The Bible Is Horseshit - Change My Mind

[Shen Li]

atAre you an atheist, Shen Lee?

UR are fucking right I am an atheist.

If you have a problem with that, I will sit on ur face.

[Oliver the Second]

Religion is bullshit used to control weak minded people.

[DKG]

Religion is bullshit used to control weak minded people.

George Carlin was the world's funniest atheist.

[Renegade Quark]

UR are fucking right I am an atheist.

If you have a problem with that, I will sit on ur face.

I'm not sure whether that is a threat or promise.  As for the atheist thing is concerned, you do you. I will say that I admire your faith.

[Herman]

I will say that a admire your faith.

I am going to use that line on the next obnoxious atheist I meet.

[Dove]

Actually I think there are different versions of the Bible depending on what year and languages they were written in Shen Li Shen. Latin Greek Hebrew. And the contents in each aren't always the same. The Bible we read today probably isn't the same as the one(s) from 100 AD.

I think caskur caskur or Dove Dove know & can explain it to us.

 Its not different versions. Its different translations.

 Its an ancient text written in ancient languages from the perspectives of an ancient culture.

 The only legit contradiction is between two of the gospels. One says Judas hung himself and the other says he impaled himself.

 All the other things people view as contradictions have logic explainations or are more clarified by a deeper study of the text.

 Its a super heavy topic and one i dont usually have the mental or emotionally energy to discuss on forums. I come here to spew. I like mostly mindless and silly...shits and giggles posting.

 That doesnt mean im opposed to a discussion but i tend to lack the drive to get into arguements about it.

 When it comes down to it, if someone is put off or just rejects it, no amount of arguing about it is going to change their minds. Faith is a personal journey for each individual. Sometimes understanding the Bible takes more effort than a person wants to use on it. If they dont WANT to make that effort, no amount of arguing with them will change their minds.

 If anything it puts them off even more and agitates them.

[Thiel]

Its not different versions. Its different translations.

 Its an ancient text written in ancient languages from the perspectives of an ancient culture.

 The only legit contradiction is between two of the gospels. One says Judas hung himself and the other says he impaled himself.

 All the other things people view as contradictions have logic explainations or are more clarified by a deeper study of the text.

 Its a super heavy topic and one i dont usually have the mental or emotionally energy to discuss on forums. I come here to spew. I like mostly mindless and silly...shits and giggles posting.

 That doesnt mean im opposed to a discussion but i tend to lack the drive to get into arguements about it.

 When it comes down to it, if someone is put off or just rejects it, no amount of arguing about it is going to change their minds. Faith is a personal journey for each individual. Sometimes understanding the Bible takes more effort than a person wants to use on it. If they dont WANT to make that effort, no amount of arguing with them will change their minds.

 If anything it puts them off even more and agitates them.

The very last sentence is so true.

[Dove]

 

The very last sentence is so true.

 The Bible never fails to elicit strong feelings and opinions and i learned a long time ago that there is aways a deeper more personal reason for all of that.

[Shen Li]

Its not different versions. Its different translations.

 Its an ancient text written in ancient languages from the perspectives of an ancient culture.

 The only legit contradiction is between two of the gospels. One says Judas hung himself and the other says he impaled himself.

 All the other things people view as contradictions have logic explainations or are more clarified by a deeper study of the text.

 Its a super heavy topic and one i dont usually have the mental or emotionally energy to discuss on forums. I come here to spew. I like mostly mindless and silly...shits and giggles posting.

 That doesnt mean im opposed to a discussion but i tend to lack the drive to get into arguements about it.

 When it comes down to it, if someone is put off or just rejects it, no amount of arguing about it is going to change their minds. Faith is a personal journey for each individual. Sometimes understanding the Bible takes more effort than a person wants to use on it. If they dont WANT to make that effort, no amount of arguing with them will change their minds.

 If anything it puts them off even more and agitates them.

First of all I just want to say, I don't care about anybody's religion. That is as long as they don't try to force it on society.

I started this thread because I was feeling feisty. I wanted to argue with white people.

There are literally dozens of contradictions in the bible. Fundamentalist Xtian apologists always try to explain it. They have to since they believe in the relatively new concept of inerrancy.

Right from the beginning in Genesis 1:1-2:3, it unfolds in a structured, ordered sequence over six days, culminating in the creation of humanity (male and female) together on the sixth day.

In Genesis 2:4-25, however, the narrative is more focused on human formation. Here, man (Adam) is created first from the dust of the ground, followed by vegetation, animals, and finally, a woman (Eve) as a helper.

I can give lots of examples, but if you believe in the North American fundamentalist idea of inerrancy/infallibility of the bible you will be forced to find an explanation.

[Dove]

First of all I just want to say, I don't care about anybody's religion. That is as long as they don't try to force it on society.

I started this thread because I was feeling feisty. I wanted to argue with white people.

There are literally dozens of contradictions in the bible. Fundamentalist Xtian apologists always try to explain it. They have to since they believe in the relatively new concept of inerrancy.

Right from the beginning in Genesis 1:1-2:3, it unfolds in a structured, ordered sequence over six days, culminating in the creation of humanity (male and female) together on the sixth day.

In Genesis 2:4-25, however, the narrative is more focused on human formation. Here, man (Adam) is created first from the dust of the ground, followed by vegetation, animals, and finally, a woman (Eve) as a helper.

I can give lots of examples, but if you believe in the North American fundamentalist idea of inerrancy/infallibility of the bible you will be forced to find an explanation.

 What is the contradiction here?

 Im genuinely asking because im not sure where you see a contradiction with this?

 Chapter two in Genesis is a more detailed telling of events from chapter 1....its not like a continuation of the narrative.

 The books of the Bible can be tricky because the ancient Hebrews didnt express events the same way we do, so there is a a lot of jumping around.

 If we were writing it, we would have put chapter 1 and 2 together....where as the Hebrew writer wrote out the first chapter and then in chapter two went back into more depth on the creation of humans.

 Not sure if im typing this out properly. 

[Herman]

What is the contradiction here?

 Im genuinely asking because im not sure where you see a contradiction with this?

 Chapter two in Genesis is a more detailed telling of events from chapter 1....its not like a continuation of the narrative.

 The books of the Bible can be tricky because the ancient Hebrews didnt express events the same way we do, so there is a a lot of jumping around.

 If we were writing it, we would have put chapter 1 and 2 together....where as the Hebrew writer wrote out the first chapter and then in chapter two went back into more depth on the creation of humans.

 Not sure if im typing this out properly. 

Look kid, the contents of the bible don't mean much to most folks. myself included. But, it does look like they got the order wrong in that example. That would be a contradiction. I think so anyway.

[Dove]

Look kid, the contents of the bible don't mean much to most folks. myself included. But, it does look like they got the order wrong in that example. That would be a contradiction. I think so anyway.

 No its not "wrong", its just not the order WE would write it in.

 Its an ancient text, in an ancient language, from an ancient culture. So its not something you can pick up and read just as if its a modern day body of English lit. Its very different.

 This is why people get so confused by all the different translations. You really gotta have a grasp on what you are dealing with when it comes to any ancient text.

 It takes effort to really read and exegete any old literature, even lit written in old English 1000s of years ago. When it comes to the Bible....this was all ancient Hebrew.

 To them it was in perfect order. They even read left to right, and they had no vowels.  I have a Torah (the Old Testament) and its so pretty to look at....but good luck ever read it as a modern English speaker lol. I have relied heavily on lexicons and dictionaries and reading about the times. 

 Im faaaarrr from expert level, but i got what i was looking for out of it and i dont mind conversations about it when asked.

[Shen Li]

No its not "wrong", its just not the order WE would write it in.

 Its an ancient text, in an ancient language, from an ancient culture. So its not something you can pick up and read just as if its a modern day body of English lit. Its very different.

 This is why people get so confused by all the different translations. You really gotta have a grasp on what you are dealing with when it comes to any ancient text.

 It takes effort to really read and exegete any old literature, even lit written in old English 1000s of years ago. When it comes to the Bible....this was all ancient Hebrew.

 To them it was in perfect order. They even read left to right, and they had no vowels.  I have a Torah (the Old Testament) and its so pretty to look at....but good luck ever read it as a modern English speaker lol. I have relied heavily on lexicons and dictionaries and reading about the times. 

 Im faaaarrr from expert level, but i got what i was looking for out of it and i dont mind conversations about it when asked.

It's also been copied from other earlier written works and from the gospel of Mark which is the oldest of the canonical gospels. And we don't know the authors.

Here is another irreconcilable contradiction. It comes from the Christmas account.

In Luke's gospel, Jesus is born, Mary has to make an offering in the temple, and then they go straight back to Nazareth, which is about 160 kms to the north up in Galilee.

In Matthew's gospel. Jesus is born, and Joseph is warned that Herod is now going to try and kill the child. And so, Joseph takes the family and goes down to Egypt, and they stay there till Herod dies. When they hear that Herod died, they come back. They can't resettle in Bethlehem like they want. They resettle in Nazareth.

If Matthew is right that they went down to Egypt for months or years or however long, how can Luke be right that they immediately return to Nazareth?

[Shen Li]

I'm not a mythicist. There's a possibility that Jesus of Nazareth existed. But, he was not born of a virgin. The Bible doesn't even state that. That story was stolen from earlier religions. And Jesus would have been married and had a family.

[Herman]

How about a little religious humour.