04 Oct 11
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232
She wasn't a virgin... she cheated on her husband and when she became pregnant her excuse was that her pregnancy came from God. Joseph's visions are delusions caused from severe emotional and mental stress because of a scandalous wife.
Now a vote. With the knowledge we have today who thinks that the passage above is a more believable version of events than the biblical version?
She wasn't a virgin... she cheated on her husband and when she became pregnant her excuse was that her pregnancy came from God. Joseph's visions are delusions caused from severe emotional and mental stress because of a scandalous wife.
Now a vote. With the knowledge we have today who thinks that the passage above is a more believable version of events than the biblical version?
Given the tract record of God throughout the history from Genesis, I think the Bible's account is more believable.
Given God's actions in the life of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac in Genesis, Hannah the mother of Samuel in First Samuel and the wife of Monoah the father of Samson in the book of Judges, and the widowed women miraculously aided by the prophet Elisha in Second Kings, and a few prophecies of Christ's coming in the OT, I would say the Bible's account is more believable.
The story somehow has the flavor of similar things done by God in cooperation with His believing saints in ages prior to the virgin birth of the Son of God.
I find that testimony more plausible then the slanderous allegation which was already circulated and unable to hault the spread of the Christian faith in the early centries.
Given God's resume, character, and style, your version is far less likely.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16955
04 Oct 11
Originally posted by tomtom232We already established this almost 4 years ago now. Thread 105705
She wasn't a virgin... she cheated on her husband and when she became pregnant her excuse was that her pregnancy came from God. Joseph's visions are delusions caused from severe emotional and mental stress because of a scandalous wife.
Now a vote. With the knowledge we have today who thinks that the passage above is a more believable version of events than the biblical version?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Oct 11
Originally posted by Trev33Actually it looks like what you had almost 4 years ago was a mud slinging match.
We already established this almost 4 years ago now. Thread 105705
04 Oct 11
Originally posted by tomtom232Well, you should take another good look at your comment and then ask yourself...
She wasn't a virgin... she cheated on her husband and when she became pregnant her excuse was that her pregnancy came from God. Joseph's visions are delusions caused from severe emotional and mental stress because of a scandalous wife.
Now a vote. With the knowledge we have today who thinks that the passage above is a more believable version of events than the biblical version?
Do i trust a single thing that was recorded...ever?
If you believe one single book has truth and facts that was recorded, then the door is open to also believe other books has valid and true content recorded. There are some story books around that will tell you lies like which is given in your post, but this is where people dont recognise the difference of a Holy Book and a story book.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Oct 11
Originally posted by NickstenThe question is not "whether there has anything ever written that is trustworthy?"
Well, you should take another good look at your comment and then ask yourself...
Do i trust a single thing that was recorded...ever?
If you believe one single book has truth and facts that was recorded, then the door is open to also believe other books has valid and true content recorded. There are some story books around that will tell you lies like wh ...[text shortened]... post, but this is where people don't recognise the difference of a Holy Book and a story book.
It's "how do you tell if this is a trustworthy source of information?"
Because if you accept some things, may be trustworthy, and some may not be.
The question is how do you tell which is which.
The important thing for our purposes here is whether the things recorded can be
independently verified.
If yes, then you have a means of checking for trustworthiness.
If no, then there is no means of establishing a sources truth and thus it must be treated
as suspect.
04 Oct 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeTrue, that is why the Holy Bible is considered trustworthy.
The question is not "whether there has anything ever written that is trustworthy?"
It's "how do you tell if this is a trustworthy source of information?"
Because if you accept some things, may be trustworthy, and some may not be.
The question is how do you tell which is which.
The important thing for our purposes here is whether the things reco ...[text shortened]... there is no means of establishing a sources truth and thus it must be treated
as suspect.
05 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou would apply the same tests to the Holy Bible that are applied to
so, How do you tell the bible is trustworthy?
any other ancient literature to deterimine if it is trustworthy.
This has already been done by scholars and the result was that the
Holy Bible tested to be more reliable and trustworthy than any other
ancient literature.
Since we do not have the original documents, the reliablity of the copies
in regard to the number of manuscripts and the time interval between
the original and existing copies were tested against other ancient
manuscripts and it turns out that the manuscripts that make up the
Christian New Testament were the most frequently copied and widely
circulated books and the time interval was also much shorter. And it has
been determined that any minor variants in these many manuscripts of
the New Testament do not affect a single doctrine of scripture. The
slight variant readings in the Hebrew scriptures also does not affect any
doctrine. There is also support for the reliability and trustworthiness of
the Holy Bible from the writings of the early church fathers.
The truth of the writings themselves have been tested and found to be
reliable in every thing that could be tested. Archaeology has confirmed
many things written in the Holy Bible. Many of its writing considered to
be prophecies are believed to have been fulfilled and seems to help
prove its trusthworthiness. So it suggests that other writings that are
considered prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled are also likely to be
fulfilled in the future.
It would take much time and effort to present all the evidence for the
reliablity and trustworthiness of the Holy Bible here. But I think there
are books that do and you could probably look them up if you are really
interested. But I believe with your attitude you would say, "Bull" or
something to that effect.
http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-reliability
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Oct 11
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I won't say bull...
You would apply the same tests to the Holy Bible that are applied to
any other ancient literature to deterimine if it is trustworthy.
This has already been done by scholars and the result was that the
Holy Bible tested to be more reliable and trustworthy than any other
ancient literature.
Since we do not have the original documents, the reliablity ...[text shortened]... d say, "Bull" or
something to that effect.
http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-reliability
However the point of the bible is not the same as any other ancient literature.
The fact that some of the places in the bible have been found by archaeologists
says nothing about the truth of the stories set in them.
The import of the bible is the miracles it contains.
And those require a different standard of proof.
Which is not met.
heh, and the people in that link don't understand statistics or probability.
05 Oct 11
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudge
No, I won't say bull...
However the point of the bible is not the same as any other ancient literature.
The fact that some of the places in the bible have been found by archaeologists
says nothing about the truth of the stories set in them.
The import of the bible is the miracles it contains.
And those require a different standard of proof. ...[text shortened]... s not met.
heh, and the people in that link don't understand statistics or probability.
The import of the bible is the miracles it contains.
And those require a different standard of proof.
Which is not met.
There are books of history which contain no miracles. The books covering the return of a remnant of Jews from Babylon to recover the occupation of the Good Land contain no miracles but a lot of faith and hard work.
That is Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah , (Zechariah does have some visions in it).
This is a period of history of the nation of Israel which is without any apparent miraculous interventions from God.
Now to the problem of extraordinary proof. This can be a kind of endless argument. That is because when extraordinary proof is given then the requestor can repetively ask for more extraordinary proof to prove that extraordinary proof, on and on, ad infinitum.
The requirement of extraordinary proof can become a constant moving of the goal post, ie. proof of the proof of the proof of the proof (more and more extraordinary).