written a number of books if you would like to see further explanation.

If you think I am blind because I don't support and believe in your arguments - that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Youi can also choose to read way to much into my response and turn it into a negative if you desire, I assure you that was not my intent, sorry if it came out that way.

As someone who was brought up Christian, but upon further studies in my 20's moved to an agnostic view which much also riding on the authorship of bible, I am aligned with much of his thinking. Further more, upon studying the earlier beliefs of people I was shocked at how much of the Bible was plagiaried and repacked versus original text.

I don't have the time to get into a major discussion here, I also know it would do nothing as you are deeply rooted in your beliefs and I am deeply rooted in mine - neither one of us is going to do a 180 here nor do I want you to. Your beliefs are personal as evidenced by your response. Call it a cop out if you like, as Jesus would have me do I will simply turn the other cheek.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


March 30th, 2011, 3:07 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
Pablo wrote:
Wow, I tried to explain that I respected your opinion and response - didn't try to elicit an emotional response.

Truthfully, at this point I think you are overreacting a bit. This is a short article, you want a lot more. Well the author has written a number of books if you would like to see further explanation.

If you think I am blind because I don't support and believe in your arguments - that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Youi can also choose to read way to much into my response and turn it into a negative if you desire, I assure you that was not my intent, sorry if it came out that way.

As someone who was brought up Christian, but upon further studies in my 20's moved to an agnostic view which much also riding on the authorship of bible, I am aligned with much of his thinking. Further more, upon studying the earlier beliefs of people I was shocked at how much of the Bible was plagiaried and repacked versus original text.

I don't have the time to get into a major discussion here, I also know it would do nothing as you are deeply rooted in your beliefs and I am deeply rooted in mine - neither one of us is going to do a 180 here nor do I want you to. Your beliefs are personal as evidenced by your response. Call it a cop out if you like, as Jesus would have me do I will simply turn the other cheek.


I don't know how emotion can be read from text... I'm not emotional, just getting thoughts out.

My point is that the author makes "factual" claims but does not do justice to the fact that they are not factuals claims, just opinions. When you do that you put a level of burden on yourself. I have read LOTs of stuff and none of the brightest minds have made any factual or well though out conclusions without ignoring key contextual information.

Look, if you don't a rsponce, don't take it upon yourself to start a thread posting untruthful information. Just because you choose to believe that the authorship of the Bible was wrong does mean it is. Just because you and some other people choose to cross out other mor plausible possibilities doesn't mean I have to respect it. I respect logic and factual arguments. Lazy uneducated conclusions I simply cannot respect. I'd rather be honest then parade around acting like the facts on on my side...

I'm not going around trying to prove Jesus rose from the dead, I am HONEST saying that it is a matter of beleif that is more likely to not have happened than happen. I am honest in saying that it is an extraordinary claim not really based on much clear cut evidence, only eye witness accounts. I'm honest is saying that it is not alone in making some very remarkable claims.

You and this guys should be honest to say that your opinion on th eauthorship of the Bible is note based on good logic and clear evidence. It is based on your belief that you don't THINK it is... even though the evidence points otherwise.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 30th, 2011, 3:51 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9499
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
On one hand you say you "respect logic and factual arguments" on the other you say "it is a matter of beleif" along with that you believe in"extraordinary claim not really based on much clear cut evidence", and therein lies the contradictory problem. Now, if you are really being HONEST, I hope you see the inconsistencies in your views...

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


March 30th, 2011, 4:14 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
No one has to respect my claim of Jesus, so there is no contradiction. I respect and honest assessment of things. I don't need to respect your beliefs and I don't even ask people to respect mine. Whether a religion is true or not is belief, historically what happened is not... that is where my respect for logical/truthful arguments come in.

I can respect a person, I can respect their argument (if based on logic, context, and facts)... I do not have to respect someones beliefs, especially when it overrides real facts, context, and logic.

I don't exoect you, Wags, or anyone else to respect my beliefs. Either you believe them or you don't... that is the meaning of life IMO. Everything else just get's in the way.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 30th, 2011, 4:41 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7457
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
Quote:
But the real trick is, it doesn't matter if Paul or Peter wrote those books if you personally don't believe what they say anyways. The only reason it matters so someone is if they NEED confirmation that they are not true because they are worried they might be wrong. So we concoct nonsense conclusions out of context to make us feel better about not believing in something...

Just say you don't believe in something and move on... don't concoct lies and illogical conclusions, call them fact, then spread misconceptions around till people believe it... what a joke...



Bravo. =D>

Steensn,
Congratulations on a masterful refutation of this piece of crap article.

The whole point of the article seemed to be the author trying to convince himself, and others, that the bible is full of lies.

Clintonism #1:

Tell a lie often enough, it will eventually get accepted as if it were true.


March 30th, 2011, 7:44 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12149
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
Please provide irrefultable evidence the Bible is 100% factually true.

What's that? You can't? Looks like you're in the same boat as the author of the article in OP.


In other words, Facts != Beliefs

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 31st, 2011, 2:12 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
TheRealWags wrote:
Please provide irrefultable evidence the Bible is 100% factually true.

What's that? You can't? Looks like you're in the same boat as the author of the article in OP.


In other words, Facts != Beliefs


Not at all Wags, because the question is NOT whether the Bible is not 100% factually true and worrying about the extraordinary claims it makes. The questions presented is of the authorship, which, can be consolodated to non-religious discussions. Unfortunetly, just as you showed us their is a silly and completely illogical conclusion that because the overlying subject matter of the Bible is beliefs, then by that associtation any discussion about the Bible is therefore up for belief. That is ironicically completely against logical though proces that the same people who say that science rules.

I don't need to prove the Bible 100% factually true. That isn't the claim. The claim is that the AUTHORS were not who they say they are and therefore the Bible is lying. I'm saying that is an axium NOT supported by the evidence and facts and to get to that axum one has to place a belief on the least logical conclusion from the facts. You start playing belief in a question that is purely factual by nature and not religious.

To have Pablo state that this is an agnostic conclusion and from you that because we can't prove some parts of the Bible as 100% true then the rest is open to interpretation is complete nonsense. You attempt to muddy the waters to allow for any viewpoint to be equal which is a logical fallacy. It is like saying the Constitution has been changed so many times we cannot rely on it and we should start over.

This is an attempt to overcompesate for ones beliefs. Christians do it with evidence against evolution and agnostics and other do it against the Bible. We let emotion and beliefs get in the way of facts then act like we are allowed to because "it's beliefs." Sorry, but that is nonsense.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


March 31st, 2011, 2:45 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9499
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
steensn wrote:
To have Pablo state that this is an agnostic conclusion and from you that because we can't prove some parts of the Bible as 100% true then the rest is open to interpretation is complete nonsense.


Really??? I said "Gotta luv a born-again evangelical Christian who upon open minded intense studies of the "good book" comes to an agnostic conclusion - you know that is gonna rile some believers up."

I was referring to his overall conclussion about Christianity after his graduate studies, not specifically referring to this article and his questioning of the proposed authors themselves (which would have nothing to do with Agnosticism anyways). Why are twisting and misrepresenting what I stated?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


March 31st, 2011, 3:20 pm
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12149
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
Ok then, let me rephrase:

Please provide irrefultable evidence the Bible was 100% written by those stated.

What's that? You can't? Looks like you're in the same boat as the author of the article in OP.

See, it really does go both ways. You believe the Bible was written by those you've been told; some others do not share your belief and neither side can prove or disprove either argument.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 31st, 2011, 3:39 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2799
Post Re: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters
Shoddy Journalism at its best. Even if he had all the evidence in the world, he hid behind speculation. The top protestant and catholic scholars... who? No names, no quotes... he's just making things up. Jumping on Christianity is the popular activity now and I'll tell you why...

When Islam or Muslims are brought up, they get violent and destructive. Say the word Islam in a conversation about anything, and the alarms sound. The argument developed that all religions do the same thing and that Christians were just as, if not more violent. So hence the social experiment. Start openly attacking Christianity in the press and media and wait for a violent act to happen in response.

Someone agnostic that questions any religion is perfectly ok. We should question our own faith continuously or we don't care enough about it. Questioning and waivering are too different things. The problem comes when you don't question, but state false facts and list sources that you never even attempt to name and say its an accepted truth. That's Bigotry. The airhead on MSNBC did the same thing... Almost no Christians believe that Revelations is true.... Again, a sly attack on the faith itself and attributing sources that you're making up. Intentionally misleading others in your articles is a breath of journalism ethics.

And I know someone will say its an opinion piece... Well no its not. Opinion is opinion. You show facts that can support your opinion. This is using speculation and then passing it off as truth or "accepted theory among the community". Its pure BS.


March 31st, 2011, 5:05 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.