I was in my SRT class, which is basically a 30 minute study time in my school. My friend, who is a Christian was sitting next to me talking about something off topic. But I threw up the question, what would you do if all records of the bible were eliminated, destroyed and couldn't be recorded? She responded, "Well we would rewrite it." I brought up the point where it wouldn't be the same exact religion, considering its highly improbable to remember every line in the bible word for word. She then proceeded to say my thinking was stupid, and left the class. So I was wondering if my question is actually a good point against Christianity or religion in general?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The religious wouldn't find it compelling, they would just rewrite it claiming divine inspiration, they already claim revelation and special knowledge.
God said His word would continue forever. So just as others have tried in the past to destroy God's word, they are in the grave and His word remains.
It can't be destroyed, or it would show He doesn't have the ability to keep it, which in turn would prove God to be false.
Even after the rapture, and the world thinks it has gotten rid of God, He will send 144,000 of His children (12,000 young men from each tribe of Israel) to take His word to every nation.
It can't be destroyed, guaranteed!!!!!!!
ROFLMAO !!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
They can just re-write it for their own selfish reasons. Have you heard of a Roman king who took all the copies of the bible and re edit it just to gain everyone loyality.
Constantine. He ordered the bible be made into a single written work (it was various written bits and word of mouth stories up to that time) and that undesired parts be left out.
The bible was edited and reworked many times after that.
[quote]
The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈni:kaɪja]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325 and presided by Hosius of Corduba (A bishop from the West and perhaps a Papal delegate: see article below). This first ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[5]
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of the Son of God and his relationship to God the Father,[3] the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, establishing uniform observance of the date of Easter,[6] and promulgation of early canon law.[4][7]
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
[quote]
The Fifty Bibles of Constantine were Bibles in Greek language commissioned in 331 by Constantine I and prepared by Eusebius of Caesarea. They were made for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of churches in that very new city. Eusebius quoted the letter of commission in his Life of Constantine, and it is the only surviving source from which we know of the existence of the Bibles.[1]
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibles_of_Constantine
It seems Constantine changed when and where Jesus was supposed to be born and changed the rules about how to be a christian to suit himself and his Roman state.
This is a valid argument, in my opinion. I'm sure most of us have heard the argument if all of our scientific knowledge was lost, we could reclaim it again in exactly the same way we had it before. The language might be different, but the scientific principles would be the same. No matter how you say it, radioactive elements decay and that can be measured. The crust of the Earth is broken into giant plates that move, which is supported by measurable and consistent evidence. You get the point.
In the case of this happening to religion, it could never be recreated exactly the same because it deals with the immeasurable. If we lost all of Kierkegaard's work, we wouldn't be able to "rediscover" it exactly the same way, even if someone later came up with something that was in the same ball park. Religion's substance lies in myth, and myths are merely stories. Stories can change over time based on who is telling them and how long it has been since it was first told. If you lost all that, and no one had any knowledge of it from before, then it would be gone. New books might spring up, but you can be pretty sure that it would be far and away from the original.
This might not be an entirely valid argument against the truth of a deity's existence, but it is a pretty sound argument against the divine nature of the Bible and for the very human origin of it. If the Bible was divinely inspired/authored, and it was irrevocably lost, would that divine inspiration resurface, or would God write another Bible? I sincerely doubt it.
If it were at all possible for God to allow every single scripture in the entire bible to be destroyed. It would only be to prove to you that God would be able to have one or several of His children repen the entire bible to every t being crossed and every i dotted with ease.
Chuck:
You just told us that it "would prove God to be false."
Now you tell us "It would only be to prove [something different]".
Perhaps you should get your story straight in your own head, before you bring it here to us.
I know that destroying God's word is impossible.
Because God can't go against His word. In my second post I was simply saying that "IF" it was possible, God would have no problem having it repented exactly the same. But again to be clear, God's word will never be destroyed guaranteed!
Interesting how you keep claiming that you "know" and that you can "guarantee". It would be very interesting if you could demonstrate how you actually know, not just believe. And it would be very interesting if you could demonstrate how you can guarantee your claims.
"Because God can't go against His word." - Well that is omnipotence right out the door then?
No reply?
Do you have evidence that this is the case? I mean, of course, beyond all the "Bible says so, god is all powerful," jargon?
After reading this discussion in full, all I've seen you do is make some pretty grand claims, all of which are based on belief in the (specifically) Christian god and the divine truth of the Bible. You've failed to provide much in the way of evidence at all, even going so far as to tell us just exactly what your god feels about this and that which seems rather presumptuous to me.
You made a claim that there can only be one god. Why? Is there some rule NOT penned in the Bible that says so? How do you know that your religion is the "true" one, and all the others false? Especially when those faiths you call false will label yours the same way? Each holy book makes claims of truth but they all seem to be in conflict. How do you resolve that? What criteria for validity do you use?
Admittedly, most of these are rhetorical. I don't expect any real answers. I figure you will probably call on personal experience, a feeling you have, the Bible making claims of truth for itself, etc. Probably even invoke prayer and the whole "ask and ye shall receive" verse. Who knows, maybe you will provide a good argument in your case. I'm waiting to be surprised.
Well you see thats the thing, thats only true if the actually "god" you believe in is real. Banking off the research I've done, I'm gonna say he isn't real. Plus the argument works with any religious text, the same thing would happen, and then the same exact response would probably follow with followers from those religions.
There can only be one God!
You see when you look into different religions, true Christianity was pened down by I believe 44 different men inspired by the Holy ghost, over a minimum of 1,200 years, without any contradictions. While the other were written mostly by one person. And if by more than one, it was in a short period of time. Also I know of some of them that have so called prophesies that should have already came to pass due to specific dates they referenced and have still not been fulfilled, making them false. But the Bible has fulfilled and is still fulfilling its prophesies.
Double Fulfilling!!!
Genesis 19:30-38 Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their "just and righteous" father drunk, and have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son (wouldn't you know it!). Just another wholesome family values Bible story.
What is your point. There are many true stories in the Bible that God doesn't like. That doesn't mean He approves of it.
The Bible is nothing but a hodgepodge of man made lies. Not even original lies because Christianity borrows elements for its story line from the myths of other countries long before the supposed crucifixion of Christ. Myths (Krishna, Horus, Mithraism, Osirian, Isis to name a few) that also claim the nonsense of virgin births some also dated on the 25th of December.
In 325 AD there were too many religions in the Roman Empire. Constantine chose to use Christianity to his advantage to consolidate the Roman Empire. His main objective was to organize and stop numerous conflicts between multiple religious groups. The tenets of the biblical writings were organized at the Council of Nicaea. All man-made, and you can educate yourself by reading or you can stick your fingers in your ears and believe the lies. I predict you’ll do the later.
You apparently don't do much investigating either. You most likely only read from those who are against God. There is a lot of information out there you can read to show that what you claim is wrong. But I'm sure you won't look into anything of a truth. It wouldn't matter to you if the truth starred you in the face, you would believe those who think like you. Because you've not been saved.
I've stated several times that there are many false Christian religions. Constantine was of the Catholic church, in which they don't believe Jesus to be deity, and leave Him on the cross. That's why they use crucifixes. But my Jesus is sitting on the throne on the right hand of the Father.
The Vatican manuscripts along with others were rejected by true Christians shortly after they were written.
You should get your facts right.
Ahhhh.....just like I predicted....fingers in your ears. If you want to believe and live by a book of lies....be my guest. Better you waste your life than mine. How much of your income do you throw away to church?.....just curious : )
In reference to your statement: "There are many true stories in the Bible that God doesn't like." Then he doesn't like himself since he commits way worse offenses than the people in the myths Genocide, child murder and slavery to name a few : ) Doesn't matter...just a book of man-made lies Chucky : )
The Bible shows us how much God HATES sin. He is willing to send people to burn in Hell's fire for eternity. And that is much worse than any way you can think of dying. So the suffering someone goes through in their death will not matter to them when they lift up their eyes in Hell.
And yet the Bible shows also how much He loves us that He made a way through His own suffering for us to escape that punishment. Even for those who you probably wouldn't have a problem seeing suffer for the crimes they have committed.
And for those who have accepted His gift of eternal life in Heaven, will not care how much they may suffer in death when they get to Heaven. They will rejoice if they suffered for Christ's sake, and say it was well worth it.
You to can have that assurance. But God will not make you. You have to choose Him.
Eternity is way to long to be wrong!
Religious drivel…been there…done that...very familiar with indoctrination mental poison. If you want to waste your life spouting that stuff….be my guest. Sad….but your choice. If you were raised in a Muslim country you'd be spouting that. Oh well...
ImFree did you by chance pick that Muslim argument from Richard Dawkins? Because I look up to Richard Dawkins highly, and that was one of his rebuttals in a question asked to him during a Q&A part of his presentation. (Which btw is one of my favorite arguments against any religious follower )
I pulled that info off the top of my memory. I didn't go into that much detail. I've read several different sources and watched videos on the subject.
I'm a big Dawkins fan as well. I'm also a fan of Christopher Hitchen's. I watch a lot of episodes of the Atheist Experience from Austin, Texas. There are about 800 episodes, I watch several each week and will continue till I've watched most of them. My favorite debater on Atheist Experience is Matt Dillahunty.
Have you seen this Dillahunty tape?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGuVZmUVwcM
Its covers a ten minute phone call debate.
Dawkins and Hitchens are both my favorite. Unfortunately Hitchens passed earlier than all of his followers were expecting, but he is by far my favorite. I've watched several shows of The Atheist Experience and I love it, but with school and speech team I only have a limited amount of free time.
Yes, unfortunately his smoking habit cost him. Its sad people become addicted to tobacco when their young and subject to peer pressure. Here is a video of the tobacco company CEOs claiming tobacco is not addictive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08
No shame with these guys. Profits over lives....
Food for thought: wonder what religious affiliation those tobacco CEO's were/are?
Pages