I found this article...

Originally posted by whodey
I just can't understand it. I mean, I thought all the atheists on this site would just love the article. 😛

You said it was great. What did you think was great about it? Which arguments did you think were exemplary of sound reasoning?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
why cant you read the article and enjoy it, and for once acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that maybe God does exist and be open to new ideas; without criticizing theists because at the same time many atheists tell theists to acknowledge the fact that they may be wrong but atheists cant do it themselves

What?!? That's like asking Jews to enjoy 'Mein Kampf.' Why should I enjoy being insulted and villified? I don't think so.

If you pay close attention to what I actually say in my posts, you'll see that I expressly acknowledge the possibility that god may exist. But this does not mean there is any reason I should believe god exists.

Originally posted by Nemesio
On top of the objections mounted by bbarr and rwingett, the assertions
about the state of Scripture study -- the continuity of translation, the
age of manuscripts, and the like -- is so perversely wrong and manipulative
that it actually angers me.

Nemesio

I agree with you on this one. It seems the most ardent believers are the ones who are the most ignorant about the foundation of their scripture and religious foundations.

Edit: Bart Ehrman gives an excellent account in his book "Misquoting Jesus" of how he started off as a biblical literalist, but how as he learned more and more about the early history of the bible and the church, how that position became increasingly untenable.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You said it was great. What did you think was great about it? Which arguments did you think were exemplary of sound reasoning?

I was only commenting that some of the topics of discussion are topics I have already discussed. I thought the article was well written although perhaps not measuring up to your criterea for sound reasoning.

Originally posted by rwingett
I agree with you on this one. It seems the most ardent believers are the ones who are the most ignorant about the foundation of their scripture and religious foundations.

Edit: Bart Ehrman gives an excellent account in his book "Misquoting Jesus" of how he started off as a biblical literalist, but how as he learned more and more about the early history of the bible and the church, how that position became increasingly untenable.

Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Oxford University Press (Oxford: 1997)

A fine introduction to the various texts in and slightly after the New Testament period.

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
I was only commenting that some of the topics of discussion are topics I have already discussed. I thought the article was well written although perhaps not measuring up to your criterea for sound reasoning.

Yes, the article uses good grammar. But its content is abominable! Not only does it draw false
conclusions (logically unclear), it does so resting on false information. I second Dr S's question:
what precisely did you think was great about it? Select an excerpt of your choice that you feel could
contribute something to the lives or atheists and post it for their comments.

Nemesio

Originally posted by bbarr
Do you understand why your criticism of Rwingett is misguided?

the claims made by atheists about theists are even more confused

"The atheist is right about good and evil"

Enough said. Thanks for backing up our cause.

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=277&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12&cHash=68d450e343

I have a question. Michael Pearl talks about the proofs of why the Bible must be true (the prophecies that were fulfilled, etc. based on the knowledge that the Bible was written before the prophesied events occurred), can any of you provide evidence that his facts are inaccurate? Please give me solid evidence to substantiate your claim of the article's factual errors.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
I have a question. Michael Pearl talks about the proofs of why the Bible must be true (the prophecies that were fulfilled, etc. based on the knowledge that the Bible was written before the prophesied events occurred), can any of you provide evidence that his facts are inaccurate? Please give me solid evidence to substantiate your claim of the article's factual errors.

For starters, apparently the author of Daniel got it wrong when he claimed Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzer's son:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/4/984bad.html

Originally posted by SwissGambit
For starters, apparently the author of Daniel got it wrong when he claimed Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzer's son:

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/4/984bad.html

Ok, after doing my own study on this issue I have come to the conclusion that the Bible was indeed accurate in using the terms "father" and "son". The Hebrew words used for "father" and "son" in the book of Daniel can also mean, in the Hebrew language, "predecessor" and/or "forerunner". Thus, the Bible was not in error, only mans interpretation - once again.

You indicated that was one of many reasons why the Bible is wrong - "For starters" - ...what are some other supposed errors?

Originally posted by SharpeMother
Ok, after doing my own study on this issue I have come to the conclusion that the Bible was indeed accurate in using the terms "father" and "son". The Hebrew words used for "father" and "son" in the book of Daniel can also mean, in the Hebrew language, "predecessor" and/or "forerunner". Thus, the Bible was not in error, only mans interpretation - once a ...[text shortened]... why the Bible is wrong - "For starters" - ...what are some other supposed errors?

pwnd

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
pwnd

;-) Thanks.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Yes, the article uses good grammar. But its content is abominable! Not only does it draw false
conclusions (logically unclear), it does so resting on false information. I second Dr S's question:
what precisely did you think was great about it? Select an excerpt of your choice that you feel could
contribute something to the lives or atheists and post it for their comments.

Nemesio

I think the most striking arguements revolve around the prophesies mentioned. I have mentioned Daniel 9:24-27 on more than one occasion in which the prediction of the coming of the Messiah is fortold. When one reads the prophesy, however, it seems abstract and hard to understand because we simply do not talk about such things in this way today. However, it has been interpreted to mean that the Messiah was fortold to come during the life of Christ.

http://www.preceptaustin.org/daniel_924-27.htm

So you say big deal. It is a Christian web site so naturally they interpret it to mean what they want it to mean. I am sure there are atheist web sites that refute such speculations. However, I find it impressive that it is even possible to interpret the prophesy to mean that the Messiah was fortold to come during the life of Christ. Furthermore the article points out that the prophesy was not interpreted merely by Christians to mean that the Messiah was to come during the life of Christ. In fact, rabbis interpreted the exact same thing hundreds of years after the life of Christ and posed the quesiton as to why the Messiah tarried. The answer they conjectured was that he tarried because of the sinfulness of Israel. After all, what choice did they have since they rejected Christ as their Messiah?

1. It is a historical fact that the prophesy of Daniel predated Christ by hundreds of years.
2. It is a historical fact that Christ walked the earth when the prophesy potentially could be interpreted as meaning the Messiah was to come during his life.
3. It is a historical fact that the rabbis interpreted the prophesy to mean the Messiah was fortold to come during the life of Christ and it is recorded in the Tulmud hundreds of years after the life of Christ.

Other arguements that the author posed I have also posed such as discussing morality and the meaning of life etc. Such ideas are abstract, however, and are less objective in nature.

Originally posted by whodey
I think the most striking arguements revolve around the prophesies mentioned. I have mentioned Daniel 9:24-27 on more than one occasion in which the prediction of the coming of the Messiah is fortold. When one reads the prophesy, however, it seems abstract and hard to understand because we simply do not talk about such things in this way today. However, it ...[text shortened]... nd the meaning of life etc. Such ideas are abstract, however, and are less objective in nature.

Now: I predict the Great Green Hamburgler will one day appear to save the world from the ravages of evil.

Hundreds of years from now: A man exists who does stuff.

Later: The followers of this man liked him a lot. They want to hype him up. They begin calling him the Great Green Hamburgler. They go back through old texts and find a prediction that he would appear. The prediction has come true as prophesied. Hallelujah. He was indeed the Great Green Hamburgler.

Any problems with this?