The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers

Quote from: fliggs on December 23, 2016, 10:30:46 PM

Are you a school-kid thinking he won an argument in the schoolyard?

You failed to honor your burden of proof.

You don't know what debate is.

Tearing shreds of him, nice.

Fliggs you had to use a lot of words describing how the inerrant word of God doesn't really mean what it says.

Hardly. Rather, I reminded a few people that 'promises' dont get to be reinterpreted by the receiver. God's Word is God's Word and if you decide to ignore, reinvent or reinterpret it... it still remains Gods Word. As one other poster in another thread reminded us, truth doesnt need anyone's assent for it to remain truth. Likewise, Gods Word remains true and inerrant regardless of your belief. Only your proof counts.

Quote from: fliggs on December 23, 2016, 10:29:37 PM

and yet, your entire contribution to the debate at hand is nothing more than criticism. Bit like atheists really, whose contribution to the world- especially in the doing-good dept - is rather slim. Where are the atheist-founded schools, hospitals?

You might do well to remember that the foundations of your own society is the Bible you so flippantly dismissed.

Ouch.. hit a sore spot, I see. So, no evidence for your religion or anything it claims... got it!

Again, the irony of your posts. Let us not forget what religious institutions gave the world when it predominantly ruled over its respective flocks with an iron fist, whilst crucifying (literally) the non-believers amongst them. You know what they say about glass houses, right? Yikes.

Finally, are you implying that without the bible, we wouldn't know morality? Tell me you're joking. I do wonder how we as a species survived hundreds of thousands of years without any god/religion if we thought that murder, pillaging and theft were actually good things!

Another religion-derived logic fail.

The least you could do is get a basic education in history rather than the vain imaginings you repeat. The difference between you and som FEers is less than you would hope. They are ignorant and dismissive and you are... ignorant and dismissive.

Quote from: fliggs on December 23, 2016, 10:26:55 PM

Quote from: Woody on December 23, 2016, 10:03:45 PM

I see very few people here supporting FE here mentioning the Bible as evidence.  Not that there are not any here, but there seems to be few among the active posters in the debate, Q&A, and general.

I think intikam may base his belief the Earth is flat on religious text, but not sure.

I do not think I ever seen Scepti use it to support his model.  I admit I could be wrong since I do not read all his post.

Edit: Forgot to add

Saying historians regard the Bible as a reliable source is somewhat misleading.

There is a reason when you find people saying it is historical accurate and reliable source to learn history tend to be rather religious and view the Bible as being literal.

I'll pick one thing:

"Take the whole story of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, Moses leading them into the desert, their wanderings in the wilderness for forty years and their conquest of Canaan.  There is no mention of any of this in any Egyptian material, no evidence of any wholesale enslavement of Jews or any mention of Jews at all, no evidence that Moses existed, no archaeological evidence of any sojourn in the wilderness and no evidence of some invasion and conquest of Canaan."

Yes some cities existed and events mentioned in the Bible happened.  However it seems the Bible may have combined different events, embellished some to make a better story, have them happening at the wrong time.

keep in mind that we are talking about an event from 4000 years ago and while you might not find any evidence to support it, you also dont find any evidence to debunk it. And an extensive document (the Bible) that discusses it at length I actual evidence if not proof. But, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So if I wanted to study history and went to the Bible and I could not find any other mention of events or evidence except in the Bible I should consider the Bible a reliable source?

Do not forget the Egyptians like other civilizations recorded their history using various methods.  The exodus of the Jewish slaves seemed like something worth recording.

There is plenty of events in the Bible that can not be confirmed.  Usually the best a historian can confirm is that some place existed.  The Bible is not exclusive in this regard.  Many of the places mentioned in the Bible are mentioned elsewhere.

Please explain how the Bible is a reliable source for a history lesson.  Keep in mind you made the claim the Bible should not be used for science and for a good reason.  That it is basically stories to teach morals, why would this not include stories about things that happened? Stories that may have been embellished or altered for the intended narrative of the author.

Can you describe how we got the collection of books that make up the Bible?  Was it written soon after the events happened or were the stories passed on orally before they were recorded?  One thing to consider is Mark was not written until about 40 years after the Crucifixion.  The rest of the synoptic gospels were written later.

If the stories were passed down orally for more than one generation how reliable should we consider them?

It is always funny how people consider any story from any source to be reliable yet the Bible, never so.

Ive heard all the arguments before and yet, the Bible has continued to survive and its prophecies and promises never failed.

Whilst it wasnt intended, this thread is an example of how self-righteous REers are just as bad at dismissing something with little to no evidence than FEers. Really, atheism is little different to FE in that both simply 'believe' while providing little to no evidence.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on December 23, 2016, 10:42:29 PM

Quote from: fliggs on December 23, 2016, 10:29:37 PM

and yet, your entire contribution to the debate at hand is nothing more than criticism. Bit like atheists really, whose contribution to the world- especially in the doing-good dept - is rather slim. Where are the atheist-founded schools, hospitals?

You might do well to remember that the foundations of your own society is the Bible you so flippantly dismissed.

Ouch.. hit a sore spot, I see. So, no evidence for your religion or anything it claims... got it!

Again, the irony of your posts. Let us not forget what religious institutions gave the world when it predominantly ruled over its respective flocks with an iron fist, whilst crucifying (literally) the non-believers amongst them. You know what they say about glass houses, right? Yikes.

Finally, are you implying that without the bible, we wouldn't know morality? Tell me you're joking. I do wonder how we as a species survived hundreds of thousands of years without any god/religion if we thought that murder, pillaging and theft were actually good things!

Another religion-derived logic fail.

The least you could do is get a basic education in history rather than the vain imaginings you repeat. The difference between you and som FEers is less than you would hope. They are ignorant and dismissive and you are... ignorant and dismissive.

That projection though...

It's ok though, I understand. Must be tough to end every conversation about your faith with 'Well, I have faith it's all true and if you don't believe it, you're ignorant and dismissive'.

As an atheist, I am dismissive of religious claims made without evidence.. sort of like I am with FE! If you call that ignorant and 'dismissive', there really isn't much else to discuss, is there?

I HAVE A BIGASS SIG, LOOKIT ME!!!

I just wanted to say, as a fellow poster, your sig is offensively large. Please remove that stupid YouTube vid from it immediately, thanks.

Quote from: fliggs on December 24, 2016, 12:40:41 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes on December 23, 2016, 10:42:29 PM

Quote from: fliggs on December 23, 2016, 10:29:37 PM

and yet, your entire contribution to the debate at hand is nothing more than criticism. Bit like atheists really, whose contribution to the world- especially in the doing-good dept - is rather slim. Where are the atheist-founded schools, hospitals?

You might do well to remember that the foundations of your own society is the Bible you so flippantly dismissed.

Ouch.. hit a sore spot, I see. So, no evidence for your religion or anything it claims... got it!

Again, the irony of your posts. Let us not forget what religious institutions gave the world when it predominantly ruled over its respective flocks with an iron fist, whilst crucifying (literally) the non-believers amongst them. You know what they say about glass houses, right? Yikes.

Finally, are you implying that without the bible, we wouldn't know morality? Tell me you're joking. I do wonder how we as a species survived hundreds of thousands of years without any god/religion if we thought that murder, pillaging and theft were actually good things!

Another religion-derived logic fail.

The least you could do is get a basic education in history rather than the vain imaginings you repeat. The difference between you and som FEers is less than you would hope. They are ignorant and dismissive and you are... ignorant and dismissive.

That projection though...

It's ok though, I understand. Must be tough to end every conversation about your faith with 'Well, I have faith it's all true and if you don't believe it, you're ignorant and dismissive'.

As an atheist, I am dismissive of religious claims made without evidence.. sort of like I am with FE! If you call that ignorant and 'dismissive', there really isn't much else to discuss, is there?

As an atheist, you dismiss all religious claims period. Evidence exists but will never rise to the level you will accept for similar reasons as to why an FEer rejects science. Not because the evidence is there or even in substantial quantity but rather because it breaches one of your fundamental tenets which ironically is... faith. In your case faith in your own self above all else.

Ive asked this before and will do so again. What level of evidence would you accept as evidence of the existence of God?

I know what you will say. It will be a variation on a theme and you will demand a level of proof beyond that which you would accept most other claims. Like I said before, this is not my first time at bat and I've heard it all before.

Quote from: FETlolcakes on December 24, 2016, 01:49:34 AM

I HAVE A BIGASS SIG, LOOKIT ME!!!

I just wanted to say, as a fellow poster, your sig is offensively large. Please remove that stupid YouTube vid from it immediately, thanks.

It used to be a hyperlink, but the formatting changed or something. If you know of a way to fix it, by all means post it here.

In the meantime, build a bridge, as they say.

As an atheist, you dismiss all religious claims period. Evidence exists but will never rise to the level you will accept for similar reasons as to why an FEer rejects science. Not because the evidence is there or even in substantial quantity but rather because it breaches one of your fundamental tenets which ironically is... faith. In your case faith in your own self above all else.

Evidence exists that Jesus was the son of a god? Start with that.

I'll also note your sidestepping of my claim that you're also an atheist in respect to every other religion aside from your own. You also reject the claims of other religions (with prejudice, in fact), you just accept the claims of one.

Gotta love the insecurity of the religious... it seems they have a hard time admitting they rely purely on faith and have to make up spurious arguments in an attempt to feel more secure in their faith that the non-believers are just like them!

Ive asked this before and will do so again. What level of evidence would you accept as evidence of the existence of God?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Says it all really. This isn't some trivial banality after all. And guess what? The burden is all on you. You stupidly claim my position is ignorant and ardent, but offer no justification for this. Apparently, asking for evidence for extraordinary claims is unreasonable.

I know what you will say. It will be a variation on a theme and you will demand a level of proof beyond that which you would accept most other claims. Like I said before, this is not my first time at bat and I've heard it all before.

Ditto, and for very good reasons too. You understand, of course, that folks of different religious faith make the same claims of certainty you do, right? And, you understand that nearly all religions (of thousands) are mutually exclusive? This leaves you in the very tenuous position of not only declaring that your religion is true, but the only one that is true, correct?

Faith indeed.

Just for the record, I'm agnostic. Hopefully this should be clear now.

Just for the record, I'm agnostic. Hopefully this should be clear now.

Ah a fence sitter....

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2016, 05:40:00 AM

Just for the record, I'm agnostic. Hopefully this should be clear now.

Ah a fence sitter....

Absolutely.

Quote from: Lonegranger on December 24, 2016, 05:40:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2016, 05:40:00 AM

Just for the record, I'm agnostic. Hopefully this should be clear now.

Ah a fence sitter....

Absolutely.

Scepti, if you are agnostic I assume you believe in evolution. If you do believe that clap trap, it doesn't seem to make any logical sense. Where are the in between and evolving species. All animals and plants die when they are changed too much from the original design.
 Say the vision starts to go bad in certain line and family of rabbits. Thisline would soon be killed off. The wouldn't start growing wings for example. It seems that life is created in a certain way. If there is too much deviation it dies off.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2016, 05:52:35 AM

Quote from: Lonegranger on December 24, 2016, 05:40:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 24, 2016, 05:40:00 AM

Just for the record, I'm agnostic. Hopefully this should be clear now.

Ah a fence sitter....

Absolutely.

Scepti, if you are agnostic I assume you believe in evolution. If you do believe that clap trap, it doesn't seem to make any logical sense. Where are the in between and evolving species. All animals and plants die when they are changed too much from the original design.
 Say the vision starts to go bad in certain line and family of rabbits. Thisline would soon be killed off. The wouldn't start growing wings for example. It seems that life is created in a certain way. If there is too much deviation it dies off.

I believe in one cell of life. I believe evolution is there for us all to see.
People say things like, " well if we evolved from apes then why are there still apes."
The reality is that not all apes evolve to follow a pattern which is basically only a mutation.

Generally, unless humans act as creationists by deliberately altering the natural process, then all creatures will produce what we term as, oddities or mutants, which to us can be scary or off- putting and we know what humans did to those in the early days, right?

If you take a look around you see all kinds of creatures appear to commit suicide by falling from the sky or beaching themselves, etc.
Why?

Maybe it's the art of evolving naturally. Exploring other avenues.
The more fish that beach themselves and die gives rise to one fish surviving the out of water experience only to fall back to the water and spawn a stronger more capable fish with the mindset of doing exactly the same thing, only over time we find that this fish has managed to move it's body along the dry land and being capable of surviving for long periods...and so on.

Adaptation of mutants either gain a foothold or they fall foul and disappear. It's happening all the time if you look.

Now all of this could be happening inside a tank and being overseen by a being/creature of some intelligent kind in its own large world taking care of the cell we are in, with someone taking care of the cell they are in and so on.

To me, this could be the higher being. A god of some description. A being that has control over what we do but chooses to allow the cell to mutate to see where it ends.

It could be that the cell we live in is part of a creatures eye or body part and we are just one cell among (add a figure) likewise cells that are governed by the environment the creature is in and the way the creature looks after it's own body.

The list is almost endless of the things that can be thought of, but we humans, on top of our arrogance and belief that we are the ultimate among all species, when really we are also extremely gullible and are basically just copy cats. We mimic. We follow the strongest organism to the death as and when required.


Basically as far as evolving goes, we are our own gods of our own destiny, until maybe the higher being decides to clean out the tank/petri dish or whatever our cell is part of, or not.

The thing is, maybe there is some kind of real god in a form like ours, but if there is, we have to ask the purpose of that god, because apparently the god does not interfere with the choices we make and then apparently interferes with the choices we make (if you can see what I'm saying)... as and when it's required by whatever god is used of which there are many to choose from, it seems.


By what I've wrote it appears that I'm more on the atheist side and in a way it can look like that.
The thing is, I cannot say with any certainty that anything I've mentioned is the truth, which brings me back to what I believe is an agnostic view and this is how I have to run until such time that it changes with enough evidence to change my view to a specific one.

Quote from: Logick on December 24, 2016, 02:00:41 AM

Quote from: FETlolcakes on December 24, 2016, 01:49:34 AM

I HAVE A BIGASS SIG, LOOKIT ME!!!

I just wanted to say, as a fellow poster, your sig is offensively large. Please remove that stupid YouTube vid from it immediately, thanks.

It used to be a hyperlink, but the formatting changed or something. If you know of a way to fix it, by all means post it here.

In the meantime, build a bridge, as they say.

This is the link to that video that won't embed

Also, I'm moving this thread to the philosophy and religion forum. I know it was meant to be a jab at scepti, but it really has nothing to do with FE.

There is a general thread among most Flat Earther’s belief systems and that is a literal interpretation of the Bible. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. For the record, I am a born-again Christian who believes the Bible is inerrant, the Word of God and literally true. But from this point, scepti et al and I veer considerably off course in what we think that statement actually means.

Firstly, the Bible is not a book on science, but rather history and the story of God’s relationship with His people. That is not to say that it contradicts science. In fact, with the exception of evolution (a different subject) the Bible does not generally contradict existing scientific beliefs and proofs. And to repeat, the Bible is not a science book and going there for your science will be at best, disappointing.

Now back to the Bible… Scepti et al believe in this flat earth model with a fixed dome and even literal ‘windows’ to heaven and with the flat earth standing on literal pillars. One of the first things you learn when trying to understand the Bible is to recognise what you are reading at the time. When you are reading Jesus’ parables, you are not reading literal events, but rather metaphorical stories. Jesus even stats as much. When the Bible refers to the corners of the world, it says so in the same vein that we even today refer to the ‘four corners of the globe’. There is metaphor, history, poetry and teaching all in the Bible and if you don’t know which one you are reading, then you will end up with silly ideas like a domed earth.

When God asks Job ‘who set the earth on its pillars’, does He mean literal pillars or rather how we describe some people as ‘pillars of society’ without believing that they are literally stone pillars. When the Bible refers to the ‘windows of heaven’ it is not talking about opening and closing literal windows somewhere on a dome, but more like how we say that ‘the eyes are the window to the soul’.
It is easy (and correct) to believe that the entire Bible is inerrant and literally true when you know what you are reading because poetry is LITERALLY poetry and metaphors are LITERALLY metaphors.

I say all this to explain Scepti et al and their absolute refusal (and inability) to accept the real model of the universe and a spherical earth. It is faith. Pure, absolute faith. But faith that is misguided because it is faith not in what the Bible actually says, but rather on a very poor and biased understanding of the Bible. Biblical interpretation can be subjective for some, but only cults and a few peripheral nutters don’t accept that parts of the Bible are actually poetry and metaphor or sometimes historical summaries rather than all literal fact.

The fact that he cannot be shifted is both admirable and pitiful. Steadfastness for the things of God are good, but that implies we must actually know what those things are. When science absolutely and without doubt disproves what you believe you need to check again to see if your faith is actually lining up with God’s Word or simply your own (mis)interpretation. Being steadfast and faithful to error is not admirable at all.

On what basis do you interpret the bible as allegory instead of literally?  What is your criteria?

Quote from: Woody on December 23, 2016, 11:32:53 PM

Quote from: fliggs on December 23, 2016, 10:26:55 PM

Quote from: Woody on December 23, 2016, 10:03:45 PM

I see very few people here supporting FE here mentioning the Bible as evidence.  Not that there are not any here, but there seems to be few among the active posters in the debate, Q&A, and general.

I think intikam may base his belief the Earth is flat on religious text, but not sure.

I do not think I ever seen Scepti use it to support his model.  I admit I could be wrong since I do not read all his post.

Edit: Forgot to add

Saying historians regard the Bible as a reliable source is somewhat misleading.

There is a reason when you find people saying it is historical accurate and reliable source to learn history tend to be rather religious and view the Bible as being literal.

I'll pick one thing:

"Take the whole story of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, Moses leading them into the desert, their wanderings in the wilderness for forty years and their conquest of Canaan.  There is no mention of any of this in any Egyptian material, no evidence of any wholesale enslavement of Jews or any mention of Jews at all, no evidence that Moses existed, no archaeological evidence of any sojourn in the wilderness and no evidence of some invasion and conquest of Canaan."

Yes some cities existed and events mentioned in the Bible happened.  However it seems the Bible may have combined different events, embellished some to make a better story, have them happening at the wrong time.

keep in mind that we are talking about an event from 4000 years ago and while you might not find any evidence to support it, you also dont find any evidence to debunk it. And an extensive document (the Bible) that discusses it at length I actual evidence if not proof. But, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So if I wanted to study history and went to the Bible and I could not find any other mention of events or evidence except in the Bible I should consider the Bible a reliable source?

Do not forget the Egyptians like other civilizations recorded their history using various methods.  The exodus of the Jewish slaves seemed like something worth recording.

There is plenty of events in the Bible that can not be confirmed.  Usually the best a historian can confirm is that some place existed.  The Bible is not exclusive in this regard.  Many of the places mentioned in the Bible are mentioned elsewhere.

Please explain how the Bible is a reliable source for a history lesson.  Keep in mind you made the claim the Bible should not be used for science and for a good reason.  That it is basically stories to teach morals, why would this not include stories about things that happened? Stories that may have been embellished or altered for the intended narrative of the author.

Can you describe how we got the collection of books that make up the Bible?  Was it written soon after the events happened or were the stories passed on orally before they were recorded?  One thing to consider is Mark was not written until about 40 years after the Crucifixion.  The rest of the synoptic gospels were written later.

If the stories were passed down orally for more than one generation how reliable should we consider them?

It is always funny how people consider any story from any source to be reliable yet the Bible, never so.

Ive heard all the arguments before and yet, the Bible has continued to survive and its prophecies and promises never failed.

Whilst it wasnt intended, this thread is an example of how self-righteous REers are just as bad at dismissing something with little to no evidence than FEers. Really, atheism is little different to FE in that both simply 'believe' while providing little to no evidence.

Where did I state all other sources are reliable?  It is funny how when I have had these debates before I usually hear that argument.  Similar to how FE's claim RE's just blindly accept what they are told.

I pointed out reasons why the Bible should not be considered a reliable source when researching history.

The only way to consider it totally reliable is having faith that God exist and nobody throughout history altered the stories.

If we go with divine origin of the Bible we run into an issue about its reliability.  How are you sure you are following the right book.  You are likely Christian and not Hindu because of the family you were born to and place you grew up. 

So we have to ask the question were you lucky enough to grow up following the right God or not?  If you believe you were lucky what led to that belief?

For your claim that prophecies never failed could you point us to examples after the Bible was written?

I am also interested in seeing your reply to this:

On what basis do you interpret the bible as allegory instead of literally?  What is your criteria?

Very curious how you are determining what is allegory and what is not.

Are you going to give a counter arguments to support your position?  You did not counter any of the points I brought up.

There is so much misinformation in this thread I truly have no idea where to start.....

Woody - For your claim that prophecies never failed could you point us to examples after the Bible was written?

    "Thus says the Lord God:
     'Surely I will take the children of Israel
      from among the nations,
      wherever they have gone,
      and will gather them from every side
      and bring them into their own land."
      (Ezekiel 37:21)

This occurred May 14th, 1948

How many things have been discovered that was a "lie" in the Bible before it was discovered?

I can name a 100 things without breaking a sweat...just recently the five cities including Sodom and Gomorrah...Right where they were supposed to be...just so happens there was ash found on one of the cities, of course this was attributed to "under ground volcanic activity"...Not too bad for an "inaccurate" book?

Or how about something as simple as washing your hands before preparing food or surgery lol?? We didn't really catch on to that till the 1800s lol...Or how about a method for preparing meat that even to this day beats USDA regulations?? I could keep going with these as well...

Seems more a confirmational issue than a source issue....

Though bias, closed mindedness and anger will keep people from looking at things like this, and that is OK. To each their own...Free will is the gift that keeps on "giving"

How many things have been discovered that was a "lie" in the Bible before it was discovered?

I can name a 100 things without breaking a sweat...just recently the five cities including Sodom and Gomorrah...Right where they were supposed to be...just so happens there was ash found on one of the cities, of course this was attributed to "under ground volcanic activity"...Not too bad for an "inaccurate" book?

Or how about something as simple as washing your hands before preparing food or surgery lol?? We didn't really catch on to that till the 1800s lol...Or how about a method for preparing meat that even to this day beats USDA regulations?? I could keep going with these as well...

Seems more a confirmational issue than a source issue....

Though bias, closed mindedness and anger will keep people from looking at things like this, and that is OK. To each their own...Free will is the gift that keeps on "giving"

You are somewhat misrepresenting the view about the historical accuracy of the Bible by historians or archaeologist in general.

They are not shocked or surprised finding a place mentioned in the Bible.  Most believe the places mentioned in the Bible exist. The same goes for different leaders mentioned.

The difference is when and where the events actually happened has proven to be not so reliable or have supporting evidence from other sources.

Like the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt.  Egypt recorded other events just not that one.

You must admit people all over the globe use to ascribe supernatural reasons for events they did not understand.  Some even do so today.  Volcanoes erupting was caused by an upset God, a hurricane hitting Haiti was God punishing the Haitians, etc.

If you want IMHO a very good example start comparing the story of Jesus between the Four Gospels.

The problem using the Bible as a historical reference is the Bible was not written using eyewitness accounts.   Like much of the stories around that time they were passed down orally for generations. There are exceptions of course, but the stories in the Bible do not seem to be one of them.

The first gospel was written about 40 years after the Crucifixion.

The rest of the NT followed until around 110 AD.

Part of the Torah was written around 500 BC, which included Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Might
be more I do not recall.

Moses died around 1200 BCE.

Similar to how you can find inconsistencies in what is right and wrong, some of the rules seem to be a result of when that part was written there are inconsistencies with the timeline and events described in the Bible.

I tried to keep this short.  Research for yourself there is plenty of information available.  The only places I see unquestionably accept events in the Bible are religious.  The ones completely calling it false are trying to disprove religion. 

The ones I find pointing out where it is somewhat right, saying what can be confirmed or what is completely wrong IMHO are reliable.  They are also more interested in trying to determine if the Bible is a reliable historical source and do not mention religion accept of course when needed.

Moses wrote the Penteteuch - the first 5 books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutoronomy.

Moses wrote the Penteteuch - the first 5 books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutoronomy.

Well the version you are reading today is from around 500 BC is likely not from Moses or even one author. Even more likely nothing was written exactly as Moses would have wrote it. Considering the large gap in time most likely much may have changed over time.  Since there was not just one single version and some were past down orally and not written down until several generations after the event.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/features/.premium-1.622131

"Even a cursory read of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, shows that the Torah could not have been written by a single person"

"Throughout the first account of creation, God is called Elohim. But starting in Genesis 2:4, a second and different account of creation begins - in which God is called Yahweh."

"In further evidence of differential authorship, the accounts of creation contradict one another. In the first, Elohim creates the animals on Thursday and then creates man and woman on Friday - together. In the second account, Yahweh creates man, then the animals, and only after failing to find a partner for man among them does he create woman out of man’s rib."

There is more. If I did not make it clear when I say the Torah was written around 500 BC I was meaning the stories were gathered together both oral and written.  To create the version we have today or at least pretty close to it.

It is similar with the NT and which the changes and things dropped are better documented.  The Catholic Church decided what was cannon and what was to be included in the Bible and what was not. 
It is also pretty much well accepted the OT was written by multiple authors over a long period.

The site I linked was the first a came across, but supports what is said in other sources.  I recommend finding a book on the subject.  On the internet it seems you will run across more people who seem to have a agenda of proving themselves right or wrong.  I am trying to remember the books I have read and if can find the titles or authors I post them here.

IMHO the authors of the books I read did it as an academic pursuit and not trying to discredit the Bible or prove it right.  Just judging by how they did not make absolute statements except where there was ample evidence or admitted to not being sure about certain things.  U

Moses wrote the Penteteuch - the first 5 books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutoronomy.

Since Moses never existed, this is impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity

...the scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical.

Scholars are aware that Moses is a fictional character. Why do people still believe he existed?

Woody I agree with you to an extent and understand what you are trying to say. Nor do I think the Bible is flawless or holy, nor does it say it is. It is a manual for instruction and correction...That is all.

My main point of what I posted is it has so far been quite accurate, and thus far, most "lies" or "fabrications" have turned out to be a confirmational over a source issue. I mean even just recently researchers discovering pots that is turning out to possess original Hebrew on them that "was a lie", so I have no doubt the "fake" Moses story and Exodus will turn out to be a confirmational issue as well.

I am also fully aware of when the books were estimated to be written. There are reasons this doesn't bug me. One, there could be earlier copies that haven't been discovered yet, or we will never discover. There have been random passages discovered that were very close to the estimated date of the original event, just not full books so far of the old testament.

Though none of this bugs me, just using the New testament for example, the estimated 70 year gap between the event and written record is actually excellent compared to other historic documents accepted as reliable...The Bible is just held to a double standard for obvious reasons.

Also the proven accuracy of each copy found is astonishing, though being afraid of being struck down for an error will add to the accuracy tremendously lol.

Quote from: IonSpen on December 27, 2016, 05:29:16 AM

Moses wrote the Penteteuch - the first 5 books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutoronomy.

Since Moses never existed, this is impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity

Quote

...the scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical.

Scholars are aware that Moses is a fictional character. Why do people still believe he existed?

And this is just the usual clap trap...I appreciate you being able to hold an actual conversation woody instead of acting like this biased and uneducated tool.

And this is just the usual clap trap...I appreciate you being able to hold an actual conversation woody instead of acting like this biased and uneducated tool.

It's common knowledge that the consensus among historians is that Moses never existed. How do you not know this?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 27, 2016, 10:31:19 AM

And this is just the usual clap trap...I appreciate you being able to hold an actual conversation woody instead of acting like this biased and uneducated tool.

It's common knowledge that the consensus among historians is that Moses never existed. How do you not know this?

Oh I know what the "general consensus" is...I am not new to this rodeo, I started debating apologetics in college and never quit. The "general consensus" is in reality a few researchers then they are parroted by uneducated biased people such as your self who is unwilling to put in the leg work to draw your own conclusion.

On top of that...Your own blind bias exacerbates this issue to further proportions. You hate religion, so anything that agrees with your narrow minded world view is accepted....You also apply this type of thinking to all things in your world view.

"Someone who hates the same things I do said it, so it must be true"...Taking anything from science to political and anything in between , placing it in a nut shell. Then on top of that, add the arrogance and ego of "knowing things"...This adds the final icing to the cake of complete and total ignorance.

I have met you a 1000 times, and there is very little difference or distinction between models. I don't know where this assembly line is, I would love to find it.


You should take cues from people like woody...Though him and I disagree on things, he never forgets to leave room to be wrong..Never forgets to leave room for new information to change his opinion or reality. This is admirable...Setting ones ego at the door.

These are qualities of someone actually looking for truth...Signs of intelligence, morals and true curiosity.

If you want to be a closed minded fool...Admit it and I will salute you for honesty...I completely respect that. Though otherwise...I suggest you attempt to absorb some of this.

Oh I know what the "general consensus" is...I am not new to this rodeo, I started debating apologetics in college and never quit. The "general consensus" is in reality a few researchers then they are parroted by uneducated biased people such as your self who is unwilling to put in the leg work to draw your own conclusion.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the history of how this came to be the consensus. It wasn't until fairly recently that historians admitted that the dearth of evidence in support of the historicity of Moses suggested he never existed; before, the consensus had always been that he did. What's called "academic inertia" is to blame for why it took so long for the official account to change.

On top of that...Your own blind bias exacerbates this issue to further proportions. You hate religion, so anything that agrees with your narrow minded world view is accepted....You also apply this type of thinking to all things in your world view.

I hate lies, and I hate all non-egalitarian institutions. The notion that Moses existed is a lie, and religion is an non-egalitarian institution that spreads this lie.

If you want to be a closed minded fool...

The foolishness of people who buy into religious myths is unfathomable.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 27, 2016, 11:41:19 AM

Oh I know what the "general consensus" is...I am not new to this rodeo, I started debating apologetics in college and never quit. The "general consensus" is in reality a few researchers then they are parroted by uneducated biased people such as your self who is unwilling to put in the leg work to draw your own conclusion.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the history of how this came to be the consensus. It wasn't until fairly recently that historians admitted that the dearth of evidence in support of the historicity of Moses suggested he never existed; before, the consensus had always been that he did. What's called "academic inertia" is to blame for why it took so long for the official account to change.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 27, 2016, 11:41:19 AM

On top of that...Your own blind bias exacerbates this issue to further proportions. You hate religion, so anything that agrees with your narrow minded world view is accepted....You also apply this type of thinking to all things in your world view.

I hate lies, and I hate all non-egalitarian institutions. The notion that Moses existed is a lie, and religion is an non-egalitarian institution that spreads this lie.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 27, 2016, 11:41:19 AM

If you want to be a closed minded fool...

The foolishness of people who buy into religious myths is unfathomable.

I am fully aware of the reasons given by the researchers whom believe it was a lie, I am also familiar with the reasons given by the researchers who believe it's wasn't or there is not enough information to call it.

Also, evidence, such as the pots I described earlier that shows there actually is a first gen language of Hebrew (which was believed to be a lie, and an argument of the anti Exodus party)..A bunch of little tid bits here and there are starting to creep up.

This has always been the precursors to larger finds or proofs. I understand why atheist are so hard on biblical text..If they can discredit things in it, that makes the likelihood of the God in it to be false. I understand that. However, I am not even debating that...

Do you not see how closed minded you are?? Not even speaking about god or no god...But just in general.

Everything is case closed with you, which is typical of people such as yourself...Do you not realize how much you miss? Check your ego and anger at the door...You will get farther.

So..A god is unfathomable, fine....What is not unfathomable for the reason we are here? The fact I am texting on my phone discussing this with you?

I am fully aware of the reasons given by the researchers whom believe it was a lie, I am also familiar with the reasons given by the researchers who believe it's wasn't or there is not enough information to call it.

Reasons given by researchers who believe it was a lie:

• there was never any reliable evidence to begin with to support his existence
• the Bible is not considered a reliable historical document

Reasons given by researchers who believe it wasn't a lie:

• the Bible is considered a reliable historical document
• even though no third-party evidence supports his existence, we believe he existed anyway, because the Bible says so

Why do you believe the Bible is a reliable historical document? No credible historian holds this view.

So..A god is unfathomable, fine....What is not unfathomable for the reason we are here? The fact I am texting on my phone discussing this with you?

Yes, it's amazing that anything, rather than nothing, exists at all (apparently, because it's not possible for absolutely nothing to exist). But this has nothing to do with Moses' historicity.

Logick....

You are defeating yourself and proving what I have been saying about you lol.

Reasons given by researchers who believe it was a lie:

• there was never any reliable evidence to begin with to support his existence
• the Bible is not considered a reliable historical document

Reasons given by researchers who believe it wasn't a lie:

• the Bible is considered a reliable historical document
• even though no third-party evidence supports his existence, we believe he existed anyway, because the Bible says so

No credible historian holds this view.

Literally everything you said here is not true..Even the points used arguing why the Bible is not accurate for historic context.

All this speaks for your "argument" is "I don't want the Bible to be historically accurate so it's not"....

Appreciate the fact of you admitting your bias, I also know there is nothing I could say that would convince you otherwise..A literal angel could appear in front of you and tell you it's true, that would not even shake you.

However, let's just keep with the fact it's your bias we are fighting, not reality here. I can respect that..

The foolishness of people who buy into religious myths is unfathomable.

What did this have to do with Mosaic history?? I was just asking..If a creator is unfathomable..Then what is? Apparently you have no answer to this question...