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.
No. Claims of proof are subject to change not truth.
Point taken, but often the truth is misapplied due to false claims of truth. I think.
We can say that our current understanding is the truth and in 20 years that understanding is demonstrated not to have been accurate. But for that 20 or 200 or 2000 years it is taken as such.
Why would an omniscient, omnipotent god need to give us a book? A book that condones slavery and rape, yet no mention of electricity or the germ theory. You don't even need to read it to refute it. It refutes itself as bat-shit all by itself.
Stick around. You may be surprised.
I would be extremely surprised if was indeed surprised.
That doesn't surprise me.
What is Bible lemmings?
Einstein defines insanity as "asking the same question over and over again and expecting different answers." I would go so far as to say he has it backward. Insanity is asking different questions and expecting the same answer over and over.
Who wrote the Bible?
How do you know?
"The Bible says so."
It"s a book compiled from thousands of ancient texts, half of which were probably mistranslated. They were SELECTED if they fit the DOCTRINE the compilers felt was accurate. This was later (much later) translated to English (thanks King James).
The poetry of goat herders written 2000-4000 years ago, collected and put into a "Best Of Bronze Age" album, then later "sang" in English by a medieval Ricky Martin is NOT ultimate truth. It's just more stupid.
The Bible is 66 books that were written by over 40 different people over a great period of time. Using the Bible to support the Bible isn't circular reasoning, in fact the claim is a fallacy of equivocation.
No, I said using the bible to support the idea that god is real is circular logic.
Seriously. Take 15 minutes to read this.
Fallacy of equivocation involves the use of a word with more than one meaning - in maintaining that using the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible is circular reasoning, exactly which double-meaning word is involved?
Kim and Archy,
Like I said, The Bible consists of 66 books written by over 40 people over thousands of years. What Christians do is they use on book to confirm or support another. This can be done with the Bible because it is harmonious. Take a science text book from 20 years ago and compare it to today and this would be comical. The same can be said for 20 years from now.
The fallacy of equivocation involves the use of the word Bible in two different ways. See this. As much as I hate to use CARM as a source, my PC has crashed and I lost the far better explanation given, oddly enough, by an atheist.