From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:19:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


>>  Now remember - all of these are universally regarded as accurate.  Let's
 
> Note that they are all histories of politics, *NOT* religious movements;

/My fault on this one; this was a response to "Do we have a reliable
/copy of the Bible?"  So, the answer to that one would have to be, yes,
/we do.

Not hardly.  

Unless by "reliable", you mean that after trimming and editing the original
manuscripts, accurate copies were made of the resulting work.  In that
case, then yes:  it is a reliable copy of an erroneous work.  All the
errors have been faithfully reproduced.




>>  You asserted God is inconsistent because he had an old law and a new one. 
> ...
>>the end of time).  The laws of each led into the other.  The Patriarchical
 
> This is opinion on which millions disagree, not scholarly research. Okay,
> so much for the preliminaries, now:

/But on which the Bible is clear.  Read the cited passages.

The bible is not clear on any of this.  And the cited passages are in
dispute; that is they contradict each other.  The end result of this
contradiction and confusion is seen in the varying interpretations that
Christians come up with from the same passage.  If the bible were clear,
there would be no argument or difference of interpretation.

Dividing the history of the law into Pre-Mosiac, Patriarchal, etc. is
simply a framework that you have created to help you understand and 
categorize things.  That is not the same as saying the bible supports 
your view.  Your case is far from proven.


 
 
>>2) The unity of the Bible
 
> It could be and has been argued there is more disunity than unity
> among the texts, even about simple matters. Consider the wide
> variation in the 4 gospels for example.


/What wide variation?  Because one mentions events the others do not? 
/Say I wrote a biography of someone and you wrote one on the same
/person.  Some events I include you might not.  Does that mean that our
/accounts would be disharmonious?  I think not.  Please provide
/specifics.

See the discussion on how Judas died.  Then see the contradictions in 
the genealogical trees (the "begats").  See how two different gospels
describe the same miracle, and present contradictory details of the
events.




>>3) The great moral teachings of the Bible - No other book has ever
>>    condemned immorality so severely or demanded as high a standard of
>>    righteousness.  It is virtually unique among religious documents.
 
> Wrong. Check the Qu'ran, for one.

/The Bible still has a higher moral code.  

Sez you.



/"Turn the other cheek", "Do
/unto others as you would have them do unto you", "love your enemy",
/etc.

The Qu'ran presents the same code.  Of course, never having read any other
religious book, you couldn't possibly know that, could you?  Several other
religions present the same code using different words.  So again I ask the
question you have not yet answered:  How is your bible any better?
 



>>4) Its Unparallelled Impartiality -
 
> The testaments were written by cultists to pass on the revealed
> word of G-d to a formerly obscure jewish sect. A unilateral
> claim to be the sole word of G-d is hardly an advertisement
> for impartiality.


/I suggest you go back and read what I wrote again. 

There wasn't much substance there.  Do you have anything else?  

By the way:
I am waiting on answers to the specific examples I presented.  Do you 
have any answers?



>>5) The Brevity of the Bible - 

>The important bits of history for believers? Perhaps.

/My point exactly.  And it does span the history of the world.  Do you
/think any textbook of world history covers every event that ever
/occurred?  Of course not!  

Just because a book can't possibly cover every event that ever took
place does not mean it's impossible to have a general history of the world 
in one book.  It has been done many times before.  The bible does not
even *approach* this standard of historical research and documentation.
It covers (sporadically) the events of one region, and one group of 
people.  


/Just the significant ones.  And, according
/to the theme of the Bible (God's plan of salvation), the important
/events are covered.

So in other words, it covers all the history of the world that you and
your religion care a damn about.  That isn't quite the same as your 
original claim to be a history of the world.  "This book covers all
the events of history that medical doctors care about" is not the same
as saying "this book is a history of the world".  

And it has already been proven that the part of world history the 
bible *does* cover, it covers erroneously.

 


>>6) The Life of Jesus - That Jesus existed is virtually indisputable.  The
 
> Sez you.

/Sez Josephus.  Sez Tacitus.  Sez many Roman imperial officials.  Sez
/historical evidence.

Sorry; insufficient.  There are just as many historical sources which
put his existence into doubt.  


 
>>    testimony of those closest to him indicated His sinless perfection.
 
> And they are hardly impartial.

/The OT speaks of it.  

Another "impartial" source?  When will you learn that quoting the bible
to prove the bible's claims is circular reasoning?



/The Jews could find no legitimate reason to
/execute Him, so they had to coerce Pilate into it.  These are but two
/examples.

Examples from the bible, which we have already determined is not:

a.  unbiased
b.  proven to be accurate to begin with
 


 
>>8) The Bible's Scientific Foreknowledge 
 

	In the 19th century, Herbert Spencer first
>>    announced the 5 fundamental facts of science; yet the Bible covered all
>>    5 in the first 2 verses: "In the beginning [time - jdb] God created the
>>    heavens [space] and the earth [matter].  And the spirit of God moved 
>>    [force] upon the face of the waters [motion]."

> This is called looking to the text to find a way to force a theory
> which the text does not appear to support.

/Perhaps, but all 5 are there.  You cannot dispute this fact.


Already disputed and proven erroneous.  Care to answer the charge, or
will you continue to ignore it?



 
> Note that the vacuum bottle, sea currents, star charts, etc were
> all known about to some degree by scholars in Roman days.


/Yes, the Galilean fishermen who followed Jesus, the tax collector
/Matthew, and the others probably read the scholarly journals quite
/often.  

Fishermen know about things such as sea currents and the motion of
stars.  Educated people (the kind who could write manuscripts to begin
with) might also know about some of the science of the day.  

You have also not answered all the scientific inaccuracies that appear
in the bible.  What is the problem:  you want to take credit for good
science, but don't want to accept the responsibility for bad science?



/  Either that or the truth was revealed to them by God...

Either that or you are delirious.  



 
>>9) The Bible's Undeniable Influence for Good - When taken in its purity
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Let's see. . .More people have been killed in the name of religion
> than for any other reason. The bibles and relgions have been used
> to kill, rape, steal, rob, plunder, ad nauseum. I question the
> word "undeniable".


/You seem to have missed my first phrase.  "When taken in its purity". 
/Catholicism does not take the Bible in its purity; they authorize the
/pope to do what he sees best.  Denominations add to and take away from
/it.



So your interpretation is the "pure" one, and everyone else is wrong.
Tell me:  when was the international conference to decide what the "pure"
version was?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc