Aren't you atheist and evolutionists doing the same thing with the Bible?

Question

I was accused of quote mining in my last post, I find that ironic considering you do the same thing with the Bible? Why does it say this? Where does it say that? Prove this, prove that. Sorry, just thought it was humurous the double standard.

Are you not also taking the Bible out of context when you ask questions based on one verse in the Bible rather than the whole book itself?

Underground Man, all I am pointing out is that the theory of Evolution is not completely accurate!

Answer 1

I think the difference is that evolutionists have never claimed that evolution is infallible. There ARE still questions. And how do certain quotes change meaning when considered as part of "the whole"? Examples, please.

Answer 2

To say that everyone is doing this is probably not entirely accurate.

But, there are quite a few that do this on both sides of the question.


Truth is, the Bible is not what should be used to begin with.
The bible is comprised of two parts as you know.
What you might not know is that the Bible has been heavily edited and many parts were discarded (and some even burned) and none of these original chapters/ verses made it into the version commonly available now.

In the Old Testament, whole chapters were removed so that a single 'vision' could emerge that was consistent with the early Christian Church. The Dead Sea Scrolls have numerous passages never before seen as an example of this.

In the New Testament, only 4 out of 51 Gospels were 'authorized' by the Synod of Nicea in 325 C.E. The rest were banned as 'heresy' and many of the followers over time have been hunted down and killed. The Gospels of Thomas, Timothy, and Mary Magdalene are among these and 44 more beyond that.

The Gospel of John was considered heresy as well from 325 C.E. until 437 C.E. and the followers of that Gospel were also killed outright and the books burned wherever they were found. The main reason was because the Gospel of John had a lot of things no other Gospel was saying; the raising of Lazarus, the feeding of the multitudes, and of course Revelations. In addition to this, the original 'John of Patmos' is an unknown writer.... nobody really knows who wrote this. One of the authors that has been been confirmed as contributing died of an opium overdose.


Evolution has similar problems in that we can carbon date things back and show how old they are. What we cannot do is connect the dots beyond that. We can only guess at how things all started, both here and in the 'great beyond'. Planet, Solar System, Galaxy, and even Universe theories are just that...... theories without concrete proof either.

'Dark Matter' and 'Wormholes' and the entire list of 'scientific discoveries' are for the most part theory based on evidence at hand of phenomenon observed. But scientists will freely tell you that although what they see matches what they THOUGHT they'd observe....that in itself is not proof of anything.

Until the first 'Warp-powered' Starship docks and CPT Kirk gets off to go to the Venusian Dance Bar..... we just wont know anything will we?

50 years from now different theories will exist for everything from Christ's birthday to the formation of 'Dark Matter' into 'Dark planetary masses'..... and the debate will still be raging.

Answer 3

Having read the question you referenced, I assure you that the phrase "quote mining" was appropriate.

When theists start referring to their varied and sundry faiths as "The Theory of the Invisible Friend" and start to compile actual evidence that is not provided by wacko's and pseudo-scientists, you may have a reasonable and valid point.

However, at this juncture, you do not.

Consider: Fact can be proved or disproved. Faith cannot. It is the absence of fact that stimulates and strengthens faith. However, fact, once proved, strengthens faith. Science and religion are at odds for one simple reason. Faith, as it applies to religious thought, practically demands the complete and total absence of fact, and scientific evidence. Science, on the other hand, demands proof of available evidence to provide a basis for faith.

Theory is nothing more than faith with proof.

However, theory is simply a stepping stone to established fact. Once a fact is proven, no faith is required, hence the faith in a given theory is no longer necessary. Since any good theory has the potentual to be proven as a fact, the entire scientific process is diametrically opposed to the concept of pure faith.

If you take the time to actually read the Bible and Origin of the Species from cover to cover, you will find one simple, yet important difference in the two works. Origin of the Species offers the facts that are available which make up the body of theoretical evidence, and states quite clearly that the work has not been proven, AND that the proof of the theory will fall to others. Conversly, the Bible states that the Theory of the Invisible Friend has already been established as fact, yet offers no evidence whatsoever.

Now, if you choose to rely on the "science" of Bronze Age tribesmen rather than the ongoing scientific efforts currently taking place in these modern times, that is certainly your right. Personally, I am more likely to trust the science that has been ongoing since the dawn of man than the science that stopped 6,000 years ago.

-SD-

Answer 4

No. You go beyond quote mining. You actually altered quotes. There is no double standard. Go back through my answers. I've quoted the Bible numerous times. Tell me which ones are out of context. Don't whine because people can see through transparent deceptions.

Although your first quote is only out of context, the "I can see no way it could evolve bit by bit." quote is a complete fabrication. You cut and pasted an altered the "To suppose the eye..." quote. There is no double standard. You've been caught propegating a lie. Own up, apologize, and move on.

Answer 5

I have personally read the Holy Bible from cover to cover. Yes, there is much that has been changed over the centuries. Mosty, by man to suit themselves. The Catholics in the early years were the worst offenders. However, I still believe the Bible to be the Word of God. When I read something that I do not understand, I pray for understanding and it is given to me. There are many lessons to be learned from other's mistakes. But like so many, I hate when people take a single verse out of context and twist it to mean what they want it to mean.

Answer 6

It's not a double standard. All these people are doing is pointing out that the Bible is not completely accurate, or perfect, and is full of some bad things. They can quote mine all they want, because they see it as just another book.

It's only the people who claim that the Bible is testimony from God without error that have to do the defending. In their case, any single quote mined section that goes against what they're claiming, destroys their argument as a whole.

Answer 7

Since I accused you of quote mining let me take a crack at this one as well.

I agree that we atheists will sometimes offer a biblical verse and challenge believers to defend it. Most of the time, when challenged that it is out of context, when the context is applied, it is apparent that the horrible quote means just what it appears to mean.

Unfortunately, the biggest abusers of out of context biblical quotes are believers themselves. How many times a day do I get bible verses thrown at me, all those "John 3:16" idiots at sports events, etc. Christians are the most guilty of ignoring unpleasant verses and passages in the bible, we just think you should read the entire bible, in context. There is no better remedy for a belief in god than to read the bible from cover to cover with an open mind.

Answer 8

Really, its taking it out of context to say that apparently Joseph had two different fathers? Is his father Heli (Luke 3:23) or is it Jacob (Matthew 1:16)?

Who destroyed Sodom and Gomhorrah? The Angels (Genesis 19:13) or God (Genesis 19:24)?

What about sacrificing living things? Does god like that or doesn't he? According to Genesis 4:4 he does because he looked on Abel favorably but according to Isaiah 1:11 he doesn't.

And then there's the question of how did Judas die and what did he do with the money? One account says that he gave back the money and hung himself (Matthew 27:5) and another says that he spent the money buying land and then lept to his death (Acts 1:18). So which is it?

Honestly, do you people even know your own bible?

Answer 9

All atheists have not got self assurance an analogous factor. There are diverse definitions for the word atheist and there are diverse faculties of concept. they are no longer able to agree on no longer something. there is likewise conflict of words between people who enroll in the theory of evolution.

Answer 10

we're not telling anyone they are going to hell or cutting off their head for not believing in evolution - big difference