Jesus Invented By The Romans?

[Randall]

exactly he hasnt refutted any of the data within the clip itself, or shown any evidence the author is wrong, instead jumps one level up and says its YT therefore its invalid as a source for credible data.
Ive given example after example where YT is a repository of credible data.
So thats that argument resolved, YT can and indeed does serve as a valid format for credible data.

He now needs to address what it is in particular in the clip hes talking about thats wrong.

Unable to attack the data, hes resorted to going after the author and format on which its presented.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the authors credentials, but having watched the clips in question i see nothing wrong with the data shes presented, thus i am prepared to accept on the balance of probability she knows her subject

You sure are dogged Mike. Perhaps @breddell is for the most part playing Devil's advocate?

 

[mike]

Humanity can and should do better than to accept superstition and ignorance as explanations for the universe we live in.
Its the duty of any one who values this as the truth to uphold it

To shine the light of reality into the darkness of ignorance

 

[mike]

Case Study - Producing Video Case Studies

NIH Grant Review Process YouTube Videos

 

[breddell]

You sure are dogged Mike. Perhaps @breddell is for the most part playing Devil's advocate?

Ufology - I strongly disagree. If someone is using science to prove a point (by definition this is not common
knowledge), then they need to back it up with published research - or at a minimum provide the references. For
homemade youtube videos, referenced data is usually not provided. Quoting research is consistently done in
legitimate science research today.

The points we are talking about in this thread are not "self evident", and when one looks into them, there is good evidence to point to both viewpoints. I choose to believe in God and the Bible. Many Christians believe in taking the creation story as literal, many do not. As I stated earlier, there are no descriptions of exact details when it comes to creation, the flood, etc., so how can you disprove details that aren't written? But just because it doesn't have details, does not mean it did not happen. As to the details of how these topics transpired, that is the source of contention here. People like mike can choose to take things literally, or we can have Christian folks, who also take things literally and who do not have science backgrounds, like those in the Wildwood Claire videos posted by
Stonehenge, trying to explain science or interpreting the Bible wrongly. It is easy to pick apart those folks,
because they don't have the science background. I did find the videos entertaining and interesting, but not enough
to convince me that the events of the Bible did not happen (even WC didn't have all the explanations).
Since the Bible has been studied by thousands of scholars for many hundreds of years, the most reliable document in human hands (as judged by number of exact copies of manuscripts and closeness to actual events), and it's truth has remained for all this time without a single error (not a single fact has 100% been disproved in all of this time), the burden is on atheists or disbelievers to prove otherwise - it can't be done.
On hard topics like creation of the universe and the flood, there is not sufficient details in the Bible to disprove
it. The Bible covers these topics loosely (probably because they are very complicated) and I believe it was written
that way on purpose - mainly because those details are completely secondary to the story of Jesus - that is the whole point of the Bible (i.e. just about every story in the OT points to Jesus) - that is what God wants us to know.
As a scientist, I do have a tough time accepting those details too, but nothing I have learned has contradicted what
is told to me in the Bible. In all of these hard examples, even if the population (christians and non-christians)
are on the fence on a topic (which we are on everything that has been discussed in this thread) - if one can show
that if there is some shred of evidence that points to the possibility of it being true, then that is enough
supporting material to tell me that the Bible is true...and it also shows that we have a long way to learn those
facts.

For example, below I quote some articles/papers by a scientists with co-authors of various backgrounds, and
references. There are ~17 papers at the bottom of the page that point to current scientific evidence (fossils,
sedimentary record, carbon dating, etc.) that does show that there is evidence consistent with a great flood event.

Much Evidence Exists for a Worldwide Flood

 

[mike]

Since the Bible has been studied by thousands of scholars for many hundreds of years, the most reliable document in human hands (as judged by number of exact copies of manuscripts and closeness to actual events), and it's truth has remained for all this time without a single error (not a single fact has 100% been disproved in all of this time), the burden is on atheists or disbelievers to prove otherwise - it can't be done.

exact copies ?
How can you honestly state such an absurd thing when just today i posted



1 Timothy 2:12 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:12 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
1 Timothy 2:12 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain in quietness and keep silence [in religious assemblies].
1 Timothy 2:12 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 I don’t allow a wife to teach or to control her husband. Instead, she should be a quiet listener.
1 Timothy 2:12 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 but I do not permit a woman to teach a man or exercise authority over him; rather, she is to remain at peace.
1 Timothy 2:12 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do.
1 Timothy 2:12 (DARBY) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;
1 Timothy 2:12 (DRA) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.
1 Timothy 2:12 (ERV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 I don’t allow a woman to teach a man or tell him what to do. She must listen quietly,
1 Timothy 2:12 (ESV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1 Timothy 2:12 (ESVUK) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
1 Timothy 2:12 (EXB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or to ·have [assume; exercise] authority over ·a man [or her husband], but to ·listen quietly [be quiet],


exact ?

this exact ?

allowing no deviation from a standard; rigorous; strict an exact mind

You have consistantly dodged fact after fact in favour of your faith.

Why creationism is unscientific

Scientific Errors in Bible (with proof) | The Rising Soul

 

[mike]

Since the Bible has been studied by thousands of scholars for many hundreds of years, the most reliable document in human hands (as judged by number of exact copies of manuscripts and closeness to actual events), and it's truth has remained for all this time without a single error (not a single fact has 100% been disproved in all of this time), the burden is on atheists or disbelievers to prove otherwise - it can't be done.

Yeah it can ,we can test this

They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Mark 16:18

And see if its true

Since you believe the bible to be without a single error and its "truth" absolute.
The burden is now on you to take this test and prove it to be so

Endgame
Checkmate

Indeed this verse has been used to "prove" mohammed was a false prophet

if. It is fully asserted here, that the apostles of our Lord should not lose their life by poison, and there is neither record nor tradition to disprove it. But it is worthy of remark, that Mohammed, who styled himself the apostle of God, lost his life by poison; and, had he been a true prophet, or a true apostle of God, he would not have fallen into the snare

Mark 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

Time to put up or shut up young fella me lad.

You made the claim

Since the Bible has been studied by thousands of scholars for many hundreds of years, the most reliable document in human hands (as judged by number of exact copies of manuscripts and closeness to actual events), and it's truth has remained for all this time without a single error (not a single fact has 100% been disproved in all of this time), the burden is on atheists or disbelievers to prove otherwise - it can't be done.

Mark 16:18 is the perfect way to test that claim scientifically.

Go for it...................

 

[mike]

For the record i do not want, nor do i expect our friend to take this test
It works as an intellectual exercise just fine

Being a believer doe NOT make you immune to deadly poison, thats a concrete cold fact.
Thus the argument the bible is true and without error is disproven

Endgame
Checkmate

 

[Randall]

Ufology - I strongly disagree. If someone is using science to prove a point (by definition this is not common
knowledge), then they need to back it up with published research - or at a minimum provide the references. For
homemade youtube videos, referenced data is usually not provided. Quoting research is consistently done in
legitimate science research today.

Plenty of scientific knowledge is common and easily understood. Most people with a high school education have more scientific knowledge under their belts than anyone did 100 years ago, let alone in biblical times. So you're not making a convincing case. And BTW the definition of science has nothing to do with how common the knowledge is.

The points we are talking about in this thread are not "self evident", and when one looks into them, there is good evidence to point to both viewpoints. I choose to believe in God and the Bible. Many Christians believe in taking the creation story as literal, many do not. As I stated earlier, there are no descriptions of exact details when it comes to creation, the flood, etc., so how can you disprove details that aren't written?

That's false logic. If a specific claim hasn't been made then there is no specific claim to refute, and one cannot rationally assert that there is some unwritten information that would prove their case. Any analysis of the bible needs to rest on the words that are written and what they mean as supported by logic and evidence, not what one prefers to believe.

But just because it doesn't have details, does not mean it did not happen.

It doesn't mean it did happen either. What it does mean is that there's a lack of specific evidence.

As to the details of how these topics transpired, that is the source of contention here. People like mike can choose to take things literally, or we can have Christian folks, who also take things literally and who do not have science backgrounds, like those in the Wildwood Claire videos posted by Stonehenge, trying to explain science or interpreting the Bible wrongly.

It is easy to pick apart those folks, because they don't have the science background. I did find the videos entertaining and interesting, but not enough to convince me that the events of the Bible did not happen (even WC didn't have all the explanations). Since the Bible has been studied by thousands of scholars for many hundreds of years, the most reliable document in human hands (as judged by number of exact copies of manuscripts and closeness to actual events), and it's truth has remained for all this time without a single error (not a single fact has 100% been disproved in all of this time), the burden is on atheists or disbelievers to prove otherwise - it can't be done.

I don't know where you get you data from because I've got more than one bible on CD and there are differences between the versions. I also don't know how you define "reliable". Reliable in what way?

On hard topics like creation of the universe and the flood, there is not sufficient details in the Bible to disprove it.

Again you're using false logic. One cannot assume that because there's insufficient information to make a reliable analysis of a claim that the claim is true. One can only deal with the claim as it is stated and rationally interpreted based on evidence.

The Bible covers these topics loosely (probably because they are very complicated) and I believe it was written that way on purpose - mainly because those details are completely secondary to the story of Jesus - that is the whole point of the Bible (i.e. just about every story in the OT points to Jesus) - that is what God wants us to know. As a scientist, I do have a tough time accepting those details too, but nothing I have learned has contradicted what is told to me in the Bible. In all of these hard examples, even if the population (christians and non-christians) are on the fence on a topic (which we are on everything that has been discussed in this thread) - if one can show that if there is some shred of evidence that points to the possibility of it being true, then that is enough supporting material to tell me that the Bible is true...and it also shows that we have a long way to learn those facts.

A "shred of evidence" in support of a position balanced against a mountain or contradictory evidence is hardly sufficient reason to leap to the conclusion that the former is accurate.

For example, below I quote some articles/papers by a scientists with co-authors of various backgrounds, and references. There are ~17 papers at the bottom of the page that point to current scientific evidence (fossils, sedimentary record, carbon dating, etc.) that does show that there is evidence consistent with a great flood event. Much Evidence Exists for a Worldwide Flood

Perhaps there was a "great flood event", but to assume that it took the proportions of a global event that wiped out every living thing not on the ark is completely ridiculous. Not only that, what kind of God would do that on purpose? Certainly not one that is good. So why choose to devote one's self to that particular entity? Even abstaining from devoting one's self to any God is even better than signing on with that one.

 

[RenaissanceLady]

Mike- I am truly sorry I can't come here more often and make a more complete response to some of your arguments concerning the God of the Bible.

I'll do my best to address at least a few of the key points in response to you.

One of the things that jumps immediately to the forefront of this entire exchange in regards to anything Biblical is what I see as the total lack of context on your part. If you don't have context you don't have the true meaning and if you don't have that you might as well not bother. You have also raised some good points IMO concerning the God of the Bible .

In one case you use the Jews or Jewish faith as a way to undermine the NT because they don't accept the NT or Jesus as the messiah , yet you also attempt to undermine the OT which they support. If you rely on them in one case why not the other? And it isn't surprising that they don't believe Jesus was the messiah because they were the ones who crucified him. The main motives there being jealousy and the fear of loosing control. When Jesus was here He pretty much commanded the floor. They hated that and they hated the influence He had. Just recently Nick Redfern said that sometimes the lack of evidence in a certain area can point to a conspiracy if it points to something being removed. The resurrection was a big blunder by the Roman government. The Bible says that they were paid off to keep quiet. They posted the Guard around the entrance to the tomb. This isn't the kind of thing they would have wanted to get out. Jesus asked forgiveness for His tormentors because " They know not what they do". They really didn't have any idea who He really was.

Actually, we really don't. The reason so many Jews in both the U.S. and Israel self-identify as secular is because we know the Old Testament is nothing more than fables, written by man, as some guidance for other men in a violent and oppressive world. It would behoove many Christians to actually talk to Jews about the Old Testament to get a better understanding of the history and culture in which it was written.

This, of course, will never happen. Christian dogma has long since sought to remove itself from Jewish teachings and culture.

I would also like to add, as of the early 19th century, Jews have widely been considered to be an ethnoreligious group rather than a solely religious group. To better understand this phenomenon, you would need to have a solid understanding of Jewish culture, emphasizing European-Jewish culture and how well many of these groups were able to assimilate into their surroundings. While I truly have no desire to write a dissertation about this right now, it is safe to say that you do not know your own arguments unless you have a solid grasp of Jewish culture versus Orthodox Judaism. I can also add, when you realize that the majority of Jews in both Israel and the U.S. support gay marriage, the rights of LGBTs, the ordination of Jewish rabbis (and in some instances, gay and lesbian rabbis), you may correctly assume it is not because we believe in the literal teachings of the Old Testament. Israel actually has a far better record of accepting LGBTs into the military than the U.S. and was the first country in Asia to accept same-sex unions.

You might want to do your homework in this regard.

I agree with you that the view of a God that allows but doesn't indirectly cause evil comes off as a cop out. I also think that almost every example you have given with regards to God and what surely looks to you like an evil killer is taken out of the context it was intended. It also seems to be a cop out to say that God created evil beings and then because they were evil He executed them.

Yet another reason so many Jews are secular is that after centuries and centuries of violent oppression, inquisitions and genocide, it would seem obvious that God must hibernate during the most brutal times. Mankind has always treated his fellow man with absolute contempt, using religion as an excuse for committing the most heinous acts. God has not bothered to lift a finger to stop any of this, nor even tried to correct those who have deliberately perverted religious teachings. Remember, the bible has been used as the excuse to justify everything from violent misogyny to rape, slavery, forced conversions, torture, and genocide.

In 1481. the Spanish Inquisition burned alive 700 Conversos (secret Jews) as well as Christians who were close to the Jewish community, all because King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella feared any Jewish influence. Over the next few years, 13,000 Conversos were put on trial, those who didn't express their Christianity were tortured and burned. A common Spanish practice was to pluck people from the stake during the height of agony, only to lengthen the agony before being sent back to burn. Families were torn apart all under the pretense of trying to "save the souls" by forcibly converting whoever they could. In their minds, the most brutal acts could be justified if it prevented someone from going to Hell.

It wasn't simply the Jews but rather every indigenous group that suffered horrific fates due to Christian "love". The evils of the various inquisitions did not stop in Spain and Portugal and were not limited to Jews. These practices continued over in the New World. Jornada del Muerto, aka, the Journey of the Dead Man, is a desert in New Mexico that was named for a German who died there while fleeing the Inquisition in Mexico. The Spaniards thought it far better to enslave, torture and commit genocide against native populations rather than allow these groups the right to practice their own religions. It would be educational for you to read about what these good Christians were doing in Latin America and the American Southwest. Juan de Oñate would be a good person to research, including the actions which led to the Pueblo Revolt. It is important to remember that all of his actions - and all of the actions committed by Europeans against other Europeans, Jews, American Indians, Africans, and many others - were done as a way of professing their love for Christ. If these acts were an abomination to God, he sure could not be bothered to let his feelings be known.

(It's a little off topic, but I personally find it fascinating that the most violent acts are always done for the Holy Father or his son, yet the conversions of a conquered people were always committed in the name of the Virgin Mother. I guess people just don't enslave, conquer, torture and kill for the mother figures. Seriously, read about when and why Mary appears during times of conquest. This will give you some valuable insight into Christianity.)

If God creates us it is only logical that He knows what we are capable of doing and He could probably easily see those inner workings if He wanted to. In this theory God has this ability but in order to make sure we have free will He chooses to shut the lid or look the other way on purpose. He decides not to look at the outcome because if He looked He would know and if He knew He would be meddling in free choice. In that case we could approach Him and say, You set us all up. You knew we would fall. I don't think He gets that involved in our choices so as not to create a bunch of robots. In Romans He says as much in saying that " even as they chose not to retain God in their knowledge He gave them over to their own devices". One consequence of this action is that the individuals involved are blinded to some truths that the obedient are not blinded to. When God gives a person up to their own free will and they choose to divert God from their life, then they are left with only their own knowledge and reasoning. God allows this action, but He clearly says in His word that He wants all men to come to Him. He doesn't want anyone to suffer. This is mostly in the NT which for some reason you largely ignore.

You might want to take this train of thought a bit further. What you are actually saying is that the free will of people to commit atrocious acts trumps the will of those who do not want to be raped, enslaved, tortured or slaughtered. This is not about all free will but rather only the free will of the most evil. Your reasoning is that God has a fetish for those who ignore his teachings, to the point he blinds himself to the genuine suffering of those who did not choose religious persecution. God is also apparently too lazy to bother correcting those who do horrible things under his name. I find it curious that an all-powerful deity who is willing to execute those who do not follow his teachings is also unwilling to actually teach. If someone has misinterpreted his message, it should be easy for a deity to make a correction. If God is unable to clearly express his wishes, he isn't all-powerful. If God chooses to let evil be committed in his name, he isn't good.

On the point of God and evil. Let me try to give a rudimentary example. President Obama likes to use drones to kill people. Sometimes the drones kill innocent civilians in an effort to accomplish a military goal. The GP seems to like Mr Obama so much that you don't hear much about this in the press. In one way of looking at this Obama has killed innocent civilians. If that's all I said and that was the end of the story how much different would public perception be? An explanation always follows that makes sense, at least to some even though human life was lost. You might say, but God was downright cruel in what He did. It might look that way to you but since we all have free choice, and if it follows that God purposely doesn't meddle in our choices He is left to sometimes clean up the mess. I might never convince you otherwise to say that God is good. If you read the rest of the Bible you can find multiple examples of God as also good, probably more examples of good than what you think looks like bad.

Actually, some of us regularly read about drone killings in the press and there has been a movement to limit or prevent the use of drones for this reason. We cannot say we are a good people if we turn a blind eye toward the killing of innocents. The free-will of those being slaughtered never has as much weight as the free-will as those doing the slaughtering. In other words, there really is no free will. We simply have a world where the strong subjugates the weak at every whim. I have personally made it clear that these killings are not being committed in my name. If I can do this, why can't God also make his will known to mankind?

One other place where we really part Mike is on the point of God seen as a "murderer". If a man kills another man in cold blood that is surely murder, but since God gives us life He also has every right to take life when He sees fit to do that. We might not understand that and in my opinion we don't always need to. A complete understanding of God would put us on His level and since He made us...well, to say that's reaching a little high is a gross understatement. He gives knowledge and wisdom to those who ask.This is also backed up by the Bible.

I should therefore assume that you are the single most radical supporter of abortion rights, supporting abortion well past birth until the person is several-hundred trimesters along. I guess if my parents gave me life, they can take it away at any time. They have every right to take life when they see fit, even if I don't understand why. Clearly, I don't need to understand as that would put me on the same level as my parents.

What I see in the present Atheist movement is an appeal to emotionalism, yet they claim to only look at things scientific. They themselves are guilty of the very thing they accuse others of. The present Atheist movement knows no one likes to see people or animals die for any reason, but especially if it looks like it was cruelty. They play this card to the hilt and omit any context. Just like the press spins a story these guys put a spin on God.

Um, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you: Not all Atheists are hippy, free-loving vegans. Some are carnivorous. Some pig-out on Twinkies. Some support certain wars. Some support the death penalty. Some have a totally awesome sense of fashion. At least one has a pet ferret.

The truth is, Atheism isn't some secret and exclusive club where you have to act, think, eat and dress without regard to independence. You are confusing it with a cult. Atheism doesn't set to define whom you can love, where you can live, what you can read, or who you can claim as friends. It's pretty much just a rejection of theistic thinking. There's a lot of individuality among the Atheists. I promise.

I think Muadib is a very intelligent guy . Muadib you made me dig a little deeper on some of the issues you have discussed in the past. One of the single largest hindrances to understanding a Biblical subject are people who claim to be experts on the book over reaching what it really says and giving this as an answer to scientific questions. I don't know it all but I have seen so called experts mess it up for the rest of us. The Bible only makes so many claims and sometimes those claims are blown way out of proportion by so called experts.

The age of the earth is not really known with any exactness. The Bible surely doesn't attempt to tell us this. Plenty of others think they know but I'm not convinced. The flood is another epic subject. The scientific doesn't seem to fit the story as of right now. In my humble opinion I think there have been many floods and then one BIG flood.I'm no scientist but this is my take on it. There almost surely had to have been paranormal interventions for the flood to take place. To the natural scientific thinker this won't wash. In my thinking it fits.

I also think Maudib is an intelligent guy who raises the level of discourse in any thread which he participates. On this one point, you and I are going to agree. (We will probably both need to let that sink in for a bit.)

But that's where it ends. The age of the Earth really is known with a high degree of certainty. Specifically, the age of the earth and the surrounding solar system is estimated at about 4.55 billion years, plus or minus 1%. That's really pretty precise. We also have evidence to support this. We have found rocks that are at least 3.8 billion years old and minerals that are at least 4.1 billion years old. Rocks that are about 3.5 billion years old have been found on five continents.

In other words, from these facts alone, we know that the world must be older than 4.1 billion years because the Earth would have needed to exist and be conducive enough to make these things. To be fair, isotope ratios are not my strong suit. I can still have a basic understanding of why these can be used to determine how much time was needed on the planet for it to form minerals and rocks.

RL I have to respectfully disagree with you. If God isn't paranormal what is? If we are to reason that we were created then a being with the ability to step outside of the natural laws had to exist. This God created the laws and has the ability to break them, go outside them at will. The very definition of paranormal would include Him in a discussion on the topic. If a ghost is a soul and if, as some believe, God makes our souls, then you don't get much more relevant than that.

I appreciate that you acknowledged my post. Still, this is another example of you not following your train of thought to its logical conclusion. Specifically, if God is paranormal, than virtually any random thought, whether or not there is any evidence to back the thought, can also be paranormal and worthy of discussion.

I can say that there are purple unicorns on the moon, which clearly indicates that they are able to 'step outside the natural laws to exist.' OK, I have absolutely no solid evidence to support this - but I'm still going to insist that it is your job to prove a negative. If you cannot find them, it is because they choose not to be seen by you. If you cannot hear them, it is because your heart is not pure. As they can step outside these natural laws, they can do whatever they choose. They will only show themselves and communicate with those who believe in them, thereby demanding sacrifices of smoked bratwurst. The most faithful are rewarded with beautiful, virginal Gummi Bears, in flavors which have never before been tasted by man. I, alone, am their messenger of Earth and I have recorded their teachings, which I will only share with those who are worthy. Nevertheless, it is a sin to not believe in them, even if this is due to ignorance of their existence. Their curse upon the unbelieving is to make almost everything taste like chicken. The lack of evidence regarding the magical, purple unicorns only proves that their existence is being deliberately hidden by those with a secret agenda. Oh yeah, they're really loving and peaceful, but they turn a blind-eye to those who torture and kill in their name. They call it 'Free Will.'

As I know this in my heart to be true, it should therefore be respected and discussed with the same reverence as any of the other thousands of religions. We could spend every waking hour of each day solely comparing and contrasting these different religions, as there are just so many to cover. If some garden-variety psychopath knows he's talking to God, that should be accepted. If he kills in God's name, that should also be accepted, as we know God tolerates that sort of thing. All beliefs, no matter how utterly ridiculous, should be elevated to the same rank as those things which are backed by evidence. Personal beliefs are good, whereas science is for the faithless.

Or... Just maybe.... The reason we come to The Paracast instead of the many other paranormal sites is because we want this site to be held to a higher standard. We actually don't want random hoaxers and publicity seekers to set the tone of discourse. We may be willing to contemplate many fields which currently fall outside the realm of science, but that doesn't indicate that we must blindly accept every claim or belief which ends up on these threads. If we choose to value blind faith, skeptical inquiry loses all value.
We can choose to make everything paranormal by bestowing upon it magical qualities that 'step outside the natural world to exist.' This does not mean it's a good idea.

Magical thinking is not a quality I hold in high regard. I would like to think this is one place where we can do better.

 

[breddell]

Plain and simple: sources of information need to be referenced. In general, a personal youtube video alone doesn't meet this criteria. This has nothing to do with logic or what level of science background a reader may have.

When I mentioned copies, I am not talking modern translations. I am talking about the historical record from the first original text to the first copies. The attached chart was adapted from three sources: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.

On the historical accuracy, "the Bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail. It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years. If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person. Much of this can be verified from archaeology. Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not some events and locations described therein are true or false. So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.

Nevertheless, many people used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about 27 AD (Luke 3:1). For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described. But an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said. It turns out that there had been two people name Lysanias and Luke had accurately recorded the facts.
Also, the walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed just as the Bible says. Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea that has verified its existence. Finds have verified the existence of Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas. The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum. Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet have been uncovered as well demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion. The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones).
There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records on places such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.

1. An inscribed stone was found that refers to Pontius Pilate, named as Prefect of Judaea.’ (The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.)
   1. Luke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea..."
2. "A decree of Claudius found at Delphi (Greece) describes Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in ad 51, thus giving a correlation with the ministry of Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:12)." (The New Bible Dictionary)
   1. Acts 18:12, "But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat."
3. Excavations have revealed a text naming a benefactor Erastus which may be a reference relating to the city-treasurer of Rom. 16:23. (The New Bible Dictionary)
   1. Rom. 16:23, "Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother."
4. At Ephesus parts of the temple of Artemis have been uncovered as is mentioned in Acts 19:28-41. (The New Bible Dictionary)
   1. Acts 19:28, "And when they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians."
5. "It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this date... archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts: (1) A taxation-census was a fairly common procedure in the Roman Empire and it did occur in Judea, in particular. (2) Persons were required to return to their home city in order to fulfill the requirements of the process. (3) These procedures were apparently employed during the reign of Augustus (37 BC–AD 14), placing it well within the general time frame of Jesus’ birth."2
6. "The historical trustworthiness of Luke has been attested by a number of inscriptions. The ‘politarchs’ of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6,8) were magistrates and are named in five inscriptions from the city in the 1st century AD. Similarly Publius is correctly designated proµtos (‘first man’) or Governor of Malta (Acts 28:7). Near Lystra inscriptions record the dedication to Zeus of a statue of Hermes by some Lycaonians, and near by was a stone altar for ‘the Hearer of Prayer’ (Zeus) and Hermes. This explains the local identification of Barnabas and Paul with Zeus (Jupiter) and Hermes (Mercury) respectively (Acts 14:11). Derbe, Paul’s next stopping-place, was identified by Ballance in 1956 with Kaerti Hüyük near Karaman (ASLuke 2:2) and to Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1) have likewise received inscriptional support." (The New Bible Dictionary.) 7, 1957, pp. 147ff.). Luke’s earlier references to Quirinius as governor of Syria before the death of Herod I (Luke 2:2) and to Lysanias as tetrarch of Abilene (Luke 3:1) have likewise received inscriptional support." (The New Bible Dictionary.)

There are many such archaeological verifications of biblical events and places. Is the Bible trustworthy? Absolutely! Remember, no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible. Therefore, since it has been verified over and over again throughout the centuries, we can continue to trust it as an accurate historical document."

Is the Bible a scientific document, no. But, there is also a mountain of science evidence that is consistent/confirms the Bible. I agree we know a lot from science and we also have a lot more to learn. The explanations provided in this thread only argue some of the cases against the Bible, but from a framework of still-in-work-scientific theory that is unable to explain all the data.

 

[starise]

I see how this happens and I think it's one reason we don't seem to get any closer to at least an understanding of the various views on the subject. I'm looking at Mikes post on page 8 and there are at least two more pages I haven't read. The topic was supposed to be about Jesus being created by the Romans.

Instead we are now into discussions about the flood and creation. Mike I partially blame you for this. Why can't you stay at least partially on topic? I like to discuss these other things but really all it does is cloud things up IMO. These posts degrade into a myriad of various topics.

Because they are two seperate issues, jews dont accept that JC is their prophesised messiah, there can be no debate on this its fact pure and simple.
The reasons why are simple enough as ive outline earlier, and its not because they asked the romans to crucify this character, its because it didnt fulfil the original prophecys, and again ive posted links that support this fact, you can propose all the alternative theorys you like but thats the pov of Tulmudic scholars.

A close reading of the subject reveals that the jews indeed worked toward the crucifiction of Jesus and they used the Romans to that end. The jews paid to have Jesus delivered up. I agree with you that the jews don't accept Jesus as their messiah, the Tulmudic scholars can say anything they want but IMO their views are necessarily in denial.

Can you tell me which prophecies that Jesus supposedly didn't fulfill? I'd really like to know because I can point to some in the OT that He did fulfill.

I am more than willing to challenge you on the contextual innaccuracies of many of the points that you are trying to make. Some passages are more explanatory than others. Other passages rely on looking at the culture at the time, the general idea being presented and need to be compared to similar texts that deal with the same thing. Being in context isn't a bad idea when reading any important work. It isn't a way to explain anything away, but a way to come to the meanings.

I read it like any other book.

How do you read any other book? What kind of "book" are you referring to? You can't really try to read the Bible like a comic book if you want to learn from it, that's just silly.

As for double dipping you just did it yourself, you claim the jews dont accept jesus because "they" killed him

They had him killed. I confess I have been known to double dip at the buffet sometimes.

God so loved the world, he sent his only son to die on the cross for our sins.

All are true. The Jews had Jesus killed. The Romans crucified Jesus, and God made all of these things play right into His hand. This is why Jesus said, " They know not what they do". In John 1 Jesus said that He would destroy this temple and in three days He would raise it back up. At the time the disciples thought He was referring to the actual building but He already knew what He was going to let happen.

And the LORD said, "I will wipe this human race I have created from the face of the earth. Yes, and I will destroy every living thing--all the people, the large animals, the small animals that scurry along the ground, and even the birds of the sky. I am sorry I ever made them."

Once again you jump off topic ??? To tell us how really bad God is. I'll respond to this anyway. None of this is untrue. God was sorry He made them. I mean, He created these beings who He gave free will to do whatever they wanted to do, but He realized that instead of these beings making the station He placed them into work, they were on the fastest track they could find to destroying themselves and each other. Some scholars also insist that the genetic pool of mankind was ruined beyond any reasonable repair based on other references . This view isn't widely held by all though. The products of this were men who weren't really men and had no inclinations to anything resembling civility or justice.

Yes God was unhappy. He had thought man would do better than this. Even so, IN HIS GOODNESS, He made a plan of escape and intervened to make sure it happened.He could have stopped the whole show right then and there. God has continually worked to help man to get to the place He originally intended. Where would the world have ended up if He hadn't stepped in? Only He knows the answer to that but it must have bad enough for Him to take such a drastic action.

Then decides the whole lot is no good, even the birds of the sky......

Thats the hallmark of an incompetent idiot, not an all knowing supermind.

I think the hallmark of an incompetent idiot is someone who looks at total competency and design and then looks the other way.

My take on the passage is that God destroyed the earth because of the actions of men and it follows that any destruction of the earth involves all of its creatures. Men indirectly caused the destruction of the animals by the judgements placed on them. Once again Mike you are spinning God. God isn't saying, " I can't wait to wreak havoc on the earth and kill all the little critters". God is saying, I am sorry it had to come to this.

 

[starise]

Actually, we really don't. The reason so many Jews in both the U.S. and Israel self-identify as secular is because we know the Old Testament is nothing more than fables,

I was referring to the Jewish religion as such and not the people as a whole. I don't see how you can confidently say that ALL Jews feel the way you do is using the word "we". I'm sure there are atheist jews just as I'm sure there are Jews who are Christian. I have met a few of them. I feel confident is saying that some jews think the Bible is fables. I feel just as confident saying that there are jews who believe every word of the book. You are clearly making a brush stroke statement here that doesn't apply.

It would behoove many Christians to actually talk to Jews about the Old Testament to get a better understanding of the history and culture in which it was written.

I would welcome such conversations as a partial reference to Jewish history.My feeling about your statement here is that we don't "get out" enough. I feel this is not objective reasoning in light of the fact that thousands of Christians visit the middle east every year and many scholars go there to gain perspective. Christians engage Jews probably much more than you may think.

This, of course, will never happen. Christian dogma has long since sought to remove itself from Jewish teachings and culture.

Only is as much as it veers from the NT and this was the decision of the Jewish religion. The message is intended to reach across all cultures from the Christian perspective.The Jewish culture in this context is irrelevant.

I would also like to add, as of the early 19th century, Jews have widely been considered to be an ethnoreligious group rather than a solely religious group. To better understand this phenomenon, you would need to have a solid understanding of Jewish culture, emphasizing European-Jewish culture and how well many of these groups were able to assimilate into their surroundings. While I truly have no desire to write a dissertation about this right now, it is safe to say that you do not know your own arguments unless you have a solid grasp of Jewish culture versus Orthodox Judaism. I can also add, when you realize that the majority of Jews in both Israel and the U.S. support gay marriage,the rights of LGBTs, the ordination of Jewish rabbis (and in some instances, gay and lesbian rabbis), you may correctly assume it is not because we believe in the literal teachings of the Old Testament. Israel actually has a far better record of accepting LGBTs into the military than the U.S. and was the first country in Asia to accept same-sex unions.

You might want to do your homework in this regard.

I fail to see how this in any way makes or breaks the argument that Jesus is or isn't a fictitious creation of the Romans. An interesting topic for sure. The LGBT argument is creating splits in many Christian denominations. It doesn't surprise me that there is a movement in Judaism along the same lines. The Homosexual agenda is militant in its objectives almost to the point of forcing it on the rest of us. What I see happening are splinter groups. People will be able to still have their "lifestyle" and be ok with attending a place that supports and even condones the behavior. There are others who will never agree to it being accepted and these people will not be in these groups. "Accept" is a loose term in the meaning concerning this agenda. Legalization may uphold certain access priviledges but acceptance by all will never happen. You can't force someone to accept something they don't agree with.

Yet another reason so many Jews are secular is that after centuries and centuries of violent oppression, inquisitions and genocide, it would seem obvious that God must hibernate during the most brutal times.

The Jews rejected God many times during the OT. They wanted nothing to do with Him. He merely gave them their wishes. The prophets weeped about this very thing.

It is important to remember that all of his actions - and all of the actions committed by Europeans against other Europeans, Jews, American Indians, Africans, and many others - were done as a way of professing their love for Christ. If these acts were an abomination to God, he sure could not be bothered to let his feelings be known.

Most countries who went to war tried to instill the idea that "god is on our side". Its a great motivator. The generals will say anything to motivate the troops. God might seem to delay an action based on our limited awareness. God seldom responds in a way that we think is appropriate or timely. But He himself says that He will judge and that we will all answer to Him.

(It's a little off topic, but I personally find it fascinating that the most violent acts are always done for the Holy Father or his son, yet the conversions of a conquered people were always committed in the name of the Virgin Mother. I guess people just don't enslave, conquer, torture and kill for the mother figures. Seriously, read about when and why Mary appears during times of conquest. This will give you some valuable insight into Christianity.)

This sounds like primarily a Catholic thing.

You might want to take this train of thought a bit further. What you are actually saying is that the free will of people to commit atrocious acts trumps the will of those who do not want to be raped, enslaved, tortured or slaughtered. This is not about all free will but rather only the free will of the most evil. Your reasoning is that God has a fetish for those who ignore his teachings, to the point he blinds himself to the genuine suffering of those who did not choose religious persecution. God is also apparently too lazy to bother correcting those who do horrible things under his name. I find it curious that an all-powerful deity who is willing to execute those who do not follow his teachings is also unwilling to actually teach. If someone has misinterpreted his message, it should be easy for a deity to make a correction. If God is unable to clearly express his wishes, he isn't all-powerful. If God chooses to let evil be committed in his name, he isn't good.

No this isn't what I'm actually saying. All I said was that we all have the power of choice. You see it as God eliminating and it's really more like God has put forth an order and some have chosen to step outside of it.Free will can be evil free will or good free will. It seems as if you are saying that God shows some kind of favoritism when it is more like I said earlier. One thing I completely disagree with you on is a lazy God or blind God. He is neither of these things. The Bible has a lot to say in 2 Peter about false teachers. They are described as" clouds without rain.These "corrections" you mention are on the way. There are many people out there who are not following His teachings yet they aren't being executed. God doesn't "execute" based on unbelief. Although Chrisitans are being executed for belief.

Actually, some of us regularly read about drone killings in the press and there has been a movement to limit or prevent the use of drones for this reason. We cannot say we are a good people if we turn a blind eye toward the killing of innocents. The free-will of those being slaughtered never has as much weight as the free-will as those doing the slaughtering. In other words, there really is no free will. We simply have a world where the strong subjugates the weak at every whim. I have personally made it clear that these killings are not being committed in my name. If I can do this, why can't God also make his will known to mankind?

Unfortunately killing innocent people has always been a part of any war. The drones actually minimize this compared too other methods. If you knew me you would know how much I am disturbed by the deaths of anyone, especially children . The Obama administration has rationalized this move by applying the logic that if we don't take this person out then they will command a force that will be over here on our soil taking us out. He may or may not be correct in this judgment but he has the right given his office to make this call. In the same way God has the right given his office to make the call. I trust His calls way more than any president. I think God has made His will known to mankind, but since it didn't arrive in the package that many men wanted they reject the package.

Um, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you: Not all Atheists are hippy, free-loving vegans. Some are carnivorous. Some pig-out on Twinkies. Some support certain wars. Some support the death penalty. Some have a totally awesome sense of fashion. At least one has a pet ferret.

The truth is, Atheism isn't some secret and exclusive club where you have to act, think, eat and dress without regard to independence. You are confusing it with a cult. Atheism doesn't set to define whom you can love, where you can live, what you can read, or who you can claim as friends. It's pretty much just a rejection of theistic thinking. There's a lot of individuality among the Atheists. I promise.

This was in response to my comment on Atheists using emotionalism to win converts. Sure, I understand that everyone is an individual, atheists included. In essence atheism is a belief system that uses science as an attempt to misplace or deny God. In addition to that it attempts to undermine any book which may be in favor of God. OTOH if you don't believe God exists why even argue the finer points of if He is cruel or not? If He exists and is found to be cruel He still exists. I can prove He isn't cruel. Firm maybe, but not intentionally cruel. This is where emotionalism comes into play. Take a person with no religious persuasions and start to indoctrinate them on how bad God is. Appeal to their inner sense of justice. Talk about murder and execution, don't mention anything else. Twist events to suit that agenda. That's atheism. You're right RL the only real rule to being an atheist is to either hate God or demand that He doesn't exist. Atheists fight like cats and dogs too. Being atheist doesn't do much to promote peace.

But that's where it ends. The age of the Earth really is known with a high degree of certainty. Specifically, the age of the earth and the surrounding solar system is estimated at about 4.55 billion years, plus or minus 1%. That's really pretty precise. We also have evidence to support this. We have found rocks that are at least 3.8 billion years old and minerals that are at least 4.1 billion years old. Rocks that are about 3.5 billion years old have been found on five continents.

In other words, from these facts alone, we know that the world must be older than 4.1 billion years because the Earth would have needed to exist and be conducive enough to make these things. To be fair, isotope ratios are not my strong suit. I can still have a basic understanding of why these can be used to determine how much time was needed on the planet for it to form minerals and rocks.

RL for the record I will say that it is highly likely that in years to come some of the data you have quoted will be changed. This is the accepted scientific idea of the moment. It may or may not be totally correct. The fact of the matter is, no matter how old the earth is the Bible is not a good yardstick to measure that science with any certainty. The Bible never indicates that it is any kind of authority on the age of our universe. It makes some statements that indicate the earth was created in a systematic way over a set time. I have commented here before that I think the earth less old than we are led to believe it is. This isn't substatiated in the Bible and is just MOP. Once again the atheist seeks to draw out an argument to disprove and in doing so will attempt to discredit to the Bible and then they can label us all as a bunch of backwards idiots. If you involve a supernatural element into this i.e. God, then it can get very interesting as to how it all went down. Since I wasn't there when it happend and neither were you we can only conjecture on how it looks like it went down.

I appreciate that you acknowledged my post. Still, this is another example of you not following your train of thought to its logical conclusion. Specifically, if God is paranormal, than virtually any random thought, whether or not there is any evidence to back the thought, can also be paranormal and worthy of discussion.

I feel there is plenty of evidence to back it up. In fact the Christian idea of faith and Hitchens definition of it are two very different things. Here is where I'm going with this- Faith is evidence based in the Bible. Hitchens faith is called "blind faith".

We discuss ideas on this board all the time which have no evidence to back them up. I say God is "paranormal" because He is outside of our "normal". Therefore He doesn't always operate in a predictable wa.y

I can say that there are purple unicorns on the moon, which clearly indicates that they are able to 'step outside the natural laws to exist.' OK, I have absolutely no solid evidence to support this - but I'm still going to insist that it is your job to prove a negative. If you cannot find them, it is because they choose not to be seen by you. If you cannot hear them, it is because your heart is not pure. As they can step outside these natural laws, they can do whatever they choose. They will only show themselves and communicate with those who believe in them, thereby demanding sacrifices of smoked bratwurst. The most faithful are rewarded with beautiful, virginal Gummi Bears, in flavors which have never before been tasted by man. I, alone, am their messenger of Earth and I have recorded their teachings, which I will only share with those who are worthy. Nevertheless, it is a sin to not believe in them, even if this is due to ignorance of their existence. Their curse upon the unbelieving is to make almost everything taste like chicken. The lack of evidence regarding the magical, purple unicorns only proves that their existence is being deliberately hidden by those with a secret agenda. Oh yeah, they're really loving and peaceful, but they turn a blind-eye to those who torture and kill in their name. They call it 'Free Will.'

LOL, you have a sense of humor.

I would change that some. We have seen the footprints of these unicorns and some have actually seen them fly.The unicorns have visited us and left some instructions with a representatives but now the instructions are in full view of anyone that wants to see them. You don't need a pure heart to come to them only the acknowledgement that your heart might not be pure. Since they made you they understand you better than anyone else.Worthy doesn't figure in as all are accepted.They never turn a blind eye to anything. They see everything.

Or... Just maybe.... The reason we come to The Paracast instead of the many other paranormal sites is because we want this site to be held to a higher standard. We actually don't want random hoaxers and publicity seekers to set the tone of discourse. We may be willing to contemplate many fields which currently fall outside the realm of science, but that doesn't indicate that we must blindly accept every claim or belief which ends up on these threads. If we choose to value blind faith, skeptical inquiry loses all value.
We can choose to make everything paranormal by bestowing upon it magical qualities that 'step outside the natural world to exist.' This does not mean it's a good idea.

Magical thinking is not a quality I hold in high regard. I would like to think this is one place where we can do better.

In one sense everthing may be paranormal. It's just that our looking at it sees something normal.

I would never accept anything blindly.

 

[mike]

Funny how this gets dodged yet again

Since the Bible has been studied by thousands of scholars for many hundreds of years, the most reliable document in human hands (as judged by number of exact copies of manuscripts and closeness to actual events), and it's truth has remained for all this time without a single error (not a single fact has 100% been disproved in all of this time), the burden is on atheists or disbelievers to prove otherwise - it can't be done.

A common enough claim


The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is accurate and totally free from error of any kind; that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".



But we can test this, and prove these claims to be false.

They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Mark 16:18

The real truth is biology and chemistry dont have special rules for believers, believers who drink deadly poison will die just like everybody else.

Thus the claim the bible is accurate and totally free from error of any kind is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be wrong

It is not true, that believers as the bible claims in mark 16:18 can drink weed killer and suffer no harm, marks claim is absolutely contrary to fact.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. it is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]

it's truth has remained for all this time without a single error (not a single fact has 100% been disproved in all of this time), the burden is on atheists or disbelievers to prove otherwise - it can't be done.

It can be done, ive just done it using mark 16:18.

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.-- Carl Sagan

It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-- Carl Sagan

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

You know you cant drink deadly poison without harm, despite the false claim in mark.
You must therefore retreat into the realms of delusion to reconcile the facts with your faith.

 

[boomerang]

<Boomerang cracks door and peeks in to see an enormous food fight in progress. It looks like great educational fun. But there is simply too much intellectual nutrition flying in all directions to digest. Believing discretion to be the better part of valor, he backs quietly away>

 

[mike]

<Boomerang cracks door and peeks in to see an enormous food fight in progress. It looks like great educational fun. But there is simply too much intellectual nutrition flying in all directions to digest. Believing discretion to be the better part of valor, he backs quietly away>

I'm still trying to figure out where they are getting all the loaves and fishes

 

[Burnt State]

Oh you'll never figure that out. That's why they're called miracles.

 

[Muadib]

Oh you'll never figure that out. That's why they're called miracles.

Did someone say miracles?

Sorry, I couldn't resist

 

[breddell]

Funny how this gets dodged yet again

Biblical inerrancy is the doctrine that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is accurate and totally free from error of any kind; that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

But we can test this, and prove these claims to be false.

They will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Mark 16:18

The real truth is biology and chemistry dont have special rules for believers, believers who drink deadly poison will die just like everybody else.

Thus the claim the bible is accurate and totally free from error of any kind is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be wrong

It is not true, that believers as the bible claims in mark 16:18 can drink weed killer and suffer no harm, marks claim is absolutely contrary to fact.

Actually, you haven't proved anything. Once again, you have pulled a single verse completely out of context from the Bible. In addition, you picked (easily confirmed by internet searches) a section of the Bible that is under a lot of debate on if it is truly part of the gospel or not, not to mention other issues. But ignoring that, the Bible tells us many times that we are not to test God, if we do, then bad things happen. So, no true believer would say, " But we can test this...". There is also some folks who believe that this verse is referencing other acts of belief, such as Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness or Paul being bitten on the hand by a poisonous snake and nothing happening, etc. I have heard of people accidently drinking poison and being ok....

 

[Muadib]

It's actually a completely pointless argument, you can spend ages debating the accuracy of facts in the bible, plenty of scholars have, and yet, even if the bible is 100% historically and factually accurate, which it isn't without doing some serious mental gymnastics but for the sake of argument let's just pretend that isn't the case, it doesn't prove it's a divinely inspired document. There's nothing in the bible that man couldn't have made up on his own, and plenty of things that demonstrate that if this document was transmitted by some kind of higher power, they aren't exactly a reliable source of information about the past or the future. There are plenty of failed prophecies in the bible, 231 of which are listed here:

Prophecies in the Bible

Not to mention all of the problems with the creation account, here's a good article illustrating what I mean, it's a long one but it's worth the read:

The story of creation, according to genesis | Thinking Critically

And to wrap it up here's the first video of a 10 part series about what Genesis got wrong from a scientific standpoint:

To me these are just some of the most glaring problems with the idea of the bible as some kind of divinely inspired perfect work, as I've said before, it's a very human book, written from a very human perspective, with plenty of very human mistakes and inaccuracies thrown in for good measure. I can't see how anyone can study what the bible says and come away believing that this thing was written or transmitted by a perfect god capable of creating the universe itself.

 

[breddell]

It's actually a completely pointless argument, you can spend ages debating the accuracy of facts in the bible, plenty of scholars have, and yet, even if the bible is 100% historically and factually accurate, which it isn't without doing some serious mental gymnastics but for the sake of argument let's just pretend that isn't the case, it doesn't prove it's a divinely inspired document. There's nothing in the bible that man couldn't have made up on his own, and plenty of things that demonstrate that if this document was transmitted by some kind of higher power, they aren't exactly a reliable source of information about the past or the future. There are plenty of failed prophecies in the bible, 231 of which are listed here:

Prophecies in the Bible

Not to mention all of the problems with the creation account, here's a good article illustrating what I mean, it's a long one but it's worth the read:

The story of creation, according to genesis | Thinking Critically

And to wrap it up here's the first video of a 10 part series about what Genesis got wrong from a scientific standpoint:

To me these are just some of the most glaring problems with the idea of the bible as some kind of divinely inspired perfect work, as I've said before, it's a very human book, written from a very human perspective, with plenty of very human mistakes and inaccuracies thrown in for good measure. I can't see how anyone can study what the bible says and come away believing that this thing was written or transmitted by a perfect god capable of creating the universe itself.

I agree with some of what you said at the top about not getting to resolution. The Bible is what it is and nothing is being added to it. Part of the problem is you are still treating it like a text book. There is no possible way that one can derive the full creation story from Genesis with the total lack of details and time scales, etc. This lack of information does not refute that God created the universe.

But, let's choose your theory -- it all happened randomly....

As I talked about before, but nobody seems to want to talk about is the evidence of intelligent design. How can you take a human cell and think of it randomly occurring? Kofahl and Segraves in "The Creation Explanation", came up with a probability of 1 in 10^(340000000) chance on random chance of the formation of just *one* enzyme molecule.

The total number of observable particles in the universe is estimated at ~10^80.
What is the number of particles in the universe
The chances of something simple like an enzyme molecule forming is millions of time less likely than randomly picking a specific single particle in the whole universe (based on these numbers).

Furthermore, there are >100 physical constants that are very fine tuned and precise. The slightest change of any of them and the universe would be very different or perhaps nonexistent. Some of the parameters: strong and week nuclear force constants, gravitational constant, charge of elementary particles, fine structure constant, decay life of protons and other particles, etc... I could go on and on. There is no way all of these can randomly have values to produce what we have in our universe - I would like to see that probability number.

There are other studies that blow these numbers away by orders of magnitude. So, whatever the magnitude of these numbers are, they are so ridiculously low, that any person would realize that random formation of the universe is zero. There is definitely intelligent design behind all of this and the best and only explanation is that a supreme, infinite, loving being, existing outside of our universe [GOD] is responsible.

Science is doing a great job of unraveling these details. In the end, whatever details we learn, the Bible will be consistent with what we learn to be as fact.