Atheist Intellectuals: I can't this part of the atheist philosophy (rejection of the Bible), can you help?

Question

According to my Oxford Commentary (secular literary type concerned with proper translation and artistic nature of the piece)there are 3 or 4 sources (New Testament), or several sources or of ancient origin (Old Testament) for the Bible, and many of the historical events (of the old testament) are recorded by non-jews. This indicates for a historian that it is probably accurate. It is how they evaluate ancient historical records. Also, a roman execution record is apparently Jesus'.

I realize you can question my premises, but they seem pretty historically stable.

1) Do you reject the historical information in the Old Testament?
2) Do you reject the existance of a man name Jesus?
3) Do you reject the miraculous parts of the New Testament as conspiracy? Please discuss the circular argument, that if someone witnessed an actual miracle that they likely would have joined the man.

Most of the Atheist philosophy is fairly well laid out, but I couldn't find this.

An arguement refuted by the commentary is that there are additional sources not released from the vatican. Actually the fragile ancient document are only handled by experts, like those who right commentaries. I acknowledge the existence of other later or less sure texts in the archive.

I realize that the burden of proof is on the person arguing. I was curious if I could find the answers to these question here, or get some direction on it.

I'm not trying to trick you, you clicked the question, so there is no need to harass.

I also aknowledge that there are a wide variety of atheist/agnostic beliefe systems. And that many atheists are as dim on the subject as christians are on theirs.

The circular argument is that historians would assume the NT accurate if it weren't miraculous. But, if a spectator witnessed a miracle they would write it down. Or they could be involved in a conspiracy.

So, if you argue conspiracy, then you get "If you saw a miracle you would believe." and vice versa.

Technically, the physics of miracles are just as scientifically difficult as proving God does or does not exist.

moot may mean "arguable" to british english speaking people, though its US english meaning is "irrelevant."

The best bibles rely heavily on the oldest possible sources and really not much has changed. New bibles by cathlics or language colleges have essentially the same meaning as the original language, with comments in the foot notes. A good commentary breaks the word choice down further.

My commentary points out that groups did liberally translate and continue to liberally translate portions of the bible for their own good. The most common one you'll see, is John 1:1. Many Jehovah's witness bibles butcher the poetry by inserting "a God" (which is impossible to defend from a Jewish perspective lol), in order to make it sound as if the bible intends it is likely or possible for there to be many gods.

Angry C you're obfuscating.

I am probably going to choose Jake S's answer.

I have this issue though, that science describes the natural, and if God is supernatural then we won't be able to determine him empirically. Plus, we know very little of the total amount of knowledge, in which a fingerprint might exists. And, I think that this existence is statistcally unlikely without God.

I do not think that atheism is simple or not thought out. At least in people I have discussed it with.

Answer 1

I don't reject historical information that is verified. I do reject the account of creation because let's face it where are the dinosaurs and the ice age? I don't reject that a man named Jesus walked the Earth and did a lot of good preaching. The problem with accepting miracles and things based on someone's word is that the Gospels were written 30-100 years after the death of Jesus. Also, they are gospels which by definition are biased towards their side. That said they are open to embellishment. Miracles can't be reproduced and are limited to a small number of observers, hence they can't be used as scientific proof.

Answer 2

1) The Old Testament also mentions unicorns. Should I still accept the OT as absolute truth? The Old and New Testament are chock full of all sorts of ridiculous claims. Considering the bible is made up of a large number of books, it's possible some of these tales were based on things that could have happened. (Like the Hebrews running around slaughtering anyone who didn't worship their god.) That doesn't validate the bible as the word of god.

2) From what I've seen the evidence of Jesus' existence is flimsy at best. It wouldn't be too hard for an early christian to have planted it, but that's neither here nor there. Personally, I think a person named Jesus probably did exist. But I also believe a man named Jospeh Smith existed. I think the two of them probably had a lot in common. Like both of them were probably charlatans.

3)Of course I reject the magical things that happen in both the OT and NT. Why if these things were so common in the past don't they happen today? Your circular logic argument could also apply to someone who says they saw a UFO. You can say that you saw a UFO. I could ask for physical evidence. You can say, I don't have any. The argument goes no where because the statement can't be proved one way or another. Of course I could lie to you and say I just saw Bigfoot. Prove me wrong.

Answer 3

I do not speak for all atheists. My primary reason for questioning the validity of biblical accounts stems from the sheer number of "translations" that are available. These are just the English texts that are generally recognized:

English (EN) 21st Century King James Version
American Standard Version
Amplified Bible
Contemporary English Version (NT)
Darby Translation
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
English Standard Version
Holman Christian Standard Bible
King James Version (OT)
New American Standard Bible (NT)
New International Reader's Version
New International Version
New International Version - UK
New King James Version
New Life Version
New Living Translation
The Message
Today's New International Version (NT)
Worldwide English (New Testament) (NT)
Wycliffe New Testament (NT)
Young's Literal Translation

You can now go to this link to see the number of versions that have been translated into other languages:

http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

Any time something as voluminous as the bible is translated, words get lost or added, nuances change, and sometimes one language doesn't even have a comparable word or phrase to express a particular thought.

Speaking about just the English language versions, it's almost as though people felt the need to question certain parts of the bible and if they didn't like something, well..... let's just change it to suit our beliefs or interpretations. If biblical scholars can't even agree on what is or isn't accurate (or truthful), doesn't that make the entire work at least suspect? To answer your three specific questions:

1) I don't reject the information outright, but I do question its accuracy.
2) I don't reject the thought that jesus existed. I reject the thought that this was a god in human form. Maybe a hundred years from now, when people pass along stories about L. Ron Hubbard, or Billy Graham, or John Hagee, they too will be called gods in human form.
3) Since I consider the entire bible to be suspect, including any mention of miracles, this is a moot issue. However, I will concede that things that happened 2,000 - 6,000 years ago may have SEEMED miraculous to people with limited formal education compared to today's standards.

Care to comment?

P.S.: That you would even care to try to define the word "moot" bolsters my contention that the accuracy of the bible is suspect.

P.P.S.: "The best bibles...... have essentially the same meaning....." In the English language, why is it necessary to have "bibles" in the plural? Why isn't one bible sufficient? The word "essentially" conveys the thought that all of these different bibles are "just about the same, but not quite."

So which bible is THE definitive source? Believers have been saying over and over that their god's words are the truth, so why do people find the need to "clarify" the truth or "explain" the truth with so many different but essentially the same versions?

Answer 4

I don't reject there might be some historical basis, but after all that's not the important thing. The bible is an important source of wisdom weather you take it literally or as a parabol.
did jesus exist? The actual, historical man isn't more relevant than what he has become today for many of us. A symbol of extraordinary power.
Miracles? I like to see them as an allegory of a transcendent psychic change. And if you actually see one, you would have to follow j. no matter what you thought before, right?

Answer 5

You are making an assumption that all atheists are even concerned with this question. What difference does it make if it's true or not? Right now, people are judging, killing, hating and destroying other people's lives in the name of their Gods/gods. Don't you see that if this unanswerable question was acknowledged as being unanswerable that people could break away from the mindset that they are somehow superior to other people and this rampant us-versus-them (on many levels) would cease?

Answer 6

its a big leap of logic to assert that something is historically accurate simply because there 3 or 4 sources of documents. Yes to #1
Yes to #2. No convincing extrabiblical evidence. Yes to #3 but not as conspiracy.Miracles are contrary to physics.

Do not understand the last part.

Answer 7

The atheists just want to keep reiterating that God does not exist and the Bible is not fact without any facts to back it up.

Answer 8

http://www.myislamweb.com/forum/index.php