Skeptic's Annotated Bible

[Bucky Ball]

Historians absolutely separate fact from myth ... at least in the real world, (maybe not in his little fake bubble)
They work according to Historical methodology, and each sub-discipline has strict standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Yet another subject he knows absolutely nothing about.

[Free]

You can demonstrate that 1 + 1 = 2 easily enough, and do it repeatedly. But can you demonstrate that Jesus walked on water?

Oh, Free..... don't you see.  He can do that in the same way that you demonstrate that "jesus" was crucified by Pilate at some unspecified time in the 30-36 AD time frame and using the same materials.

Except he can't.

So there's that.

[epronovost]

First of all historians most certainly do not try and separate myth from fact. Historians repeat myth. That's why someone who makes history said "History is written by the victors" and another said "History is a set of lies agreed upon." 

These two quotes are from politicians (Churchill and Napoleon) who made extensive use of school curriculum to transmit patriotic values to children, not lessons in history. It's not because a class is called history that it's produced and transmitted by people trained in history and its method like modern school teacher are (at least in my country). Neither of them have the slightest clue on how history research are done (Napoleon lived well before the establishment of this methodology) and neither of them were particularly well learned in history.

[madog]

Could you give an example of theologians doing that?

Empty cave = resurection

  
"History is written by the victors"  
 

 
Then challenged by honest historians

"The Bible is written by goatherders"

Then spun by theologians  

[Ima Believer]

Sorry, don't follow all your posts. Were you raised JW? Why do you trust them more?

I was raised as an unbeliever, though I seriously doubted all manner of instruction I received. I trust their (Watchtower) propensity for accumulating excellent data through their voluntary researchers, especially that of the Bible since they have, over time, removed the pagan influence.

[Ima Believer]

Empty cave = resurection

  
"History is written by the victors"  
 

 
Then challenged by honest historians

"The Bible is written by goatherders"

Then spun by theologians  

Interesting. I find the atheist claim that the Bible was written by goat herders to be a contradiction of their position on the Documentary hypothesis, don't you?

[madog]

  
"History is written by the victors"  
 

 
Then challenged by honest historians

"The Bible is written by goatherders"

Then spun by theologians  

Interesting. I find the atheist claim that the Bible was written by goat herders to be a contradiction of their position on the Documentary hypothesis, don't you?

Is there an atheist claim?

Enlighten me then ... who wrote the old testament?

[Ima Believer]

These two quotes are from politicians (Churchill and Napoleon) who made extensive use of school curriculum to transmit patriotic values to children, not lessons in history. It's not because a class is called history that it's produced and transmitted by people trained in history and its method like modern school teacher are (at least in my country). Neither of them have the slightest clue on how history research are done (Napoleon lived well before the establishment of this methodology) and neither of them were particularly well learned in history.

Good response. When I contemplate subjects like history with unbelievers I find that history is often overestimated. So when an unbeliever says "science" or "history" my skepticism increases outside of the realm of history and science. 

But consider the Egyptian historian and priest, Manetho. His works are preserved through later historians like Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus. His listings of kings is the basis of much of the estimations of ancient dates. It's untenable for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that many of the kings ruled simultaneously, but still. An important influence on modern day history. 

You can arrive at the conclusion that civilization reaches much further back than the Bible would have it due primarily to Manetho, but you won't likely find a skeptic who is aware of that.

[Ima Believer]

Is there an atheist claim?

Enlighten me then ... who wrote the old testament?

Of course there are atheist claims. The term Old Testament is a misnomer. It was based upon a Latin mistranslation of the Greek word for covenant. The Hebrew / Aramaic scriptures were written by various people. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Mordecai, David, Solomon, Agur, Lemuel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and a few others on Psalms.

[epronovost]

These two quotes are from politicians (Churchill and Napoleon) who made extensive use of school curriculum to transmit patriotic values to children, not lessons in history. It's not because a class is called history that it's produced and transmitted by people trained in history and its method like modern school teacher are (at least in my country). Neither of them have the slightest clue on how history research are done (Napoleon lived well before the establishment of this methodology) and neither of them were particularly well learned in history.

Good response. When I contemplate subjects like history with unbelievers I find that history is often overestimated. So when an unbeliever says "science" or "history" my skepticism increases outside of the realm of history and science. 

But consider the Egyptian historian and priest, Manetho. His works are preserved through later historians like Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus. His listings of kings is the basis of much of the estimations of ancient dates. It's untenable for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that many of the kings ruled simultaneously, but still. An important influence on modern day history. 

You can arrive at the conclusion that civilization reaches much further back than the Bible would have it due primarily to Manetho, but you won't likely find a skeptic who is aware of that.

Would you care to rephrase your point? i don't understand what you are trying to say? From what I gather, you presented an example of unreliability of a first source document that is used, despite this unreliability, by historian to date other documents and events of course with the help of other sources and methods. No, most atheists aren't aware of such difficulties because most atheists aren't historians or fans of history. Some, like me, are trained and have interest in such field. Others don't. How is that pertinent to the question of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible though? I think we got side-tracked.

[Ima Believer]

Would you care to rephrase your point? i don't understand what you are trying to say? From what I gather, you presented an example of unreliability of a first source document that is used, despite this unreliability, by historian to date other documents and events of course with the help of other sources and methods. No, most atheists aren't aware of such difficulties because most atheists aren't historians or fans of history. Some, like me, are trained and have interest in such field. Others don't. How is that pertinent to the question of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible though? I think we got side-tracked.

I think you got my point. In your own words most atheists aren't aware of such difficulties. 

Side tracked? Surprise, surprise. I respond to the posts, usually without paying any attention to it's relevance to the OP. If I did otherwise I wouldn't post much at all.

[madog]

Is there an atheist claim?

Enlighten me then ... who wrote the old testament?

Of course there are atheist claims. The term Old Testament is a misnomer. It was based upon a Latin mistranslation of the Greek word for covenant. The Hebrew / Aramaic scriptures were written by various people. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Jeremiah, Ezra, Nehemiah, Mordecai, David, Solomon, Agur, Lemuel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and a few others on Psalms.

That is pure arrogance  ... The books sold in most churhes and bookshops states old testament  .... you may know of a version named differently, but there are many bibles.

And how do you know any of those you named wrote the bible?

You do know most historians would disagree?

[Ima Believer]

You can demonstrate that 1 + 1 = 2 easily enough, and do it repeatedly. But can you demonstrate that Jesus walked on water?

What I am saying is that you can prove 1 + 1 = 2 to be true, but you cannot demonstrate that Jesus walking on the water to be true. Therefore, why would you trust them equally when only one can be demonstrated to be true?

Put some thought into that question.

There's nothing extraordinary about 1 + 1 =2, but indoctrination into a religion requires you to believe in extraordinary things that defy nature.

Should we place our trust in our ignorance, or rather should we place it in our knowledge?

We should place our trust in our ignorance because it dwarfs our knowledge. That's one of the relatively few things we can be certain of. We can count our toes and add 1+1 but are we certain Jehovah created the universe? Are we certain he didn't? If we trust in our knowledge what point would there be in the search for truth, either spiritual or material? 

Historians actually use a system to determine what is most likely historical and what it most likely not. It's called the Historical Method.  You might want to read up on that so you get a better understanding of how establishing history actually works. 

The thing about history is that since we cannot go back in time, we therefore cannot verify anything to be 100% true. The best we can do is provide the best argument to explain to available evidence. Could we be wrong? Absolutely! Everything could be wrong.

But it's the best that can be done. and it's a proven and trustworthy time-honored method.

Agreed, but it seems to me you are saying that the Bible can't be "true" because it reports some things that you don't understand or that we as humans may find problematic as being physically possible. Much of that could have to do with your being mislead by tradition and much of it could have to do with your inability to accept the supernatural which can't be tested by science. If it can't be tested then you can't formulate absolute knowledge on it, so you don't know if Jesus could walk on water. You can give all sorts of scientific reasons a basilisk lizard can do it but you can't accept that a man who descended in spirit form to take on the shape of a man could do it. 

Interestingly you may more likely be willing to accept the possibility that some extraterrestrial, an advanced being could do it. That would be similar.

[GenesisNemesis]

Interestingly you may more likely be willing to accept the possibility that some extraterrestrial, an advanced being could do it. That would be similar.

Similar but not the same. Jesus supposedly had that ability by default, whereas advanced alien beings would've had to work thousands of years to get that ability (which would be some kind of technology that produces anti-gravity). That's even assuming anti-gravity is compatible with the laws of physics, especially in terms of being able to control it.

[Ima Believer]

That is pure arrogance  ... The books sold in most churhes and bookshops states old testament  .... you may know of a version named differently, but there are many bibles.

Okay. If you read 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the KJV (1611) it translates the Greek word diathekes as testament. If you read it in the NWT (1950) it translates the word as covenant. The Latin Vulgate translates the word as testamentum which is where the KJV gets it from. Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford, 1889, p. 48 states that "in ignorance of the philology of later and vulgar Latin, it was formerly supposed that 'testamentum,' by which the word  [diatheke] is rendered in the early Latin versions as well as in the Vulgate, meant 'testament' or 'will,' whereas in fact it meant also, if not exclusively, 'covenant." Also see A Bible Commentary for English Readers edited by Charles Ellicott, New York, Vol. VIII, p. 309.

Paul was referring to the Law covenant, not the entire Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures. For example, he says "whenever Moses is read."  

And how do you know any of those you named wrote the bible?

You do know most historians would disagree?

How do I know they wrote the Bible? Well, first of all, what does it matter? Secondly if someone wrote a book on ecology and stated some fact that were correct 40 years later and some other guy wrote another book on the subject corroborating the first and this process repeated itself over many different writers over a great period of time and then those books were assembled together harmoniously it wouldn't be circular reasoning to establish the authenticity of one with the others as reference. That's the Bible. A book with various writers over a great period of time assembled harmoniously. 

So if Jesus, according to John, said Moses wrote Deuteronomy then it makes more sense to conclude that than it would to assume someone called J, P and E wrote them based upon each of those alleged writers use of certain terminology, especially if that terminology wasn't actually used exclusively by any of those writers. E for Elohim (God) and J for Jehovah. I use both and I'm the same person. It would especially be problematic if there was no evidence whatsoever that J, P or E wrote those texts compared to hundreds of years of people saying Moses did. 

That most historians would disagree is a statement that I would like to see you back up and even if you did it would mean very little to me. Especially if you couldn't give a better explanation of their conclusion than the J, P and E one given above.

[Ima Believer]

Similar but not the same. Jesus supposedly had that ability by default, whereas advanced alien beings would've had to work thousands of years to get that ability (which would be some kind of technology that produces anti-gravity). That's even assuming anti-gravity is compatible with the laws of physics, especially in terms of being able to control it.

What is a spirit being. I would use the word angel but that word only means messenger. In the Bible, both Hebrew and Greek, when the words for angel appear they are either translated as angel or messenger. If the being is human it is translated as messenger, if the being is a spirit being then it is translated as angel. 

Spirit comes from the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma. The later is where the English term pneumonia and pneumatic comes from. Anything invisible to the human eye but producing results. Wind, breath, mental inclination. 

So . . . what is an angel or spirit being?

[GenesisNemesis]

Similar but not the same. Jesus supposedly had that ability by default, whereas advanced alien beings would've had to work thousands of years to get that ability (which would be some kind of technology that produces anti-gravity). That's even assuming anti-gravity is compatible with the laws of physics, especially in terms of being able to control it.

What is a spirit being. I would use the word angel but that word only means messenger. In the Bible, both Hebrew and Greek, when the words for angel appear they are either translated as angel or messenger. If the being is human it is translated as messenger, if the being is a spirit being then it is translated as angel. 

Spirit comes from the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma. The later is where the English term pneumonia and pneumatic comes from. Anything invisible to the human eye but producing results. Wind, breath, mental inclination. 

So . . . what is an angel or spirit being?

Ok, I have no idea what you're talking about now. Bye!

[Ima Believer]

Similar but not the same. Jesus supposedly had that ability by default, whereas advanced alien beings would've had to work thousands of years to get that ability (which would be some kind of technology that produces anti-gravity). That's even assuming anti-gravity is compatible with the laws of physics, especially in terms of being able to control it.

What is a spirit being. I would use the word angel but that word only means messenger. In the Bible, both Hebrew and Greek, when the words for angel appear they are either translated as angel or messenger. If the being is human it is translated as messenger, if the being is a spirit being then it is translated as angel. 

Spirit comes from the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma. The later is where the English term pneumonia and pneumatic comes from. Anything invisible to the human eye but producing results. Wind, breath, mental inclination. 

So . . . what is an angel or spirit being?

Ok, I have no idea what you're talking about now. Bye!

An angel is a highly advanced invisible extraterrestrial being capable of things we find difficult to comprehend.

[Free]

You can demonstrate that 1 + 1 = 2 easily enough, and do it repeatedly. But can you demonstrate that Jesus walked on water?

What I am saying is that you can prove 1 + 1 = 2 to be true, but you cannot demonstrate that Jesus walking on the water to be true. Therefore, why would you trust them equally when only one can be demonstrated to be true?

Put some thought into that question.

There's nothing extraordinary about 1 + 1 =2, but indoctrination into a religion requires you to believe in extraordinary things that defy nature.

Should we place our trust in our ignorance, or rather should we place it in our knowledge?

We should place our trust in our ignorance because it dwarfs our knowledge. That's one of the relatively few things we can be certain of. We can count our toes and add 1+1 but are we certain Jehovah created the universe? Are we certain he didn't? If we trust in our knowledge what point would there be in the search for truth, either spiritual or material?

"We don't know what we don't know."

We cannot trust something of which we do not know. Since we have no knowledge of the knowledge, it is an insofar non-existence. 

As far as the creation of the universe, muse if you will the possibility that the universe was never created at all; not by anyone, or anything. Consider the possibility that it is infinite and eternal.

We trust in our knowledge because it is a stepping stone to new knowledge. If we were to trust in our ignorance, then what do we use to progress our current state of knowledge to the next state?

Historians actually use a system to determine what is most likely historical and what it most likely not. It's called the Historical Method.  You might want to read up on that so you get a better understanding of how establishing history actually works. 

The thing about history is that since we cannot go back in time, we therefore cannot verify anything to be 100% true. The best we can do is provide the best argument to explain to available evidence. Could we be wrong? Absolutely! Everything could be wrong.

But it's the best that can be done. and it's a proven and trustworthy time-honored method.

Agreed, but it seems to me you are saying that the Bible can't be "true" because it reports some things that you don't understand or that we as humans may find problematic as being physically possible. Much of that could have to do with your being mislead by tradition and much of it could have to do with your inability to accept the supernatural which can't be tested by science. If it can't be tested then you can't formulate absolute knowledge on it, so you don't know if Jesus could walk on water. You can give all sorts of scientific reasons a basilisk lizard can do it but you can't accept that a man who descended in spirit form to take on the shape of a man could do it. 

Interestingly you may more likely be willing to accept the possibility that some extraterrestrial, an advanced being could do it. That would be similar.

We say the supernatural qualities of the bible are not true for the simple reason that there is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate any truth to them. If we are to accept as true that which we read in a book such as the bible, why then do we not accept as truth stories written in other books that also make extraordinary claims?

For example, Islam teaches that Muhammad split the moon in two. Do you believe that? If not, then understand that for exactly the same reasons you do not believe the things Islam claims I also do not believe the things the Bible claims.

There are tens of thousands of different gods claimed to have existed throughout history. You disbelieve in all but one, and the difference between me and you is so minor, for I simply disbelieve in one less god than you do.

[Ima Believer]

The Bible and secular history are fallible. Yet you are more likely to question the Bible.

That's because history does not claim to be "inerrant" or "the word of fucking god."  But I suppose you never thought of that.

I'm sometimes entertained by the mode of speech of the unbeliever. "Fucking god" for example. The word fuck means a laying down of seed. Like the Greek word Jesus used to describe the founding of the world. World in Greek is kosmos, from which our word cosmetic comes. An adornment. The word founding is kataboles, which literally is a laying down of seed. For example the same term is applied to Sarah at Hebrews 11:11 regarding her conceiving. So, the world (kosmos) was created when Adam and Eve first conceived. (Luke 11:50, 51; Matthew 25:34; Revelation 13:8; 17:8; Matthew 13:35; Hebrews 9:26.)

The God of fuck, then is . . . not Brian Warner . . .



. . . but Satan (resister; adversary) the devil (slanderer). 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Or, as the early Christians would joke. The Lord of Shit. A play on words, lord of the flies etc. 

[Ima Believer]

"We don't know what we don't know."

Very good . . . Rumsfeld? It begs the question do we know what we think we know? 

We cannot trust something of which we do not know. Since we have no knowledge of the knowledge, it is an insofar non-existence.

Yes, but we can trust that we are ignorant. Better put, we know our knowledge is in it's infant stage. There is more we don't know than we do know.  

As far as the creation of the universe, muse if you will the possibility that the universe was never created at all; not by anyone, or anything. Consider the possibility that it is infinite and eternal.

I can entertain the possibility that it wasn't created easily enough, but isn't the possibility that it is infinite and eternal a bit of a stretch from a scientific perspective? 

We trust in our knowledge because it is a stepping stone to new knowledge. If we were to trust in our ignorance, then what do we use to progress our current state of knowledge to the next state?

I may have said this elsewhere, but religion is a stagnant pool. A reflection of yourself more than anything. Knowledge is static. Science is pointless without being open to the possibilities. Science doesn't investigate the known it examines the speculative.  

We say the supernatural qualities of the bible are not true for the simple reason that there is no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate any truth to them. If we are to accept as true that which we read in a book such as the bible, why then do we not accept as truth stories written in other books that also make extraordinary claims?

I'm not suggesting you accept the claims, I'm suggesting you examine them more carefully. Also, claiming that 1+1=2 as you put it is not only the same as Jesus walking on water but black holes as well. Or anything we might invent or discover in the future like something you might see on Star Trek. Not to suggest that is a reason to accept that Jesus walked on water but rather a reason not to dismiss it so easily. 

For example, Islam teaches that Muhammad split the moon in two. Do you believe that? If not, then understand that for exactly the same reasons you do not believe the things Islam claims I also do not believe the things the Bible claims.

The Quran makes very little claims. It's pretty much a repetitious unfounded proclamation of an nearly illiterate with some problems with the established traditions and morals of the Jews and Christians. Not that there wasn't some very obvious problems with those traditions and morals, mind you. 

There are tens of thousands of different gods claimed to have existed throughout history. You disbelieve in all but one, and the difference between me and you is so minor, for I simply disbelieve in one less god than you do.

That isn't true. There are more than one gods that I believe in. There are many of them in the Bible. Moses, Jesus, the judges of Israel and Tammuz, for example. 

Plus you limit your definition to god to be in application one supernatural god who just happens to be the primary one of Bible writers and myself.

[Free]

I can entertain the possibility that it wasn't created easily enough, but isn't the possibility that it is infinite and eternal a bit of a stretch from a scientific perspective?

Not at all.

1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ....

How far do those counting numbers go? They go on infinitely. And since they would go on infinitely, they therefore by necessity go on eternally.

Did you know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed?  Yet, it exists nonetheless. If it cannot be created, and it cannot be destroyed, does that not tell you that energy is eternal by nature? It has no beginning, and no ending, so what is it?

Therefore, not only do you have science demonstrating infinity and eternity, but mathematics also.

[Ima Believer]

I can entertain the possibility that it wasn't created easily enough, but isn't the possibility that it is infinite and eternal a bit of a stretch from a scientific perspective?

Not at all.

1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ....

How far do those counting numbers go? They go on infinitely. And since they would go on infinitely, they therefore by necessity go on eternally.

Did you know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed?  Yet, it exists nonetheless. If it cannot be created, and it cannot be destroyed, does that not tell you that energy is eternal by nature? It has no beginning, and no ending, so what is it?

Therefore, not only do you have science demonstrating infinity and eternity, but mathematics also.

You see, though, when someone says energy can't be created I immediately think of wind, solar, water, coal and the little copper wire thingy I myself made when I was about 7 years old.

[SYZ]

Most religions aren't theistic....

I can't resist!     

This takes my award for the "Most Preposterous Claim Of 2019"

Theistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have the
monotheistic belief in a God, whereas polytheistic religions such as
Hinduism, Shinto, and Buddhism hold a belief in many gods.  To say
that religions aren't "theistic" is gross ignorance, which it seems is all
that can be expected from people with little actual understanding of
theism—or atheism for that matter.

[Ima Believer]

Are you a JW, Im a Believer? If so, I'm genuinely curious, are your parents or church leaders monitoring your posts here?

ETA: Sorry, not trying to be nosy, I'm just curious.
-Teresa

I'm not a JW. My parents are unbelievers and no, they don't monitor my posts.