What the Bible says about Debunking and Skepticism

Is gov. really so different than religion? Just a different set of 'primarily' men telling us what we can do, and what we can say, and what we can eat.
Who allowed this one to pipe up?


(1920 should be the resolution for Super Bowls and Steve McQueen movies...not a year for loony laws)
 
what cracks me up isn't jesus rising from the 'dead' or the parting of the Red Sea, it's the fact that the gospel writers decades later think they got it right.
I can't speak to the embellishments the Hyksos (presumably) placed within their folk narrative but there is historical (i.e non-Hyksos) evidence corroborating the "parting of the Red Sea" story as to a large extent true.
 
Your 2 options are follow Noahide Law, or not follow it. I understand that perfectly. And indeed an essence of the bible. And the Koran has a similar essence wrt the word of Allah and Mohammad's laws.

Christians say that the bible is true because it is the word of god - hence your characterization of there being only 2 ways is typical of the limits they can see - due to the circular reasoning.

My point about other societies is that it does not require a god at all to have a moral compass.
 
I have seen many references to it as "Parting of the reed sea".
Yes, I have seen some too. I'd tend to see those arguments as, quite understandably, working from a presumption one simply can not part a sea, so an adjacent marshland may be a viable alternative to make the legend plausible. Also presume this relies on a similarity between the two words in English, German, Latin, which seems nonsensical but I've no idea whether there is phonetic similarity in regionally specific tongues and assume advocates would have that covered. In any case, I was referring to the Red Sea.
 
Hmmm, as far as the Bible is concerned we all take a few stories and verses to make a point and down play or ignore the rest. Seems there are several stories and verses about doubt and skepticism. Noah doubted, Moses doubted, Joseph, Abraham and Sarah, Jonah and on and on. Does the Old and new Testament advise people to respect authority, Yes. It also advises the blind to lead the blind and the dead to bury the dead. Many verses are metaphors and were not to be taken literally. It is not a book of science, it was never intended to be such. Is it relevant to debunking? I suggest it is not. It contains relatively ancient wisdom, philosophy, and some history about a small group of people in the Middle East.

If one wishes to debunk the use of the Bible as a justification to prove "intelligent design" that is fair in my opinion. Religion, politics and philosophy are influenced by science and by fiction, entertainment, literature and all human endeavors. Bottom line, faith and belief are not quantitative or easily measured so most discussions become a criticism about ones acceptance or non acceptance of such things and I would recommend it is best avoided.o_O
 
I can't speak to the embellishments the Hyksos (presumably) placed within their folk narrative but there is historical (i.e non-Hyksos) evidence corroborating the "parting of the Red Sea" story as to a large extent true.
yea. that's actually a hyperlink in my post regarding the red sea. its hard to tell though because some people (No Party) like to confuse everyone with multicolored fonts on a regular basis!

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0012481
 
Perhaps already mentioned, but I find verses like Proverbs 3:5-6 to be quite contradictory to Corinthians 10:15.

Trust unto Jehovah with all thy heart, And unto thine own understanding lean not.
Content from External Source
Compared to:

I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
Content from External Source
One is basically saying not to trust your own judgement, the other one the complete opposite.
 
One is basically saying not to trust your own judgement, the other one the complete opposite
I'm not that versed in the bible, but i'm thinking that might be one of those logical fallacies.

On face value of your examples, my first thought is 'there is probably a big difference between trusting Jehovah vs trusting a man (saul/paul)'*

But i'm not sure you can compare Old Testament with New Testament. If Paul/Saul didnt "evolve" (based on the story.. i'm not saying he actually evolved) to the New Religion, he'd still be Jewish.
Just a real quick search of context, Paul/Saul is talking about animal sacrifices.. which, again not being well versed in the bible, goes against what the Old Testament says anyway. hence the 'new' religion emerging from Judaism.

*including the fallible men who penned 'the word of God', but thats another thread topic :)
 
Regarding the long-dead discussion about the parting of the Red/Reed Sea:

1. The verse actually implies that the event was not supernatural - or at least not more supernatural than any extreme weather event. The language used is (to the best of my recollection; translation is my own): 'And the Lord brought up a powerful East wind and it blew all night and therewith the sea was parted'.

2. The term used to describe the sea in the original Hebrew is 'yaam suf', or 'Sea of Suf'. The word 'suf' does not mean 'red' ('red' in Hebrew is 'edom'); nor does it mean 'reed' (which in Hebrew is 'qane', as it is in other Semitic languages - cf the Assyrian 'qanoo' and Arabic 'qana'). So both translations are questionable.

The word 'suf' may however be a reference to 'sufo', which in several ancient languages seems to have meant a red rush-like plant (which would suit both translations well). And it may be an alternate spelling of 'sof', or 'end' ('Sea of End' might be a symbolic reference, a metaphor of some sort, or a geographical error).

(I studied ancient Semitic languages for several years... don't ask why.)
 
Last edited:
2. The term used to describe the sea in the original Hebrew is 'yaam suf', or 'Sea of Suf'. The word 'suf' does not mean 'red' ('red' in Hebrew is 'edom'); nor does it mean 'reed' (which in Hebrew is 'qane', as it is in other Semitic languages - cf the Assyrian 'qanoo' and Arabic 'qana'). So both translations are questionable.

Perhaps you should go edit the Wikipedia page then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Suph
 
The contradictions in the bible guarantee that nobody could possibly conform to the rules, thus keep the flocks forever feeling guilty of something and easily controlled. Bart Ehrman explained how the contradictions in the Gospels came about in Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them).

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693
 
yea. that's actually a hyperlink in my post regarding the red sea. its hard to tell though because some people (No Party) like to confuse everyone with multicolored fonts on a regular basis!

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0012481

That's interesting, but irrelevant if Hal Wohl (retired history professor and past president of the local conservative synagogue) is correct. He doesn't believe the Hebrews ever went to Israel, that they were in Canaan from the beginning, and gives three reasons: 1) the Egyptians kept immaculate records, even down to how much grain was in each bin, but left no record of the Israelites arriving, becoming a problem, or leaving, 2) If millions of people had spent 40 years in the short distance between Egypt and Canaan, there should be some sign of it, but searches have shown nothing, 3) archeological records show that some of the cities in the story weren't there at that time.
 
Back
Top