Have you ever read the Bible lady? The more you speak the dumber you look. Hopefully God will open you mind, if not you will believe one day, but it will be to late. if you read the Bible you are in it...
"were talking about something from thousands of years ago, from a completely different culture..."
Another popular genetic fallacy. What does the time of the Bible's authorship have anything to do with whether or not it's true? You know the Old Testament forbids murder, theft, and adultery, so do you want to say that those things aren't wrong because it was written "thousands of years ago, from a completely different culture..."? Cherry picking much?
Hello Jesus still does meracls why don't you say that and people that have died and saw Jesus and came back to life. There are atheist that died and saw hell and came back to life.
@TheReformedapologist Josephus lived from 37 - 100 AD. He wasn't an eyewitness, and it's not clear how he knew about jesus. Most probable is that he heard from word of mouth, or the two brief passages were edited in by christians. I'd like to know about the other secular writers.
@MythicalManMoth Finally someone with an argument. Josephus could not be an eyewitness. I glossed over that part of your statement in error. For Josephus to report Jesus's miracles and resurrection as fact from second-hand information speaks volumes. On what basis do we disregard his statements as
"edited in"? Your requirements for what the evidence should be are an arbitrary presuppositional bias.
@TheReformedapologist Quite a few people have questioned whether Josephus actually wrote the two paragraphs about Jesus, whether he did or not isn't really important to me - the fact that someone wrote a couple of paragraphs about Jesus decades after his death does not "speak volumes" when we don't know where the source of his information came from. If the ultimate source was the people who were inventing the miraculous stories in the bible, then it doesn't give any credence to the bible.
@MythicalManMoth But even disregarding that, the massive absence of any writing about Jesus while he still lived is very suspicious. This is a man performing miracles, turning water into wine. But not a single person recorded their accounts of how they met him, what he looked like, and what he did (not including the bible of course, becaue that is what I'm contesting).
@MythicalManMoth Did the authorities at the time want this information communicated? The surviving documents are what we would expect to see in light of history as we understand it. The persecuted church preserved the documents as best they could. Secular writers who were antagonistic to Christianity conceded the elements that I stated...the sun going dark, etc. This is "enemy attestation", or those in opposition unwittingly revealing certain truths. I will post the references later.
@TheReformedapologist Some bible scholars theorize that there are lost documents, such as the "Q" document, etc. It's what they contained that people will argue about. Still, the canonical gospel books are the most accurate and reliable histories of Jesus's life that survive.
@MythicalManMoth You'll have to show me evidence that it was not Josephus. In the meantime, I will stand on the authority of Josephus as a historian for this particular piece of evidence. Josephus was writing history, not offering an opinion.
@TheReformedapologist There's a reference on the wikipedia page about Josephus to a published article about it, that should get you started. But to me, it's not important, what's important is how credible the information is, and whether it was written by Josephus or not doesn't change the fact we don't know what the source of information was - it could be 20th hand information, which is not reliable.
@MythicalManMoth Please explain why you don't think "20th hand information...is not reliable". Reliability is not simply based on how many generations are between the original and the extant information but on the facts that show credibility. A MSS like that of the Scroll of Isaiah has shown that 1000 years of transmission is incredibly reliable.
@TruthDefenders Actually the more generations there are, the more chance there is of corruption somewhere along the line. This is actually known by historians, and because of this historians rely on primary sources as much as possible. Read the "historical method" page on Wikipedia, or any good encyclopaedia.
@MythicalManMoth I did not question the possibility of corruption over generations, I questioned your quick assumption that 20 generations is "not reliable". That's why I said that you must let the facts speak for themselves. I understand that primary sources come first, but that was not in question here, your assumption is what i questioned.
@MythicalManMoth Then you did not answer my question properly, because I was not questioning 'the possibility of corruption" I was questioning your rush to deem something unreliable just because it has gone through "20th hand information" (generations). I asked for you to tell me why with out proof you would claim something is unreliable just because it has gone though many generations of copies. You see it is also possible that it was maintained in perfect form. you need to examine the facts.
@TruthDefenders I agree that it is possible to be maintained in perfect form, yet on the whole information that is so derived shouldn't be trusted, historians know this which is why it's part of the historical method.
@MythicalManMoth Thank you for the transaction, but i think i'm failing to get you to see the point I think you made and how I responded to it. One more try then I need to terminate this exchange. Ok, again you say that "information that is so derived shouldn't be trusted" WHY NOT, just like that? Arbitrarily? Now, if you would say that after much scrutiny and scholarly review document x was found to be unreliable I would have no problem if the facts are presented. ...
@MythicalManMoth But you seem to think that the fact that a document is old/ancient and has gone through many copies that alone is enough to make unreliable. I say no, test it, examine it, and prove it, then if the facts show that the document does indeed prove to be unreliable we know why and where.
@TruthDefenders If you disagree with what I'm saying then you disagree with the historical method. I'm not being arbitrary here, it's what the experts in the field say - and it makes sense (so I suggest the 'exchange' was long over before it even started). What you are saying about testing really comes down to primary sources, and if primary sources were relied upon then that would confirm that the secondary sources were accurate.
@MythicalManMoth Well it looks like if I say that 'you simply don't understand the method yourself' (of using primary sources in history) that this will turn into a battle of insults and belittling. So lest this degrade to such infantile tactics I simply suggest that you review the comments from the start. You have missed the point, you did not see your rush to judgment, and you misunderstood my replies. Study the methods for textual criticism, good luck.
I stopped watching at 6:28 because of the background noise. Listen you never addressed what she was talking about. She said something like "just telling a story is not evidence of that story being true." You went sideways about whether she had checked out other stories, but she was responding to YOUR assertions.
Weak. You have not addressed why your particular story has any merit other to assert that it does.
You are good at arguing, not so good about the truth.
66 books written by more than 40 authors on three different continents over the course of 1500 years, making claims that no collection of books should make, predicting the future, telling the truth about the history of the universe and the nature of man, irrefutable and immutable. Yeah, that's circular reasoning alright...
Basically what this lady was saying was: The Bible isn't true because it's not! Don't try to confuse me with the facts!
Good job Dave in holding her accountable to her assumptions and fallacious aim in her questions and objections. It looks like things haven't blown up and burned down in my absence. Vacation is good so far...
@1tmoch What assumptions did she make? She was simply stating that all you have is some old scripts and that they shouldn't be enough to convince anyone who is rational.
@Itrytotestify Almost right! People can write fiction, and there's no physical supporting evidence, nor any extra-biblical eye witness accounts of the miracles therefore it's not reasonable to assume it's true.
Poor Evidence? LOL. All they have to do is read the Holy Bible. Yes they have the witnesses. Also we have the historical evidence. Also the prophetic evidence. Also scientific evidence that most people over look when they read the bible. For example, Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Also the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Light is made up of 7 colors that can be parted. Sir Issac Newton discovered it about 400 yrs agol
@taoistwarrior It was long ago theorised that matter was composed of atoms/particles, even dating back to Greek civilisation. It was also known the earth is a sphere before Jesus was born. The part about light being divided is actually a question, not a statement and it's translated to "lightning" in the New International Version. So if you think what you just said is evidence, you have pitifully low standards.
@MythicalManMoth אֹ֑ור means light in Hebrew. Read King James. The word "lighting" was not used. NIV is not authoritative in Christian circles. KJV is standard. Isaiah dates back about 6 century BCE. The Greeks didn't find out it was round until 340BC. It was known as fact way before them. About matter. The First Law of Thermodynamics read about it. Then look in Genesis 2:1-2. These principles were already known to the Hebrews of the Bible.(Continue)
@taoistwarrior the NASB is the standard study bible of evangelical scholars to my understanding. KJV is popular still but it's only the standard in KJV onlyist tribes.
@MythicalManMoth I agree that it is poor evidence to just rely on scientific facts that were revealed in the Bible BECAUSE the BIBLE is about how God did things in the past and will do in the future. But also it is about him keeping his promise to send Jesus to save the world thru his blood. But to know if its true or not. We have to examine the historical evidence,witnesses, prophetic evidence. Once we take in these factors a case is made. That this Bible is the Word of God
@taoistwarrior We examine the historical evidence (what historical evidence apart from the scriptures?). Witnesses (what witnesses, apart from the scriptures nobody wrote about jesus till decades after his death?). Prophetic evidence: If the miracles describe in the bible didn't happen, many of the prophecies weren't fulfilled. There are some that don't refer to events in the bible, but they are usually very vague. The bible is the word of man.
You completely avoided the lady's point. You claimed the bible makes extra-ordinary claims and then use the bible to support these claims: This is circular logic. Extra Ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
If the bible is absolute 'truth' then it is not necessary to be a biblical scholar to disputes its validity. If one passage is not true then the whole bible must be considered false.
@sgentlemanjack112 I never claimed the bible was false, please re-read my statement. I guess you do not understand the burden of proof. It is theist who claims the bible is true who has to provide evidence, not the skeptic.
Although anyone who can seriously believe the story of Noah is true and not a metaphor is really lacking a grasp on reality so they should probably be excused.
@OWC2000 If U went to the Library, took out 66 books from 40 different authors that were written at different times over a span of 1500 to 2000 yrs,no one could right fully accuse U of "circular" reasoning. If U somehow bound them all together in 1 volume( a bible,which literally means collection of books/scrolls) U still could not be rightly accused. Questioning its validity confidently is not same as disputing. Scholar no- ignorant no. Evidential examination does have criteria / rules.
@OWC2000 The Bible is not a person that can make claims. It's a collection of books containing eyewitness testimony and the testimonies are the claims being made. It doesn't need external evidence, but the fact that there is external evidence doesn't hurt the case.
@TheReformedapologist You clearly do not know your biblical history, the bible is not eyewitness testimony, it is hearsay of hearsay written decades after the supposed events: So yes it certainly does need external evidence, of which there is none.
@OWC2000 It depends what you mean by "written." The autographs were written by the apostles and their associates. Textual transmission is a separate issue. If you want to discuss the extant manuscripts, they comprise one of the "evidences" that you claim does not exist. Yet, we cannot examine the manuscipts unless they exist. They do exist and they vindicate my claims.
@OWC2000 There's not a place that has every single page obviously, but I can show you one for example. Some people have been nice enough to scan all the pages of codex sinaiticus and put it online. This is one of the earliest "full manuscripts" which means it has all the books of the bible. There are fragmentary manuscripts older than this. I put the link above in the description box of the video.
@MythicalManMoth Sure, its not hard 2 build a strawman& then knock it down. She makes claims/arguments against methods of gathering biblical knowledge that R assumed on her part. I have suggested experts on manuscript evidence, amongst other things,but she is not interested. She likes her strawman approach. I would have argued differently in some parts but Dave did call her out 2 give evidence/ proof (which for an atheist changes meaning when confronted with evidence). I'm bearded guy in video
@all4Hisgloryalone She said that all you have is very old words, and that's very true. There's no evidence outside of he scriptures that the miracles described in the bible actually occurred - even for events that would have left masses of evidence (for example the great flood). The first extra-biblical mention of Jesus (as far as I know) was by Josephus and that was decades and decades after the death. That alone should make you question the truth of it.
@MythicalManMoth Again just stating what u have said is not evidence. I do appreciate "as far as I know".There R experts in manuscript & history you can contact & the time frame of the books of the bible is known.New testament shows that there was an awareness of authorship of old testament books by people living& they quoted from them. Many books were written by direct disciples of Jesus. Are U consistent how U gather,validate,examine all historical evidences? Existence of George Washington?
@all4Hisgloryalone Of course what I said isn't evidence. I was stating how there is a LACK of evidence, which is true. It's not reasonable to assume something miraculous actually happened if there is no good evidence (it requires more than a few old scripts to convince a rational person). I haven't researched George Washingtons existence, but I'm happy to believe he did exist. If he performed miracles then I would question his existence, and look for evidence of the miracles. Thank you.
@MythicalManMoth U "are happy 2 believe he did exist" So your "feelings" determine whats true. Gee I believe because validity of eyewitness accounts& documentation,etc. U have shown, like most Atheist, that what is "reasonable" 2 U has nothing 2 do with reasoning through evidences / proofs offered, but automatic rejection based on what U feel is reasonable. Pure subjective not objective examination.I was refuting ""circular" not validating by age or number. U understand logical argumentation?
@all4Hisgloryalone I didn't expect anyone to take that sentence literally, what I meant is that I have no reason to assume that George Washington didn't exist. It has nothing to do with emotion. I do have reason to assume that the absurdities didn't happen in the bible because no one has good evidence that the things that are described are even possible. Examination of evidence will always be subjective to some degree. Yes, I understand logical argumentation, I'm actually a software engineer.
The deal is that if the Bible isn't true, she can't even make sense of anything. Hit her with some presuppositional apologetic!
MrLevel42fan 2 weeks ago
Have you ever read the Bible lady? The more you speak the dumber you look. Hopefully God will open you mind, if not you will believe one day, but it will be to late. if you read the Bible you are in it...
dcoxkaty 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Pathetic old hag is she.
SanityIsSuchADrag 5 months ago
"were talking about something from thousands of years ago, from a completely different culture..."
Another popular genetic fallacy. What does the time of the Bible's authorship have anything to do with whether or not it's true? You know the Old Testament forbids murder, theft, and adultery, so do you want to say that those things aren't wrong because it was written "thousands of years ago, from a completely different culture..."? Cherry picking much?
payn3a91 6 months ago
Does she have a paper in her hands. Wonder why...Nothing but letters on a page...She must be hateful
parrishstuckey1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can anyone tell me how god has a son?
honeyblossom17 7 months ago
Hello Jesus still does meracls why don't you say that and people that have died and saw Jesus and came back to life. There are atheist that died and saw hell and came back to life.
ada2step 7 months ago
@TheReformedapologist Josephus lived from 37 - 100 AD. He wasn't an eyewitness, and it's not clear how he knew about jesus. Most probable is that he heard from word of mouth, or the two brief passages were edited in by christians. I'd like to know about the other secular writers.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Finally someone with an argument. Josephus could not be an eyewitness. I glossed over that part of your statement in error. For Josephus to report Jesus's miracles and resurrection as fact from second-hand information speaks volumes. On what basis do we disregard his statements as
"edited in"? Your requirements for what the evidence should be are an arbitrary presuppositional bias.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist Quite a few people have questioned whether Josephus actually wrote the two paragraphs about Jesus, whether he did or not isn't really important to me - the fact that someone wrote a couple of paragraphs about Jesus decades after his death does not "speak volumes" when we don't know where the source of his information came from. If the ultimate source was the people who were inventing the miraculous stories in the bible, then it doesn't give any credence to the bible.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth But even disregarding that, the massive absence of any writing about Jesus while he still lived is very suspicious. This is a man performing miracles, turning water into wine. But not a single person recorded their accounts of how they met him, what he looked like, and what he did (not including the bible of course, becaue that is what I'm contesting).
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Did the authorities at the time want this information communicated? The surviving documents are what we would expect to see in light of history as we understand it. The persecuted church preserved the documents as best they could. Secular writers who were antagonistic to Christianity conceded the elements that I stated...the sun going dark, etc. This is "enemy attestation", or those in opposition unwittingly revealing certain truths. I will post the references later.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist Some bible scholars theorize that there are lost documents, such as the "Q" document, etc. It's what they contained that people will argue about. Still, the canonical gospel books are the most accurate and reliable histories of Jesus's life that survive.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth You'll have to show me evidence that it was not Josephus. In the meantime, I will stand on the authority of Josephus as a historian for this particular piece of evidence. Josephus was writing history, not offering an opinion.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
Comment removed
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist There's a reference on the wikipedia page about Josephus to a published article about it, that should get you started. But to me, it's not important, what's important is how credible the information is, and whether it was written by Josephus or not doesn't change the fact we don't know what the source of information was - it could be 20th hand information, which is not reliable.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Please explain why you don't think "20th hand information...is not reliable". Reliability is not simply based on how many generations are between the original and the extant information but on the facts that show credibility. A MSS like that of the Scroll of Isaiah has shown that 1000 years of transmission is incredibly reliable.
Have a nice day :)
TruthDefenders 9 months ago
@TruthDefenders Actually the more generations there are, the more chance there is of corruption somewhere along the line. This is actually known by historians, and because of this historians rely on primary sources as much as possible. Read the "historical method" page on Wikipedia, or any good encyclopaedia.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth I did not question the possibility of corruption over generations, I questioned your quick assumption that 20 generations is "not reliable". That's why I said that you must let the facts speak for themselves. I understand that primary sources come first, but that was not in question here, your assumption is what i questioned.
Have a nice day :)
TruthDefenders 9 months ago
@TruthDefenders The possibility of corruption over generations was the answer I gave to your question.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Then you did not answer my question properly, because I was not questioning 'the possibility of corruption" I was questioning your rush to deem something unreliable just because it has gone through "20th hand information" (generations). I asked for you to tell me why with out proof you would claim something is unreliable just because it has gone though many generations of copies. You see it is also possible that it was maintained in perfect form. you need to examine the facts.
TruthDefenders 9 months ago
@TruthDefenders I agree that it is possible to be maintained in perfect form, yet on the whole information that is so derived shouldn't be trusted, historians know this which is why it's part of the historical method.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Thank you for the transaction, but i think i'm failing to get you to see the point I think you made and how I responded to it. One more try then I need to terminate this exchange. Ok, again you say that "information that is so derived shouldn't be trusted" WHY NOT, just like that? Arbitrarily? Now, if you would say that after much scrutiny and scholarly review document x was found to be unreliable I would have no problem if the facts are presented. ...
SEE NEXT POST
TruthDefenders 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth But you seem to think that the fact that a document is old/ancient and has gone through many copies that alone is enough to make unreliable. I say no, test it, examine it, and prove it, then if the facts show that the document does indeed prove to be unreliable we know why and where.
Have a nice day :)
TruthDefenders 9 months ago
@TruthDefenders If you disagree with what I'm saying then you disagree with the historical method. I'm not being arbitrary here, it's what the experts in the field say - and it makes sense (so I suggest the 'exchange' was long over before it even started). What you are saying about testing really comes down to primary sources, and if primary sources were relied upon then that would confirm that the secondary sources were accurate.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Well it looks like if I say that 'you simply don't understand the method yourself' (of using primary sources in history) that this will turn into a battle of insults and belittling. So lest this degrade to such infantile tactics I simply suggest that you review the comments from the start. You have missed the point, you did not see your rush to judgment, and you misunderstood my replies. Study the methods for textual criticism, good luck.
Have a nice day :)
TruthDefenders 9 months ago
@TruthDefenders allahaleg is a great channel
matrixlone 7 months ago
@TruthDefenders You should play 'Chinese whispers' a few times - that might help you understand where I'm coming from.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
I stopped watching at 6:28 because of the background noise. Listen you never addressed what she was talking about. She said something like "just telling a story is not evidence of that story being true." You went sideways about whether she had checked out other stories, but she was responding to YOUR assertions.
Weak. You have not addressed why your particular story has any merit other to assert that it does.
You are good at arguing, not so good about the truth.
joestfrancois 9 months ago
@joestfrancois Then watch the whole thing.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist The New Testament writers don't claim to be "just telling a story." That's my refutation.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist
It does not matter what they claim, is there any evidence to back the story up?
(I wasn't trying to be a dillrod either, you street guys make good vids but sometimes the noise is just too annoying.)
joestfrancois 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist ur about 2 get owned
scheme86 9 months ago
@scheme86 In what way?
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
66 books written by more than 40 authors on three different continents over the course of 1500 years, making claims that no collection of books should make, predicting the future, telling the truth about the history of the universe and the nature of man, irrefutable and immutable. Yeah, that's circular reasoning alright...
Basically what this lady was saying was: The Bible isn't true because it's not! Don't try to confuse me with the facts!
Doulos7608 9 months ago
Good job Dave in holding her accountable to her assumptions and fallacious aim in her questions and objections. It looks like things haven't blown up and burned down in my absence. Vacation is good so far...
1tmoch 9 months ago
@1tmoch What assumptions did she make? She was simply stating that all you have is some old scripts and that they shouldn't be enough to convince anyone who is rational.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
People can write fiction, therefore Scripture is untrue... Hmm...
Itrytotestify 9 months ago
@Itrytotestify Almost right! People can write fiction, and there's no physical supporting evidence, nor any extra-biblical eye witness accounts of the miracles therefore it's not reasonable to assume it's true.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
Poor Evidence? LOL. All they have to do is read the Holy Bible. Yes they have the witnesses. Also we have the historical evidence. Also the prophetic evidence. Also scientific evidence that most people over look when they read the bible. For example, Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Also the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Light is made up of 7 colors that can be parted. Sir Issac Newton discovered it about 400 yrs agol
taoistwarrior 9 months ago
@taoistwarrior It was long ago theorised that matter was composed of atoms/particles, even dating back to Greek civilisation. It was also known the earth is a sphere before Jesus was born. The part about light being divided is actually a question, not a statement and it's translated to "lightning" in the New International Version. So if you think what you just said is evidence, you have pitifully low standards.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth אֹ֑ור means light in Hebrew. Read King James. The word "lighting" was not used. NIV is not authoritative in Christian circles. KJV is standard. Isaiah dates back about 6 century BCE. The Greeks didn't find out it was round until 340BC. It was known as fact way before them. About matter. The First Law of Thermodynamics read about it. Then look in Genesis 2:1-2. These principles were already known to the Hebrews of the Bible.(Continue)
taoistwarrior 9 months ago
@taoistwarrior the NASB is the standard study bible of evangelical scholars to my understanding. KJV is popular still but it's only the standard in KJV onlyist tribes.
HoParoikos 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth I agree that it is poor evidence to just rely on scientific facts that were revealed in the Bible BECAUSE the BIBLE is about how God did things in the past and will do in the future. But also it is about him keeping his promise to send Jesus to save the world thru his blood. But to know if its true or not. We have to examine the historical evidence,witnesses, prophetic evidence. Once we take in these factors a case is made. That this Bible is the Word of God
taoistwarrior 9 months ago
@taoistwarrior We examine the historical evidence (what historical evidence apart from the scriptures?). Witnesses (what witnesses, apart from the scriptures nobody wrote about jesus till decades after his death?). Prophetic evidence: If the miracles describe in the bible didn't happen, many of the prophecies weren't fulfilled. There are some that don't refer to events in the bible, but they are usually very vague. The bible is the word of man.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
You do seem to be right about the lightning, I wonder what the reason is that they translated it that way.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
You completely avoided the lady's point. You claimed the bible makes extra-ordinary claims and then use the bible to support these claims: This is circular logic. Extra Ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence.
If the bible is absolute 'truth' then it is not necessary to be a biblical scholar to disputes its validity. If one passage is not true then the whole bible must be considered false.
OWC2000 9 months ago
@OWC2000 every passage is true.
] Care to provide evidence for your extra-ordinary claim that the bible is false?
sgentlemanjack112 9 months ago
@sgentlemanjack112 I never claimed the bible was false, please re-read my statement. I guess you do not understand the burden of proof. It is theist who claims the bible is true who has to provide evidence, not the skeptic.
Although anyone who can seriously believe the story of Noah is true and not a metaphor is really lacking a grasp on reality so they should probably be excused.
OWC2000 9 months ago
Comment removed
all4Hisgloryalone 9 months ago
@OWC2000 If U went to the Library, took out 66 books from 40 different authors that were written at different times over a span of 1500 to 2000 yrs,no one could right fully accuse U of "circular" reasoning. If U somehow bound them all together in 1 volume( a bible,which literally means collection of books/scrolls) U still could not be rightly accused. Questioning its validity confidently is not same as disputing. Scholar no- ignorant no. Evidential examination does have criteria / rules.
all4Hisgloryalone 9 months ago
@OWC2000 The Bible is not a person that can make claims. It's a collection of books containing eyewitness testimony and the testimonies are the claims being made. It doesn't need external evidence, but the fact that there is external evidence doesn't hurt the case.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist Extraordinary claims don't necessarily require extraordinary evidence. The evidence should be sound.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist You clearly do not know your biblical history, the bible is not eyewitness testimony, it is hearsay of hearsay written decades after the supposed events: So yes it certainly does need external evidence, of which there is none.
OWC2000 9 months ago
@OWC2000 It depends what you mean by "written." The autographs were written by the apostles and their associates. Textual transmission is a separate issue. If you want to discuss the extant manuscripts, they comprise one of the "evidences" that you claim does not exist. Yet, we cannot examine the manuscipts unless they exist. They do exist and they vindicate my claims.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist Do you have a link as to where they exist?
OWC2000 9 months ago
@OWC2000 There's not a place that has every single page obviously, but I can show you one for example. Some people have been nice enough to scan all the pages of codex sinaiticus and put it online. This is one of the earliest "full manuscripts" which means it has all the books of the bible. There are fragmentary manuscripts older than this. I put the link above in the description box of the video.
TheReformedapologist 9 months ago
@TheReformedapologist Thanks, I will take the next couple of days to research this more fully.
OWC2000 9 months ago
This is why women belong in the kitchen -_- Where is her logic? Where is her reasonability?
granjitsingh 9 months ago
She has some good points.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Sure, its not hard 2 build a strawman& then knock it down. She makes claims/arguments against methods of gathering biblical knowledge that R assumed on her part. I have suggested experts on manuscript evidence, amongst other things,but she is not interested. She likes her strawman approach. I would have argued differently in some parts but Dave did call her out 2 give evidence/ proof (which for an atheist changes meaning when confronted with evidence). I'm bearded guy in video
all4Hisgloryalone 9 months ago
@all4Hisgloryalone She said that all you have is very old words, and that's very true. There's no evidence outside of he scriptures that the miracles described in the bible actually occurred - even for events that would have left masses of evidence (for example the great flood). The first extra-biblical mention of Jesus (as far as I know) was by Josephus and that was decades and decades after the death. That alone should make you question the truth of it.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth Again just stating what u have said is not evidence. I do appreciate "as far as I know".There R experts in manuscript & history you can contact & the time frame of the books of the bible is known.New testament shows that there was an awareness of authorship of old testament books by people living& they quoted from them. Many books were written by direct disciples of Jesus. Are U consistent how U gather,validate,examine all historical evidences? Existence of George Washington?
all4Hisgloryalone 9 months ago
@all4Hisgloryalone Of course what I said isn't evidence. I was stating how there is a LACK of evidence, which is true. It's not reasonable to assume something miraculous actually happened if there is no good evidence (it requires more than a few old scripts to convince a rational person). I haven't researched George Washingtons existence, but I'm happy to believe he did exist. If he performed miracles then I would question his existence, and look for evidence of the miracles. Thank you.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago
@MythicalManMoth U "are happy 2 believe he did exist" So your "feelings" determine whats true. Gee I believe because validity of eyewitness accounts& documentation,etc. U have shown, like most Atheist, that what is "reasonable" 2 U has nothing 2 do with reasoning through evidences / proofs offered, but automatic rejection based on what U feel is reasonable. Pure subjective not objective examination.I was refuting ""circular" not validating by age or number. U understand logical argumentation?
all4Hisgloryalone 9 months ago
@all4Hisgloryalone I didn't expect anyone to take that sentence literally, what I meant is that I have no reason to assume that George Washington didn't exist. It has nothing to do with emotion. I do have reason to assume that the absurdities didn't happen in the bible because no one has good evidence that the things that are described are even possible. Examination of evidence will always be subjective to some degree. Yes, I understand logical argumentation, I'm actually a software engineer.
MythicalManMoth 9 months ago