Evidence against divine inspiration
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2017, 10:36 AM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
(26-01-2017 08:51 AM)Ask21771 Wrote:  And I need to know if divine inspiration is evidently not true

Well boo fucking hoo. What you need is course in logic and the ability to think critically. You've been shown that the bible makes contradictory and erroneous claims. You've been shown that it has been edited and revised over centuries. The evidence is pretty clear that political motivations were the main inspiration behind most of it. Read some Bart Ehrman, Joseph Allegro, Richard Friedman, etc to start to understand it. If you want to cling to "you can't prove it isn't inspired by god" then, by all means, do so. It's unjustified and therefore irrational but obviously nothing is going to drive that into your head.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
26-01-2017, 10:49 AM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
(26-01-2017 09:05 AM)Ask21771 Wrote:  ...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I beg to differ.

See attached assessment commissioned by TTA.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2017, 11:21 AM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
(26-01-2017 08:38 AM)Ask21771 Wrote:  Is there proof or at least evidence against for the bible being the inspired word of god?

No

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2017, 11:31 AM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
(26-01-2017 09:05 AM)Ask21771 Wrote:  
(26-01-2017 09:03 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.


Consider

Wait? What?

Yes, exactly that there is absolutely NO evidence for divine inspiration proves the point.

Is simple, ja? Thumbsup

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

This is weaksauce, there are examples where we went looking for evidence and didn't find it. The case of Moses and the 2 million or so Jewish refugees that wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. When that many people leave zero evidence, this is more than "absence of evidence" it's damn peculiar. There have been several teams of archeologists, including those that were looking to prove the bible, walk grids in likely locations where 2 million Hebrews might have made camp.

They found nothing, you can't simply wave this away with apologetic slogans like "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", this lack of evidence compels any intellectually honest person to seriously question the truth of a source that guides them to certain locations and they repeatedly find nothing.

After archeologists went off on these snipe hunts to find evidence and came up empty-handed, they started listening to groups of other archeologists that were pointing to these ancient near east mythologies and how the bible was simply repeating well worn tropes from Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Egyptian myths. They were telling these archeologists that they wouldn't find anything because it's a myth, trying to find Noah's Ark or the Garden of Eden is just like trying to find Zeus on Mt. Olympus.

Eventually most of them listened and modern scholars understand the bible to be mere literature, not a historically accurate document. It has some interesting things historically in regards to Kings and nations that it mentions, but is a mythological tome at it's core.

A person with a reasonable perspective can see that the writers were not inspired, they were men constructing a myth for their own purposes, primarily tribal, with ancient, barbaric sensibilities embedded in the pages.
Killing someone for working on the Sabbath? Yes, ancient barbarians would make a rule like that.
Forbidding people to boil a goat in it's mother's milk? Yes, ancient barbarians would make a rule like that.

When you realize that an ignorant, ancient barbaric tribe created these books, then goofy things like this make perfect sense, but if you think that any divine guidance was used in the creation of this book, then that is a position of profound ignorance.

Biblical scholarship, archeology and science show that this just isn't so, all that's left for the apologist is to bleat silly slogans like "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence". In short- you got nothing!

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
26-01-2017, 01:22 PM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
Where the stories of the bible changed at any time and by change I mean actual change not simiple mistranslation
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2017, 01:42 PM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
(26-01-2017 01:22 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  Where the stories of the bible changed at any time and by change I mean actual change not simiple mistranslation

Pretty sure there were whole books left out of what's accepted as 'The bIble'.

Like the gospel of Judas etc.

Look up the Gnostic scriptures. Though I'm not sure of the exact term etc. Consider

Some one might be able to offer a linky.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2017, 01:42 PM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
(26-01-2017 01:22 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  Where the stories of the bible changed at any time and by change I mean actual change not simiple mistranslation

You've already been directed to such evidence. Why should anybody repeat it when you don't listen?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2017, 01:54 PM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
(26-01-2017 01:22 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  Where the stories of the bible changed at any time and by change I mean actual change not simiple mistranslation

I've already laid two out: the change from Mary being a 'young maiden' (almah) to virgin. The other is the additional text in Mark that's not part of the original source material.

But the sense I get - and I'm willing to be wrong on this if proven otherwise - is that you're not interested in biblical scholarship or facts, you seem to be more interested in toeing the theist line.

Now, that's perfectly OK. If you believe in a Christian God and all the associated doctrine, fine. If it's a matter of faith for you, that too is fine. But don't try to pretend that science, for instance, supports a biblical worldview, because it just doesn't, or that the bible is perfect in every way. That, too, is just plain wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2017, 01:55 PM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
(26-01-2017 01:22 PM)Ask21771 Wrote:  Where the stories of the bible changed at any time and by change I mean actual change not simiple mistranslation

These are questions that require actual study from mainstream scholars.

Here's an excerpt from one of many articles:

Changes to the Bible through the ages are being studied by New Orleans scholars

A true story

Warren said the story of the adulterous woman in John’s Gospel, for example, seems to be an account of an actual event preserved and treasured by the Christian community.

“People know it, and they like it,” he said. “It’s about a forgiveness that many times is needed in the church. Can you be forgiven on major sins?”

John had not included it, but Christians wanted to shoehorn it in somewhere, Warren said.

Warren said the story wanders across several early John manuscripts, appearing in a variety of places.

It even shows up in two early copies of Luke.

“But probably it was never part of John’s Gospel, in the original form,” he said.

By the 7th century, it had found its current home. It appears today in John 7:53-8:11.

Another change appears in Mark 9:29, when Jesus tells his disciples some demons can be driven out “only by prayer.”

Warren said 3rd century manuscripts added “and fasting” — probably as Christians’ own commentary on the power of that spiritual discipline, which was then becoming standard Christian practice.

In those and other cases, early Christian copiers are probably hoping to clarify a teaching or story for Christian audiences.

In effect, early copiers were taking what modern readers would recognize as study notes and slipping them into the texts, a process that began to tail off around the 9th century, Warren said.






Until you're able to come to grips with who wrote the books of the bible and why, you aren't doing your due diligence.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2017, 02:02 PM
RE: Evidence against divine inspiration
How do you explain this from Wikipedia "The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. There are approximately 300,000 textual variants among the manuscripts, most of them being the changes of word order and other comparative trivialities.[85][86] Thus, for over 250 years, New Testament scholars have argued that no textual variant affects any doctrine. Professor D. A. Carson states: "nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants. This is true for any textual tradition. The interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but never is a doctrine affected."[85][87]"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: