Question:
Atheists -- I'm having this debate with a Christian?
Alex H
2007-12-30 15:34:10 UTC
And he's a very smart Catholic. But the main point that I can't get passed is his rationale for the validity of the Bible. He says that, "The Bible was written by many people over the course of thousands of years (including the OT), and it makes a very consistent story."

Does the fact that the Bible is consistent throughout make it any more real? Is that leverage he can use against me?
37 answers:
?
2007-12-30 15:37:00 UTC
Ehh its not worth your time.
Zen Pirate
2007-12-30 16:18:06 UTC
One would expect it to be a lot more consistent than it often is if it were the product of divine will. That said one would expect it to have some consistency since it was written and later codified by people looking to make a cohesive story out of it. What about the books that if included would have lead to great variance and inconsistency if they had been included? These were declared heretical and excluded in the long process of creating the Bible and Biblical canon. The Bible didn't appear the day after the supposed cruxifiction, they took centuries after choosing which stories were accepted and mashing it into some unified, consistent story. I think what internal consistency we do have in the product of pruning and the selection process but it is by no means a convincingly consistent, inerrant, nor cohesive tale.



"The concern with apparent biblical inconsistencies has a long history. Already in the second century, a pagan critic, Celsus, complained that Christians manipulated their sacred texts at will. The church father Origen spoke of the "great" number of differences among Gospel manuscripts. The critiques of the early Jewish scholar Hiwi al-Balkhi had already raised concern amongst rabbis of the geonic period. The text, A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, written by Richard Simon, a French priest, appeared in 1689. This was followed in 1707 by the ground breaking edition of the Greek New Testament by theologian John Mill in which he identifies some 30,000 places of variation (mainly spelling differences) from the oldest available texts. Another classic text which discusses some internal contradictions is The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, published in 1794."



The sites below are for you if you are interested, I think you are wasting your time with the person if they are commited to believe what they want to believe and especially if you are in it without a real firm grasp of the history of the development of Biblical canon, early church politics, and questions of authorship.
Sahmyel
2007-12-30 15:46:50 UTC
The fact that it is consistent means nothing. Your talking about a book that says all life on earth started with two people and that a senior citizen built an ark and filled it with two of every species on the planet. It's all fairy tales. Just because the fairy tale is consistent doesn't mean it's all of a sudden real. The Bible may have been written by men but it has also been deliberately altered by man for many different reasons. Not to mention the fact that it has been re-translated so many times that much of its original text has been lost in said translation. All this considered how accurate can it really be?
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:52:40 UTC
The bible is consistent only to the extent that the books of the bible were picked for a particular reason from hundreds of documents available at the time.



This is like saying that if we go to the library and pick out only the fairy tales the book that we make up from our selection will be consistent because they are all fairy tales.



Of course they will be because that is what we select. The bible was compiled under the auspices of the emperor Constantine. Its purpose was to subvert the teachings of Jesus. These teachings were problematic because Jesus taught that God was unconditionally loving and saw us as being perfect exactly the way that we are.



This did not sit well with the powers that were in control because they wanted a God that agreed with Roman ideas.



Thus only scripture that defined God as a judgmental punishing jerk was allowed into the final draft of the bible. This is the reason that the bible appears consistent.



There was an abundance of scripture available including the actual teachings of Jesus that supported the idea of an unconditionally loving God. This scripture was excluded from the bible and was declared heresy, including the actual teachings of the man Jesus. At that point the teachings of Jesus were declared heresy and were no longer allowed to be used as a part of the christian theology.



If this is your idea of consistent then your friend is correct. I personally don't see it that way and respectfully disagree.



By the way I'm not an atheist.



Love and blessings Don
re_vengence
2007-12-30 17:13:22 UTC
There is not perfect consistency in the Bible (for a slew of contradictions I refer you to the following pages: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

http://www.angelfire.com/droid/risky/reasons.html )



Harry Potter is a more consistent series of books with less contradiction. Does that make it more valid?



The Iliad and the Odyssey were not the product of one man (people say they were by Homer, but he was actually the first to be remembered as reciting it.), but possibly hundreds. Their story is more consistent that the Bible as well. Does that make it more valid?



Hell Aesop's fables have less contradictions, but teach more or less the same lessons as the Bible does. Does that mean that there are talking animals who display sentience, good judgment, and moral fiber? No, obviously they're meant to be allegorical stories to teach us lessons.



I think that's the only thing one should get out of the Bible, because the fact of the matter is, it does have some stories designed to teach us to be good people. But please, please, don't take it literally. There is minimal fact, minimal historical value, and minimal literal truth. Take it for what it is.



And for the record, I am an Atheist.
Diogenes
2007-12-30 15:55:22 UTC
Personally, I think the Bible is a mass of inconsistent contradictions. ...and why shouldn't it be inconsistent? It's had forty separate authors and countless "editors."



It is impossible to prove the negative assertion that God does not exist because it is impossible to check and eliminate every possibility where He might be found. It is actually the fact that Christians are unable to prove their own positive assertion that God exists in the physical realm which proves absolutely that He doesn't.



Agnosticism is the only logically unassailable position.



Atheism assumes that future Christians will be no better at proving the existence of their God than past Christians, and thus atheist is a position of some risk.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:44:46 UTC
How is it that the bible teaches that the sun revolves around the earth. We no that is not true today and never was. How it is possible that not one persons among those so-called thousands who followed Jesus, not one can remember even the year that he was born; And with all the information we have today, how is it that believers accept that Adam was the first made on earth when that tall tale is only about 4,500 years old, and we already know that a form of human life was on this planet over 25,000 to 40,000 years ago. The bile is not consistent at all, and it contradicts itself in many places. It also states that god is a liar and so is Jesus.

What you are dealing with is a person that you should get away from quickly. That person is indoctrinated and is not smart at all. Run away do not walk.
You can't prove god is real
2007-12-30 15:43:58 UTC
Alice in Wonderland is a consistent story but we know it's not real.

The real trouble you face is overcoming faith with science and rationale, it's a tough ask. If you have faith, by definition you don't need evidence.

I'd put the debate on hold, get your catholic a copy of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and assuming he's smart enough he'll actually read it. That book is one of the best plain English, logical, rational, educated and well thought out arguments against religion you're ever likely to find
Sr. Mary Holywater
2007-12-30 15:41:08 UTC
Dr. Seuss's books if put through many translations would also be consistant. So, that arguement doesn't really hold water. He did have a good point by saying "it makes a very consistent STORY." That it is.



In the bible it states not to eat from the tree of knowledge, for ye shall surely perish (paraphrased). IMHO I believe that the tree of knowledge is logic and as soon as you realize that it is a man made story, you lose hope/faith.



Just my perspective and I don't expect everyone to agree with it.



Enjoy your day.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:42:49 UTC
First, the Bible (including the OT) was written over the course of a few hundred years, not thousands.



Second, it is not consistent. Even with the best apologetics there are still some pretty glaring contradictions in the Bible. Here's a list:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html



Even if the Bible was consistent, that wouldn't make it any more real. For example, Last Thursdayism (the metaphyiscal position that the world was created Last Thursday using materials that appeared older) is completely consistent throughout, but is obviously not real.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:44:28 UTC
tell him the church pick and chose different gospels which agreed with each other, they rejected many, including Mary Magdolins gospel... anyway the bible was written 300 years after Jesus lived... the church picked what to put into it that sounded correct... the church is very dishonest... for instance in the middle ages, if your baby was died before baptism, it was in, 'limbo', neither hell or heaven... so the church got more money off people desperate to baptise their children before they died (as young deaths were very common in those times).
Keyring
2007-12-30 15:44:05 UTC
People write about stuff to make it seem like people who wrote about stuff before them were speaking the truth. Whoa, how amaaaaazing....



If there is no evidence for Santa, the logical position is a non-belief in the existence of Santa. You know where to go from there.
Feelin Randi?
2007-12-30 15:40:15 UTC
Logical Fallacy: "Begging the Question"



You can not use as evidence something that is fundamentally part of the premise you are trying to prove.



Also this is a flat out lie. The Bible is NOT consistent. First point out his fallacy and then as a side note ask him to prove that the book is in fact consistent.



From the few Bible scholars I've met and spoken to (whom are not apart of any formal religious organization thus dismissing any possible bias) I have been told that the Books of Moses (Gen-Deut) were likely not written by Moses, but by a group of Jews after the Babylonian exile.



Secondly, the entire Old Testament is clearly espousing 4 different theosophical views: The Deuteronomist, the Priestist, the Jehovist, and the Elohimist.



Google any of these words and you will find ample support.
youngmoigle
2007-12-30 16:22:56 UTC
Ask him if he will give up his belief in god if you can prove to him that atheism is the only logical position. No if buts or maybe's. Yes he will, or No he won't.



If his answer is No, forget it.



If his answer is Yes, don't believe him.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:47:08 UTC
Remind him of the differences between the Old and New Testaments. God was wrathful in the Old Testament (He turned Saul into salt, merely for turning around) and loving in the New Testament. Don't forget to ask, "Who did Adam & Eve's children, have children with?"
CC
2007-12-30 15:38:08 UTC
Consistency does not mean reality.



It is logical for me to be an atheist since I require a level of evidence that is rather high. I do not expect others to have this same requirement. They are free to believe as they will.
雅威的烤面包机
2007-12-30 15:39:52 UTC
You mean to tell me that he thinks it's absolutely impossible that the people writing a new book of the Bible could have looked back at the books already written?
Tardisman
2007-12-30 15:38:17 UTC
If you expect to win the debate you are wasting your time.



The bible is written by committee.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:37:44 UTC
Erm, it's riddled with inconsistencies, and there are sites detailing them on the net. Look one up, find some good ones and point them out to him. The fact it's been altered lots of times by lots of people doesn't help it much either.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:59:39 UTC
Be careful!

Don't let him trick you into entering the Kingdom of God!

You have a much better hope than that - don't you?
clusium1971
2007-12-30 15:40:06 UTC
It is a very consistent story, as it shows a history of a people Chosen By the Almighty, culminating with the Coming of the Promised Messiah.



Sorry. Atheism is not a logical choice. Catholic Christianity is.



I applaud my fellow Catholic Christian in his debate with you.



Please give him a message for me: "You go, Dude!!!!"
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:43:11 UTC
First of all "smart" and "catholic" are contradictory terms the way that "hot" and "cold" are



Second, that is not an argument. Arguments need to be supported with facts, not assumptions. It is pointless however because he/she will never stop believing even in the face of absurdity.
Monica C
2007-12-30 15:39:22 UTC
Many people wrote the Bible though the inspirations of God. I know he made sure what was put into it is true. With every Christian using it as their guideline for life, and all the billions of Christians in the world, He would not lead them all astray.
sgtc89oif
2007-12-30 15:39:20 UTC
lets say that I write a book today,in a few hundred years some of the prophecies and predictions I wrote would have become a reality, and remember that folks interpret things so it makes sense to them.
jenabel
2007-12-30 15:37:17 UTC
Don't even bother, he has his beliefs, you have yours. There is no point trying to change somebodies belief system and both of you will end up offended. Let i go.
Deke
2007-12-30 15:37:13 UTC
If he says that the Bible is consistent, then he has never read it cover to cover, and he is lying if he says otherwise.



The beauty of being an atheist is that we can always use their cult's handbook as a weapon against them; in no possible way can they do the same to us.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:38:53 UTC
Actually, it's not all that consistent.



In any case, the people who wrote the different books of the Bible had the already existing texts in front of them.



For example, Matthew is consistent with Mark, because the author of Matthew used the text of Mark as a basis for his own work. Matthew also wrote his work with the distinct aim of connecting his story of Jesus with the earlier Jewish scriptures familiar to his largely Jewish audience.
Hera Sent Me
2007-12-30 15:37:08 UTC
So, the fact that a compilation of works is assembled to make them into a (somewhat) coherent storyline is evidence of the divine?



I'd say it's evidence of editing.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:44:20 UTC
Tell him how consistent Harry Potter is, and that's SEVEN books.
Anthony Stark
2007-12-30 15:40:57 UTC
Actually, the Bible is far from consistent.



Here is a list of contradictions that will keep you busy for quite a while:



http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
heystevenn
2007-12-30 15:36:31 UTC
How is it consistent? And Jesus didn't live for thousands of years, how could they all document his life?
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:38:01 UTC
Many fairy tales are written many times by many different authors and all have the same story...
SkyKing
2007-12-30 15:38:09 UTC
i guess u r not smart......the bible is a consistent story??? consistent on what part? all are fake?
gabeerwin
2007-12-30 15:44:54 UTC
your logic is no match for faith. Keep spreading lies and when the time comes you lies will be party to your eternal life in hell.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:38:39 UTC
tell him



'if your hand is bigger than your face, you have cancer'

then when he puts his hand on his face punch him.



after this you will realise that he is gullible and then you should stop talking to him.
anonymous
2007-12-30 15:43:23 UTC
read the experience of one atheist:



http://www.near-death.com/storm.html
wefmeister
2007-12-30 15:38:36 UTC
Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

Dr. Hugh Ross

Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events--in detail--many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter--no errors. (The remaining 500 or so reach into the future and may be seen unfolding as days go by.) Since the probability for any one of these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance averages less than one in ten (figured very conservatively) and since the prophecies are for the most part independent of one another, the odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 10^2000 (that is 1 with 2000 zeros written after it)!



God is not the only one, however, who uses forecasts of future events to get people's attention. Satan does too. Through clairvoyants (such as Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce), mediums, spiritists, and others, come remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy, never with total accuracy. Messages from Satan, furthermore, fail to match the detail of Bible prophecies, nor do they include a call to repentance.



The acid test for identifying a prophet of God is recorded by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. According to this Bible passage (and others), God's prophets, as distinct from Satan's spokesmen, are 100 percent accurate in their predictions. There is no room for error.



As economy does not permit an explanation of all Biblical prophecies that have been fulfilled, what follows is a discussion of a few that exemplify the high degree of specificity, the range of projection, and/or the "supernature" of the predicted events. Readers are encouraged to select others, as well, and to carefully examine their historicity.



(1) Some time before 500 B. C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B. C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A. D. Also note that from 1 B. C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus's crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A. D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^5.)



*The estimates of probability included herein come from a group of secular research scientists. As an example of their method of estimation, consider their calculations for this first prophecy cited:

Since the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years, there is, then, one chance in about 5000 that his ministry could begin in 26 A.D.

Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10.

Relative to the second destruction of Jerusalem, this execution has roughly an even chance of occurring before or after that event, that is, one chance in 2.

Hence the probability of chance fulfillment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 10^5.

(2) In approximately 700 B. C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^5.)



(3) In the fifth century B. C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave--thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law--and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used--just as predicted--for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^11.)



(4) Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22), (Psalm 34:20), (Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was indeed, dead.

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^13).



(5) The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of ransom (Isaiah 44:28), (Isaiah 45:1), (Isaiah 45:13). Isaiah made this prophecy l50 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile.

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^15.)



(6) Mighty Babylon, 196 miles square, was enclosed not only by a moat, but also by a double wall 330 feet high, each part 90 feet thick. It was said by unanimous popular opinion to be indestructible, yet two Bible prophets declared its doom. These prophets further claimed that the ruins would be avoided by travellers, that the city would never again be inhabited, and that its stones would not even be moved for use as building material (Isaiah 13:17-22), (Jeremiah 51:26,43). The description is, in fact, the well-documented history of the famous citadel.

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^9.)



(7) The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem's nine suburbs was predicted by Jeremiah about 2600 years ago. He referred to the time of this building project as "the last days," that is, the time period of Israel's second rebirth as a nation in the land of Palestine (Jeremiah 31:38-40). This rebirth became history in 1948, and the construction of the nine suburbs has gone forward precisely in the locations and in the sequence predicted.

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^18.)



(8) The prophet Moses foretold (with some additions by Jeremiah and Jesus) that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and that the people would be carried off as slaves each time, first by the Babylonians (for a period of 70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (which we know as Rome). The second conqueror, Moses said, would take the Jews captive in ships, selling them or giving them away as slaves to all parts of the world. Both of these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, the first in 607 B.C. and the second in 70 A.D. God's spokesmen said, further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation (Deuteronomy 29), (Isaiah 11:11-13), (Jeremiah 25:11), (Hosea 3:4-5), (Luke 21:23-24). This prophetic statement sweeps across 3500 years of history to its complete fulfillment--in our lifetime.

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^20.)



(9) Jeremiah predicted that despite its fertility and despite the accessibility of its water supply, the land of Edom (today a part of Jordan) would become a barren, uninhabited wasteland (Jeremiah 49:15-20), (Ezekiel 25:12-14). His description accurately tells the history of that now bleak region.

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^5.)



(10) Joshua predicted that Jericho would be rebuilt by one man. He also said that the man's eldest son would die when the reconstruction began and that his youngest son would die when the work reached completion (Joshua 6:26). About five centuries later this prophecy found its fulfillment in the life and family of a man named Hiel (1 Kings 16:34).

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^7.)



(11) The day of Elijah's supernatural departure from Earth was predicted unanimously--and accurately, according to the eye-witness account--by a group of fifty prophets (2 Kings 2:3-11).

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10.)



(12) Jahaziel prophesied that King Jehoshaphat and a tiny band of men would defeat an enormous, well-equipped, well-trained army without even having to fight. Just as predicted, the King and his troops stood looking on as their foes were supernaturally destroyed to the last man (2 Chronicles 20).

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^8.)



(13) One prophet of God (unnamed, but probably Shemiah) said that a future king of Judah, named Josiah, would take the bones of all the occultic priests (priests of the "high places") of Israel's King Jeroboam and burn them on Jeroboam's altar (1 Kings 13:2), (2 Kings 23:15-18). This event occurred approximately 300 years after it was foretold.

(Probability of chance fulfillment=1 in 10^13.)



Since these thirteen prophecies cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10^138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above). For the sake of putting the figure into perspective, this probability can be compared to the statistical chance that the second law of thermodynamics will be reversed in a given situation (for example, that a gasoline engine will refrigerate itself during its combustion cycle or that heat will flow from a cold body to a hot body)--that chance=1 in 10^80. Stating it simply, based on these thirteen prophecies alone, the Bible record may be said to be vastly more reliable than the second law of thermodynamics. Each reader should feel free to make his own reasonable estimates of probability for the chance fulfillment of the prophecies cited here. In any case, the probabilities deduced still will be absurdly remote.



Given that the Bible proves so reliable a document, there is every reason to expect that the remaining 500 prophecies, those slated for the "time of the end," also will be fulfilled to the last letter. Who can afford to ignore these coming events, much less miss out on the immeasurable blessings offered to anyone and everyone who submits to the control of the Bible's author, Jesus Christ? Would a reasonable person take lightly God's warning of judgment for those who reject what they know to be true about Jesus Christ and the Bible, or who reject Jesus's claim on their lives?



Now is the day of salvation! Now is the time of God's favor! Please do not let it go by without further consideration.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...