Need help with this one - Atheists arguing Bible is fiction

[Joan_of_Bark]

I don’t know of any atheist who would claim that all the Bible is fiction. Obviously there are historically accurate parts to it. The problem is that many Christians (especially protestants) will claim that because historians believe that some of it is accurate then it must all be accurate.

And please don’t claim that the Bible is being held up to higher standards of historical analysis than other ancient books. If anything, before the 18th century the opposite was true – the Bible was assumed to be correct without evidence to support its claims. Before the Enlightenment historians were almost universally Christians raised to believe in the Bible’s inerrancy; they were certainly not objective when viewing the stories contained there.

 

[Cachonga]

I’m not surprised when athiests and other non-Christians attack the validity of Scriptures, but I find it very disturbing when someone who claims to be Christian thinks that the Bible is mostly fiction (or even partly fiction). I can almost understand the reasoning for the Catholic, considering the Book of Judith is filled with known, provable, historical errors (such as - the King of Babylon had a palace in the Assyrian capitol of Ninevah, the 2nd Temple was rebuilt about 100 years before the first Temple was destroyed, etc…).

I find the idea that “the devil cannot stand the sight of a Crucifix” (Lmora) laughable (seems someone has been watching to many Draclua movies). I would be very interested to see some official Church documentaion that verifies these claims (ie - the Bible is mostly fiction and the devil can’t stand the sight of a crucifix).

In regard to the Hydrogen/Helium question, according to Wikipedia (not the best source, but I see it referred to by many others), some nebulas are formed by supernovas, and nebula clouds do contain large amounts of hydrogen. It would seem to me that when a star explodes (supernova), the energy released is sufficient to break down molecules back to Hydrogen. Obviously, not all the molecules are broken down (otherwise the universe would be little more than Hydrogen and Helium).

I would simply advise the athiest that I believe in the God of the Bible, preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, give my personal testimony, and pray that the Holy Spirit would work in his life. In other words, take the opportunity to plant a seed and pray that it falls on good ground. It could also be that you are not planting, but watering a seed already planted.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I’m not surprised when athiests and other non-Christians attack the validity of Scriptures, but I find it very disturbing when someone who claims to be Christian thinks that the Bible is mostly fiction (or even partly fiction). I can almost understand the reasoning for the Catholic, considering the Book of Judith is filled with known, provable, historical errors (such as - the King of Babylon had a palace in the Assyrian capitol of Ninevah, the 2nd Temple was rebuilt about 100 years before the first Temple was destroyed, etc…).

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

With regard to the state of the text it should be noted that the extraordinary variants presented in the various versions are themselves a proof that the versions were derived from a copy dating from a period long antecedent to the time of its translators (cf. Calmet, “Introd. in Lib. Judith”)…We referred above to a shorter Hebrew version of the book; Dr. Gaster, its discoverer, assigns this manuscript to the tenth or eleventh century A.D. (Proceedings of Soc. of Bibl. Archaeol., XVI, pp. 156 sqq.). It is exceedingly brief, some forty lines, and gives us only the gist of the story. Yet it seems to offer a solution to many of the difficulties…If it could be maintained that we have in this manuscript the story in its original form, and that our canonical book is an amplification of it, we should then be in a position to explain the existence of the numerous divergent versions.

The Church has canonized this book and it seems in the realm of faith and morals it is inerrant. As to the authority of the Church, that is for someone to assent or not.

I find the idea that “the devil cannot stand the sight of a Crucifix” (Lmora) laughable (seems someone has been watching to many Draclua movies). I would be very interested to see some official Church documentaion that verifies these claims (ie - the Bible is mostly fiction and the devil can’t stand the sight of a crucifix).

Whether the devil cannot stand the sight of the Crucifix is for him to elucidate. It certainly has been expounded by the Church that the devil cannot stand the effect of the Crucifixion.

In regard to the Hydrogen/Helium question, according to Wikipedia (not the best source, but I see it referred to by many others), some nebulas are formed by supernovas, and nebula clouds do contain large amounts of hydrogen. It would seem to me that when a star explodes (supernova), the energy released is sufficient to break down molecules back to Hydrogen. Obviously, not all the molecules are broken down (otherwise the universe would be little more than Hydrogen and Helium).

“In Him we move and have our being”. From the “God: the failed hypothesis” by Victor J. Stenger:

After evaluating all the scientific evidence, Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God.

Arguing matter as a proof for God is iffy. Physical proof precludes faith, one can only prove it by living it out.

I would simply advise the athiest that I believe in the God of the Bible, preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, give my personal testimony, and pray that the Holy Spirit would work in his life. In other words, take the opportunity to plant a seed and pray that it falls on good ground. It could also be that you are not planting, but watering a seed already planted.

Charity was the proof in the Bible, “see how they love one another”, intelligent arguments can be refuted by even more intelligent “sounding” arguments but true charity is never outdone. This is the proof we will be judged on. “It is as absurd to argue men, as to torture them, into believing”. John Henry Newman

 

[Lmora]

I’m not surprised when athiests and other non-Christians attack the validity of Scriptures, but I find it very disturbing when someone who claims to be Christian thinks that the Bible is mostly fiction (or even partly fiction). I can almost understand the reasoning for the Catholic, considering the Book of Judith is filled with known, provable, historical errors (such as - the King of Babylon had a palace in the Assyrian capitol of Ninevah, the 2nd Temple was rebuilt about 100 years before the first Temple was destroyed, etc…).

I find the idea that “the devil cannot stand the sight of a Crucifix” (Lmora) laughable (seems someone has been watching to many Draclua movies). I would be very interested to see some official Church documentaion that verifies these claims (ie - the Bible is mostly fiction and the devil can’t stand the sight of a crucifix).

In regard to the Hydrogen/Helium question, according to Wikipedia (not the best source, but I see it referred to by many others), some nebulas are formed by supernovas, and nebula clouds do contain large amounts of hydrogen. It would seem to me that when a star explodes (supernova), the energy released is sufficient to break down molecules back to Hydrogen. Obviously, not all the molecules are broken down (otherwise the universe would be little more than Hydrogen and Helium).

I would simply advise the athiest that I believe in the God of the Bible, preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, give my personal testimony, and pray that the Holy Spirit would work in his life. In other words, take the opportunity to plant a seed and pray that it falls on good ground. It could also be that you are not planting, but watering a seed already planted.

For your information, I do not watch Dracula movies.

Lmora

 

[Newbie2]

Why is the number of copies the decisive issue? Sure, it’s somewhat relevant because a single copy could have been interpolated and we’d be less likely to know. But it’s not the main criterion one consults when deciding whether a text is historically accurate.

So why do people keep bringing up this issue? Because it’s (at least) somewhat relevant, as you wrote.

Edwin

I don’t recall it being ***the ***decisive issue, but you have to admit it certainly is important, no?