Does God exist? (12 Viewers)

[braintic]

2. the Bible wasn't penned by a single author nor is it a single book, nor is it from one time period, yet somehow has the one consistent message.

That is what happens with any story which is initially disseminated by word of mouth over centuries. The core message doesn't change because that is the whole reason for passing on the story, but the fringe details change and become inconsistent. This is what has happened with the bible. It doesn't go close to proving the veracity of the story.

 

[dan964]

That is what happens with any story which is initially disseminated by word of mouth over centuries. The core message doesn't change because that is the whole reason for passing on the story, but the fringe details change and become inconsistent. This is what has happened with the bible. It doesn't go close to proving the veracity of the story.

wrong.
1. The Bible is not merely "disseminated by word of mouth over centuries".
2. Secondly the weight of textual evidence begs to differ. There is a solid case for preservation of the texts of both the Old Testament and New Testament, while that does not prove the truthfulness of the text, it does a least put a pin on the whole, inconsistency idea, because we are fairly sure what the original would have been, by the sheer number of manuscripts (regarding the variations of the text [New Testament], it is interesting the critics never mention what those variations are (things like spelling/dialect variants, some which are not even noticeable upon translation into English, or clarifications). , the variety of languages and locations; especially when compared to other texts of antiquity. (that was the first point I made in the post you quoted from)

One of the strengths of being convinced of the veracity of the Bible (say over the Quran), is its diverse authorship and genre styles; set over 1500 years; written in different historical and political contexts (yes the underlying culture, especially religious culture is consistent but even that evolves). Of course books written earlier can be referenced by those that come latter and its understandable that authors would develop similar themes further. However, the sheer weight of intertextuality is what I am referring to. Allusions, links, symbolism. Again it does not prove that veracity of it, but it does show the integrity of group of texts as a whole (aka its internal correspondence)

 

[braintic]

wrong.
1. The Bible is not merely "disseminated by word of mouth over centuries".
2. Secondly the weight of textual evidence begs to differ. There is a solid case for preservation of the texts of both the Old Testament and New Testament, while that does not prove the truthfulness of the text, it does a least put a pin on the whole, inconsistency idea, because we are fairly sure what the original would have been, by the sheer number of manuscripts (regarding the variations of the text [New Testament], it is interesting the critics never mention what those variations are (things like spelling/dialect variants, some which are not even noticeable upon translation into English, or clarifications). , the variety of languages and locations; especially when compared to other texts of antiquity. (that was the first point I made in the post you quoted from)

One of the strengths of being convinced of the veracity of the Bible (say over the Quran), is its diverse authorship and genre styles; set over 1500 years; written in different historical and political contexts (yes the underlying culture, especially religious culture is consistent but even that evolves). Of course books written earlier can be referenced by those that come latter and its understandable that authors would develop similar themes further. However, the sheer weight of intertextuality is what I am referring to. Allusions, links, symbolism. Again it does not prove that veracity of it, but it does show the integrity of group of texts as a whole (aka its internal correspondence)

Except that there are early manuscripts which have been edited. I believe there is one housed in an Egyptian museum (strange place to have it, I know) which clearly shows a description of the "ascension to heaven" being written over an early version which simply said that he was no longer in the cave and left it at that. There is no "textual evidence" when there has been blatant editing. Find me the original manuscripts.

 

[dan964]

Except that there are early manuscripts which have been edited. I believe there is one housed in an Egyptian museum (strange place to have it, I know) which clearly shows a description of the "ascension to heaven" being written over an early version which simply said that he was no longer in the cave and left it at that. There is no "textual evidence" when there has been blatant editing. Find me the original manuscripts.

I presume you are referring to the ending of the gospel of Mark. You do realise we (Christians, historians, textual critics) are all aware of that and most English translations bracket that section off for a reason because long and behold we have even earlier manuscripts don't have the longer ending. The reason we can tell is because of good textual study, we have textual evidence that can show when 'editing' has occurred, is because we have more than one line of propagation (more of a web then a linear propagation)

Look, you'd be hard pressed to find an original of any ancient document. The very original New Testament copies would have worn out very easily from copying and just use. As that would dispel your disbelief, you still wouldn't believe it, even if you saw it with your own eyes.

Relative to other texts of the period, we have first copies within 100 years (most of the earliest date to late second century) of them being written.
And in terms of number in excess of 20,000 (5000 in greek, 5000-10000 in latin, 5000-10000 in coptic and other lang)+ we have quotations from early church fathers as well. So there is amply testimony, and good textual study we can have certainty (not absolute and that is ok) on what the original text said.

 

[SylviaB]

There's historical textual evidence of all assortments of supernatural nonsense. It's not valid proof.

 

[Squar3root]

apparently moses wrote some of the bible but then people don't believe moses existed which begs the question who wrote it then if it wasn't moses?

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

apparently moses wrote some of the bible but then people don't believe moses existed which begs the question who wrote it then if it wasn't moses?

people don't believe Jesus existed with the ample evidence so its not that surprising they don't believe moses existed either.

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

I believe they still have the ark of the covenant somewhere in Ethiopia

 

[Queenroot]

I believe they still have the ark of the covenant somewhere in Ethiopia

lol

 

[Queenroot]

apparently moses wrote some of the bible but then people don't believe moses existed which begs the question who wrote it then if it wasn't moses?

i heard u got 99.99 in studies of religion

 

[Squar3root]

people don't believe Jesus existed with the ample evidence so its not that surprising they don't believe moses existed either.

what "ample evidence" are u talking about?

saying the bible is evidence is just simply wrong cos i can just say spoderman is real cos of a comic book

like is there anything certain like his body or video of him walking on water or something?

 

[SylviaB]

people don't believe Jesus existed with the ample evidence so its not that surprising they don't believe moses existed either.

there is virtually no evidence outside of the bible that moses existed

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

what "ample evidence" are u talking about?

saying the bible is evidence is just simply wrong cos i can just say spoderman is real cos of a comic book

like is there anything certain like his body or video of him walking on water or something?

Lmao when did I mention the bible, as if you don't believe Jesus existed, to believe in the divinity of him is one thing, but to not believe that he actually existed? The ample evidence refers to the art (the 2th century catacombs), architecture, tradition if you want more psychical evidence, Caeser and Pontius Pilatus governed and ordered Jesus to crucifixion do you believe that? The new testament consists of multiple stories from witnesses recounting the story of Jesus. They have the tomb of Jesus, when you read the bible it will tell you from brith to death where Jesus went and lived. The church of Christ has everything perserved from the time of Jesus you would be surprised how many artefacts they hold, they have the cross Jesus died on, the belt of Holy Mary, etc.

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

there is virtually no evidence outside of the bible that moses existed

Do you believe Jesus existed?

 

[SylviaB]

Do you believe Jesus existed?

he probably did

 

[YourRoyalHighness]

he probably did

you should probably look into that haha, its a life or death decision literally

 

[jimmysmith560]

Honestly, knowing we will probably not get any non-biblical evidence of the existence of any religious figure anytime soon (God, Jesus, etc), I choose to embrace Pascal’s wager as a Christian.

 

[Squar3root]

Lmao when did I mention the bible, as if you don't believe Jesus existed, to believe in the divinity of him is one thing, but to not believe that he actually existed? The ample evidence refers to the art (the 2th century catacombs), architecture, tradition if you want more psychical evidence, Caeser and Pontius Pilatus governed and ordered Jesus to crucifixion do you believe that? The new testament consists of multiple stories from witnesses recounting the story of Jesus. They have the tomb of Jesus, when you read the bible it will tell you from brith to death where Jesus went and lived. The church of Christ has everything perserved from the time of Jesus you would be surprised how many artefacts they hold, they have the cross Jesus died on, the belt of Holy Mary, etc.

but like how do we know they weren't all smoking something and just saw some guy walking on water. like yeah i could believe that some guy jesus existed yeah sure but then people wanna throw in weird "facts" about him like he walked on water and turned water into wine. like why would they do that if they wanted to make it credible and believable?

like if I told u a girl got pregnant and she was adamant she never had sex, etc you'd prob believe that she is lying. but when a girl did it 2k years ago apparently it is a miracle?

 

[braintic]

Glad to have been able to stir up this thread again. Anyone also feel like challenging the idiocy of Adolf Trumpler?

 

[Drdusk]

Glad to have been able to stir up this thread again. Anyone also feel like challenging the idiocy of Adolf Trumpler?

No idea who that is??