The validity of the Bible

87 posts / 0 new
Last post
JACKSON5's picture
The validity of the Bible

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.

Tin-Man's picture
Not clicking on the link. You

Not clicking on the link. You're gonna have to express a bit more of your own views, bud.

CyberLN's picture
Touché, Tin.

Touché, Tin.

NewSkeptic's picture
Oh boy, Answers in Genesis.

Oh boy, Answers in Genesis. Isn't that related to our buddy the Hamster? All the non-science fit to print.

If that's what you got MJ the pedophile, you might just wanna try something else, or actually get a real education.

BTW, regular forum readers, Leo here is a classic drive-by. He posts his "authoritative" drivel and then when challenged does not respond, most likely due to not being able to construct a coherent thought of his own. Your mileage may (or likely may not) vary.

JACKSON5's picture
You really are funny. Even if

You really are funny. Even if it's not my original argument, I understand enough of it to defend it. And no one here has offered any refutation to the article. What more do I need to say?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Argument 1 was that the bible

Argument 1 was that the bible is unique. Well duh, all books are unique.

Argument 2 was that some of the physical places described in the bible are real. Big deal, NYC is real, but that doesn't make Spider-man non-fiction.

Argument 3 was about the continuity between the stories in the bible. What that establishes is that the New Testament was written by people familiar with the Old Testament; but we already knew that!

That article isn't designed to convince the skeptic, it is designed to convince those who already believe. Don't expect it to resonate here.

CyberLN's picture
Jacksonfive, you wrote, “I

Jacksonfive, you wrote, “I understand enough of it to defend it. And no one here has offered any refutation to the article.”

Well, Mr. Five, why don’t you go ahead and defend it. You are the one offering an assertion, therefore, the onus to defend it rests squarely upon your shoulders. No one here needs to offer any refutation if they don’t care to do so.

It’s up to you...give us your best!

Sheldon's picture
no one here has offered any

no one here has offered any refutation to the article. What more do I need to say?

Its risible nonsense, theres nothing to refute.
1) The bible's content is unique among holy books

No it fucking isn't, and even if it were, so fucking what?

2) The bible is confirmed by archaeology.

Hahahahahahaha, the exact opposite is true, no archeological or geological evidence for a global flood, and to date despite decades of searching, the best archaeologists in the world have had to admit there isn't a shred of
archeological evidence that the Jews were ever in Egypt as claimed in Exodus. Just where the archeological evidence is for genesis the link doesn't say, but that risible myth is contradicted by multiple scientific facts from biology to cosmology, and even genetics.

3. The bible is confirmed by God's promise.

You are fucking kidding right, that's a blatant argument from assertion fallacy.

What's more you have form for this bullshit, coming here and emptying your bowels into a thread OP, then slithering a way unwilling and unable to defend your risible claims against proper scrutiny.

You're probably trolling, but you're not even very good at that.

NewSkeptic's picture


Yep, you got us. I'm on my knees now begging forgiveness for my arrogance.

Here's a few gems from AIG:

"Either the rock record is the evidence of millions of years, or it is largely the evidence of Noah’s Flood"

"The earth is only a few thousand years old. That’s a fact, plainly revealed in God’s Word. So we should expect to find plenty of evidence for its youth. And that’s what we find in the earth’s geology, biology, paleontology, and even astronomy."

There are too many others, equally laughable, to print.

For a concise debunking of all this nonsense,

Dworkin's picture


I find astronomy to be a real puzzle for theists. If there was a human centred creator, then why all that other stuff?? Maybe that's why theists have little so say about galaxies?


Homergreg's picture
There are whole branches of

There are whole branches of religious study called Astrotheology and Exotheology that explore not only the fact that there are an incredible number of galaxies and how that impacts belief, but also the very high possibility that intelligence exists on other worlds.

I'm not saying everyone believes the same in this area, just that many theists look at science with acceptance vs some who believe the world has to be around 4000 years old.

Dworkin's picture
Homer, Good points. D.


Good points.


Sheldon's picture


Just because a theist accepts scientific facts, that doesn't remotely validate their woo woo superstition. It's as if they expect some kudos for not denying objective scientific fact. Maybe some theists recognise how risible YECs look with the type of claims Jackson5 has just linked, but ultimately despite seeing how preposterous their denials of scientific fact are, you still believe in an unevidenced unfalsifiable sky fairy, you can't accurately define, and that has no explanatory powers whatsoever beyond the glib goddidit.

Accepting objective scientific fact doesn't deserve a pat on the back, and it doesn't remotely alter the fact that swathes of religious claims are contradicted by those facts, which you are happy to wave away.

Homergreg's picture
The guy asked a question. I

The guy asked a question. I gave him the answer.

Sheldon's picture
Homer "The guy asked a

Homer "The guy asked a question. I gave him the answer"

Then I commented on your answer.

Any thoughts on the content, or did you just want to outline the blindingly obvious timeline of the responses for us?

Homergreg's picture
Yes, but they would take the

Yes, but they would take the conversation further and further from the question that was asked. And I have no desire to so.

Thanks for asking though.

Sheldon's picture


Yes, I think we've all noticed your lack of desire in addressing specifics about your beliefs. Though it is baffling why you felt the need to respond to my post, only to tell me you had no desire to respond to my post.

FWIW my post directly addressed the content of yours, the idea a discussion has to adhere strictly to the thread OP is absurd, and I believe you've been here long enough to know better as well.

However if you prefer to avoid the comments on your beliefs ou find difficult to answer that's up to you.

The idea theists who don't flatly deny scientific facts, in the bat shit crazy way creationists like Jackson5 has here, hold a more rational belief in a deity, simply isn't true though, which was the point I was making.

I think religion and science are always at odds, because science doesn't allow for eithercunevidenced truth, or the idea there is any such thing as absolute truth.

Some scientists manage the cognitive dissonance, but I've yet to see a credible justification of how.

Whitefire13's picture
NewSkeptic beat me to it!

NewSkeptic beat me to it!

I didn’t “click” ...form your own argument for one point.

I was going to just post a talkorgin link :)

Tit for tat.

dogalmighty's picture
I am not clicking the link. I

I am not clicking the link. I will however, listen to your, or whoever's best argument, written in text.

I am entirely tired of theistic drive by, shit and run, posts.

If you can formulate a sentence, or even cut and so. Otherwise go shit post somewhere else.

I will though, ask you to present anything that has been validated, without objective evidence.

boomer47's picture


Self promotion is not allowed.

Kindly post your own opinions or go away, there's a good chap. (pats head in the most condescending way I can)


Cognostic's picture
@Validity: The quality of

@Validity: The quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency.
"one might question the validity of our data"

SOUNDNESS: The quality of being based on valid reason or good judgment.

There is no "Soundness" or "Good Reason" offered in the collective texts of the bible. Anything that may seem reasonable in one book or one chapter is directly contradicted in another. The Book is a collection of 27 tribal Iron Age texts (Referencing The New Testament Only, Which directly contradicts the Old Testament) and these texts are written at different times, in different places, and for different audiences. Jesus himself, the topic of discussion in the texts, appears with completely different personalities in different texts. There is no consistency throughout any of the books and certainly no validity or soundness. NONE.

algebe's picture


The Bible is a collection of poorly translated and frequently plagiarized texts chosen by a committee. The "Answers in Genitals" page claims that the Bible's unique because it was written over many years by numerous authors. The Japanese can make the same claim about their Kojiki.

Grinseed's picture

From your OP it is supposed that when you die and go to your expected judgment before your god you will have a relevant Microsoft Powerpoint presentation ready by the lake of fire, so that God won't think you are a goat. Do not offer him a url link.

Just to show you how discussion and debate works here on AR I offer the following rebuttal on a single item in your generous copy'n'paste of a url which you offer as a claim to the depth, width and strength of your faith in your glorious god who must be really impressed with your witness to his ineffable glory...a website reference...*sigh

Isaiah 7:14 is one of the most Christian abused verses of the Old Testament.
Isaiah 7:14 was the prophecy meant for King Azah of Judah (c. 730 BC), a prediction Isaiah made about his deliverance from the rival kingdoms of Syria and Israel through their invasion by Assyria.
There is no direct reference to a baby being born 700 years later. The baby referred to is to be named "Emmanuel" which means "God is with us", a most comforting idea for a king in fear of an invasion.
In fact only several verses later, Isaiah 8:3 Isaiah has sex with his wife "the prophetess" with witnesses (kinky)and before the son born of this union "shall have knowledge to cry" (good and bad) Assyria will take care of Ahaz's foes.
The boy was named Maher-shalah-hash-baz, "swift are the spoils, speedy is the plunder" which adequately describes the short sharp plunder of Assyrian forces in the state of Israel and in Syria.
And in case you overlooked it "Jesus" is never mentioned.
And in the end Isaiah's prophecy did not guarantee a complete deliverance. Ahaz became a vassal of Assryria, paying tribute to avoid annihilation. It seems the deliverance was achieved by going "belly up".

This verse is also the origin of the fatuous virgin myth where almah (a maiden) was translated as betulah (a virgin). The original Hebrew text used the word "almah".

Now Jackson5, I have taken time out of my day to read, consider and answer your OP or rather Mr Ham's Answers in Genesis article. Your glib and easy url reference contains a multitude of claims, you apparently can't be arsed enough to discuss or debate yourself. Click and paste witnessing just doesn't reveal what you believe or think, only what Mr Ham does.
Because of time restraints and a sense of being insulted by your indifferent and casual brevity I answered, in my own words, only the one reference to the Isaiah prophecy. I did so with my own research and without resort to parroting predigested third party opinions. I researched the KJV Bible, the Orthodox Jewish Bible, the Webster and Macquarie dictionaries and summarised some observations from independent sites.
Do you think you might spend just a little time responding and preferably without another lame cut and paste effort?
Otherwise I am done.

edited because I am such a spelling Nazi..

Sheldon's picture


Bravo sir, you if I may say, are on fire, and not in the religious satan pitchfork Hell and damnation way either.

MTheory's picture


Yale Divinity has launched a Free Public Bible Study. Professor Joel Baden was instrumental in implementing this project. Take the challenge. Are you smarter than an Ivy League Biblical Scholar?

*Spoiler Alert* There is absolutely Nothing divine about the bible. It was written by unknown authors over the course of centuries. Most Ivy League biblical scholars state they do Not believe in Supernatural Jesus. Also, the devil isn't anymore real than the boogeyman. 666 stands for Caesar Nero not Satan.

Cognostic's picture
@Jackson 5: Are you smarter

@Jackson 5: Are you smarter than an Ivy League Biblical Scholar? If he believes that a God exists and has no evidence for the existence of that thing beyond fallacious apologetics and an ancient book of claims.... "YES!" Why don't you give him a ring and find out what indisputable evidence he has for the God he believes in. I would love to hear it.

Sheldon's picture


That's not evidence it's a link.

I've just checked all the major global news networks, this "evidence" isn't mentioned anywhere?

Anyone else find it odd this paradigm shifting discovery of evidence always breaks on here first? Then months later none of the atheist posters managed to see any evidence presented, despite the protestations by theists it's been presented?

Let's try putting that clapped out theist pony in front of their cart for once...

Please present the most compelling objective evidence you have for believing any deity is real?

Whitefire13's picture is a “run by is a “run by fruiting” - cleared his “conscious” by letting us know about this hidden site ....laughable!!!!

Jesus is ashamed!

Sorta like Fauci when Trump talked...


Attach Image/Video?: 

Sheldon's picture
He seems to turn up, preach

He seems to turn up, preach to the heathens, then leave. Maybe he's struggling with the concept of debate, some theist do get very precious when their spiel is picked apart critically.

NewSkeptic's picture
So, JackO responds once when

So, JackO responds once when I say he is a drive by, just to say no one directly addressed his precious Hamster link.

Then, a bunch of people do address the "arguments" the Hamman presents, and we hear


JACKSON5's picture
Would any of you believe if

Would any of you believe if the Bible is true?


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.