The atheist response to the text of the Bible is based primarily upon the young earth creationist interpretation, which is flawed. If I put myself objectively in the position of the atheist attempting to debunk the Bible I would start with Genesis Chapter 1. The Chapter passed the inspection of this former atheist.

The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

What this means is that the creation was complete even before the six "days" of creation even began, in fact, later verses in the chapter reveal it was more than likely a long time in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Views: 5003

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Lets say scientist received some transmission from somewhere out in space claiming to originate from some extremely advanced beings. Should we listen to the skeptics who say those beings don't exist or proceed objectively?

If that transmission contains information contradictory to the facts that science has thus far discovered, concerning our world and our species, then yes, we should dismiss it as false. If the scientist who received the message presents evidence of it's outer space origin, then it will be worth a second glance. If he presents further evidence that the species sending the message is advanced, then the claim and the message will be examined further.

The bible on the other hand, is not a transmission from space, David. It is a collection of writings penned by men. Random bronze age tales, edited and re-edited, slapped together in a hard cover during the Council of Nicaea (300 years after Jesus died), on the order of Emperor Constantine, in order to preserve his new-found empire and belief. Many, many texts were left out of the bible, for various reasons. Whether they were considered "heretical," too region oriented to be appreciated on a wider scale of believers, or just too far-fetched to be included in a book which contains talking snakes and a Jewish Lich.

You say you understand the point Archy and GM are making, but you refuse to answer it. Your point is understood as well, but is not being addressed because it holds no water. Your point fails in the first sentence of your holy book. The book begins with the assumption that god is real. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless the second sentence provides that evidence, which it does not, there is no point to be made.

Your post is titled "Debunking The Bible: The Atheist Challenge..." It has already been debunked, 4 words into the book. Round of high-fives for everybody!

If you expect us to go on this magical journey with you, and explore your holy book under the guise of "debunking it," you will need to provide some evidence for us to actually consider, in order to debunk anything.

Asking us to debunk an assumption that god is real, is like me asking you to debunk my belief that the ghost of Charlie Chaplin  tastes purple. Let's debunk that since we are here already. You start.

Milos you don't make it any easy, do you?

Last I checked, there is a problem at word number 3, that is, beginning, so before he goes to number word number 4 he must explain that. This is getting interesting than I thought

Well the general consensus was a free pass on word 3. The book is about god, after all, not about the beginning. The beginning is only... well... in the beginning (no pun intended).

But, on the other hand, why should word 3 get a free pass. Good point, Onyango. Where is the evidence for a beginning, David?

I hereby move for a motion that the section of sentence 1, containing the words "In the beginning" be forever changed on this thread to "Once upon a time."

You can't count to infinity, Onyango.

1, 2, 3... ∞

1, 2, 3... ∞

I did it twice !

I can do it more accurately than either of you: SQUARE ROOT OF PI!

David the good brothers have beaten me to it! There is more counting left to do

Oh good, you've read "Hitchhiker" - you can't be ALL bad --

My 9th grade science teacher sent a note home to my parents which I get a kick out of to this day. He told them "David reads a lot of books, just not the right ones." That's a quote.

I read the Hitchhiker's Guide "trilogy" I don't know how many times through Jr. and High school. The only thing better to me (on a secular note, of course) is Frank Herbert's Dune series, which I also read repeatedly when I was supposed to be learning other stuff.

I don't know how I ever managed to get through school without ever having failed, because, honestly, I didn't give a rodent's rectum.

Not necessarily - I don't want to be hard-nosed about it - all David has to do is provide tangible, verifiable evidence that this fourth word, "God," exists, and that done, we can move straight on to word 5 and beyond! Hell, I'll ride all the way to Revelations with him, I wasn't doing anything anyway, and who doesn't like a roadtrip?

Wait, wait!  Books prove reality?  Are we saying Gollum is real?

As far as I think David is trying to go, he is suggesting we suspend our disbelief in the god of the bible, so as to study the historical accuracies which are in it. but have not been translated efficiently. 

The point in question, David, is not really how the bible has recorded history (which in itself is unverified in this thread) but how there is any connection between the book and a divine being.  If you have to suspend your non-belief in the deity, you are pretty much going to have to pick and choose where belief is required and where it isn't.

Many humans can achieve this mix and match of belief, but this is because they actively want a deity to exist, not because they want to know what the truth is.

Those people who seek truth for its own sake, do not approach matters with a sporadic belief system.  Truth is more effectively sought when disbelief is the starting point.  Evidence is thus tested, and if it becomes impossible to contradict it, it is then parked under the term 'theory' so that it is provisionally accepted as truth, yet still permits challenges in the future, when more and better methods to test the evidence become available.

Imagine we were discussing Lord of the Rings.  We would not be considering it as fact, even though it contained horses and humans, just like the real world.  It is the connection between the Abrahamic bible and the supernatural that is where the burden of proof lies.  Without this connection, the words "In the beginning, God created..." have no foundation in reality.

Not necessarily - I don't want to be hard-nosed about it - all David has to do is provide tangible, verifiable evidence that this fourth word, "God," exists, and that done, we can move straight on to word 5 and beyond! Hell, I'll ride all the way to Revelations with him, I wasn't doing anything anyway, and who doesn't like a roadtrip?

Don't be obtuse! Just when I was starting to think you were a surprisingly interesting challenge you had to go and say that. 

God isn't at issue. I can show you lots of Gods. You missed the point and need to be more specific. The issue is the Creator or specifically, Jehovah.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service