Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

If God doesn't exist... Why does the bible exist?

If Tom Bombadil doesn't exist, why does the Lord of the Rings exist?

 

[TenEightyOne]

If God doesn't exist... Why does the bible exist? Why does it say that god exists... And who wrote it?

If Hamlet doesn't exist... why does the play exist? Why does it say that Hamlet exists... And who wrote it?

EDIT: Dammit, super-tree'd by @Famine, although we're fairly sure about JRR Tolkien...

 

[polysmut]

If Tom Bombadil doesn't exist, why does the Lord of the Rings exist?

If Hamlet doesn't exist... why does the play exist? Why does it say that Hamlet exists... And who wrote it?

Because people write stories?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because people write stories?

No no, that can't possibly be it. God exists - the bibble says so

 

[Imari]

Can you prove that God does not exist...

No.

But then, that's not really how things work, is it? We don't simply accept things as being true because we can't prove that they're not. At least, not for anything that isn't God.

And even then, generally people are only willing to accept no evidence for their specific choice of God. Christians tend not to accept the existence of Vishnu, or Thor, or Athena, even though there's exactly as much proof for their existence.

Because people write stories?

Give the man a prize.

 

[Grippy]

I think that even if there is a God, the people who wrote holy books didn't have any real knowledge or evidence of it.

See, that's an interesting stance...We don't even know for sure who actually wrote the thing. No do we know what they know. At all...unless you have a time machine...or you're Nostradamus ....lol

 

[Scaff]

If God doesn't exist... Why does the bible exist? Why does it say that god exists... And who wrote it? How long has it lived on for? Can we trust the legitimacy x source of when it was first written? do we even know?

Dune's a much better Messiah story anyway.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We don't even know for sure who actually wrote the thing.

Mostly true.

No do we know what they know.

We'd hope that it was the stuff they wrote down.

 

[Scaff]

See, that's an interesting stance...We don't even know for sure who actually wrote the thing. No do we know what they know. At all...unless you have a time machine...or you're Nostradamus ....lol

No, but we do know which older religions a good chunk of it was stolen from.

The rest they made up, don't forget bats are birds.

 

[Grippy]

If Tom Bombadil doesn't exist, why does the Lord of the Rings exist?

How many book-length stories have you seen that claim to be true? And how many are actually true?

Those that ignore the bible are ignoring possibly one of the oldest biggest source materials...that we have right now. Where did it come from? What was the first actual edition? How much has it changed? Why does it still exist today? En Mass.


Edit: clarification

 

[polysmut]

Give the man a prize.

Cider, thanks.

See, that's an interesting stance...We don't even know for sure who actually wrote the thing. No do we know what they know. At all...unless you have a time machine...or you're Nostradamus ....lol

I don't know what what the authors knew. I think they were writing based on incorrect beliefs but I don't claim to know it for sure.

 

[Famine]

How many stories have you seen that claim to be true? And how many are actually true?

Like, loads of them, and very few, respectively.

Where did it come from? What was the first actual edition? How much has it changed?

For that you'll be looking at the 4th Century. Between the Latin translations of texts by St. Jerome and the Council of Nicaea deciding the central tenets of the Christian Church, the original proto-Bible was assembled from hand-picked scripts to fit the story (at the expense of many others) - though it wasn't really accepted as the official book of the Church until around the 16th Century.

And how much has it changed? Well, that rather depends on what version of the Bible you're talking about - King James, American Standard, Modern English, Living, Wessex, New International, Revised Standard, New American Standard, New English, Christian Standard, Clear Word, English Standard, Knox's, Modern Language, New Century and so on - and that in itself should answer your question. But since they're all English translations of a Latin translation of an anthology assembled by Italians translated from Hebrew, Sanskrit and Greek, it ought to be patently obvious already that it's changed really rather a lot.

In summary, it came from some guys putting together translations of stories they liked to bolster their oppressive religion, more than 1,600 years after the events the books purport to describe (even though they contradict).

 

[Scaff]

How many book-length stories have you seen that claim to be true? And how many are actually true?

Those that ignore the bible are ignoring possibly one of the oldest biggest source materials...that we have right now. Where did it come from? What was the first actual edition? How much has it changed? Why does it still exist today? En Mass.


Edit: clarification

Which bit of the Bible can you show to be true?

As for originality, the Epic of Gilgamesh would like a word, as the entire story of Noah is stolen almost line for line from this older religious work.

As for changes, are you actually kidding, it's history of amendment, removal of entire books and internal contradictions are very well documented.

Take for example the codec siniticus, the oldest complete Bible, which has entire books (including one that justifies persecution of Jews) that are no longer in the Bible. Can you let me know when God said it was cool for these to be removed, and why he messed up by allowing them to be included in the first place?

 

[Grippy]

For that you'll be looking at the 4th Century. Between the Latin translations of texts by St. Jerome and the Council of Nicaea deciding the central tenets of the Christian Church, the original proto-Bible was assembled from hand-picked scripts to fit the story (at the expense of many others) - though it wasn't really accepted as the official book of the Church until around the 16th Century.

Ive heard of something along those lines but that does beg the question. How could you possibly know this? How could you possibly know this to be accurate? Validated by modern sciences? Modern science is always evolving rules are always being re-written to fit as our understanding of the universe expands. Previous rules were proven incorrect. Previous standards were proven inaccurate(Galileo proved Aristotle wrong). Science is always moving forward. It re-writes itself as our knowledge base expands. With time. That in itself can change the truth to something else entirely. Similar to your anecdote of The Bible having multiple translations and re-writes today. Which is true however.

More importantly..Do you have a source for what you cite here and how trustworthy is it?

 

[Scaff]

Like, loads of them, and very few, respectively.

For that you'll be looking at the 4th Century. Between the Latin translations of texts by St. Jerome and the Council of Nicaea deciding the central tenets of the Christian Church, the original proto-Bible was assembled from hand-picked scripts to fit the story (at the expense of many others) - though it wasn't really accepted as the official book of the Church until around the 16th Century.

And how much has it changed? Well, that rather depends on what version of the Bible you're talking about - King James, American Standard, Modern English, Living, Wessex, New International, Revised Standard, New American Standard, New English, Christian Standard, Clear Word, English Standard, Knox's, Modern Language, New Century and so on - and that in itself should answer your question. But since they're all English translations of a Latin translation of an anthology assembled by Italians translated from Hebrew, Sanskrit and Greek, it ought to be patently obvious already that it's changed really rather a lot.

In summary, it came from some guys putting together translations of stories they liked to bolster their oppressive religion, more than 1,600 years after the events the books purport to describe (even though they contradict).

Don't forget the Book of Mormon, that ones interesting to say the least.

 

[polysmut]

Ive heard of something along those lines but that does beg the question. How could you possibly know this? How could you possibly know this to be accurate? Validated by modern sciences? Modern science is always evolving rules are always being re-written to fit as our understanding of the universe expands. Previous rules were proven incorrect. Previous standards were proven inaccurate(Galileo proved Aristotle wrong). Science is always moving forward. It re-writes itself as our knowledge base expands. With time. That in itself can change the truth to something else entirely. Similar to your anecdote of The Bible having multiple translations and re-writes today. Which is true however.

More importantly..Do you have a source for what you cite here and how trustworthy is it?

The problem with applying the evolution of knowledge and understanding to the Bible is that that would mean the Bible isn't the infallible word of God.

 

[Grippy]

The problem with applying the evolution of knowledge and understanding to the Bible is that that would mean the Bible isn't the infallible word of God.

Yeah, that is most likely correct. Based on our current understanding. However. I'm not looking specifically for everything that is in the Bible to actually be true, rather some aspects, even just a few of the rather interesting subjects are. The Church is a different story from what I am talking about.

 

[Scaff]

Ive heard of something along those lines but that does beg the question. How could you possibly know this? How could you possibly know this to be accurate? Validated by modern sciences? Modern science is always evolving rules are always being re-written to fit as our understanding of the universe expands. Previous rules were proven incorrect. Previous standards were proven inaccurate(Galileo proved Aristotle wrong). Science is always moving forward. It re-writes itself as our knowledge base expands. With time. That in itself can change the truth to something else entirely. Similar to your anecdote of The Bible having multiple translations and re-writes today. Which is true however.

More importantly..Do you have a source for what you cite here and how trustworthy is it?

You do know you can go and read almost all of these sources?

Now if you want to apply scientific standards of evidence to the Bible, I'm more than happy to crack on with that.

You see no scientist says that something is done, that it can never be undone or proven wrong. Science is based entirely on repeatedly attempting to prove itself wrong. Religion is about attempting to change the facts to prove a predetermined outcome.

 

[Famine]

Modern science is always evolving rules are always being re-written to fit as our understanding of the universe expands. Previous rules were proven incorrect. Previous standards were proven inaccurate(Galileo proved Aristotle wrong).

This is so fundamentally inaccurate it makes my brain hurt even more than 'If God doesn't exist... Why does the bible exist?' (which is right up there with 'How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?').

The rules of acquiring knowledge (known as 'the scientific method') don't change. The knowledge does - precisely because the rules don't.

Ive heard of something along those lines but that does beg the question. How could you possibly know this? How could you possibly know this to be accurate?

Amongst other entities that have recorded this process is the Catholic Church... Not even the Church itself denies it!

 

[Grippy]

You do know you can go and read almost all of these sources?

I am asking for sources. I'd be more than happy to read up about them and let others do the talking.

 

[Scaff]

I am asking for sources. I'd be more than happy to read up about them and let others do the talking.

Knock yourself out.

https://www.vatlib.it/home.php?ling=eng&res=412x732

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-b.html

http://www.nola.com/religion/index....re_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

That lot should get you started.

 

[mistersafeway]

If Tom Bombadil doesn't exist, why does the Lord of the Rings exist?

Ask Peter Jackson.

As for originality, the Epic of Gilgamesh would like a word, as the entire story of Noah is stolen almost line for line from this older religious work.

And all the demigods born of a virgin on the 25th of December.

 

[Dotini]

Lord of the Rings

Epic of Gilgamesh

Book of Mormon

demigods born of a virgin

...throw in Celtic, Buddhist and Hindu mythology, even so they might all conveniently be united by Aliens. 💡

 

[TenEightyOne]

And how much has it changed? Well, that rather depends on what version of the Bible you're talking about - King James...

As if called by the power of this very thread the remains of Richard Bancroft ("overseer" of the King James bible) have made themselves re-known. Mostly off-topic for this thread but interesting in the context. BBC.

 

[UKMikey]

Odin was hung on a tree for three days and nights to gain knowledge.

 

[mistersafeway]

Aliens

I don't know why I expected anything else when I saw you quoted me.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Don't forget the Book of Mormon, that ones interesting to say the least.

I love the Book of Mormon. It truly is an amazing book. Even if it isn't real (which I am confident it is), it is quite a powerful testimony of God. And a good description of how the world works. At least, in general.

One of my favorite parts is the first 5 chapters of Mosiah. If you can come up with a better (Dali Lama is pretty close) description of how to be a good person, let me know. I'd love to read it.

 

[Scaff]

I love the Book of Mormon. It truly is an amazing book. Even if it isn't real (which I am confident it is), it is quite a powerful testimony of God. And a good description of how the world works. At least, in general.

One of my favorite parts is the first 5 chapters of Mosiah. If you can come up with a better (Dali Lama is pretty close) description of how to be a good person, let me know. I'd love to read it.

Why do you need a book to tell you to be a good person?

More so one that has some rather dubious things to say about skin colour.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Even if it isn't real (which I am confident it is), it is quite a powerful testimony of God. And a good description of how the world works.

...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people

They began to change that in the 80s to "pure", strange decision considering the book was the original word of God. It makes you wonder why God's son was a brown lad in the first place.

 

[Dotini]

Genetics were an important consideration, according to Ancient Astronaut theorists. The aliens sowed many prophets teaching competing doctrines, dividing mankind into squabbling nations with different tongues and different gods. So it is said on cable TV.

The Should of Turin was produced was under exceptional circumstances.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...val-forgery-debunked-crucifixion-resurrection