Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Corrected.

Click https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dYMEKKOK35tTFm6BYDfnFkJhifxPpm5kwhX7vOpbGaY/edit

Haha... this is good for some laughs...




1. it is quite a stretch to jump to the conclusion that the writers of the Bible actually understood that the earth was floating in space from that one verse.

2. it is quite a stretch to say that the writers understood microscopic organisms let alone atomic particles.

3. Whoopty-doo... they knew how to make a boat.

4. Hahaha... more advanced technology outlined in the bible: running water!

5. Hahaha... more advanced technology outlined in the bible: bathrooms!

6. Whoopty-doo. Ocean springs. What's so impressive about this?

7. Whoopty-doo. Some fear of the unknown and imagination of the oceans.

8. Evolution cannot explain emotions? Why can't it? What does the Bible know about them that evolution can't explain? Examples of what are clearly more primitive emotions are easily visible in lower animals like primates, cats, dogs. Even rats can demonstrate empathy.

9. It probably wasn't hard for the primitive writers of the Bible to realize that living things die when they spill the blood of their enemies as opposed to using sophisticated verbal exchanges to avoid such violence. "Oh, lookie there! When the red stuff leaks out the animal dies!"

10. *facepalm* You really should try to at least pretend that you've tried to understand evolution before trying to refute it.





Case in point: this is YOU and many people LIKE you reading way too much into the text and giving it way more credit than it deserves. Funny how the bible totally gets the origin of species wrong and God even creates light before the sun and stars. Nothing about Genesis 1 really makes any sense. Are you ever going to be done spamming this place to death with this nonsense? Please stop. Unless of course you come up with some more comedy gold like the bathroom thing...

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Haha... this is good for some laughs...




1. it is quite a stretch to jump to the conclusion that the writers of the Bible actually understood that the earth was floating in space from that one verse.

2. it is quite a stretch to say that the writers understood microscopic organisms let alone atomic particles.

3. Whoopty-doo... they knew how to make a boat.

4. Hahaha... more advanced technology outlined in the bible: running water!

5. Hahaha... more advanced technology outlined in the bible: bathrooms!

6. Whoopty-doo. Ocean springs. What's so impressive about this?

7. Whoopty-doo. Some fear of the unknown and imagination of the oceans.

8. Evolution cannot explain emotions? Why can't it? What does the Bible know about them that evolution can't explain? Examples of what are clearly more primitive emotions are easily visible in lower animals like primates, cats, dogs. Even rats can demonstrate empathy.

9. It probably wasn't hard for the primitive writers of the Bible to realize that living things die when they spill the blood of their enemies as opposed to using sophisticated verbal exchanges to avoid such violence. "Oh, lookie there! When the red stuff leaks out the animal dies!"

10. *facepalm* You really should try to at least pretend that you've tried to understand evolution before trying to refute it.





Case in point: this is YOU and many people LIKE you reading way too much into the text and giving it way more credit than it deserves. Funny how the bible totally gets the origin of species wrong and God even creates light before the sun and stars. Nothing about Genesis 1 really makes any sense. Are you ever going to be done spamming this place to death with this nonsense? Please stop. Unless of course you come up with some more comedy gold like the bathroom thing...





You still don't get it.



My claim isn't that the various authors of the Bible understood anything that they wrote about. In fact, my claim presupposes the opposite.



I believe that the writers were being given divine inspiration to write. So as they wrote, they revealed knowledge, perspectives, facts, and truths that only God would know.

Funny how the God that spoke through the authors has an intellect that barely surpasses a caveman.

So your argument is that God is an ignorant caveman and not the writers. That sounds blasphemous.

Most of this stuff was theorized or understood before the Bible was written.

lol, for starters I'm sure even cavemen learned pretty quickly that you shouldn't piss and shit where you live and that blood keeps animals alive.



This is really too much..

All of them except 6 and 7, and maybe 1. And I'm sure that if I were to dig around a bit, I'd find that those were known/theorized as well.

https://media.giphy.com/media/tOvSJhOalnNss/giphy.gif

Prove your god exists.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://media.giphy.com/media/tOvSJhOalnNss/giphy.gif

Prove your god exists.

The Bible! Duh!

How is it you think blood being a source of life is an idea that just came around in the last 120 years? It is true in the past blood letting was practiced, but this doesn't mean people didn't recognize the importance blood played.

In fact, I seem to recall they would bleed people because they were under the impression whatever was afflicted them was caused by some of their blood being "dirty", so they wanted to get the bad blood out. They still knew enough that a person would be in trouble if they were to lose 100% of their blood.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
The Bible! Duh!

To that, I say:

I have a book that says pink elephants can fly, but it does not follow from this that 1.) there is such a thing as pink elephants, and 2.) that even if there was, that they could indeed fly.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
https://media.giphy.com/media/tOvSJhOalnNss/giphy.gif

Prove your god exists.



I don't have a "god".



I worship "God".



Also, I don't have to "prove" God exists.



God's existence is "obvious".



"Nothing" would be here if God didn't exist.



Maybe you can rescue ArtificialGlory.

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
I don't have a "god".



I worship "God".



Also, I don't have to "prove" God exists.



God's existence is "obvious".



"Nothing" would be here if God didn't exist.



Maybe you can rescue ArtificialGlory.

So technically gay sex is only here because God exists? Weird. You ever think maybe he protests a little too much about the whole gay thing?

Originally posted by Surtur
So technically gay sex is only here because God exists? Weird. You ever think maybe he protests a little too much about the whole gay thing?



No, God is "not" the reason that homosexuality exists.



Have I been so long time teaching you (and others on here), and yet have you not learned this by now?



Click https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gK9qLxI9SQEjD7dk1s8Zb8BUlvCj74EKde9U0L0cARE/edit

2) Ancient Greeks have theorized the existence of atoms that make up everything.
3) All sea-faring cultures knew this. This isn't some kind of a big secret.
4) Even Neolithic peoples understood this. This is one of the reasons why most settlements were founded near rivers. People understood, even tens of thousands of years ago, the value of not just water, but specifically running water.
5) Once again, even Neolithic peoples knew this. You don't defecate where you live and eat. This is extremely basic stuff.
8) Again, this is a no-brainer. Humans have understood that we have emotions since we first became sentient.
9) Even Neanderthals knew that blood is the source of life and health and if you bled out, you'd die. And bloodletting was an exact 'science' that was supposed to get rid of bad blood and 'bad humours', it was never about just bleeding someone for the sake of bleeding them.
10) Again, basic, self-evident stuff that everyone knew since forever.

2) Ancient Greeks have theorized the existence of atoms that make up everything.

3) All sea-faring cultures knew this. This isn't some kind of a big secret.

4) Even Neolithic peoples understood this. This is one of the reasons why most settlements were founded near rivers. People understood, even tens of thousands of years ago, the value of not just water, but specifically running water.

5) Once again, even Neolithic peoples knew this. You don't defecate where you live and eat. This is extremely basic stuff.

8) Again, this is a no-brainer. Humans have understood that we have emotions since we first became sentient.

9) Even Neanderthals knew that blood is the source of life and health and if you bled out, you'd die. And bloodletting was an exact 'science' that was supposed to get rid of bad blood and 'bad humours', it was never about just bleeding someone for the sake of bleeding them.

10) Again, basic, self-evident stuff that everyone knew since forever.

As an addition to 2): the existence of atoms were also theorized in ancient India.

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
I don't have a "god".



I worship "God".



Also, I don't have to "prove" God exists.



God's existence is "obvious".



"Nothing" would be here if God didn't exist.



Maybe you can rescue ArtificialGlory.

Yes, you do have to prove God exists. If it was obvious, there would be no non-Christians.

Case in point: God does not exist, and yet, everything is still here.

ArtificalGlory does not need any rescuing, but you do. You are wasting your life and our time with the myths of illiterate Bronze-Age goatherders.

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
I don't have a "god".



I worship "God".

Capitol letters makes it real?




Yes, you do. It requires certain proof. Which you can't provide without simply saying it is so, or pointing to your Bronze Age mythology book.



No, the sun is obvious. God is not obvious and likely fiction.



Then how did "GOD" come to be? If the universe is so infinitely complex and majestic that it necessitates a "GOD", would not "GOD" necessitate something higher?

Perhaps your "GOD" is a demiurge, and the real god is ignorant of your faith.

Mindblowing, though, how you reason this shit out.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/a07f29e770a2e754f2cf401f35334fbd/tumblr_mewgb6dUfs1rihhm8o1_500.gif

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
No, God is "not" the reason that homosexuality exists.



Have I been so long time teaching you (and others on here), and yet have you not learned this by now?



Click https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gK9qLxI9SQEjD7dk1s8Zb8BUlvCj74EKde9U0L0cARE/edit

He created a universe where gay sex was a thing, for shame.

S H A M E

^ Your rationalizations are truly astounding. You are missing the point because it is not some miracle that the writers of the Bible knew these things because as is obvious other cultures and people not inspired by God knew about them too. Your cluttered logic falls apart.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
^ Your rationalizations are truly astounding. You are missing the point because it is not some miracle that the writers of the Bible knew these things because as is obvious other cultures and people not inspired by God knew about them too. Your cluttered logic falls apart.



You are missing the point


The various writers of the Bible knew about these things first, and without the aid of modern technology.



Let these words sink in:



No other culture knew about underwater springs and mountains until the 20th century.



But the the Bible did.

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou
No other culture knew about underwater springs and mountains until the 20th century.

But the the Bible did.

Okay, so let's assume that's true. I doubt it is, but let's just pretend...

It's not that grand of a revelation. Why didn't God inform his poor creations dying of all sorts of awful diseases about the germ theory of disease? How about a magic recipe for an antibiotic? Or how about how to build an airplane? How to make a light bulb? How about the true origin of man (yeah, evolution is a fact, the Bible got it wrong, sorry)? Basic physics or chemistry? Electricity? Or any other number of scientific discoveries?

Ocean springs and mountains don't even really count as major scientific discoveries.

The people who actually did the writing of the Bible were quite educated, literate(obviously), and knowledgeable. So while it's true that the teeming masses were indeed illiterate, benighted bronze age farmers and goat herders, the people who wrote the Bible were the educated elite.

Now concerning point #1: Pythagoras's research and ideas pre-date the Bible. But even before Pythagoras, #1 was theorized by the scientist/philosopher Anaximander. So I suppose we can scratch 1) off the list. Now we're down to only 6) and 7).

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Okay, so let's assume that's true. I doubt it is, but let's just pretend...

It's not that grand of a revelation. Why didn't God inform his poor creations dying of all sorts of awful diseases about the germ theory of disease? How about a magic recipe for an antibiotic? Or how about how to build an airplane? How to make a light bulb? How about the true origin of man (yeah, evolution is a fact, the Bible got it wrong, sorry)? Basic physics or chemistry? Electricity? Or any other number of scientific discoveries?

Ocean springs and mountains don't even really count as major scientific discoveries.
This is not a sound critic, my friend.

What is the point of having an 'extraordinary brain' if the Cosmic God has to spoon-feed us everything?

How about the fact that this planet contains materials that are enabling us (humans) to gain competitive advantage and redefine our way of life with passage of time? Some materials formed on Earth and others came from space (seeded through comets).

There is a lot of stuff on Earth that ancient humans did not knew how to utilize to their benefit but learned with passage of time - a sense of accomplishment for humans in short.

Argument in all Abrahmic scriptures is that this world is like a testing ground for all creations. Life-forms compete with each other for survival and extinctions are an eventuality from time-to-time. This is true for humans as well - technology will not change this "natural order." That we choose to believe in God or not - is a test for us all.

As for proof of existence of Cosmic God:-

Abrahmic scriptures are consistent on one thing: God has promised to disclose himself and have warned all non-believers and corrupt of dire consequences for not heeding his warnings and revelations - also known as the Hour or "Day of Judgement." This would be an extremely violent event and the end of 'human chapter' on Earth as we know it.

Even if you concentrate on the ground realities of this world and universe - you will come to understand that humans are not going to endure for long and extinction is inevitable. Look at what a renowned scientist Stephen Hawking has to say about fate of humans: https://www.sciencealert.com/humanity-only-has-around-1-000-years-left-on-earth-stephen-hawking-predicts (not a pretty picture)

Colonizing other planets sounds good on paper and looks cool in movies but reality is much more complex and grim. Mars looks like a good target but its environment is vastly different from that of Earth with relatively much higher levels of radiation, lack of protective magnetosphere, oceans and subjected to lethal blasts of solar energy from time-to-time. There are additional dangers and challenges to consider.

Sending a man to Mars is cool but this is far from colonizing the planet and we don't know if this expedition will be a success. Even if it is, there is no guarantee that we would be able to terraform the planet itself. Theories can be wrong and there are sound arguments against prospects of colonization of Mars. Some people take Star Wars way too seriously.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The people who actually did the writing of the Bible were quite educated, literate(obviously), and knowledgeable. So while it's true that the teeming masses were indeed illiterate, benighted bronze age farmers and goat herders, the people who wrote the Bible were the educated elite.

Now concerning point #1: Pythagoras's research and ideas pre-date the Bible. But even before Pythagoras, #1 was theorized by the scientist/philosopher Anaximander. So I suppose we can scratch 1) off the list. Now we're down to only 6) and 7).
Centers of knowledge were largely concentrated in ancient times. This is apparent from the observation that when an advanced civilization collapsed in a region - another more advanced civilization did not necessarily replace it in the same region and periods of ignorance usually followed.

Jesus Christ did not write any book though. Bible was written at a later stage with 40 contributors over time.

Our times are different. We have internet and a vast number of storage mediums to preserve our knowledge and spread it across the world.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This is not a sound critic, my friend.

Uh, not sure what you're trying to say considering the odd grammatical errors, but if you're saying it's not a "sound critique" then I have to respectfully disagree. The OP is claiming that the Bible contains advanced scientific knowledge revealed from God through people long before technology could have possibly known it. So I pointed out some examples of scientific discoveries that the Bible could have revealed, but didn't, that would have actually been ahead of its time. Therefore it is sound logic to point out what the Bible could have revealed if it did indeed want to prove that it was profoundly revealed.

Not really sure what you're trying to defend... are you defending the Bible as truly advanced and profound God-like knowledge?


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
What is the point of having an 'extraordinary brain' if the Cosmic God has to spoon-feed us everything?

I could not agree more, but this is precisely what Christians seem to think. The Bible has everything man could ever possibly need, morally, ethically, spiritually, and apparently scientifically.

Originally posted by JesusLovesYou




Have I been so long time teaching you (and others on here), and yet have you not learned ... ?



Click https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gK9qLxI9SQEjD7dk1s8Zb8BUlvCj74EKde9U0L0cARE/edit

The timing of your posts and the reappearance of Stealth Moose seems remarkable. Even without that, I'm wary, but, I must say, if you are trolling, you've done a better job than almost any other poster I've seen in the past few years.

Anyone who was literate enough to write and write well back in the day was more or less part of the educated elite as even basic literacy was rare back in the day.

This isn't correct. The consensus among historians is that the OT was written between 6th and 2nd centuries BC so it doesn't pre-date Pythagoras and Anaximander.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
. The consensus among historians is that the OT was written between 6th and 2nd centuries BC so it doesn't pre-date Pythagoras and Anaximander.


The Old Testament doesn't need to pre-date Pythagoras and Anaximander in order for the Book of Job to predate them, for Job is largely acknowledged as the oldest book IN the Old Testament, which is comprised of several books.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The Old Testament doesn't need to pre-date Pythagoras and Anaximander in order for the Book of Job to predate them, for Job is largely acknowledged as the oldest book IN the Old Testament, which is comprised of several books.
Yes, I am aware of that. The oldest parts of the OT date back to 6th to 4th centuries BC, including the Book of Job.

So now Wikipedia, so often derided by atheists and secularists, and agnostics in the past for being editable ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=20PlHx_JjEo

is a solidly reliable source.



In case the above clip is removed, search sometime for Stephen Colbert and his video segments and either "Wikiality" or "Wikilobbying".

Note that after all this time, Wikipedia probably IS, indeed, a fairly reliable source for MOST things MOST of the time.

Got to say, this response took me back, for, before I wrote my response on Anaximander and Pythagoras, who both lived after 700 B.C., I had Google-searched "Book of Job" and found a range for Job of 1400 B.C. to 900 B.C...

https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Job.html

Gotquestions.org is a biased source.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Gotquestions.org is a biased source.



At least they admit they don't know when it was written, but they do seem to skew the reader into thinking it's older. I wonder how the writer on Wikipedia came to the conclusion they came to.

But regardless, even thinking the Bible was written much longer ago, this Priest admits there's no good science in the Good Book...




"It presents itself as science and it's not."

ReV0nCuObcs

A fairly high level of literacy was necessary if you wanted to write something and write it well, which was very uncommon back in the day and largely relegated to the elite. So it's extremely unlikely that shepherds and tentmakers had any part in writing the OT.

I refer to actual historians when dating the OT, not biased websites whose entire purpose is to promote Christianity. Here's some examples:
https://books.google.lt/books?id=PSHCRgS_SAUC&printsec=frontcover& amp;dq=The+Cambridge+companion+to+biblical+interpr
etation&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.lt/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=Chronicles+Richard+J+Coggins&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
A fairly high level of literacy was necessary if you wanted to write something and write it well, which was very uncommon back in the day and largely relegated to the elite. So it's extremely unlikely that shepherds and tentmakers had any part in writing the OT.

I refer to actual historians when dating the OT, not biased websites whose entire purpose is to promote Christianity. Here's some examples:
https://books.google.lt/books?id=PSHCRgS_SAUC&printsec=frontcover& amp;dq=The+Cambridge+companion+to+biblical+interpr
etation&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.lt/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=Chronicles+Richard+J+Coggins&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

It's extremely unlikely a shepherd would become king of a nation, for that matter (David). But, if that did indeed happen, then that shepherd king would have the knowledge of the elites of his day practically on call. And be able to dictate to scribes what he wanted written down and preserved for future generations.
And have the best minds of his country available as personal tutors if he wanted to learn to read and write himself.
Assuming, as he was part of a king's court (Saul's) before he got his own, that he wasn't already literate by the time he took his throne.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The oldest parts of the OT date back to 6th to 4th centuries BC, including the Book of Job.


https://thescrolleaters.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/the-oldest-book-job-1-5/

We're spending enough time on this that I might ask soon for a list of your preferred sources and why you actually prefer them.

In the meantime, I found the reasoning in the article above quite intriguing in regards to when Job was written, so ...

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
https://thescrolleaters.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/the-oldest-book-job-1-5/

We're spending enough time on this that I might ask soon for a list of your preferred sources and why you actually prefer them.

In the meantime, I found the reasoning in the article above quite intriguing in regards to when Job was written, so ...
I gave a couple of my sources in my previous post.

I've also read through the Scroll Eaters blog a bit and the guy argues that the Great Flood was a factual, historical event and also calls evolution a myth. It's pretty clear that we're dealing with a pro-Christianity propagandist who's hardly unbiased; I'd take anything written on that blog with a massive pinch of salt.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's extremely unlikely a shepherd would become king of a nation, for that matter (David). But, if that did indeed happen, then that shepherd king would have the knowledge of the elites of his day practically on call. And be able to dictate to scribes what he wanted written down and preserved for future generations.
And have the best minds of his country available as personal tutors if he wanted to learn to read and write himself.
Assuming, as he was part of a king's court (Saul's) before he got his own, that he wasn't already literate by the time he took his throne.
Well, David is basically a semi-legendary figure. We don't have a whole lot of factual information on the guy.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I refer to actual historians when dating the OT, not biased websites whose entire purpose is to promote Christianity. Here's some examples:
https://books.google.lt/books?id=PSHCRgS_SAUC&printsec=frontcover& amp;dq=The+Cambridge+companion+to+biblical+interpr
etation&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
https://books.google.lt/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=Chronicles+Richard+J+Coggins&redir_esc=y&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false





Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I've also read through the Scroll Eaters blog a bit and the guy argues that the Great Flood was a factual, historical event and also calls evolution a myth. It's pretty clear that we're dealing with a pro-Christianity propagandist who's hardly unbiased; I'd take anything written on that blog with a massive pinch of salt.

Yup, they have no credibility then.

Moses is a legendary figure who probably never even existed so there's no point in bringing him up.

As for Paul: yes, he was a tentmaker, but he also came from an affluent family who could afford him an education. Paul was far from your average artisan.

Patient_Leech has already explained this. There's a big difference between people who deal in scientific facts and empiricism, and those who would try to convince us that ancient middle-eastern myths are real all the while happily ignoring historical and scientific facts.

I'm not sure if those parts are available in Google preview. It's supposed to be pages 153 and 282.

I do not know why people are debating the veracity of the various biblical accounts and authors, when the gospels are anonymous, and there are no original biblical manuscripts.

The only thing of which The Bible is proof is that ink sticks to paper.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I do not know why people are debating the veracity of the various biblical accounts and authors, when the gospels are anonymous, and there are no original biblical manuscripts.


1. I probably missed it, but where did anyone specifically mention the gospels recently?

2. If we ARE going to discuss the gospels, please explain in what sense they are anonymous when they are clearly attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

3. Please explain why, in a culture dedicated to reproducing and preserving the written word, gross inaccuracy should be an unchallenged assumption. Please look up the word "phylactery" before you do this, however. Jewish culture is extraordinary for the lengths its members go to in order to preserve religious texts, and has been for centuries.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
If we ARE going to discuss the gospels, please explain in what sense they are anonymous when they are clearly attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

https://dd2d9j2i66w9u.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/19150000/you-cant-be-serious-GIF.gif




Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Please explain why, in a culture dedicated to reproducing and preserving the written word, gross inaccuracy should be an unchallenged assumption. Please look up the word "phylactery" before you do this, however. Jewish culture is extraordinary for the lengths its members go to in order to preserve religious texts, and has been for centuries.

Please explain why anyone should believe a non-contemporaneous account written by an anonymous author over 30 years after the alleged events took place when no original manuscripts exist.

Well, when someone is spreading pro-Christian propaganda with the obvious intent to deceive and indoctrinate, it does put their other points into question.

As for your points about the book of Job: qualified historians, not religious ideologues, agree that it was written sometime between 6th and 4th centuries BC.

It could've just been written in a different dialect which the author mistook for an older version of the language.

Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Job, etc. are mythological characters with virtually no historicity behind them so it's incorrect to try to actually date them to a particular time like ~2000BC.

A person's wealth used to be measured in all sorts of ways even up to the middle ages so the fact that Job's was measured in flocks and servants is not strictly relevant nor does it necessarily tell us which time period he lived in.

The rest can be explained by the likely fact that the Book of Job, just like the rest of the OT, was written as an "account" of the events that supposedly happened thousands or hundreds of years ago. Sort of like Homer recounting the events of the Trojan war, but even less factual.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The only thing of which The Bible is proof is that ink sticks to paper.

I don't know whether the author of the Scroll Eaters blog has the intent to deceive, but that's exactly what he's doing nonetheless.

I can believe that the general narrative dates back to before 6th century BC, most likely in an oral form.

Yes indeed, the Bible is like a library of literary works compiled over many centuries. Impressive stuff. Though as for as the Book of Job goes, it's actually quite short and can be read in 20-30 minutes: http://ebible.org/kjv/Job.htm. I don't think that had to be written in multiple installments(any decent writer could have hashed that out in an afternoon or two), but who knows, ultimately.

Like I said earlier in this post, it's likely that the Book of Job is an adaptation of some sort of an oral telling, but how much in common it has to the presumed oral telling is anyone's guess at this point.

The gospel manuscripts do not identify the authors. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added later by the church to make them appear to be more credible. That is why they are prefaced with "The Gospel According to." Many bibles even include this information in annotations preceding each gospel. How can you claim The Bible is inerrant and not know this?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The gospel manuscripts do not identify the authors. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added later by the church to make them appear to be more credible. That is why they are prefaced with "The Gospel According to." Many bibles even include this information in annotations preceding each gospel. How can you claim The Bible is inerrant and not know this?


I'm really not sure I HAVE claimed the Bible is inerrant anywhere.

However, regarding the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, at least, I've yet to see it proven wrong.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory


Like I said earlier ... it's likely that the Book of Job is an adaptation of some sort of an oral telling, but how much in common it has to the presumed oral telling is anyone's guess at this point.



I found an interesting article regarding the accuracy of oral telling in traditional Jewish communities. Think I might give a few excerpts for consideration in subsequent posts. In the meantime, here is the URL for locating it:

http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable-was-the-early-churchs-oral-traditions/

Hmm. For some reason, I'm finding typing a lot more challenging this present hour than it was earlier today. Case in point, what wound up being shared above was a blue hyperlink. Let's try this again. HERE is the URL for the article linked above:

http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable-was-the-early-churchs-oral-traditions/

The link works just fine, don't worry about it.

It talks about Jesus's time which is 1st century AD. A lot could have changed during the time between the writing of the OT and 1st century AD.

Now about literacy. Thing is, there's a difference between basic literacy sufficient enough to read a public notice board and the high degree of literacy needed to write eloquently(e.g.: writing the Bible). Of course, the public boards could have just been there for the benefit of the town crier. As for some slaves being literate: well, that depends on who the person was before becoming a slave and what their job was as a slave; it's not inconceivable that a house slave might have been at least somewhat literate.

Eh, I don't really see where this discussion is going.

Virtually all cultures have reverence for their traditions and history, that doesn't mean that they don't morph or change. And virtually all cultures place a great deal of importance on truth.

Why bring up Moses? He's a legendary figure who almost certainly didn't even exist, so what would his 'time' be?

In the end, what we have to work is with what was actually written down. One can speculate endlessly on oral tradition with little concrete evidence either way.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
No, that is a false analogy. But it doesn't surprise me that you don't realize that.

When predominantly Christian sources have a reputation for misrepresenting and blatantly lying about facts, as seen by such "facts" not matching those of more scientific sources they inherently lose their credibility. Scientific disciplines are inherently set up to avoid bias. That's the whole point of the practice of science. Religion has no such practice. In fact it tries to stretch facts onto its biases.

https://media.giphy.com/media/13Y1hmQoQLyw8M/giphy.gif

Amen.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1. I probably missed it, but where did anyone specifically mention the gospels recently?

2. If we ARE going to discuss the gospels, please explain in what sense they are anonymous when they are clearly attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

3. Please explain why, in a culture dedicated to reproducing and preserving the written word, gross inaccuracy should be an unchallenged assumption. Please look up the word "phylactery" before you do this, however. Jewish culture is extraordinary for the lengths its members go to in order to preserve religious texts, and has been for centuries.

1. JesusLovesU quotes them the way asthmatics wheeze.

2. Named for/attributed to and actually written by are two different descriptors. The gospels were circulated in various forms and collected by early church leaders, then narrowed down to a few 'acceptable' gospels before being compiled into what is known as the New Testament. They were not written exclusively for the purpose of becoming the new Bible. We do not know the extent to which they were the victim of mistranslation, conservative editing, or falsely attributed to the authors in question.

3. These works aren't even from the same generation as Christ. Have you ever heard of the telephone game?

1. It was Adam_PoE that mentioned the Gospels. I think they were a non-sequitur from him at that point (compared to how the rest of the discussion, concerning Job and Pythagoras, had been developing), but I suppose it's possible Adam thought himself responding to J.L.Y.

2. Regarding your statement here:

"Named for/attributed to and actually written by are two different descriptors. The gospels were circulated in various forms and collected by early church leaders, then narrowed down to a few 'acceptable' gospels before being compiled into what is known as the New Testament. They were not written exclusively for the purpose of becoming the new Bible. We do not know the extent to which they were the victim of mistranslation, conservative editing, or falsely attributed to the authors in question."

Difficult to call most of this wrong in the conventional sense, I suppose ...
1 Corinthians 13:8-10 is often cited as a strong suggestion that these writings WERE produced with the intention of one day being a complete guide ...

The considerations of your last sentence are a bit more of a challenge.



3. I've heard of the telephone game. However, the article I linked to earlier has a number of very strong counters to this reasoning. Four of them.
And they come with a good deal of elaboration.

Besides those, it's important to note, that, unlike the telephone game, there isn't strong incentive to sabotage the message for amusement, the message isn't being privately whispered in a stressful or coercive environment by young kids or young students, and the group as a whole generally functions as a corrector against inaccuracy.


I found what Wikipedia had to say on the matter rather interesting, too, particularly the following snippet:

Oral traditions face the challenge of accurate transmission and verifiability of the accurate version, particularly when the culture lacks written language or has limited access to writing tools. Oral cultures have employed various strategies that achieve this without writing. For example, a heavily rhythmic speech filled with mnemonic devices enhances memory and recall. A few useful mnemonic devices include alliteration, repetition, assonance, and proverbial sayings.