From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible 
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:04:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.105748.3908@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.023121.22894@midway.uchicago.edu>, dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell) writes:

>>>treating the Bible as we would any
>>>other historical document, let's look at it.

>> any comptent historian knows that much of the bible's "history" is
>> suspect - certainly events from the hebrew testament and events from
>> the greek testament have not been considered "historically" accurate
>> for some time.
>
>Please, do provide specifics and sources.  We can't very well just
>take your word on it.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide
you with that education. I assure you that there are
plenty of people who will, both on this newsgroup and on
alt.atheism where some specialize in such dissection.

One example might be the story of Noah, however.

>>>  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.

But the point was (in your words) to:

	>>>treating the Bible as we would any
	>>>other historical document, let's look at it.

So merely re-invoking the text alone is insufficient.

>>>2) The unity of the Bible - A unity of facts, purpose, and teaching.  Its

>> 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? 

Again, there are many factual inconsistencies. In fact there
have been recent threads on this very subject. I suggest you
follow them if you want specifics.

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

This is a matter of opinion; nevertheless, the existence of the Qu'ran
negates your assertion that it is "virtually unique" in its moral
teachings. I think you would find it an interesting exercise to 
test out your superlatives about the bible over in soc.religion.islam.

>>>4) Its Unparallelled Impartiality - "Human books extol the virtues and
> 
>> 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.  If you were going
>to make up a religion, would you portray the heroes as larger than
>life? ...

Merely because you cannot conceive of how to write great
myths does not mean others have been similarly unable.

>>>    testimony of those closest to him indicated His sinless perfection.
> 
>> And they are hardly impartial.
>
>The OT speaks of it.  The Jews could find no legitimate reason to
>execute Him, so they had to coerce Pilate into it.  These are but two
>examples.

I would argue that the government which executed Jesus used
the same rationale that the government which executed Socrates
used: here is a dangerous man because he says dangerous things
(which could upset the status quo) and people are listening
to him.

His murder does not indicate "sinless perfection" on his part.

>>>    Such a perfect person could never have been so perfectly created by any
>>>    man.
> 
>> Which calls into doubt the deeds he is claimed to have performed.
>
>No, which means that he could not have been created by a man or men.

You assert that Jesus was perfect because the bible says so, then
you claim what the bible already states: that Jesus was not created
by man.

Hint: This does not advance your theory any.

>> 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.

Of course I do not dispute the words on the page, I merely
suggest your interpretation as fanciful.

>> 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.  Solomon and Job must have travelled through time then
>travelled back.
>  Either that or the truth was revealed to them by God...

Note that *they* didn't write the bibles. . .

>>>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.

First of all, I don't necessarily subscribe to the notion advanced
above anymore after a bit more thought -- it was not a well-articulated
argument. Secondly, your phrase "taken in its purity" implies
that a subjective analysis must be made of the text.

This again becomes a matter of opinion. Also note that the word
denomination means a particular "brand" of religion, so anyone
who is a member of any church anywhere belongs to some denomination.

>the Bible, though.  The Bible condemns killing, even condemns hating. 
>It says to turn the other cheek.  It condemns many things which have
>been done "in its name".  So the fault is of those who wrongfully did
>these things, for they had either lost sight of the Word or never
>knew exactly what it said.

N.B.: The N.R.A. makes the same argument about gun control. 

Dano

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,sci.skeptic,alt.censorship,alt.sex