Debating scriptures with non-believers

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:20 pm

Natman

Ah, but those records are in the bible, and all you have to go on that they're true is that the bible says they are. And which genealogical records? The one in Matthew is substantially different to the one in Luke. Forgive me for being skeptical, but I'm not inclined to believe the many-translated lists of names without some independant evidence.

No that is not correct. There are many sources that support the bible. For years many scholars have said that is there is no outside records of the bible but because of the increase of the work from the scientists many more things have come to be known. And shows the bible to be accurate. But of course not everything is known. But there is certainty enough know to trust what it says.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:23 pm

MrDunday wrote:Yet the scientists say that energy was before the 'big bang'. If I ask them what was before that , they say they don't know. Then I ask them do you think something would have to be there forever. They something has to be there because matter does not come from nothing.
So the evidence the scientists have, says that energy was before the creation of the universe. They have no idea before that. So if you go strictly by the evidence and no interpretations, the bible and the science agrees. It very possible that there was nothing before energy, but the scientists don't have any empirical evidence that says there was something else.
So to this point can you agree with this?


Asking what came before the big bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. It's a question that has no answer. It wasn't until a few pico-seconds after the big bang that the 'rules' of the universe started working in the same way they do now. Before that, the rules were sufficiently different for us not to know how the universe functioned. As such, scientists cannot answer the ultimate origin question. However, that doesn't mean you get to throw in a 'god did it' and expect people to believe it. The evidence for god is about on the same level as evidence for pre-big bang conditions.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:24 pm

MrDunday wrote:No that is not correct. There are many sources that support the bible. For years many scholars have said that is there is no outside records of the bible but because of the increase of the work from the scientists many more things have come to be known. And shows the bible to be accurate. But of course not everything is known. But there is certainty enough know to trust what it says.


Citation required.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Michael » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:28 pm

MrDunday wrote:
Natman

Ah, but those records are in the bible, and all you have to go on that they're true is that the bible says they are. And which genealogical records? The one in Matthew is substantially different to the one in Luke. Forgive me for being skeptical, but I'm not inclined to believe the many-translated lists of names without some independant evidence.

No that is not correct. There are many sources that support the bible. For years many scholars have said that is there is no outside records of the bible but because of the increase of the work from the scientists many more things have come to be known. And shows the bible to be accurate. But of course not everything is known. But there is certainty enough know to trust what it says.


What evidence are you talking about? You are very vague
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:47 pm

Natman wrote:
MrDunday wrote:No that is not correct. There are many sources that support the bible. For years many scholars have said that is there is no outside records of the bible but because of the increase of the work from the scientists many more things have come to be known. And shows the bible to be accurate. But of course not everything is known. But there is certainty enough know to trust what it says.


Citation required.

For you too Micheal
I usually I like a person to pick one that they think needs to be addressed. Because if I answer one I pick then they back with something else.
But here is one. Many people have said the bible has changed too much over the years, but the evidence that is shown here even the scientists have to accept.


In he Hebrew Scriptures (Tevrat), the external proof is strong that they have been preserved faithfully. The ancient copyist of those scriptures were renowned for their accuracy. Today there are seventeen hundred ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible in existence, and comparison shows them to be substantially the same. In 1947, some very ancient manuscripts were discovered in the region of the Dead Sea. They included some that were a thousand years older than any many other manuscripts. Yet when compared of these older ones our modern Bible shows little variation, especially with regard to teaching and doctrine. After examining these newly discovered ancient documents, Professor Millar Burrows said: “The general reader and student of the Bible may be satisfied to note that nothing in all this changes our understanding of the religious teachings of the Bible . . . The essential truth and the will of God revealed in the Bible, however, have been preserved unchanged through all the vicissitudes in the transmission of the text.”—Millar Burrows_The Dead Sea Scrolls.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 14, 2012 12:58 am

natman wrote

No problems, I have to balance writing these posts with listening to my wife and contributing when she asks a question. And they say men can't multi-task!

Ha Ha I get that.
It's just that at times when I am busy I don't get to all the questions or answers in large comments.
Then if there are many post, so the tendency is do the current ones.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Michael » Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:25 am

Here's some excellent evidence Mr Dunday

http://www.evidencebible.com/witnessing ... ible.shtml
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:25 am

MrDunday wrote:In the Hebrew Scriptures (Tevrat), the external proof is strong that they have been preserved faithfully. The ancient copyist of those scriptures were renowned for their accuracy. Today there are seventeen hundred ancient manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible in existence, and comparison shows them to be substantially the same. In 1947, some very ancient manuscripts were discovered in the region of the Dead Sea. They included some that were a thousand years older than any many other manuscripts. Yet when compared of these older ones our modern Bible shows little variation, especially with regard to teaching and doctrine. After examining these newly discovered ancient documents, Professor Millar Burrows said: “The general reader and student of the Bible may be satisfied to note that nothing in all this changes our understanding of the religious teachings of the Bible . . . The essential truth and the will of God revealed in the Bible, however, have been preserved unchanged through all the vicissitudes in the transmission of the text.”—Millar Burrows_The Dead Sea Scrolls.


According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

You may believe otherwise, but the bible as you know it is not a reliable source for historical or scientific information.

It's an amazing piece of literature, both in its language and the scope that it covers, but as coherant stories go, it's not so good. Most christians are prepared to accept the vagaries of the bible and work on the overall meaning of it all - a story of redemption and sacrifice that is independant of the literal interpretation. However, if you insist that the bible is sacrosant, that its every passage and verse is the absolute truth, then you're not only wrong, but going against the majority opinion of your faith.

Suffice to say, I think the entire scripture is highly dubious. Hell, it can't even get the date of a Roman census right, and they're well documented in other sources.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:38 pm

Natman wrote

According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

You may believe otherwise, but the bible as you know it is not a reliable source for historical or scientific information.

It's an amazing piece of literature, both in its language and the scope that it covers, but as coherant stories go, it's not so good. Most christians are prepared to accept the vagaries of the bible and work on the overall meaning of it all - a story of redemption and sacrifice that is independant of the literal interpretation. However, if you insist that the bible is sacrosant, that its every passage and verse is the absolute truth, then you're not only wrong, but going against the majority opinion of your faith.

Suffice to say, I think the entire scripture is highly dubious. Hell, it can't even get the date of a Roman census right, and they're well documented in other sources.


The men who copied the Hebrew Scriptures in the days of Jesus Christ’s ministry on earth and for centuries before that time were called scribes (Heb., soh‧pherim′). Among the early scribes was Ezra, spoken of in the Scriptures as “a skilled copyist.” (Ezr 7:6) Later scribes made some deliberate alterations of the Hebrew text. But their scribal successors, the Masoretes, detected these and recorded them in the Masora, or notes appearing in the margins of the Hebrew Masoretic text they produced.
They were actually after the original writers, when some made changes. But the Masoretes detected these and corrected these deliberate errors. That is why in my earlier post , when the older writing s were found they compared favorably to the the modern bible's today.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:38 pm

Natman wrote

According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

You may believe otherwise, but the bible as you know it is not a reliable source for historical or scientific information.

It's an amazing piece of literature, both in its language and the scope that it covers, but as coherant stories go, it's not so good. Most christians are prepared to accept the vagaries of the bible and work on the overall meaning of it all - a story of redemption and sacrifice that is independant of the literal interpretation. However, if you insist that the bible is sacrosant, that its every passage and verse is the absolute truth, then you're not only wrong, but going against the majority opinion of your faith.

Suffice to say, I think the entire scripture is highly dubious. Hell, it can't even get the date of a Roman census right, and they're well documented in other sources.


The men who copied the Hebrew Scriptures in the days of Jesus Christ’s ministry on earth and for centuries before that time were called scribes (Heb., soh‧pherim′). Among the early scribes was Ezra, spoken of in the Scriptures as “a skilled copyist.” (Ezr 7:6) Later scribes made some deliberate alterations of the Hebrew text. But their scribal successors, the Masoretes, detected these and recorded them in the Masora, or notes appearing in the margins of the Hebrew Masoretic text they produced.
They were actually after the original writers, when some made changes. But the Masoretes detected these and corrected these deliberate errors. That is why in my earlier post , when the older writing s were found they compared favorably to the the modern bible's today.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:33 pm

MrDunday wrote:The men who copied the Hebrew Scriptures in the days of Jesus Christ’s ministry on earth and for centuries before that time were called scribes (Heb., soh‧pherim′). Among the early scribes was Ezra, spoken of in the Scriptures as “a skilled copyist.” (Ezr 7:6) Later scribes made some deliberate alterations of the Hebrew text. But their scribal successors, the Masoretes, detected these and recorded them in the Masora, or notes appearing in the margins of the Hebrew Masoretic text they produced.
They were actually after the original writers, when some made changes. But the Masoretes detected these and corrected these deliberate errors. That is why in my earlier post , when the older writing s were found they compared favorably to the the modern bible's today.


This is your opinion, not shared by most biblical scholars and almost none of those unassociated with a church or the like.

Simply put, the older the text in the bible, the less certain the authorship and even less certain is the factual accuracy of the text involved. It's fairly clear to modern archeologists (at least those without a religious point to prove) that there was no literal Garden of Eden, no global flood, no exodus of Hebrews from Ancient Egypt and no powerful Israelite kingdom under a Davidine Dynasty.

This doesn't diminish the significance of the bible from a historical viewpoint; as a religous text it's invaluable and there is certainly a kernel of truth behind most of its myths and it's certainly a vital piece of kit for the believing christian, but you cannot use the bible as a guide to either history or science. I'm sure even Michael, a bona fide CofE vicar will support me on this.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:52 pm

Natman wrote:
MrDunday wrote:The men who copied the Hebrew Scriptures in the days of Jesus Christ’s ministry on earth and for centuries before that time were called scribes (Heb., soh‧pherim′). Among the early scribes was Ezra, spoken of in the Scriptures as “a skilled copyist.” (Ezr 7:6) Later scribes made some deliberate alterations of the Hebrew text. But their scribal successors, the Masoretes, detected these and recorded them in the Masora, or notes appearing in the margins of the Hebrew Masoretic text they produced.
They were actually after the original writers, when some made changes. But the Masoretes detected these and corrected these deliberate errors. That is why in my earlier post , when the older writing s were found they compared favorably to the the modern bible's today.


This is your opinion, not shared by most biblical scholars and almost none of those unassociated with a church or the like.

Simply put, the older the text in the bible, the less certain the authorship and even less certain is the factual accuracy of the text involved. It's fairly clear to modern archeologists (at least those without a religious point to prove) that there was no literal Garden of Eden, no global flood, no exodus of Hebrews from Ancient Egypt and no powerful Israelite kingdom under a Davidine Dynasty.

This doesn't diminish the significance of the bible from a historical viewpoint; as a religous text it's invaluable and there is certainly a kernel of truth behind most of its myths and it's certainly a vital piece of kit for the believing christian, but you cannot use the bible as a guide to either history or science. I'm sure even Michael, a bona fide CofE vicar will support me on this.


The Masoretes copied the Hebrew text faithfully and made no changes in the wording of the text itself. However, to preserve the traditional pronunciation of the vowelless consonantal text, they devised systems of vowel pointing and accenting. Additionally, in their Masora, or marginal notes, they drew attention to textual peculiarities and gave corrected readings they considered necessary. It is the Masoretic text that appears in printed Hebrew Bibles of the present day. So the marginal notes where these writings get it's name were corrections that were noted in the margins. These were corrected copies of the original writings, not that the bible was a copy of them. This is obvious from the name Masora.
Though no one knows where exactly the garden of Even was , any trace would have been washed away with the flood. But as for the global flood, there is evidence of that.

A stone erected to pay tribute to a Syrian king, and a record of his victories over Israel, was uncovered during excavations in the biblical city of Dan in 1993.
The stone mentions the name "House of David." So this has proved the bible correct in this since 1993.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:52 pm

Natman wrote:
MrDunday wrote:The men who copied the Hebrew Scriptures in the days of Jesus Christ’s ministry on earth and for centuries before that time were called scribes (Heb., soh‧pherim′). Among the early scribes was Ezra, spoken of in the Scriptures as “a skilled copyist.” (Ezr 7:6) Later scribes made some deliberate alterations of the Hebrew text. But their scribal successors, the Masoretes, detected these and recorded them in the Masora, or notes appearing in the margins of the Hebrew Masoretic text they produced.
They were actually after the original writers, when some made changes. But the Masoretes detected these and corrected these deliberate errors. That is why in my earlier post , when the older writing s were found they compared favorably to the the modern bible's today.


This is your opinion, not shared by most biblical scholars and almost none of those unassociated with a church or the like.

Simply put, the older the text in the bible, the less certain the authorship and even less certain is the factual accuracy of the text involved. It's fairly clear to modern archeologists (at least those without a religious point to prove) that there was no literal Garden of Eden, no global flood, no exodus of Hebrews from Ancient Egypt and no powerful Israelite kingdom under a Davidine Dynasty.

This doesn't diminish the significance of the bible from a historical viewpoint; as a religous text it's invaluable and there is certainly a kernel of truth behind most of its myths and it's certainly a vital piece of kit for the believing christian, but you cannot use the bible as a guide to either history or science. I'm sure even Michael, a bona fide CofE vicar will support me on this.


The Masoretes copied the Hebrew text faithfully and made no changes in the wording of the text itself. However, to preserve the traditional pronunciation of the vowelless consonantal text, they devised systems of vowel pointing and accenting. Additionally, in their Masora, or marginal notes, they drew attention to textual peculiarities and gave corrected readings they considered necessary. It is the Masoretic text that appears in printed Hebrew Bibles of the present day. So the marginal notes where these writings get it's name were corrections that were noted in the margins. These were corrected copies of the original writings, not that the bible was a copy of them. This is obvious from the name Masora.
Though no one knows where exactly the garden of Even was , any trace would have been washed away with the flood. But as for the global flood, there is evidence of that.

A stone erected to pay tribute to a Syrian king, and a record of his victories over Israel, was uncovered during excavations in the biblical city of Dan in 1993.
The stone mentions the name "House of David." So this has proved the bible correct in this since 1993.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:17 pm

MrDunday wrote:The Masoretes copied the Hebrew text faithfully and made no changes in the wording of the text itself. However, to preserve the traditional pronunciation of the vowelless consonantal text, they devised systems of vowel pointing and accenting. Additionally, in their Masora, or marginal notes, they drew attention to textual peculiarities and gave corrected readings they considered necessary. It is the Masoretic text that appears in printed Hebrew Bibles of the present day. So the marginal notes where these writings get it's name were corrections that were noted in the margins. These were corrected copies of the original writings, not that the bible was a copy of them. This is obvious from the name Masora.


All conjecture, put forwards without supporting evidence. I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree here.

Though no one knows where exactly the garden of Even was , any trace would have been washed away with the flood. But as for the global flood, there is evidence of that.


I'm glad you don't believe in a global flood, it's a ridiculous story and I'm tired of refuting it.

A stone erected to pay tribute to a Syrian king, and a record of his victories over Israel, was uncovered during excavations in the biblical city of Dan in 1993.
The stone mentions the name "House of David." So this has proved the bible correct in this since 1993.


I never said there wasn't a 'House of David', I said that there was no evidence that a Davidian Dynasty ruled over such a large area and was as powerful as the OT suggests. The source for everything we know about David is the Bible. There are a few possible extra-biblical sources, such as the Tel Dan Stele. This Aramean victory stele contains the phrase ביתדוד this translates to "House of the beloved", "House of the uncle" or "House of David". As the stele describes a victory over Israel it isn't unreasonable to suppose they refer to David. However, the "city of David" section of Jerusalem lacks convincing evidence for a circa 1000 BCE city, though the ruins are difficult to date accurately. Most scholars hold the position that the Histories (Nevi'im) describe real people, in a fictionalized account. Therefore, it's likely the King David existed, and he was, for Israel, the most powerful or important King, but since no one else mentions him, he's probably not a major player in the greater middle east region of the time
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:27 am

natman

All conjecture, put forwards without supporting evidence. I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree here.


This not proof yet so I will wait till something is more sure.:

The Elah Fortress excavation, being developed by Foundation Stone under the direction of Professor Yosef Garfinkel, Yigal Yadin Chair of Archeology at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has announced the discovery of a second monumental find in as many months....

The Biblical narrative, I submit, better explains the archaeology we have uncovered than any other hypothesis that has been put forward. Indeed, the archaeological remains square perfectly with the Biblical description that tells us David went down from there to the citadel. So you decide whether or not we have found King David’s palace.

http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/king ... palace.asp
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron