PROOF: Judeo-Christian Bible Inspired of God

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alter2Ego's picture
PROOF: Judeo-Christian Bible Inspired of God

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are various types of religions in existence with their own sacred books called bibles. The difference between the Judeo-Christian Bible and other religious books is that there is EVIDENCE showing it was inspired by Almighty God Jehovah. For instance, the Bible contains almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophesies, some written centuries before the fulfillment of the prophesied events. Secular history and archaeology bears this out. In addition, Bible writers had information that was not discovered by scientists and explorers until centuries later. Below are two such examples.

Example #1:
For a period of time in history, humans thought the earth was flat and that if one sailed too far out to sea, one was likely to sail off the earth. By the 15th Century when Christopher Columbus claimed he discovered the new world, most Europeans correctly theorized that the earth is a circle or sphere. However, it was not until after the first circumnavigation of the globe was led by Ferdinand Magellan in the year 1519 AD that this theory of a 3-Dimensional, circular earth was supported by fact. More than 2,000 years before Ferdinand Magellan attempted to sail around the globe, the prophet Isaiah did not merely theorize but stated that the earth is a circle. Isaiah was inspired by God to write:

"{22} There is One who is dwelling above the CIRCLE of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gaze, who spread them out like a tent in which to dwell, {28} Have you not come to know or have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the extremities of the earth, is a God to time indefinite. He does not tire out or grow weary. There is no searching out of his understanding." (Isaiah 40:22 and 28)

SIDE NOTE: Circles can be 2D (flat) or 3D (an ORB or a SPHERE)

Example #2:
Prior to the 17th century, none of the best scientific minds could explain what causes the earth to be positioned in a stable orbit. Then in 1687, Isaac Newton published his theory that gravitational forces are the explanation behind the earth's stability. (Gravity is also the reason why humans can move around without fear of toppling off the earth into space.) More than 3,000 years before Newton's existence, under divine inspiration Moses wrote that the earth hangs upon nothing (indicating invisible gravity), as follows:

"He [God] is stretching out the north over the empty place, hanging the earth upon nothing;" (Job 26:7)

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. How could Isaiah have known that the earth is circular, considering that the writing of the book of Isaiah was completed in 732 B.C.E. and it wasn't until the 16th century AD/CE that Ferdinand Magellan proved the earth is a 3D circle when he circumnavigated the globe in 1519 AD/CE—2,251 years AFTER Isaiah wrote that the earth is a circle?
http://didyouknow.org/sailing/
http://www.rmg.co.uk/magellan

2. How did Moses know that the earth hangs upon nothing, indicating invisible gravity, considering that the book of Job was completed in 1473 B.C.E. and it wasn't until 1687 AD/CE that Isaac Newton published his theory about gravitational forces—3,160 years AFTER Moses wrote that the earth hangs upon nothing?
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blnewton.htm

3. Where did Isaiah and Moses get this info?

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
You are quoting a manuscript

You are quoting a manuscript that is a translation of a translation of a translation, copied thousands of times by thousands of people, chunked, dissected, taken apart, put back together, changed, rearranged, thing included, things excluded (at the whim of those in power at any given time) of writings that supposedly came from illiterate people from centuries ago. Hmmm....seems legit.

Ellie Harris's picture
"The difference between the

"The difference between the Judeo-Christian Bible and other religious books is that there is EVIDENCE showing it was inspired by Almighty God Jehovah." As no god of your bible has been confirmed, tested to be predictably true then your whole argument is a waste of time.

You are begging the question and this logical fallacy is worse than flawed.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

Prove that this gawwd exist before you say something was divinely inspired by it.

Alter2Ego's picture
CYBER LN:

CYBER LN:
You are quoting a manuscript that is a translation of a translation of a translation, copied thousands of times by thousands of people, chunked, dissected, taken apart, put back together, changed, rearranged, thing included, things excluded (at the whim of those in power at any given time) of writings that supposedly came from illiterate people from centuries ago. Hmmm....seems legit.

ALTER2EGO:
I am quoting a manuscript that has proven to be accurately copied throughout the centuries. No attempts by humans to change the message of the Judeo-Christian Bible has been successful. The fact that you believe the Judeo-Christian Bible was written by “illiterate people from centuries ago” shows how fallacious your argument is.

QUESTION #1 to CYBER LN: Are you telling this forum that illiterate people can read and write?

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

Zaphod's picture
Alter2ego, I think Cybers

Alter2ego, I think Cybers point was that originally it was passed around by word of mouth by people who did not read or write, Ever play He Said She Said?

CyberLN's picture
Thx, Z, that is correct.

Thx, Z, that is correct.

CyberLN's picture
Ego, cite this proof you

Ego, cite this proof you speak of that all copies are accurate. Additionally, provide proof that the translations were accurate.

SammyShazaam's picture
There's actually plenty of

There's actually plenty of proof that they are *inaccurate*, or at least certain mistranslations have been isolated and their history has been documented.

Travis Paskiewicz's picture
You should know that your

You should know that your "proofs" are actually "proof" of the Bible's fallacy. The Bible, as the written word of Gawd, was meant to be 100% literal. The book was written to be authoritative. That is to say, not open for interpretation. How can you improve on the words of an all-knowing super being? Bearing this in mind, I can say your proof is badly misinterpreted. Even in greek and hebrew, there are different words for "circle" and "sphere". The choice of the word "circle" over the word "sphere" was not an accident, as the prevailing belief at the time was that the earth was a circular disk ringed with mountains that prevented the oceans from draining off the edges. Kinda like a cosmic Petri dish... anyway, what I'm getting at in a nut shell is that if the bible relies on YOUR interpretation it completely underminds GODS authority on the subject. The damn book was supposed to be written in such a way as to be truth and proof to convince the non-beleiver and guide the faithful. However, in recent years (recent as in the last 600 or so) we now know that the bible was not written or inspired by any divine beings, which explains the logical fallacies of taking it literally, and it really just is the mythology and prevalent beliefs of a 2,000 year old culture of desert donkey herders and star worshippers.

Alter2Ego's picture
TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ:

TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ:
You should know that your "proofs" are actually "proof" of the Bible's fallacy.

ALTER2EGO:
I have not found any fallacies in the Judeo-Christian Bible. I suggest you present the forum with what you claim are Biblical fallacies. Do so by quoting up to four (4) verses of scripture at a time.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ:
The Bible, as the written word of Gawd, was meant to be 100% literal.

ALTER2EGO:
Why? Because you say so? Not only are you wrong, but I can prove it by quoting one single verse of scripture that will prove you wrong. Notice the words that are capitalized in the quotation of the same verse below, from two different Bibles.

"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and PRESENTED IT IN SIGNS through him to his slave John," (Revelation 1:1 – New World Translation)

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and SIGNIFIED IT by his angel to his servant John:” (Revelation 1:1 – King James Version)

QUESTION #1 to TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ: Do you expect something that is presented in signs aka symbolic language to be—as you put it—“100 percent literal”?

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

CyberLN's picture
Your words: "Do so by quoting

Your words: "Do so by quoting up to four (4) verses of scripture at a time."
Interesting directive from you, Ego. Do you want to participate in debate or be the moderator?

Your proof is not proof.

Is the unicorn mentioned in Job (and elsewhere) symbolic? If so, symbolic of what? Why use a symbol in the middle of non symbolic text? If the word unicorn is a mistranslation, then could there be other mistranslations?

If there are mistranslations, how many are there / could there be?

Alter2Ego's picture
TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ:

TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ:
Even in greek and hebrew, there are different words for "circle" and "sphere". The choice of the word "circle" over the word "sphere" was not an accident, as the prevailing belief at the time was that the earth was a circular disk ringed with mountains that prevented the oceans from draining off the edges.

ALTER2EGO:
The prophet Isaiah was giving a VIEWPOINT DESCRIPTION of how earth appears to someone in outer space, thus the use of the Hebrew word Chug. Notice the quotation again.

"There is ONE WHO IS DWELLING ABOVE the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gaze, who spread them out like a tent in which to dwell," (Isaiah 40:22)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ:
However, in recent years (recent as in the last 600 or so) we now know that the bible was not written or inspired by any divine beings, which explains the logical fallacies of taking it literally, and it really just is the mythology and prevalent beliefs of a 2,000 year old culture of desert donkey herders and star worshippers.

ALTER2EGO:
You showed up posting the same tripe as did CyberLN, who likewise claimed that the Bible writers were illiterate. It took the intervention of Zaphod to rescue CyberLN from his/her ridiculous claims about illiterate people having the ability to writing the Bible.

The reality is that included among the writers of the Judeo-Christian Bible were Judges, physicians, and Kings, among them King David. So there goes yours and CyberLN’s fallacious claims about the Bible writers being illiterate donkey herders.

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

CyberLN's picture
Wow. Z didn't rescue me. He

Wow. Z didn't rescue me. He had the ability to hear what I was saying but admittedly left a word or two out. Do you honestly think I don't know the meaning of the word illiterate?
Are you fluent in ancient Hebrew? Ancient Greek?
Do you assert that the words in this book were divinely inspired?

Zaphod's picture
Wow, I don't see conversation

Wow, I don't see conversation going well with Ego here so I am trying to tread lightly, However I will say I was not rescuing Cyber. I was simply explaining to Ego that there was more than one way to understand Cyber's point. And perhaps Cyber was making a point Ego was missing because perhaps Ego was understanding what Cyber said improperly. I was just trying to clarify what one person was saying and the other was missing without getting involved hence the lack of a few words because I was focusing on a certain part rather than the whole point.

CyberLN's picture
I was the one who left out

I was the one who left out the words, Z, not you. I left out that this book has many stories passed around by illiterate people which were later written, rewritten, translated, etc. apologies if I was again unclear. I always appreciate your ability to see thru to the point. My remarks and questions have been directed to Ego. She, however, doesn't seem to want to address them.

Zaphod's picture
Ok, I understand what you

Ok, I understand what you mean I did slightly misunderstand it before I thought you were saying I was not including your whole point.

The thing is with your original point I kind of always did understand what you were saying right from the beginning.

I feel as though Ego has another agenda which may not be to debate with the board if you catch my drift. If ego was here to see your point, discuss it and do the same with their own points respectively, I don't think Ego would attack you so much as try to better understand a point that seemingly does not make sense to Ego with a little thought and open-mindedness I am sure that Ego could have understood your point just as well and not have had to had it spelled out to them. I will say further though, Ego has still even yet to understand what now we have both said clearly enough and is hanging on to their own point. This is a sign of closed-mindedness.

This style of attack and intentional misunderstanding, closed-minded approach and the avoidance of addressing of points is something I will eventually include in a future list of things or flags to look out for when trying to determine if someone is here to debate or has ulterior motive that would be best avoided.

Travis Paskiewicz's picture
I suppose my wording was a

I suppose my wording was a bit satirical and sarcastic. What I should have said was "The first books of the old testament originated from a group of nomadic peoples, that relied heavily upon donkey, goats, sheep, and cattle as a food source and pack animal." Anyway, illiterate was not a word I used. My intent was to bring attention to the poor scientific understanding that was prevalent in such early cultures. With 100% honesty, I can say they were not illiterate, but like most cultures at the time, they had a poor literacy rate of around 4-7% with the vast majority of literate people being being employed in government or religious positions. Anyway, besides political correctness, this first paragraph really doesnt have a purpose, so moving on...

To answer your question #1 (though you didn't ask a second one that would warrant numbering the first question at all), Yes, if you want to claim the bible as a source of factual truth, you must take what little bit of factual assertion that is made and compare it to scientific understanding. For example, The Genesis Creation Myth is one of the few times the bible makes a factual claim. And even if I give the timeline some interpretive wiggle room, the order of events is still wrong.

Scientific observations and principles tells us that any galaxy that forms begins with a cloud of rotating hot gasses. The first thing that forms would be a central star (giving light), which is our sun. following that would be the formation of rocky planets nearest the sun, with planets further away being formed from rock and ice, untill far enough away planets can be formed dominantly of cooled gasses and ice. Finally as the whole system cools, the first formation of water would occur on near planets to the sun, those that could accumulate it with gravitational pull and an atmosphere that was cool enough to stop it from being lost back into space. After the formation of water and temparatures cooled, life can finally form. Starting with the basic cingle celled organisms that use basic chemicals and sunlight for energy. Followed by plants, which essentially do the same, but are multi cellular. Lastly animals that can break down and use other organisms as sustainance. This progression occures over billions of years with humanoids occuring almost 15 million years ago, modern humans making an appearance within the last 400,000 years, and the oldest known societies appearing between 12-14,000 years ago. Compare that to the Genesis Creation Myth:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

All of which occured in six days, and as the geneology of of Jesus Christ to Adam, in the timespan of roughly 6-8 thousand years ago.

Steve's picture
Eratosthenes proved the earth

Eratosthenes proved the earth was a sphere in the third century BCE.

Not only that, but based on his observations, he also calculated our planet's circumference with incredible accuracy.

Far from enlightening humanity about the shape and size of the earth and its place in the universe, it's actually far more likely that centuries of religious dogma played an active role in suppressing knowledge of this kind.

As for prophesies, and other such mumbo-jumbo, surely it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that their fulfilment is guaranteed if someone who's read them subsequently chooses to perform the act so foretold.

I prophesise that I'm going to my local library tomorrow afternoon...

I'll let you know how miraculous my powers of prophesy prove to be.

Debra's picture
Your prophesying that you're

Your prophesying that you're going to the library wouldn't be miraculous. But, if I prophesied you were not only going to the library, but what books you would check out and where you were going after the library, that would be a true prophecy. I argued with a Jehovah Witness about this when she claimed she prophesied her grandson would be tall and he was. I told her she just made a case against the Bible since she had previously said that fulfilled prophecy proved the Bible was Gods word. It's not hard to catch religious people in their own traps if you wait long enough.

Spewer's picture
"...under divine inspiration

"...under divine inspiration Moses wrote that the earth hangs upon nothing (indicating invisible gravity)"

This is evidence against divine inspiration, not for it. "Nothing" and "invisible gravity" are not remotely the same, and one does not indicate the other. Divine inspiration obviously would have guided him to hint at or describe an actual 'something' that was present but invisible. Instead, Moses was more impressed when he thought there wasn't anything holding the planet, so he waxed poetic about it.

Alter2Ego's picture
TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ (previous

TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ (previous comment)::
The Bible, as the written word of Gawd, was meant to be 100% literal.

ALTER2EGO (previous comment):
"A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and PRESENTED IT IN SIGNS through him to his slave John," (Revelation 1:1 – New World Translation)
QUESTION #1 to TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ: Do you expect something that is presented in signs aka symbolic language to be—as you put it—“100 percent literal”?

TRAVIS PASKIEWICZ:
To answer your question #1 (though you didn't ask a second one that would warrant numbering the first question at all), Yes, if you want to claim the bible as a source of factual truth, you must take what little bit of factual assertion that is made and compare it to scientific understanding. For example, The Genesis Creation Myth is one of the few times the bible makes a factual claim. And even if I give the timeline some interpretive wiggle room, the order of events is still wrong.

ALTER2EGO (current reply):
You managed to evade my question, which obviously requires a “yes” or “no” answer. Instead of replying to my question, you decided to change the goal post and tell me that the Genesis creation account does not mesh with “scientific understanding.” What has any of that to do with what I asked you at Question #1?

The book of Revelation starts off in the very first verse telling readers that it will be presented in signs. You made the fallacious claim that the Bible is “100 percent literal,” You were debunked by Revelation 1:1.

I will address your comment about the Genesis creation account in a separate post.

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.