Frailty of scriptures

[QuantumT]

10.000 years ago, there were humans. The evidence of that is overwhelming.
Back then, the God of scriptures was unknown.

Then, at some point, somebody wrote stories about contact with this God. They even made sort of a timeframe, by naming people and ages of death. If you take that timeframe serious, it indicated that the universe is roughly 6.000 years old. This we also know is crazy wrong. Evidence says the universe is nearly 14 billion years old.

So, if scriptures are wrong about time, and written by people, could it not also be wrong about the contact with God? It is so easy to lie. Why trust those who claim to have talked to/met God? It makes no sense to trust them!

[Walker]

You are asserting that the things in the bible are considered to be true because they are in the bible.

How could they be true and not fable, you ask?

The world of biblical times is incomprehensible to us.
Our world would appear incomprehensible to a biblical-era person.

However, the biblical era was less incomprehensible to the Elizabethans.
In terms of perspective, comprehension of the world, radical changes in knowledge, they were closer to the biblical, than we are to them.

Here’s a made up-example to illustrate something that could happen in ways incomprehensible when viewed from the outside looking in.

He spoke, and all the world heard.

If you don’t how this could be done, then or now, then such a claim sounds fantastical.

However, not as fantastical as all the matter in the universe appearing from a dimensionless, infinitesimally small point in a microsecond.

[Averroes]

10.000 years ago, there were humans. The evidence of that is overwhelming.

Really? What about the "sysop" with his/her "cosmic computer" which is deceiving us about reality? When has it stopped deceiving us? What evidence are you talking about now?

If you take that timeframe serious, it indicated that the universe is roughly 6.000 years old. This we also know is crazy wrong. Evidence says the universe is nearly 14 billion years old.

I believe that the universe is more that roughly 6000 years, may be even more than 10,000 years. Not all scriptures say the universe is 6 000 years or so! But how come you believe in the so called evidence of the universe being "14 billion years"? What about the "sysop" fiddling with his cosmic computer? Have you forgotten him/her?

[QuantumT]

Really? What about the "sysop" with his/her "cosmic computer" which is deceiving us about reality? When has it stopped deceiving us? What evidence are you talking about now?

I believe that the universe is more that roughly 6000 years, may be even more than 10,000 years. Not all scriptures say the universe is 6 000 years or so! But how come you believe in the so called evidence of the universe being "14 billion years"? What about the "sysop" fiddling with his cosmic computer? Have you forgotten him/her?

I'm not a fanatic. It's just a theory, not a faith. And it surely is a different subject.

[Immanuel Can]

...it indicated that the universe is roughly 6.000 years old.

It's quite unbelievable that skeptics are still trotting out this old canard, which has been answered repeatedly. I guess there is simply no number of times Theists can debunk this claim and be granted credit for having done so. So there's no point in going through all that here, except that this debunked claim is used as grounds to say...

...scriptures are wrong about time, and written by people, could it not also be wrong about the contact with God?

In other words, the argument here is that a document can be judged on all its claims by reference to merely one claim -- and that, a claim it doesn't actually make.

That seems an awfully shaky postulate, in its own right.

It is so easy to lie. Why trust those who claim to have talked to/met God?
It makes no sense to trust them!

And obviously, this is the conclusion for which the argument was mounted in the first place.

My answer would be simple: don't trust people...at least, not without corroboration. If man (or woman) spoke, there would be no reason to suppose one to know more than another. Which is why the only important question is, "Has God spoken?" Only if He did would we have information that was potentially reliable.

[Lacewing]

My answer would be simple: don't trust people...at least, not without corroboration. If man (or woman) spoke, there would be no reason to suppose one to know more than another. Which is why the only important question is, "Has God spoken?" Only if He did would we have information that was potentially reliable.

And you've concluded there is a god that is speaking, rather than it being something else, correct?

So for you, perhaps it IS a god.

Perhaps there are many ways of interpreting what we sense and experience as humans, and the human interpretations really don't matter except for the stories we create here to serve us in these physical lives.

Surely if a god were writing a book, it wouldn't be so obsessed with particular family histories and timelines. Rather, such would be the writing of men, trying to explain "how it is" and "has been", along with their ideas of "how it should be", based on whatever divine insights or delusions they had at the time. Claiming that a particular book is the unique word of a god is based on desire, not reason. There are divine insights throughout all of humankind, in many forms and interpretations -- and such insights do not have to be represented in the form of a god. You can see that, yes?

[Immanuel Can]

And you've concluded there is a god that is speaking, rather than it being something else, correct?

I'm saying, quite simply, that it would make all the difference in the world if the Supreme Being did speak. In other words, the OP's proposed dismissal is too fast and too unreflective in reasoning to offer a serious critique.

[Mike Strand]

Religious scripture from a religious tradition tells stories, myths, and legends and contains ideas, written by human beings, that help a group of people define themselves. For example, The Hebrew scriptures may have been written before the various tribes even coalesced, and the scriptures, which gave them stories about their past, helped them to come together. Likewise for the New Testament. Many of the stories may be based on actual events in history, and may even teach lessons in good ways to behave or think. Such stories, however, may often exaggerate the actual events for the sake of interest or entertainment or bragging rights.

The question of the existence of God or gods can be addressed but not settled by scripture, in my opinion. How do you define the concept, "God"? Then I might try to consider whether such a thing can be. To me, "God" is at least a metaphor for "love" or "ultimate goodness" -- an ideal of being and behavior toward which human beings strive. A supernatural Being? That's another question.

[QuantumT]

It's quite unbelievable that skeptics are still trotting out this old canard, which has been answered repeatedly. I guess there is simply no number of times Theists can debunk this claim and be granted credit for having done so. So there's no point in going through all that here, except that this debunked claim is used as grounds to say...

In other words, the argument here is that a document can be judged on all its claims by reference to merely one claim -- and that, a claim it doesn't actually make.

That seems an awfully shaky postulate, in its own right.

And obviously, this is the conclusion for which the argument was mounted in the first place.

My answer would be simple: don't trust people...at least, not without corroboration. If man (or woman) spoke, there would be no reason to suppose one to know more than another. Which is why the only important question is, "Has God spoken?" Only if He did would we have information that was potentially reliable.

I like to poke the bear with logic. Remember how huge religion still is! 5.5 billion still see scriptures as the source of truth!

I know I can't open their eyes, but I can poke the bear

[Immanuel Can]

I like to poke the bear with logic.

I'd welcome that. But we must have our facts straight, and we must be fair. Repeating old, debunked canards is not the way to go, is it?

Remember how huge religion still is! 5.5 billion still see scriptures as the source of truth!

Funny, though: you aren't poking the Dhamapada or the Gita, and though it's wide open to it, you're not even taking a shot at the Quran...why is that?

[gaffo]

10.000 years ago, there were humans. The evidence of that is overwhelming.

more like 1,000,000 yrs ago............but carry on.

Back then, the God of scriptures was unknown.

FYI earlies "known" (posited) Religion is to be found via the "Lion-man" figurene(sp) - a small stone (ivory? - i think it is ivory actually - mem escapes me) - a few inches tall with a man's body and lion's head - dates to 20,000 yrs ago found in Germany (same era as the cave drawing of animals) - these hunter gatherer's worhshiped the animals the hunted for food - and at least one tribe thought highly of the "Father" of lions.

- animal's Creator - "Creator Animals - Father Animal/etc......) seems to be a common theme of early religions - that 20,000 yr old Europeon Religion seems the same as "modern" - ones like the Australian and American Indian versions prior to colonialism.


many year latter - 10,000 yrs ago - we had "bull worship in Turkey and Crete (prob a not parallel accident, but a cross-culture due to trade). BTW at this same time we had "Ram worship" in southern France too (again prob due to cross-trading/culture - via boats in meditarian doing trade.

Then, at some point, somebody wrote stories about contact with this God.

Gods - which we now from the first written tablets (cuniform) - by the Summarians (i.e. the Enuma Elish) - discovered in the 1880's in Iraq.

6000 yrs ago (4000 bc).

They even made sort of a timeframe, by naming people and ages of death. If you take that timeframe serious, it indicated that the universe is roughly 6.000 years old.

nope that timeframe is based upon the 3200 yr newer Torah.

it negates the older written accounts of Creation by the Summarians (refer to above), the Akkadians, and even the Babylonians (the latter two have written works similar but not identical to the Enuma Elish - and are older than the oldest parts of the Torah.

------------which BTW - is the Rig Veda - an distinct Religion of Western India (Indus valley) - not related to the Summarian Reliogion/nor Akkadian nor Babylonian - but yet ALSO older than the Torah.

and so your argument is wrong (you assume the Torah is the oldest work).

6000 yr old earth is based upon the Torah and adding up the names in it.(as you stated) - this part of your post is correct.

This we also know is crazy wrong. Evidence says the universe is nearly 14 billion years old.

yes 13.8

BTW - trivia - Indians played the same game with their old texts and have come up with the Earth as 3-4 million yrs old.

So, if scriptures are wrong about time, and written by people, could it not also be wrong about the contact with God? It is so easy to lie. Why trust those who claim to have talked to/met God? It makes no sense to trust them!

there are many Gods and many Contracts with said Gods.

one needs to determine which contract and which God and then determine if said contract was honoured or broken, and by which party (man of the god), and why.

[gaffo]

Religious scripture from a religious tradition tells stories, myths, and legends and contains ideas, written by human beings, that help a group of people define themselves. For example, The Hebrew scriptures may have been written before the various tribes even coalesced, and the scriptures, which gave them stories about their past, helped them to come together. Likewise for the New Testament. Many of the stories may be based on actual events in history, and may even teach lessons in good ways to behave or think. Such stories, however, may often exaggerate the actual events for the sake of interest or entertainment or bragging rights.

yep. and IMO the proper way to "understand "the Bible" (and any other work - Mahabaratta/Rig Veda/Koran/etc...........is to how the work is divided up.

I know more about "the bible" than the other works and so will refer to it.

know for example that Amos was written 700 yrs before Daniel, and when the Israelites were an empire - and so it was written to folks that thought they were "king of the hill" - welcoming "the day of YHWH" - Amos' audience was not us - but to Israelites 2800 yrs ago - Amos' thought this audience was too prideful in their assurance that they would be judged as rightious and that welcoming the "final day" is a mindset of the pridefilled (the humble would fear that Day, in case they may not measure up).

Danial was written in a time when Israel had been occupied by Persia and Greece for 500 yrs - and so it for an audience with little pride, but instead a sense of hopelessness (with Job - where the audience askes "why are we opressed if YHWH is good? - BTW "Job" is "Israel" (i.e. the audience of that work - 200 BC). Job offers no answer. in fact its author thinks it is haughty to ask such a thing (i.e. shit happens - you have no right to ask why God allows shit to be upon you - is his answer).

[gaffo]

It's quite unbelievable that skeptics are still trotting out this old canard, which has been answered repeatedly. I guess there is simply no number of times Theists can debunk this claim and be granted credit for having done so. So there's no point in going through all that here, except that this debunked claim is used as grounds to say...

In other words, the argument here is that a document can be judged on all its claims by reference to merely one claim -- and that, a claim it doesn't actually make.

That seems an awfully shaky postulate, in its own right.

And obviously, this is the conclusion for which the argument was mounted in the first place.

My answer would be simple: don't trust people...at least, not without corroboration. If man (or woman) spoke, there would be no reason to suppose one to know more than another. Which is why the only important question is, "Has God spoken?" Only if He did would we have information that was potentially reliable.

I like to poke the bear with logic. Remember how huge religion still is! 5.5 billion still see scriptures as the source of truth!

I know I can't open their eyes, but I can poke the bear

more accurately:

3 billion (christian)
2.5 billion (muslim)
800 million (hindu)
400? million (buddists - yes some forms are religious with God/s)

---------

and a few animists/etc few million.

30,000 Zoroastrians

10,000 Mandians (relic of Manicists? - march arabs?).

a few thousand Samaritians too (not Jews - but sort of - older form of - deny the location of the Second Temple as Holy location - prefer the older Judiac theology of several temples (refer to book of Amos where there is mention of several regional temples on high hills - Ezra?/Zachariah? mandated the closer of those temples upon the their/his return from 2nd exile in 450's BC).

[gaffo]

I like to poke the bear with logic.

I'd welcome that. But we must have our facts straight, and we must be fair. Repeating old, debunked canards is not the way to go, is it?

Remember how huge religion still is! 5.5 billion still see scriptures as the source of truth!

Funny, though: you aren't poking the Dhamapada or the Gita, and though it's wide open to it, you're not even taking a shot at the Quran...why is that?

I'm an equal opportunity poker.

Islamic tradition is like Judiac (i.e. Moses wrote the Torah), Muslims believe Mohammed wrote the Koran, and that the Koran was "fixed" from his time.

fact is there were at least 4 korans, i.e. varients - and the earliest versions were most likely not written by Mohammed.

a top Caliph in Cairo ordered the gathing of the 3 varients to be burned. which they were and are now lost to history (exp a few fragments).

the other Muslim tradition is that the Koran was written in Saudi Arabia - historical evidence clearly shows it was written in Jordan/Iraq - much closer to the origin of OT and NT works, and why it includes "heretic christian" works the Church Father were able to destroy in Syria but not farther east in Iraq by the time the Koran was written (680 AD or so).

[Immanuel Can]

I like to poke the bear with logic.

I'd welcome that. But we must have our facts straight, and we must be fair. Repeating old, debunked canards is not the way to go, is it?

Remember how huge religion still is! 5.5 billion still see scriptures as the source of truth!

Funny, though: you aren't poking the Dhamapada or the Gita, and though it's wide open to it, you're not even taking a shot at the Quran...why is that?

I'm an equal opportunity poker.

Islamic tradition is like Judiac (i.e. Moses wrote the Torah), Muslims believe Mohammed wrote the Koran, and that the Koran was "fixed" from his time.

fact is there were at least 4 korans, i.e. varients - and the earliest versions were most likely not written by Mohammed.

a top Caliph in Cairo ordered the gathing of the 3 varients to be burned. which they were and are now lost to history (exp a few fragments).

the other Muslim tradition is that the Koran was written in Saudi Arabia - historical evidence clearly shows it was written in Jordan/Iraq - much closer to the origin of OT and NT works, and why it includes "heretic christian" works the Church Father were able to destroy in Syria but not farther east in Iraq by the time the Koran was written (680 AD or so).

Okay. Fair enough.