There is no GOD!!!

No clue who you are talking to. Must be nice to hide behind a computer screen and disrespect people. You enjoy being a coward like that?

 

As an atheist I must express my usual disappointment with the "free-thinkers" in this thread.

Simply for the sake of entertainment I'll be happy to take on Antimatter or Bre on the subject of Christianity. We could even make it a formal debate. Gauranteed I wipe the floor with you.

Stating, "the Bible is bullshit" over and over and over gets you nowhere. It also does nothing to really disprove the Christian God, which may be provided a compelling case sans the scriptures.

If "God is a fairy tale", prove it. Otherwise, stay silent. You're making passionate atheologists look bad.

- Laz

 

Dude I am in no way an athiest, I have no religion (well the closest thing I could be labeled is a Buddhist). And as for you bandit okay not every example has like 10-15 scriptures to go with it (stop using that as an excuse, move on and try to rebuke my contradictions).

 

Ugh. When has atheism become a religion? Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods - it is a lack of faith or belief. If you "have no religion", you are an atheist. And even if you have a religion, you can still be an atheist. Jainism, LaVeyanism, and various other religious establishments hold to atheistic worldviews while believing in such things as spiritual realms and ritual.

This doesn't answer my question, however. I challenged you to present evidence for statements about the Christian God being a fairy tale/false/make-believe.

I commend your arguments on the contradictions however. That was very good - Dan Barker has written a detailed analysis on Paul, the men, and the voice that people can check out on the Secular Web. The point where I was disappointed, however, is that "God" was deemed entirely a fairy tale based on a handful of contradictions from an old text. This ignores the liberal theological perspective, as well as the stance of other middle-of-the-road theologians.

ummm. Not, it doesn't. Bre seems to simply be bringing up the fact that the diverse authorship may be reason for the contradictions we can find within biblical text that she presented.

You entirely ignore the canonization of the Bible, however, and the many books disregarded in the process. The basic flow of the Bible is not evidence of authenticity, but rather evidence that a bunch of old Church fathers congregated and forced in those books which best suited their theological worldviews. Despite even this, however, discrepancies within biblical texts remain.

What in the hell are you on about?

(1) Job is not the author of Job.

(2) Read up on history, the canon of the OT was not established whatever, and there were many different books written, claiming divine inspiration and expressing positions entirely different from those expressed in the Torah and elsewhere.

(3) Genesis and perhaps other books of the Torah are considered to be one of the LAST books written, right before the Inter-Testamental period. Thus even if my point in (2) weren't valid (which it is) it still doesn't get you anywhere.

(4) Job doesn't express much of a theology anyway. All it is is an account of a tribulation experienced by a faithful servant of the Christian God. Its mostly considered poetic, rather than a theological treatise.

Dan Barker has already addressed all this. Look up his paper on the Secular Web.

My challenge to the skeptics here still stands.

- Laz

 

I definately should have stated 'After Orthodox Jewish Theology is established' but my overall statement still makes sense.

Now lets look at what the hell YOU are on about....

Says You. Truth is we dont know but tradition holds that Job wrote the Book and/or gave it to Moses.

Im pretty sure I was planning to refer to 'Job' as in 'The Book' but nevertheless our best guess is that Job wrote it.

The Canon of the OT IS established and has been for many centuries.

Yes, there were other books written claiming divine inspiration.. different from the Torah.
They were and are rejected.
I think your making my point for me now.

Thats what you get for reading up on history.

You Point two is invalid so Point three needs to used.
Someone may have 'considered' the Torah written 'right before' the intertestsamental period, however they are 'considered' silly by me.

Using the word 'Considered' is like people saying 'A growing number..'

In either case, it does not need to 'get me anywhere' and your conjecture about the time Genesis is written isnt 'getting you anywhere' either.

By 'Theology' I mean that Job (The Book ok) doesn't just introduce some different concept .. just for fun say.. suddenly refers to God as having spacial boundaries.. .or indicates some concept that would mitigate against any Theological concepts of God and his ways found in the Torah.

Thanks for sharing some of your subjective opinions as well:

"Doesnt express much of a theology"
[Ok.. well I suppose centuries of Rabbi's and Pastors could be wrong since its just about THE most popular book for communicating the nature of God to the faithful]

"All it is is an account of a tribulation experienced by a faithful servant of the Christian God."
[ Well I certainly agree the God of the Jews is also the Christian God.... but again, if that is ALL you see expressed than so be it, that is certainly a different and lower opinion than most followers hold. hehe.. except Virginia Wolfe who said "I read the book of Job last night... God doesnt come out too well in that one"]

"Its mostly considered poetic, rather than a theological treatise"
Among who?
Christians consider it a real historical account of a man named Job and nobody opined that its a 'Theological Treatise' so there is no place for your use of the word 'Rather'.
It has every right to hold both moral example and theology.
Not 'one of the other'


http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/job.htm

http://www.biblestudysite.com/prejob.htm

 

ahem...


that was taken off the "bible contradictions" link i gave.

it's idiocy spoots on like that for hours.

i mean you have nothing....god creates the existence. the "being" as it were./ then creates both the possibilities of light and dark. then later he creates the sun and the moon...vessels to hold light and whatever the moon does in reality...a satelite or summit....then they compare they worl we know with the begining of "being"? ugh...it makes no sense.

and believe you me...that kinda shite talkin goes on for about .....oh 10 pages....or more.

and you really have to stop and wonder what kind of person would dedicate so much time to trying to disprove a belief structure just because they don't like it.


they're the types who need to re-evaluate their lives....and just accept possibilities. like seriously.


ANNNNYYYWAY..



as you all were

 

No, says modern biblical scholarship.

Firstly, Job was not an Israelite – so it seems all but rational to say he could’ve written the book himself and then given it to Moses (consider the locations of the Israelites throughout Moses’ time as leader. In Egypt as slaves, prior to the Torah (supposing an early date). In the desert. At war. Etc.). Besides the fact that the writer of Job was familiar with the oral tradition and written writings of the Israelites.

Secondly: NASB study guide -

Although most of the work consists of Job’s words and his counselors, Job himself was not the author.

We may be sure that the author was an Israelite, since he (and, not Job or his friends), frequently uses the Israelite covenant name for God (Yahweh, The LORD).

The actual identity of the real author is unknown, but it is clear that he would have also had access to Jewish oral tradition and written sources, from which scholars feel the book was comprised (with divine inspiration, of course). How does it work that Job, a non-Israelite, has access and thorough knowledge of this material?

And even granting your “traditional” position, supposing that Job IS the real author, your following points are entirely refuted. Observe:

I never said the OT Canon wasn’t established today, I said it wasn’t established during the writing of Job. And duh its been established for centuries – but, guess what? Not during the time of the writing of Job.

But IF Job wrote it, your point is completely refuted, because supposing Job is an actual historical character, his setting is placed in the 2nd millennium B.C. (2000-1000 B.C.). Are you actually going to claim that the Old Testament canon was established at this time?

Most of the books weren’t even WRITTEN during this time period, let alone established.

And this is what you get for NOT reading up on history.

And no, I’m not making your point at all. All of the books were considered simply general guides for the Jews, there was no solidified canon until far later.

The “someone” you’re referring to are contemporary historians and professional scholars who have studied the matter extensively. And no, my claim is not refuted – simply because you don’t like the fact that Genesis has been established as being written at a late date does not refute the fact that Genesis and other books of the OT were written at a late date.

There is also an historical consensus that this applies to the Book of Daniel. Traditional scholarship placed Daniel in the 600’s b.c. – but new evidence and considerations have revealed that it is most likely to have been written some 400 years later.

You can read up on this in tons of different places:

Try Till’s articles on the subject:

The Inerrantist Way of Misrepresenting Critics

Bad History in the Book of Daniel

Deliberate Misrepresentation After All

Lol – its gets me exactly to my point – that you cannot use the idea that older books were already established and solidified as sacred text as a verification of Job, because those older books are in fact not older books at all – but written at later dates. And that the OT canon was not established at this time, thus there was no standard that existed where one could measure Job as being genuinely inspired or not.

Next, you go from:

To:

And you’ve failed to see the point. You stated that Job could not come up with any novel rules or theological perspective due to the prior establishment of a standard (e.g. The Torah, and etc.), and thus one would be able to tell if Job was not reliable. Not only have I shown that your statement about a prior establishment is false, but I commented that the Book of Job does not present a theological treatise at all. It certainly presents “wisdom sayings”, poetry, and an account of tribulation, and one can infer a particular image of God from this account. But what rules or systematic theological worldview/perspective does the Book of Job establish that can be measured for authenticity as a divinely inspired work by an established standard? Nothing. It is nothing like the Book of Hebrews or the Torah, which set forth a system and law of living life and a complete theological worldview. It is simply the account of one righteous man through turmoil – a poetic piece which expresses a few wisdom sayings.

Your positing Job as testable by a priorly established theological standard is a category error, because Job is not a book that is of the type of those particular works that it might be tested as being in harmony with their systematic theological worldview and laws.

The book itself is officially classified by bible scholars as a work of poetry and wisdom sayings. Talk about not knowing your own Bible.

How do you deal with the fact that a non-believer knows more about the book you follow then you do?

Try again.

- Laz

 

Quoting the bible isn't going to convince anyone about anything in here, if you can't sense a higher being from life itself a book isn't going to prove anything. God exists, he just isn't what you want him to be, he just is.

 

What if a book predicts future events before they happen?

 

Jlazarus.
Almost everything you retorted with was theorising, asking open-ended questions, refuting strawmen or 'talking around' your own conjecture. (esp the last one)

Citing liberal scholars conjecture about the dates and times is great, however I would just as soon go along with established traditions.

Job does not go against or even away from what we find presented in the Torah.
Now, I suppose you can believe Job was written before the Torah. (or any book in it) and that is fine for you to suppose.

Your right that no one will ever know.. but that doesnt mean a silly supposition is the 'good choice' to go with.

Instead of squirmishing around your conjecture (or that borrowed from that fringe group of liberal scholars) you should spend more time admitting and agreeing with me about the real issues:

Job does not disagree with either the Law, the other 'writings' or the New Testament for that matter.
Job (and Job is just an example) does not even go off on new concepts (which i have stated were already established)

This is why they are included and accepted.

The original question was something along the lines of "Why are certain books in the Bible and others not?"
"Why is it validating if they were written at different times by different authors?"

YOU MADE THIS CLEAR... You are even insisting that Job is from a much different time and place than Moses and his Torah.
Ok Fine.. lets go with that.

There is your case where one validating and agreeing with another is all the MORE confirmation of divine inspiration (certainly not less evidence)

hang on to those thoughts for a while.. Im being severely distracted by a hot babe playing DeathWind level 2 on the SuperNintendo.

I will try and articulate later (something you fell far short of with your last post)

 

Here is a good question. Why does it matter? I believe Job was and is a great example for Christians today. Everyone around us telling us to deny God. Everyone telling us to do what feels right. Yet we stay strong in our faith. We hold true to what The Bible teaches us. You can have all the scholars you want saying this and that about what The Bible is and isn't, either way, I will still believe that when I die Jesus will hold true to His word and bring me into Heaven.

 

Hi Im back.

What matters is that I should have been more specific and refered to 'Job' as in 'Book of Job' and JLazarus is more fascinated with the handful of fringe 'critics' who specialise in, what amounts to, legalistic hair-splitting and nit-picking of details - rather than - looking for the crux of things.

But.. I gave him that opportunity so - my bad.
Im sloppy sometimes because I work wierd shifts and watch TV while thinking out loud.

So, What I was trying to address is the 'complaint' that different books were written at different times by various authors.

I suggest this (if anything) validates the Bible.

Starters - Its true that we dont know for sure when Job was written.
But...
... We can only go by the best available evidence and use common sense along with it.
Tradition compared against the placenames in Job hold the events themselves as happening much earlier than Moses penning the Torah.
Yes,
however,
Job is credited as having actually said and recorded (or a scribe) the account himself.
This is because the book itself presents portions as 'first person'.
We call this 'Logical deduction' in case your wondering.

Now.. tradition IS EVIDENCE regardless of what some skeptics will tell you.
Historical evidence teaches us one thing for certain - Jews were extremely vigilant about keeping highly accurate records about their history and especially their Holy books.
[anyone ignorant enough to deny this might as well not comment anymore]

So, tradition has it that Jobs already well-known account was given to Moses to 'Officially' record it. [As inspired and sanctioned by God himself]

Granted.. some suggest it was not Moses but a minor prophet [mind you... Moses definately would have authority in this situation]

Now here is where the 'Common Sense' part of this comes in.
Jlazarus believes in the conjecture of the fringe scholars and suggests that the Official Book of Job was 'published' [so to speak] to the Israelites BEFORE the Law was given?

Im going to agree with him that Job was not written 'much later' (and lets say 'published' because the actual story is older) .
However,
Its beyond common sense to suggest the Israelites were given Job before the Law.
If your going to be sitting there not knowing either way.. you surely dont fall to the side of Job being 'officially' sanctioned as Scripture before the Torah (or most of the Torah if you wish).

But wait....

Debating this misses the original idea I intended (and failed) to communicate well enough...
Which is.
Various authors and various era's (and languages and cultures) is actually a Good Thing.
Just to turn it around - If Mohammed writes the entire Koran, by himself, in one language, in one time period - Then you have no reason to expect anything other than a seamless theology and no contradiction or dilemas.

Thats easy.

Having many many different authors, writing in different era's, cultures and languages can be argued requires diving inspiration! if you expect agreement and constant theology
Job, originally, had nothing to do with the Israelites and Jlazarus goes as far to speculate some emnity towards Job (who was a gentile) and that could be right.
They came from different 'Era's'.
Even if they did meet in person - Job would not necessarily be 'in the loop with Moses'.

This goes for many of the authors and era's who had little to do with each other.
I would strongly suggest to any of you that this should almost guaruntee inconsistancy, doctrinal contradictions, and all kinds of problems with dates, place-names, geneologies etc etc.

But no.. while differing in structure, style and 'perspective' - all the Old Testament Canon is consistant with one another.

.......

Now then.
To address Jlazarus use of the word 'Poetry'.
Red Flag!!

Like so many of the liberal scholars in here.. they are counting on you to 'pour a certain meaning' into the word 'Poetic'.
They are counting on you to presume the word 'Poetic' means 'Ficticious' or even 'Loose facts'.
This is NOT the case with the kind of 'Poetic' structure the 'Writings' of the OT Canon are using.

This is why I will not let Jlazarus get away with using the definition 'Poetic' because I know what HE thinks YOU are going to define it in common modern definition.

The writings are NOT considered poetic in the sense the liberal critics hope you will define the word.
They ARE 'Poetic' but this in no way has anything to do with them being 'more ficticious' or 'less factual'.

Indeed, Jesus and Co. understand Job is a real historical figure.

So that is my story folks.
Gotta get my laundry now.

 

Okay, here we go:

Well that’s great that you feel you can brush sources aside as simply being liberal and not address the arguments – but the fact remains that the arguments are still there. If you cannot refute those arguments, you have no right continuing to hold to traditional scholarship – which, from the general consensus, doesn’t have much to offer anymore anyway after many new considerations and the historical knowledge that has been obtained by modern scholars.

That’s fine, and I presented reasons for that and reasons for why diversity in authorship was hardly a sign of authentic divine inspiration.

What silly supposition is that? I made a number of points in my last post and all you’ve done is brushed a couple of my provided sources away as being liberal. And what about my other statements and arguments that I’ve been making from the beginning? You’ve yet to adequately address any of them.

You can call my general position or statements “silly” if you like – but you simply haven’t refuted or addressed any of them sufficiently. Can you? I’m starting to doubt it.

You once again just brush sources aside as being liberal, and can’t even man up to address the arguments provided.

As for Job agreeing with the Law, I already stated that Job wasn’t a book in purpose that could possibly DISAGREE with the Law. It wasn’t being presented as a theological treatise that it could address the other written laws of other theological books.

And sure, there were tons of *different* views that were established (not really new – theological works written by the Jews were many and throughout different time periods, which presented all sorts of different ideas and etc.) – but as said, Job isn’t really about presenting a new theological worldview as much as its about a testimony of a righteous man during a tribulation, is it?

Right. And you stated that Job was included because it coincided with established tradition. I informed you that no such established tradition was in existence – whether or not the Torah was written before or after Job. The Old Testament had not been solidified and declared as sacred – the Jews had all sorts of different books besides the ones now included in the OT, and they viewed them all as simply general guidelines. There was, however, an oral tradition, which is far different then your argument - as you're arguing established sacred text, which simply didn't exist.

So, as I said, its not that Job explicitly agrees, it’s that Job is not in a category of things that could really disagree. This isn’t really a significant thought here, it’s quite easy to grasp. I’d perfectly accept the idea that even if the writer of Job decided to present a theological treatise in his work, it could very well agree with other books we now have established in the Old Testament. But this is not a testimony of divine inspiration whatever. Why? I already said why:

The Old Testament is the result of the organization and decisions of councils – choosing what books they wanted to establish as sacred. Of course they’re gonna choose books that agree with each other and have a basic flow!! And they are going to choose the books that agree with their particular theological worldview. So therefore, you’re going to have an organized book that presents a general theological worldview with a basic flow to it due to a council of men organizing and putting together that book – not because of divine inspiration.

People who claim divine inspiration due to the diversity of time and authorship completely disregard a number of things. They disregard the canonization process as just mentioned, and they also disregard the oral tradition that was established, which would make it so there was at least some sort of general agreement amongst a variety of authors.

No evidence of divine inspiration from this approach at all.

Yeah, besides your brushing aside these scholars with no justification - I can tell you’re completely ignorant as to how important it is to look at all of the relevant factors, instead of just ignoring certain factors and choosing what you generally want to believe happened .

Let me give you an example:

The Salem Witchcraft Trials.

If historians were to have stopped at simply the execution of many of the individuals at Salem due to their supposedly being witches, historians would have simply called it a problem that arose solely out of extreme superstition during that time period, and that people were sincerely afraid of there being a witch around every corner.

But historians didn’t just stop at the general record of the executions and trials – they looked at all the other details (what you call “legalistic hair-splitting and nit-picking of details J).

One of the most stunning details was that the problem of there being witches in Salem didn’t result in people being frightened about their neighbours being evil sorceresses. This is what you would expect if widespread pandemonium concerning witchcraft was the case. Everyone would be afraid of their neighbour or those-strange-people-down- the-street. But this isn’t the case. Not a single person on the west side of the town was accused of being a witch, and not a single person on the east side of the town was the accuser of someone else being a witch.

Instead, what historians found is that the entire West side of the village banded together to accuse the East Side, and the entire East Side banded together to defend those accused in the East Side.

Thus, it was obvious there wasn’t any widespread fear about witchcraft plaguing everywhere in the town – but that there was some sort of West/East conflict.

And guess what? When historians looked back 20 years into the history of Salem Village, they found exactly that.

Salem Village was an offshoot of Salem Town, and the East side of Salem Village was closer to the Town than the West side. Thus, you had most of the merchants and townspeople on the East Side, and the more traditional farmers on the West. A clash of cultures began, and the West wanted to break off from Salem Village and start their own town. They hated having to take journeys into the Town to go to Church, they hated the Priests that the East Side of the town chose, and on and on. But the East side didn’t wanted the West side to break away – because they realized this would mean less tax income and that it would no longer be the responsibility of the West to protect the outer places of the village. So the culture war continued, and got worse as time went on.

So when the first rumour of Abatha the witch started up, the West took advantage and started accusing everyone on the East side of being one. The Salem Witchcraft incident wasn’t some sudden outbreak of superstitious fear about witches that happened one day and ended equally fast nine/ten months later – it was the continuation of an West/East conflict in the town that had been going on for the past twenty years.

So yes, historians look at ALL the factors to discover the truth of the past, not just the couple of factors that YOU might find convenient – and the history of the Bible is no exception.

.....

 

[Continued post]

And I’ve just informed you that it doesn’t. The basic flow is only the result of the canonization process, not divine inspiration.

No, even the conservative scholarship that I’ve read does not credit the Book of Job as Job’s work. And I just went through the Book of Job twice – I see not a single instance where the narrator equates himself with being Job. In fact, I see a conscious seperation – Job is ALWAYS referred to in the third person.

Please provide an instance where the writer equates himself with being Job – where the book is written from the perspective of Job in the first person.

No, tradition is not evidence unless it is traditional evidence that continues to stand the test of scrutiny.

If tradition itself is evidence, then we should have accepted that the earth was flat rather than spherical, because that was the generally established tradition.

And if you do indeed mean "traditional evidence", I already noted that you have no right in holding to the traditional view if you cannot refute modern developments in scholarship.

Can you provide a few sources where bible scholars actually argue this? The study bible I have in my lap right now definitely counts as conservative scholarship – and they say the following:

“…Job himself was note the author…Two [considerations] are involved [with dating]: (1) The date of the man Job and his historical setting; and (2) the date of the inspired writer who composed the work.”

So not only do you have “liberal scholars” siding against you, which you have not refuted, but you have conservative sources as well that completely disagree with you.

Here, again, you completely ignore the canonization process of biblical texts.

Lol – you haven’t even addressed the contradictions provided earlier in this thread. Problems such as this do exist, despite the canonization process.

You dummie. Thanx for entirely misrepresenting my position and speculating on my “liberal” motives. By poetry I mean just that, - poetry.

--------

----------

Take ANY Theology class and you’ll see a category of bible book’s under the term “Poetry”

You dumb ass. Poetry does not have to be fictitious. Don’t you know how many poems there are that express real life events, conflicts, and people - extremely accurately?

Biggest straw man EVER.

- Laz

 

As near as I can tell:

- You agree that the books of the Old Testament agree with each other (theologically)

- You suspect that when Jews met to confirm which scriptures were already accepted and inspired, they purposely eliminated books which 'contradict' other ones they liked more.

- You (wierdly) believe they did a poor job and have missed all kinds of contradictions.

- You didn't like my use of the term 'first person' (in quotes) and went about looking to see what I meant.
My bad.
I should have spelled it out more clearly.
Job is CONSTANTLY speaking throughout the book of Job.
The Prophetic Author (long held to be Moses whether you like it or not) goes 'goes to Job' who speaks in the First Person THROUGHOUT the book.

[This is why Job is given authorship credits dummy. Because JOB IS THE ONE SPEAKING dummy]

[pss... keep in mind 'authorship' is not necessarily only the actual Scribe moving the pen.. or only the prophet presenting Job actual words. ahhh forget it]

- You agree with me that 'Poetic' can be refering to non-fiction.

- You strongly disagree that you deliberately used the word 'Poetic' in hopes readers would believe scholars had deemed the book of Job 'ficticious or 'unreal'' (The commonly held understanding of the word Poetry).

- You want to inform me that the word 'Poetic' when refering to these books of the OT is not used in the 'Ficticious' or 'Fantastical' sense.
(Thanks for admitting that btw)

...............

So what we are left with is this:

You believe the the Jews only picked scriptures which they believed were inspired by God.
...or..
That they knew were not, but organised them as such to .. (win something?)

One question remains... Do you think they deliberately manipulated the content of the books they chose?

And...

Why did they do such a poor job [since you believe they failed to edit out many contradictions]?