Happy Atheist Forum

I am in a debate with a Christian about the Bible. I asked him what makes the Bible different from any other holy book and his response was:


   "The other so called " holy books " many of which are accepted as mythology are different from the Bible . None of the writers of the Bible claimed that the thinking was their own . As I said in my above post " the message in the Bible was at no time brought by man's will or thinking ." There is no way that any man could have known hundreds or thousands of years in advance what was going to happen in the future in  the detail writen in the Bible unless it is inspired of God  . For instance . The fall of the City of Babylon was fortold two hundred years in advance of it happening . Giving such details as the NAME of the one that would distroy the City . The way the City would be distroyed  and that nothing would ever live there again .  It happened excatly as it was writen in the Bible .  To this day no one or anything lives where the City of Babylon was . No man could have known those details . There  are many other such prophecies like this in the Bible . Some yet to be fulfilled .

  Other scriptures tell of things that man at the time of the Bible being written could never have known . Such as the shape of the planet earth . Isaiah 40 : 22 - " Where it tells us that the earth is a circle . In ancient times the general opinion was that the earth was flat . Not until the 20th century has it been possible for humans to travel by airplane , then into outer space and even to the moon , thurs giving them a clear view of " the circle " of earth's horizon .

  The Bible also gives details of human anatomy that could not have been known to the Bible writers unless God told them . Job19 : 20 - " I escaped with the SKIN of my TEETH . "  On the enamel furface ( of teeth ) is a highly indestructible pellicle ( thin skin ) or film indistinguishable to the naked eye known as the enamel cuticle . This was not even heard of as being knowledge that mankind had until the 20th century .

  The Bible is filled with prophecies reflecting detailed knowledge of the future , something that is impossible for humans ."

what the hell is talking about and is he right? Also can someone help me with a rebuttal?

Nope. Buddha took credit for his thoughts, unlike the authors of the Bible who claim what they wrote was "God-breathed". In fact, many of them they lied about who they were, especially in the Gospels. Kinda goes against "thou shalt not bear false witness" but, hey....

As for the prophecies, there are a lot of examples of those falling through but here's one:

According to the prophecies, Jesus was supposed to be related to David. Okay, so what's the problem? Joseph was related to David; not Mary. Are you catching the irony in this?

QuoteThe Bible is filled with prophecies reflecting detailed knowledge of the future , something that is impossible for humans ."

Um, literally nothing prophesied by the Bible has come true that wasn't self-fulfilling. Self-fulfilling prophases don't count. Did this individual elaborate by citing specific examples?

Quote from: "Will"

QuoteThe Bible is filled with prophecies reflecting detailed knowledge of the future , something that is impossible for humans ."

Um, literally nothing prophesied by the Bible has come true that wasn't self-fulfilling. Self-fulfilling prophases don't count. Did this individual elaborate by citing specific examples?

No.

Quote from: "Jack_Dude""The fall of the City of Babylon was fortold two hundred years in advance of it happening . Giving such details as the NAME of the one that would distroy the City . The way the City would be distroyed  and that nothing would ever live there again .  It happened excatly as it was writen in the Bible .  To this day no one or anything lives where the City of Babylon was . No man could have known those details"

I don't think that statement is true.

Babylon (Greek Î'αβÏ...λών, from Akkadian: Babili, Babilla) was a city-state of ancient Mesopotamia, the remains of which are found in present-day Al Hillah, Babil Province, Iraq, about 85 kilometers (55 mi) south of Baghdad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon

Al-Hillah (Arabic: اÙ,,Ø­Ù,,ة‎; BGN: Al Ḩillah; also spelled Hillah or Hilla) is a city in central Iraq on the river Euphrates, 100 km (62 miles) south of Baghdad, with an estimated population of 364,700 in 1998

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Hillah

You should probably take that info with a grain of Wikipedia salt, but it's a start.  It seems like the best thing you could do to debate this person is to research their claims and respond with citations to the information you're referencing.

Huh.  Why did you delete your comment that I replied to?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Huh.  Why did you delete your comment that I replied to?

Sorry. I did that because the I thought the comment I was repling to asked if the person I was debating with cited any examples but it really asked if he had cited any specific examples.

Gotcha.  Still, I stand by my advice.  Just research the things he or she says.  If that one comment you deleted is any indication, the person you're debating seems to have no problem making crap up to try to prove a point, which makes your job easy as long as you're willing to do some research.  

A rebuttal, hmmm. Well, what do you make of the Bible? The thing is, if you don't have an answer to that question then you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Read up on the history of how the Bible, particularly the New Testament, was manufactured before you take on a Christer. I suggest that you start with Constantine, a person who the vast majority of so-called Christians have never heard of, and for a very good reason.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Gotcha.  Still, I stand by my advice.  Just research the things he or she says.  If that one comment you deleted is any indication, the person you're debating seems to have no problem making crap up to try to prove a point, which makes your job easy as long as you're willing to do some research.  

Thanks for the advice. You too i_am_i and anyone else who replied in this thread.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Gotcha.  Still, I stand by my advice.  Just research the things he or she says.  If that one comment you deleted is any indication, the person you're debating seems to have no problem making crap up to try to prove a point, which makes your job easy as long as you're willing to do some research.  

The rebuttal from that point is:

"You made up one claim why should I believe anything else you say?"

Then refuse to engage further unless a sincere apology is provided and the person demonstrates a desire to converse ethically.


(well, at least that is my approach...it saves A LOT of headaches and time, sometimes I will then continue to point out where they are lying if others continue to engage them unless I have ban powers then you all know what happens then)

I agree, Whitney.  Everyone makes a mistakes, but the only way you know the difference between a mistake and an indication that someone is being purposefully disingenuous is if you address the misinformation as soon as it surfaces.  If the person you're debating refuses to address the fact that they said something that wasn't true, I think it's fair to assume they lied and will continue to lie and that continuing a conversation with them is a waste of time.

@OP

Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy)

Your interlocutor is saying that the Bible is verifiable because something written in it was later found to be true. This is like shooting a load of bullets and then painting the target where they hit, thus getting a bullseye.

I like how this person has twisted loose facts to suit their argument - BUT!  I bet you a pretty penny that they're getting these arguments from either an apologetic book or website or both.