Both christians and atheists agree the bible was written by human beings. But the christians believe that there was the additional element of god, "inspiring" the text. All else being equal, the simpler theory beats the more complicated one, thus the atheistic theory prevails. And, in reality, the atheistic theory explains the data far better than the christian one. The christian cannot explain the many historical/scientific errors in the bible, contradictions, different manuscripts, authorship problems, copying from older myths, moral issues etc. Can any christian show even a single piece of evidence from the bible that can only be explained, or is better explained, by the intervention of god? And what proof do they offer for the claim that it is "inspired"?
>>18406163>"show even a single piece of evidence from the bible"The bible does not contain any evidence
>>18406163>LIKELY
>>18406163>>18406336Have fun burning
>>18406337All knowledge of this kind is probable, but in this case it is overwhelmingly likely.>>18406370Not evidence
>>18406163Religions r just structural fantasy because u can't bear the idea that reality is literally meaningless and that's a good thing
>>184061632 Timothy 3:16"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"The Bible never says that the Scriptures are inspired. It says they are "GIVEN by inspiration."Inspiration is the speaking of what God says. God breathes through the man's mouth. Another man writes down the words that were "given by inspiration." This means that any man with any set of degrees behind his name doesn't know what he is talking about when he says that "only the original manuscripts are inspired." Inspiration has nothing to do with the original manuscripts or the 1,000th manuscript. Inspiration is God speaking His words through a man's mouth. When those words are written down, they become Scripture. Whether those words are in the original languages or in English, that Scripture is still "GIVEN by inspiration of God.">And what proof do they offerThere is plenty of proof. The Bible is a miracle, not only is it historically proven with is many many prophecies and facts about how systems in our world really works scientifically, it has also incredible mathematical miracles that no human would be able to create:https://truthischrist.com/seven/https://truthischrist.com/elton-anomaly-823543/https://truthischrist.com/70x7-kjb-code-jesus-is-the-son-of-god/fcbaptist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Bible-proof.pdfGod is revealed to us in the person and work of Jesus Christ. This was attested not only through numerous fulfilled prophecies (https://carm.org/prophecy-the-bible-and-jesus), but also through miracles (https://carm.org/is-there-historical-evidence-of-jesus-miracles) and ultimately in His resurrection from the dead (https://carm.org/is-the-easter-story-of-jesus-resurrection-true)Whoever wrote the Bible had to know more than 500 details about what would take place anywhere from 100 to 3,000 years before it took place. Is there another book like that in the world? No.
>>18407169Also, the entire body of Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist, and Catholic literature with HISTORICAL PROPHECIES (note the word "historical") could easily be published in two volumes with less than 200 pages per volume. In the Catholic case, 50 percent would be taken from the Oracles given to the Jews (Rom. 3:2) more than 100 years before the Catholic forged Epistle of Ignatius borrowed the word "Catholic" from secular Greek (see The History of the New Testament Church, 1982, Vol. I, pp. 53-54)." (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781580267120/page/124/mode/2up)---Rom. 3:23-25: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”1 John 5:7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9, given by God, Romans 10:8 & 17) only in the one, final, effectual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:8-12) dying in your place (1 Cor. 15:3-4) as a substitutionary offering for sin (Rom. 5:1-10). His blood atonement made for you is finished, so if you have received the Lord Jesus by faith (John 1:12) in your heart, you're forgiven of all your sins and are saved, once for all; finally and forever! (Rom. 8:38-39, Romans 4:5)The gift of salvation can't be earned, it's a gift: Eph. 2:8-9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Rom. 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRT2FFXntc
>>18407169And how do we know that what is written in Timothy is true? It is circular reasoning. And what is meant by inspired? And what is meant by scripture? Which books, and versions of books, does this refer to? The 73 book canon or the 66 book canon, or something else? The christian can give no answer.There are no true prophecies in the bible, it is ignorant of science and it contains no mathematical miracles.
>>18407175The KJV is the pure word of God, you will find contradictions in all modern translations that came after, but there are no contradictions in the KJV because it is pure, and not corrupted like the modern translations: https://kjvcompare.com/How do we know it's true? By just realizing that it's impossible for the Bible to have been written by man:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCsPy4CY6hIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ919YomJjMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcvFX5uIRb4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS78mFJcvhQ So why the KJV particularly? Because it does not have any contradictions or errors like the modern versions do because they are translated from a corrupted text from egypt. So in other words, all 66 books in the Bible are "scripture" because those are the books God chose to have in the Bible.>There are no true prophecies in the bible, it is ignorant of science and it contains no mathematical miracles.The are plenty, for example:"Gen 3v15 – That was 1,500 years ahead of time.Gen 49v10-11 – That was 1,500 years ahead of time.Zeph 3v8 – That was 2,600 years ahead of time.Isa 11v1-8 – That was 2,700 years ahead of time.Mic 7v14 – That was 3,319 years ahead of time.Dan 2v34-35 – That was 2,500 years ahead of time.Isa 2v1-7 – That was 2,630 years ahead of time.Josh 10v12 – That was 3,439 years ahead of time.Zech 14 – that was 2,430 years ahead of time.Isa 14v1-3 – That was 3,800 years ahead of time.Ps 22v1+18 – That was 990 years ahead of time."from: https://download.timefortruth.co.uk/docs/Christian_Soldiers_Battle_Notes.pdf
>>18406163>the many historical/scientific errorssuch as?
>>18406163>Both christians and atheists agree the bible was written by human beings. But the christians believe that there was the additional element of objective truth, "inspiring" the text. All else being equal, the simpler theory that, "objective truth does not exist", beats the more complicated one, thus the atheistic theory prevails.
>>18407169>KJVFuck off
>>18406163>what proof do they offer for the claim that it is "inspired"?Objective truth is discovered, and it can not be destroyed by atheists. Scientific findings are "inspired" by objective truth. Scientific findings are not the light, they come only as a witness to the light. That light shines in the darkness, and atheists can not overcome it.
>>18407184"No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?" - 1611 KJV Introduction by the translators.Even the people who wrote it admit that it is imperfect. LOL!
>>18407203Okay, lets take a look at the other "Bibles". Mark 1:2Mark quotes two prophets, starting with Malachi 3:1 in Mark 1:2 before proceeding to quote Isaiah 40:3 in Mark 1:3. Modern Bibles suggest that Mark identified Malachi’s writing as Isaiah’s, which is an obvious error.Hebrews 3:16Modern Bibles suggest all Israel provoked the Lord and were not able to enter the promised land. However, Joshua and Caleb did not provoke the Lord (Numbers 14:22-24), nor did others, according to the KJB, such as Eleazar the priest, who also entered the promised land (Numbers 3:32, Joshua 21:1).Genesis 27:39In the KJB, Isaac blessed Esau. But in modern translations, he curses him, contradicting the Holy Ghost in Hebrews 11:20, which reads: By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.2 Samuel 21:19KJB>"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare–oregim, a Beth–lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."NASB>"And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."Goliath was beheaded by David over 30 chapters ago in 1 Samuel 17:51. While the underlying Hebrew also says “Goliath”, the correct reading “brother of Goliath” is confirmed by the parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 20:5.Now take a look at more examples like: Hebrews 2:14, Luke 2:33, Deuteronomy 22:28, Galatians 4:1, Genesis 22:17, Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:1 comparing with https://kjvcompare.com/ to see the differences easily.
>>18407196Nearly everything in the book of genesis, for starters. All animals kept in one boat by eight people for a year? Idiocy for which there is not a shred of evidence, and all evidence against it.
>>18407201>>18407205Christians do not say that "objective truth" inspired the text, they say that an invisible being called Yahweh did. And what evidence do they offer? Nothing. Denying the existence of Yahweh does not entail denying "objective truth". It does not even entail denial of the existence of a god.
>>18407206"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."Still wanna burn it?
>>18407217?Logic and reason has no effect on Christians.
>>18406163The OT is actually a knockoff of the 7 tablets of the Enuma Elish. The Jewish scribes just made it to favor them.
>>18407222What are you even arguing? That because the KJV translators argued that it's still the word of God despite any errors by man that might be there so the catholics would stop burning Bibles it somehow makes the KJV not the word of God despite all the clear evidence that it is?
>>18407216>YahwehYHVH would be the name of God. So that would be more similar to the biblical n our parable.>Both christians and atheists agree the YHVH is the Son of Man. But the christians believe that there was the additional element of objective truth, "inspiring" the name YHVH. All else being equal, the simpler theory that, "objective truth does not exist", beats the more complicated one, thus the atheistic theory prevails
>>18407216>invisibleThe limit is invisible, but we call it "2". There is enough theophany (non eternal data) here to see the invisible limit.
>>18407209An interesting theory for why the earliest copies of Mark say "Isaiah" is that the first Mark didn't quote Malachi at all, the same way Matthew and Luke's analogous introductions of John the Baptist don't quote Malachi but only Isaiah, and the Malachi text was introduced as part of an effort to take Mark away from the Gnostics (who did use Mark) by tying Mark's Jesus more closely to the God of Moses.This could be what happened because 1: The Malachi quote does effectively serve to identify John the Baptist with Elijah and Jesus with the God of Moses>Malachi 3:1a, "See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple.">Malachi 4:4-5, "Remember the teaching of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes."And 2. The other major of identification of John the Baptist with Elijah in Mark 9:9-13 is awkward to the point that corruption of the text can be suspected, where a question that makes more sense coming from the disciples seems to be asked by Jesus randomly mid-Elijah-discussion with no answer provided.>Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”
>>18407353(cont.) Notably Luke lacks the Elijah talk after the transfiguration, while Matthew has a less awkward version of it, so if Luke and Matthew were both copying Mark, as is widely accepted, that would be consistent with a story where the first Mark doesn't have the Elijah/John identification, Matthew introduces it in his gospel, Luke, copying the original Mark, excludes it, and then someone with an anti-Gnostic motive, inspired by Matthew, incorporates the idea into their copy of Mark, including right at the beginning for good measure.If true, the early Christian scribes might've been faced with some copies of Mark that lacked the Malachi quote and said Isaiah, while other copies had the Malachi quote and said prophets. To reconcile the two variants, they could have used two heuristics: 1. Preserving the more specific text over the more general text, that is, choosing "Isaiah" over "prophets" (because if a previous scribe found their copy's "Isaiah" too illegible to read, they might've replaced it with the more general "prophets") and 2. preserving the longer text over the shorter text (when in doubt, it's always safer to include extra text than to accidentally exclude some of the original). Combined, those two heuristics would get you the oddity of many copies of Mark saying Isaiah while also quoting Malachi.
>>18407356(cont.) It could also be that the first person to include Malachi just fixed the text by excluding the Isaiah mention, only leaving, "As it is written," in which case the oddity could be explained on both sides by scribes preferring to keep as much text as possible where manuscripts disagreed. Then "prophets" would've been introduced as a correction by a scribe who noticed that Malachi was also quoted.
>>18407362Luke's transfiguration story also includes an interesting element that might be borrowed from the original Mark, if the original Mark were more Gnostic-friendly, or from an original Luke, if the Marcionite Luke were first. While all the synoptic gospels have it that Moses and Elijah appeared alongside Jesus at his transfiguration, Luke's account, in Luke 9, includes the detail that:>Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep, but as they awoke they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us set up three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah,” not realizing what he was saying.Which by itself could imply that Peter's identification of the two men as Moses and Elijah was possibly mistaken.
>>18407353>Mark 9:9-13>And 2. The other major of identification of John the Baptist with Elijah in Mark 9:9-13 is awkward to the point that corruption of the text can be suspected, where a question that makes more sense coming from the disciples seems to be asked by Jesus randomly mid-Elijah-discussion with no answer provided.KJV:Mark 9:12“And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.”Modern translations:Mark 9:12"Jesus responded, “Elijah is indeed coming first to get everything ready. Yet why do the Scriptures say that the Son of Man must suffer greatly and be treated with utter contempt?"I agree with you, modern translations are indeed corrupt. When you start running to the "earliest" greek texts that are currently available today, you will end up with corrupt texts from Gnostics that are full of errors and contradictions. That is why people who care about reading the word of God read the King James Bible, which has no contradictions or errors. The reason why the "earliest" copies of Mark say "Isaiah" is simply because in the early days there were already Bible correctors present who were making alternate texts of the Bible, like origen for example. This has resulted in many texts having errors, which is why the modern Bibles have errors, they are translated by people who are openly homosexual and hate God, which is why they hate the King James Bible.
>>18407496Making the part of Mark 9:12 into a statement rather than a question doesn't actually cause it to make that much more sense in context imo. And it doesn't seem like textual variants are the issue in this case from what I can find. It seems to be purely translational. Young's Literal Translation from 1862 also interprets the Greek there as a question.>And he answering said to them, `Elijah indeed, having come first, doth restore all things; and how hath it been written concerning the Son of Man, that many things he may suffer, and be set at nought?And a translational commentary on the verse I found begins with "Some expositors attempt to alleviate the difficulties of the text by..."https://tips.translation.bible/story/translation-commentary-on-mark-912/>When you start running to the "earliest" greek texts that are currently available today, you will end up with corrupt texts from GnosticsI would suggest that there were so many soon-to-be heretical Christians early on because the truly original texts were in fact compatible with many of their views, and what we have now are corrupt texts from non-Gnostics, but that's just, like, my opinion.
>>18407533That's your opinion then, but if you don't believe you have the pure word of God, then you are your final authority, not the Bible.God is perfect, therefore His word (The Bible) that He promised to preserve (Psalms 12:6-7) has to also be perfect as well, otherwise it is not the pure word of God. If you're reading a bible that has errors in it, you know that is not the word of God. Satan purposely wants corrupted bibles in the world so that people will just say "I dont like this verse, so its probably just a corruption, i'll ignore it", when God has given us a Bible without any errors or contradictions, while the modern bibles clearly do. It also happens to be the most printed Bible in the world. >And a translational commentary on the verseThe whole point of scholars is to put themselves above the word of God, so that they can be the ones who decide what the Bible actually says, instead of just reading what God has clearly given us. If you ignore all of this:https://truthischrist.com/seven/https://truthischrist.com/elton-anomaly-823543/https://truthischrist.com/70x7-kjb-code-jesus-is-the-son-of-god/Then I can see why ignore that the KJV doesn't have errors as well. You don't want to submit to God, so instead you decide yourself what the Bible says.Romans 1:19, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them." "God reveals Himself to men inside of them. In regards to the Bible revisers, they know in themselves (God bears witness) that the King James Bible is the truth. The problem is that they don't want to submit themselves completely to the truth. They want the truth to be subject to them."Your acceptance of the truth cannot be based on your likes, dislikes, feelings etc. Truth is truth.
