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: 3680

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No, I said using the bible to support the idea that god is real is circular logic.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

 

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.

Well, yeah, but "The Bible" literally means "The Library." Who knows how many of the books in the library we call The Bible were rejected. 

But science doesn't need to apologize because it's about seeking the truth, not about defending a dogma to the death the way religions are. It's a method for seeking the truth, not a body of knowledge. Yes, it does resist change, but that's only to ensure that any revision in the current model proves itself before supplanting the current model. 

As a result, we have a huge body of scientific knowledge that is so unassailable, it will never have to change. And this is because it works so well when applied and explains so much. Today, we know almost everything up to the doorstep of what may be absolutely unknowable.

RE: "Take a science text book from 20 years ago and compare it to today and this would be comical." - The reason for that has been explained to you repetedly (and patiently) throughout all of these threads - science is self-correcting, the Bible is not.

RE: " my PC has crashed" - that's what P(ieces of) C(rap) do - get a Mac! Quanta never crashed, and neither do Macs.

Yay, one of my favorite topics.

Take a science text book from 20 years ago and compare it to today and this would be comical.

You mean like, when science finally won over the church wrt we not being the center of the universe? Yeah, it did take a while to improve those theories and get them accepted in spite of dogmatists.

Imagine how long it'd take to get nuclear power, cancer cures, and a million other advances if all we were allowed to do was to stick to dogmas?

And I should care...why? I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of a book devoted to a deity that obviously is just as fictitious as Odin, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Krishna and the rest? They all have their books, creation myths, ways for the soul to persist after death, as well as myriad other lies.

Why should I or anyone argue over The Holy Bible with you?

Unseen: Why should I or anyone argue over The Holy Bible with you?

Fun? You don't think that attention is granted me due to my fantastic intellectual abilities, now, do you? Why . . . I have the intellectual capacity of, what? Winnie The Pooh? Nah, asinus asinum fricat might be the alternative, Max.

But if its not for you then give it a miss.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty. Why do you think Yahweh exists despite the lack of evidence? That's my kind of fun.

Hooked you, didn't he? Heh, heh, heh --

Tomorrow night we move on in chapter 1.

How? We still haven't gotten past the fourth word: "In the beginning, God..." We need to get that one out of the way before we can move on!

You DO realize, being the linguistic expert that you are, that the original Hebrew name for Genesis was, "Bereshit"? Personally, I have another name for it, using yet another stock market animal image --

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service