If the bible is true, why is it so hard to verify anything from it...

If the bible is true, why is it so hard to verify anything from it? There is no proof almost any of the biblical characters existed or events happened.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele
ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm
leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm
coldcasechristianity.com/category/writings/bible/
reasonablefaith.org/what-price-biblical-errancy
reasonablefaith.org/what-is-inerrancy
reasonablefaith.org/inerrancy-and-the-resurrection
reasonablefaith.org/scriptural-inerrancy-and-the-apologetic-task
reddit.com/r/ReasonableFaith/comments/1nawwc/claim_a_galilean_preacher_who_fits_the_general/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

yes

archaeologists actually use the bible to date their findings sometimes
I'm sorry that you're so attracted to sin, but it dont mean god aint real

no

ever been to Jerusalem?

this.

...

i was just stating that Jerusalem is full of proof.

OhMyGodHowDidYouKnowI'mJewish?

I'm a Christian and most of The Bible is about the natural order of things. It wouldn't be faith if you could prove it

>there's no evidence or proof of these events
>no all that evidence and proof you're providing doesn't count
>no anything that is proof or evidence automatically doesn't count

RENOUNCE YOUR BLOOD
HIS KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD
REPENT

you do know we believe in the same god, right?

If science is true, then why is its method based on the induction fallacy?

Archaeologists do not use the bible as a source of historical record with respect to the events the bible actually talks about.

No we don't.

You believe in YHWH, the Rogue Avatar. I believe in The Great Will, creator of all.

you do know you're in danger of hell fire if you don't eat his body and drink is blood, right?

>technically just cause its reliable doesn't mean its real
i get it man

> YHWH, the Rogue Avatar.
wat

well we can be sure of one thing and that is that the Devil exists and here he is.

It is the only practical way of understanding the universe.

Because religion is not science nor history.

>implying you prefer the Bible to the oldest, based, and redpilled religious text on the planet, Hinduism's Bhagavad Gita

well, i guess ill tell satan you said hi.

And therefore fallacy

Jesus was a Jew. And Jews exist because God has told them be seperate from gentiles and their idols/gods

its... beautiful, but the ideas are horrific. Be a good little drone and then next time you can be a more important drone. No right / wrong or ethics. No ascetic mortifying detachment. No higher metaphysical ideals.

No thanks.

The bible makes claims about people, events, and the universe that can be investigated scientifically.

What is an Israel's opinion about this?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele

if you don't understand metaphor, then you aren't as intelligent as you think

I wouldn't say that. As much as you don't want religion to be taken as science, you don't want science to get in the business of religion. Religion simply addresses areas of the human experience that neither history nor science have the means to address.

Just because there are accurate historical accounts in the Bible does not mean that the people who wrote the scriptures were doing so because of divine intervention.

You are all basically fanboys of sand nigger fantasy novels.

The laws governing property and the treatment of slaves lasted for thousands of years. To this day bankruptcy only bars you from getting credit for seven years because of these edicts.

Up until it was argued in court by Anthony Johnson, it was just commonly accepted practice and law that you could only keep your slaves for 7 years. This was something Moses set forth nearly 5000 years prior.

But the bible did so long before science was even known, so there's no sense in teleologically applying our scientific method to the bible, and there is no sense in holding the bible to standards of science. Religion serves a qualitatively different but just as important purpose than science.

Monoteism BTFO.

And? This doesn't imply that God exists by any logic. Your argument is pointless.

Why would God create a manual for people to live their lives by using metaphor rather than directly telling them what to do?

How do you know one interpretation of the "metaphor" is more valid than th other?

What is your point? Also, Moses did not exist.

Science has always been around. Fundamentally it is the idea that claims need evidence to be validated. It does not matter when the bible was written. If it is a divine book accepted as truth, its claims should be verifiable.

You just didn't get it bro. It's actually basically the core of Buddhism.

You couldn't be more wrong.

If we make a generous estimate, science as such appears when people decided that what causes rain and earthquakes isn't the gods, but it's the material elements. Hence for Thales, water is the main cause of the world. For Anaximenes, it's air, for Heraclitus it's fire. It was a reaction to religion and mythologic explanations. Science hasn't always been there, and it's a common mistake to interpret History according to one's own views.

>If it is a divine book accepted as truth, its claims should be verifiable.

The truths defined by the bible don't claim to be scientific. They can't, since science wasn't there at the time the bible was written (and until much, much later). It's a fallacious trend by mistaken religious people and atheists who put the consequence before the cause and argue that the bible has anything to do with science, either to be proven right or to be proven wrong.

Science is not religion, they aren't of the same nature and don't serve the same purpose. To conflate the two is simply a lack of knowledge and a loss of time.

Science is a method for understanding the universe. It's possible for someone to understand one thing scientifically but another thing completely unscientifically. That is how you can have these completely capable scientists who are also very religious.

Science is about privileging evidence over lack of evidence which is something humans do instinctively in most cases, and have always done. Science did not come out of nowhere. What changed is that the realms in which non-scientific thinking became untenable increased, scientific literacy among the public increased, and the process of gathering evidence became more formalized (particularly over the last several hundred years).

>The truths defined by the bible don't claim to be scientific
Again, that is completely irrelevant. Truths are not "scientific." Truths are truths, and we use science to find them. If the bible is claiming a truth, it is up to scientific scrutiny as any other claim would be.

>Science is a method for understanding the universe

Yes, and as such it's historical in nature. It has a point where it appeared. I.e., it's not universal, eternal, etc.

>It's possible for someone to understand one thing scientifically but another thing completely unscientifically

My point exactly.

>Science is about privileging evidence over lack of evidence

So, do you define causality as something likely to repeat itself, or do you define it based on the essence of an object? The reply is important, because it'll define your approach of science (which, as you can see, isn't one unified thing: not all science is empirical, nor all empiricism counts as science. Similarly with essentialism).

>and have always done

No. Are you arguing that all humans at all points in time have had a "scientific instinct" or something alike? So why did science as we know it appear in the West in the 19th century?

>What changed is that the realms in which non-scientific thinking became untenable increased

Wait, so science is non-historic, but the way it implements itself is historical? That's unintelligible.

>gathering evidence became more formalized (particularly over the last several hundred years).

Oh, so you're an empiricist. Which means that you believe causality is a habit, like Hume used to say. Funny (but inconsistant), for someone who believes in the essence of science.

>Truths are not "scientific." Truths are truths, and we use science to find them

Ok, for natural sciences. But how about human sciences? What about art? How are they scientific?

Also, how do you prove that your assertion "truths are truths", despite being eminently trivial and thus devoid of meaning according to the rules of logic, is in fact true? How do you define truth otherwise that in a manner which is empty of meaning?

Is there an ultimate truth, according to you? What is the first cause of all things?

see

You're going in irrelevant directions here. I will only focus on the meat of the matter:

Humans are naturally sensitive to empiricism. That is, they tend to value evidence over lack of evidence. This "instinct" is what gives rise to science in civilizations, including the earliest ones. Modern-era "science" is different from, say, Mesopotamian science in that the methods for gathering knowledge are more formal, but the fundamental ideas are the same. Mesopotamian development of agricultural methods and medicine and astronomy were generally very much "scientific."

All positive statements can be scrutinized scientifically. So if a religion is claiming is claiming there was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago who performed miracles, this is a claim that can be investigated with the use of science. It doesn't matter when the bible is written. It either occurred or it didn't.

No serious scholar agrees with that. You are falling into the trap of seeing what you want to see.

Instead of coming onto this board or searching Google for "proof Jesus didn't exist" try searching for actual information.

The historic Jesus without any doubt existed. And if you know anything about Assyrian and Babylonian history you would see that the OT is actually extremely accurate in its dating and framing of events.

Obviously pre history can't be accounted for but nothing verifiable has ever contradicted the historical events in the bible.

You need to just step back for a second and stop coming into this as an argument and come into it wanting to seek the truth.

ahah amrite :)

>American Education

Clearly you don't know how to use Google.
I've found plenty of sites, time and time again.
Many of the related to Biblical organizations.
Why don't you Google the historical inaccuracies of the Bible?

It's not because you don't understand it that it's irrelevant, sorry to say.

But to be clear: postulating the innateness of science in humans is as meaningless as postulating an instinct for our social behaviors. It's simply taking 180° in the wrong direction. Why not postulate the innateness of consumerism or capitalism, if you go this way? It's simply absurd.

>All positive statements can be scrutinized scientifically.

Good luck with that. Especially since you haven't been able to define the notion of truth, which is central to your argument.

>So if a religion is claiming is claiming there was a man named Jesus 2000 years ago who performed miracles, this is a claim that can be investigated with the use of science. It doesn't matter when the bible is written. It either occurred or it didn't.

Religion doesn't need facts, it needs belief. Science needs fact, and it's not superior to religion for it. That's why religion isn't science, and you can't mix the two. Whether Jesus really existed is irrelevant both for religion and for science. It only matters to people who conflate the two.

The Bible is a collection of historical documents, and almost none of it was composed to be a religious text. Not accepting it as proof is special pleading.

The bible is not a manual, and God did not create it. The Bible exists so that people with weak faith can confirm that what the church teaches is sound.

Open your eyes and mind and go to YouTube and type in this name....

Richard carrier

It will change you

>Le jesus didn't exist meme

Jesus existed you fucking retard. The argument is whether he was god or not. Not a single reputable historian believes that Jesus didn't exist.

DESU I'm athiest but I find these common 'athiest arguments' so fucking cringey I feel ashamed to call myself that.

The old testament is false. There is no evidence of an exodus or a flood or of many of the figures and wars that are described.

The new testament is more accurate.

>Jesus is god you fucking retard. The argument is whether he is the only god or not.

>There is no proof almost any of the biblical characters existed or events happened.
your statement is wrong (at least for the NT)
>what are Roman historians

Jesus DID NOT EXIST

I don't have time for this

YouTube this name, Richard Carrier

Made several videos, his books have been PEER REVEIEWED.

a man named jesus, who was baptized by the historical figure John the baptizer and who was crucified by the Romans for political crimes, existed. The Gospels might be disputed.

this is agreed on by the majority of historians.

your Richard Carrier may have written peer reviewed books but i won't do the work for you looking up something that might be just an atheists wet dream.

Jesus was only a prophet and holy spirit was prophet's angel(Gabriel) in Islam

>All positive statements can be scrutinized scientifically

What do you mean by "scientifically"? Empirically? How do you "scientifically scrutinise" the statement that "all positive statements can be scrutinized scientifically"?

Jesus existed you deceived gaytheist goy.

So do the muslims

It is accepted that there was an internet rabbi named Jesus. Historians just don't believe that he had supernatural abilities.

Go away newfag atheist shill.
ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm
leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/documents.htm
coldcasechristianity.com/category/writings/bible/

When they're trying to find the talking snakes?

Oh look. It's the idiot who thinks asking questions is the same thing as arguing.

>The Bible exists so that people with weak faith can confirm that what the church teaches is sound

The Bible exists so that people with critical thinking skills can confirm that what the church teaches is irrational

>The Bible is a collection of historical documents,
The Bible is a collection of religious documents. It is an anthology of questionable tales written decades and centuries after they happened replete with supernatural events and "miracles".

>and almost none of it was composed to be a religious text.
and almost none of it was composed to be a historical text.


>Not accepting it as proof is special pleading.
It definitely is "proof", but not like you were hoping. Pic related.

You would have to actually understand what the church teaches to properly assess its rationality, stupid kid.

Parable

>Science needs fact, and it's not superior to religion for it.

We can't live without science. But we can live in a much more peaceful world without religion.

We can live without science. It's just a shitty stone age existence.

Why are you even arguing about this? Do you really think you're going to change anyone's mind? I don't really care about Christianity but the Bible is probably one of if not the most studied and debated books in the western world. Do you think you're adding anything by coming in and giving it a bit of snark? Are you under the impression that you are coming across as intelligent?

>Not a single reputable historian believes that Jesus didn't exist.

There were many ancient men named Jesus, many called "messiah" and even some with brothers named James. The problem is that by the time the scriptures were written 50 years later, the synoptic texts became embellished amalgams of the stories of these men.

>You would have to actually understand
I always see this stuff from the christians. When you say "understand" you actually mean believe? as in you have to believe in the religion to take all that bullshit at heart.

You know we don't have to "believe" in science for it to make sense?

>The Bible is a collection of historical documents
lol. Christfags actually believe this

>The bible is not a manual
Oh really?

>and God did not create it.

You know this is heresy?

>The new testament is more accurate.

Accuracy implies a measurement. Supernatural implies something that cannot be measured. They are mutually exclusive terms.

The new testament invented hell. It didn't exist in the OT
The new testament has a lot of miracles. Miracles are not "accurate"
The new testament has dragons

The new testament has chariots and horse of fire that take Elisha up to "heaven" How accurate is this?

The new testament has people rising from their graves and walking the streets. What sort of "accuracy" would you say this is?

>this is agreed on by the majority of historians.

Only the Christian ones and a few Muslims

>The Bible is a collection of religious documents.
Do you mean to imply the bible is not a collection of historical documents? Define "religious documents." Support your statement.
>written decades and centuries after they happened
If you're going to imply the bible is less historically accurate than other historical documents, explain how the amount of time after historical events that historical documents are written determines their accuracy.
>and almost none of it was composed to be a historical text.
Irrelevant. Historical texts don't need to be written to be historical texts.
>It definitely is "proof", but not like you were hoping. Pic related.
So...
>Fantasy exists.
>It is epistemically possible the bible is fantasy.
>Therefore the bible is fantasy.
The existence of fantasy media in no way proves the bible is inaccurate, and to imply such is really stupid of you.

You have yet to explain anything because you're just an ignorant, butthurt, whiny atheist.

reasonablefaith.org/what-price-biblical-errancy
reasonablefaith.org/what-is-inerrancy
reasonablefaith.org/inerrancy-and-the-resurrection
reasonablefaith.org/scriptural-inerrancy-and-the-apologetic-task

every christkike asshole must be burned along with their stinking semitic brethren the kikes and the hadjikikes

reddit.com/r/ReasonableFaith/comments/1nawwc/claim_a_galilean_preacher_who_fits_the_general/

>you do know you're in danger of hell fire if you don't eat his body and drink is blood, right?

you are thinking catholics, you know, pope the faggot francis and so on.

if you dont accept jesus christ as your god and savior, you are not a son of abraham you are of your father the devil.

>You would have to actually understand what the church teaches to properly assess its rationality, stupid kid.

By definition, belief is irrational. Religion, that thing the church teaches, is irrational.

Besides, reading the entire bible - not the cherry picked version the church teaches - is how new atheists are created. pic related.

Understanding != belief.
>You know we don't have to "believe" in science for it to make sense?
Your rebuttal is irrelevant, but know it implies that it is possible to disbelieve something and have it make sense.

>We can live without science.

To some degree, however, science is observing the natural world and building our knowledge about it. We all do it individually. The ones who do it well survive better than the ones who don't.

>There is no proof almost any of the biblical characters existed or events happened.

>we have paul's letters
>no evidence any of them existed.

>O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

rationally there must be a God, there is evidence that the universe had and end, everything that has an end has a beginning. by causality, everything that happens now is due to events that happen before. thus a super natural event with intention must have set it in motion. intention denotes personhood, because nothing was happening before and then something happened. thats something atheists cannot deal with

>lol. Christfags actually believe this
Not an argumen
>Oh really?
Not an argumen
>You know this is heresy?
The bible being God's word != God wrote the bible
inb4 kneejerk thinking asking a question is an argument

Theologically speaking, Allah as way too many characterizations that find themselves more at home with Baal and Satan than YHWH

>fixates on "god"
>doesn't get religion

Bullshit. An atheist is usally a neckbeard virgin that became so because girl found him gross

Taste some pussy and you will understand God is real

>By definition, belief is irrational.
If that's how "belief" is defined, but irrelevant.
>Religion, that thing the church teaches, is irrational.
Why didn't you include proof that there aren't rational reasons to believe in Jesus?
>Besides, reading the entire bible - not the cherry picked version the church teaches - is how new atheists are created. pic related.
Reading != understanding. Penn and Teller are profoundly stupid. You should find new role models.

The Bible is an allegorical framework for a layperson to proceed on the path to higher consciousness. It's not meant to be proven true or beleived in.

It is meant to be applied.

>"Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death."

>Why are you even arguing about this?

Because religion is an invention of the mind, and the religious have been using it to kill atheists for several millennia.

The Christians and Jews and Muslims have been fighting for those same millennia with a zero sum result. This is because irrational belief cannot defeat other irrational belief.

Only non-belief can overcome these made-up religions. The explosion of Islam cannot be stopped by the Jews or Christians. Only non-belief can finally bring peace. Reject the Abrahamic religions and suddenly we all live long and prosper.

If I need to snark the shit out of someone to make him realize what a gullible idiot he's been and now we can tackle the world's problems in a rational manner, then I'm good with that in a deontological and teleological way.

>Do you mean to imply the bible is not a collection of historical documents? Define "religious documents." Support your statement.


Please select any book of you choosing from the old or new testament and as my brother Tosh likes to say, I'll break it down.

>If you're going to imply the bible is less historically accurate than other historical documents, explain how the amount of time after historical events that historical documents are written determines their accuracy.
Socratic dilemma.

>Because religion is [only?] an invention of the mind
Unsupported
>and [all of?] the religious have been using it to kill [only or mostly?] atheists for several millennia.
Unsupported
>The Christians and Jews and Muslims have been fighting for those same millennia with a zero sum result.
Irrelevant
>This is because irrational belief cannot defeat other irrational belief.
Unsupported. Implication that Christianity is irrational is also unsupported.
>Only non-belief can overcome these made-up religions.
Unsupported. Implication that all religions are false is also unsupported.
>The explosion of Islam cannot be stopped by the Jews or Christians.
Unsupported and irrelevant.
>Only non-belief can finally bring peace.
Unsupported
>Reject the Abrahamic religions and suddenly we all live long and prosper.
Unsupported. Also, science exists because of Christianity.
>If I need to snark the shit out of someone to make him realize what a gullible idiot he's been and now we can tackle the world's problems in a rational manner, then I'm good with that in a deontological and teleological way.
You've confused snark for argumentation. Nothing you've said can be considered an argument, and you haven't done anything in a "deontological and teleological way."

You're just an ignorant, butthurt atheist trying to infect other people by means of bravado.

...

>The existence of fantasy media in no way proves the bible is inaccurate...
Except for all the made-up bits? That really clears things up, doesn't it?

{{{reasonablefaith.org}}}

>You have yet to explain anything because you're just an ignorant, butthurt, whiny atheist.
Hey look, your projector is running.

Not an arguben
Not an ottoman

>Except for all the made-up bits? That really clears things up, doesn't it?
Begs the question.
>Hey look, your projector is running.
Unsupported. Just because something is convenient, doesn't make it true. I suppose such a concept should blow your atheist mind.

>all this unsupported pseudo intellectual smarm
>buzz words
Mashing these together doesn't make as sound an argument as you think, fedora.

>rationally there must be a God,

People who actually know what the word "rational" means would never attempt to use it to describe an irrational belief.