The overwhelming splendor and excellence of the Bible cannot be disputed

[Kblaze8855]

part about the Bible sales often being more about what is produced than actually sold....

i imagine it would be hard to get concrete sales numbers on a book that its followers believe you shouldn't charge anybody for. so where do sales numbers really come from? not like only 1 place produces Bibles. and so many are given away it would be hard to keep up with the numbers.

[miller-time]

part about the Bible sales often being more about what is produced than actually sold....

i imagine it would be hard to get concrete sales numbers on a book that its followers believe you shouldn't charge anybody for. so where do sales numbers really come from? not like only 1 place produces Bibles. and so many are given away it would be hard to keep up with the numbers.

Even though they are given away someone has to buy them from the publisher. So I guess they are still "sold." But it is still misleading.

I don't know who is constantly needing bibles though, my entire family is atheist and we have like 3 or 4 of them in our house. Surely if you are a believer you'd have one handy somewhere. We have one that my Grandma was given in school, so it'd be about 70-75 years old, they are pretty sturdy books.

[Kblaze8855]

many people produce the Bible for free so it's not even sold from the publisher. but yes just about everyone has Bibles. I have more than one and also have a Koran somewhere. well not the Koran its one of those books claiming to explain what it means in English. I may even have a book of Mormon somewhere though I'm not sure I kept it after I moved.

[miller-time]

I'm saying check the sources that are telling you these things, that are claiming plagiarism, etc.. The whole Zeitgeist deal for example. I'll get to the rest of what you posted when I get off, you too kblaze. Good to see you posting in here

I didn't say the Bible was plagiarized. I said God used exactly the same method to deliver his word as every man-made religion that preceded Judaism and Christianity. Which raises a red flag. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

[MMM]

I believe in a creator but not in one that needs a blood sacrifice to forgive sin, that seems unGodly to me and that is just one example. There are many examples of attributes that are attributed to GOD that I have trouble believing.

[miller-time]

I believe in a creator but not in one that needs a blood sacrifice to forgive sin, that seems unGodly to me and that is just one example. There are many examples of attributes that are attributed to GOD that I have trouble believing.

Agreed. If he exists I feel bad for him. Imagine if people painted a picture like that about you?

I can not possibly reconcile the idea that the same God that created quantum physics and biological organisms would also initiate such a poorly formed rule book. It is such a logical disconnect that it actually pains me to think about.

[miller-time]

The Bible being inspired by God, and not dictated is in the Bible itself (see 2 Timothy 3:16, other places as well I'm sure. May look them up and get back to this)

Christianity existed before the New Testament.

However, most modern critical scholars argue that 2 Timothy was not written by Paul but by an anonymous follower, after Paul's death in the First Century. Most scholars now affirm this view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_to_Timothy

It'd almost be required for the author to put that line in.

[DonDadda59]

I'm saying check the sources that are telling you these things, that are claiming plagiarism, etc..

Yes, check the sources for everything else except what you believe in. Not at all a flawed system.

[miller-time]

I can say the same thing in my favor

You shouldn't need defensive mechanisms. The arguments should stand on their own merits.

What makes science work is that theories either hold water or they don't, and if they don't you discard them, you don't hold on to them by creating ad-hoc hypotheses.

[Edwin]

This thread didn't turn into the mess I expected and is a fun read due to some well educated posters who seem pretty knowledgeable putting aside the uneducated ones.

Props to BuGZBuNNy, miller-time and all the other educated people who've made this thread an enjoyable debate to read.

[miller-time]

Zeitgeist was clearly bs. This chart...

..clearly bs

I wasn't talking about any direct relationship to the stories within the bible. But the medium as a whole. Like I said: Prophet + Written/Oral Stories = Religion.

Why would he do what people have already been doing for thousands of years?

Actually a similar argument was made in Bill Maher's "Religulous " where he compared Jesus to a bunch of other religious figures and a lot of the comparisons were BS or very vague and shaky at best.

[miller-time]

This thread didn't turn into the mess I expected and is a fun read due to some well educated posters who seem pretty knowledgeable putting aside the uneducated ones.

Props to BuGZBuNNy, miller-time and all the other educated people who've made this thread an enjoyable debate to read.

Aww man, now I feel pressure to make better arguments lol.

[miller-time]

Soooo..you're saying that that specific verse is likely a defensive mechanism to critics claiming error? That before this verse people believed the Bible was other than inspired by God?

I'm not sure, I am only speculating. But it can certainly be used for that reason there-after.

We could raise the same point with any verse, in any religious text and it'd be difficult to separate intention and actuality. Generally I try not to argue too much inside of the Bible because it is an internally consistent narrative. Whether passages were put in there with an external motive in mind we can't really know.

[DonDadda59]

Zeitgeist was clearly bs. This chart...

..clearly bs

I don't remember mentioning zeitgeist. You and I have been down this road before, you know I have the goods to prove my point

So I'll just leave it at this- the connections to Christianity between religions and philosophies that predate it are undeniable. As Miller Time alluded to before, nothing claimed in Christianity is particularly new or unique and has its roots in older traditions. It is just the continuation of a game of telephone that was started as far back (at the latest) as 1000 BC in Persia.

Allah=God=Yahweh=Ahura Mazda

The bible is no more 'excellent' or full of 'splendor' than the Q'uran, the Torah, the Avesta, etc. You just choose to believe that. Which is your prerogative. But the point still stands.

[DonDadda59]

Give me these religions and sources.

A good place to start would be Zoroastrianism. Plenty of material online about the belief system and you can also read the source material in the Avesta, gothas, etc.

Zarathustra laid the foundation for the dominant world religions (the so called Abrahamic religions). He claimed it all began when he was inspired by the word of the one true God, which was remarkable considering the religious beliefs of his time dictated a multitude of deities.