The bible was written by some crazy guy living in a cave, who wrote down all the fantasies in his head.

Anyone have any proof that it wasn't?

Didn't think so.:p

Hey Increan, where have you been lately?

I have a similar thoery. What if it was just a story book written by some guy who wanted to entertain and with all the people being under Roman rule and looking for a 'Messiah', maybe they saw this story book as their guide.

Again, please Dis-prove this, cos you can't

Originally posted by Thor
Hey Increan, where have you been lately?

I've been working on my car lately, but I'm back now.

The bible was written by some crazy guy living in a cave, who wrote down all the fantasies in his head.

Anyone have any proof that it wasn't?


The proof is endless. Hopefully that is a joke.

Originally posted by ilgwamh


The proof is endless. Hopefully that is a joke.

No it's not a joke. Show me all this endless proof.

The Bible was not always the "Bible". Read up on Christian and Jewish History to meet the wonderful world of canonization. Some scholarly estimates say that the Bible was written over a 1,500 year time span.

Originally posted by ilgwamh
The Bible was not always the "Bible". Read up on Christian and Jewish History to meet the wonderful world of canonization. Some scholarly estimates say that the Bible was written over a 1,500 year time span.

Ok, so it was generations of crazy poeple in caves.:p

Originally posted by Increan
The bible was written by some crazy guy living in a cave, who wrote down all the fantasies in his head.

Anyone have any proof that it wasn't?

Didn't think so.:p


Hey Inrean, if you were from a place called "Increi", it seems to me the proper indigenous distinction would be:

"Increin"

not

"Increan"

To be "Increan" you would have to be from "Inrea"


-Mike

Originally posted by Thor
What if it was just a story book written by some guy who wanted to entertain and with all the people being under Roman rule and looking for a 'Messiah', maybe they saw this story book as their guide.

Again, please Dis-prove this, cos you can't

The natural response to this would be:

Sure, but only after you successfully prove that it wasn't divinely inspired.

:p

Originally posted by Ekimklaw



Hey Inrean, if you were from a place called "Increi", it seems to me the proper indigenous distinction would be:

"Increin"

not

"Increan"

To be "Increan" you would have to be from "Inrea"


-Mike

Hey, it's my made-up world so it can be anyway I want it to be.

Originally posted by ilgwamh
Some scholarly estimates say that the Bible was written over a 1,500 year time span.

Exactly why we can't trust it. Over a period of 1,500 years, would things be generaly changed/edited/forgotten/imbellished/made up/inaccurately represented?


And is it not completely true that the story of 'jesus' was made up 50-100 years after the fact by three squabbling old men trying to remember? If even that accurate at all?

Find all the portions inspired by visions and voices: those are the paranoid schizophrenic verses. Find all the rediculous statements like the Earth being flooded and God and Satan making bets: those are the completely fabricated elements. Anything pertaining to Jesus and supernatural occurences: those are the elements created by the four primary storytellers to spice up his life.

Remove all these and account for some of the more metaphorical verses as exageration, and you will have something that is closer to the truth. The Jews were a slave people who moved into Africa (and in light of recent genetic evidence probably never left). Jesus was the product of a marital affair. He and 10-15 followers knocked over a money changers table and tried to run but was instead caught.

Hey BatM, only after you successfully prove that it was divinely inspired will I try to disprove it

Originally posted by Thor
Hey BatM, only after you successfully prove that it was divinely inspired will I try to disprove it

Not that I personally believe this, but... :)


God is omniscient
God is omnipotent
God is omnipresent


Ipso facto, the Bible was divinely inspired. :p

p.s. "Inspiration" is something different than "manipulation".

No one has still been able to prove that my theory is false.

All of you just started blabbing.:D

Where in your little ipso facto scenario do atheists fit. By defintion then the Bible would be no more divinely inspired than the tax code.

You can maintain anything you want about a god. All of that is classified as conjecture, no relevance. Proof is more than, "Because I say so."

Originally posted by Teg

Where in your little ipso facto scenario do atheists fit.


Ah, come on -- that should've been obvious.

Ipso facto, atheists are divinely inspired. :p


Proof is more than, "Because I say so."


Except when you're dealing with infinites at which point all things become possible (thus many religious beliefs in the face of logical contradiction).

Note, I got dragged into this because I was being cute and played "Devil's Advocate" to Thor's statement, not because I'm religiously inclined (which I'm not). ;)

Aye but why would a God that is supposed to have such a unified message for humanity take so many names and inspire so many asinine stories? How about all those stupid little rules? This one perverted God that all those who believe should be subject to such pointless worship activities.

Who is to say that God is not evil and perverse? That all those "do not boil a lamb in its mother's milk" laws are not just some weird practical joke, and the bastard is not sitting around laughing his arse off that people took it all so seriously!

Originally posted by Teg
Aye but why would a God that is supposed to have such a unified message for humanity take so many names and inspire so many asinine stories? How about all those stupid little rules? This one perverted God that all those who believe should be subject to such pointless worship activities.

Vanity? He/She/They are worshipped by everyone even if they don't know they are worshipping the same God.

Perhaps there is a unified philosophy that is yet to be discovered?

See if you can fit a camel through a needle's head or be poor. Fun choices. The only perversity going on here lies in the very mortal Jewish authors.

Originally posted by Increan
No one has still been able to prove that my theory is false. All of you just started blabbing.:D As the claimant, perhaps you should attempt to prove your 'babble' true. ;)

How can any of u dimwits saying that the bible was made up actually believe what ur saying. I hope ur joking too! I dont think u fully grasp whats been going on. And just because it was written over 1,500 yrs, it doesnt mean that all of that history was frantically written down in the 1499 th year :bugeye: I think ur joking arent u!! u cant actually believe what ur saying!!

Teg:

Well, I have to apologize. It's just that I have a thing for the Whore of Revelations. :o

"Revelation, Chapter 17
SAB
17:1
And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
17:2
With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the
earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
17:3
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of
names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
17:4
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
17:5
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE
MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."

Awww maaaan, it's a damn shame she doesn't exist.

She probably wouldn't be single anyway. :(

Posted by Reasonabledoubt: As the claimant, perhaps you should attempt to prove your 'babble' true.

The whole point of my babble was to show no one could prove it wasn't true. I could give a rats ass if it is or isn't. It's just the fact that no one can prove it to be otherwise.

Increan wrote:

The whole point of my babble was to show no one could prove it wasn't true. I could give a rats ass if it is or isn't.
As such it is, in my opinion, a rather childish point. It serves only to demonstrate a misuse of the term "theory".

It's still a valid theory until proved otherwise. There is no misuse.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Increan wrote:

It's still a valid theory until proved otherwise. There is no misuse.

I stand corrected. There is, indeed, a layman's sense of the term "theory". It is precisely this use (and abuse) that we encounter in the diatribe of so-called "Creationist Science".

There is also theory in the scientific scence, which implies testability. It is in this sense of the word that issues of 'validity' are relevant. There is a vast difference between scientific theory and inane speculation. That you would suggest that yours is "a valid theory until proved otherwise" is simply laughable.

Sorry, but you are simply far less clever than you believe.

Posted by ReasonableDoubt:
That you would suggest that yours is "a valid theory until proved otherwise" is simply laughable.

Sorry, but you are simply far less clever than you believe.

Who's trying to be clever? It's suppose to be funny.
The whole point of it is to show how uncredible the bible is historicly. It's just funny that no one has any proof that the bible wasn't written by insane people or just a family with each generation adding to a family story book. This thread was just started for a laugh that's all. You have taken it way too seriously.

Some people just don't get it.:rolleyes:

Increan wrote:

It's just funny that no one has any proof that the bible wasn't written by insane people or just a family with each generation adding to a family story book. This thread was just started for a laugh that's all. You have taken it way too seriously.

I respectfully suggest that you read "Who Wrote the Bible" by R.E. Friedman, and familiarize yourself with the immense amount of archaeological, paleographic, and textual critical scholarship that you so conteptuously dismiss. There is real analysis out there by folks such as Tov, Mazar, Dever, Silberman/Finkelstein, and many many others. In fact, the bible was not written as you suggest. Trust me: I do not take you seriously at all.

As for the issue of methodology, the inability to prove something is proof of nothing. Worse, the failure is entirely yours as author of a non-falsifiable 'theory'. Such an approach can serve only to render you the subject of ridicule rather than its source.

Posted by reasonableDoubt:
As for the issue of methodology, the inability to prove something is proof of nothing. Worse, the failure is entirely yours as author of a non-falsifiable 'theory'. Such an approach can serve only to render you the subject of ridicule rather than its source.

You just prove my theory more by stating that "the inabilty to prove something is proof of nothing". You seem to be the only one ridiculing me. Stop trying to make people think you are intelligent by posting these responses. Obviously you have good debating skills, but like I stated in the first place, no one has been able to prove me wrong.

You know I am just keep doing this because you seem to be getting more upset and are dumbfounded how I can not understand what you are stating. I fully understand all that you have stated and your argument against my theory, but it still does not prove it false and thats the whole point. Just laugh and stop trying. It's getting you no where.

Convinient it wasn't even a picture book! :D