Vatican Very Concerned About The 1500-year-old Bible

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just asking again, but what "outside sources" where there in that time frame?

Even your wiki page includes this:

Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents, although Herod was guilty of many brutal acts including the killing of his wife and two of his sons, no other source from the period refers to the massacre.[40] Since Bethlehem was a small village, the number of male children under the age of two might not exceed 20, and this may be the reason for the lack of other sources for this history.[41] Most biographers of Herod doubt the event took place

Massacre of the Innocents might not exceed 20.....I think you are just trying to dig too deep honestly....

If you don't want to believe in the supernatural....Fine, just remember:

The first paragraph is one that I can accept and advocate in its entirety. We reject supernatural causes in the same way that we reject implausible material explanations, because the evidence tells us that they don’t exist. The second, a statement and defense of IMN, is of a very different kind. Science, he says, is committed in advance to exclusively material explanations, and the reason for doing so is, again, to exclude divine intervention.

scientiasalon.wordpress.com...

One of many quotes from scientists about the issue....Just because it can't be explained does not mean it can't/didn't happen!

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

As for Herod, like it said, most Historians believe it didn't happen. It's nice that the bible wrote about it, but there is no mention of it outside of the bible. Is it possible that it happened? Certainly. The man appeared to be evil and selfish enough to attempt such lunacy, but just because we can prove that a man would have no qualms against it, is no reason to assume that he actually did it.

One of many quotes from scientists about the issue....Just because it can't be explained does not mean it can't/didn't happen!

That's why I'm an agnostic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's a little vague, but hey if that is what you claim to be I can't argue....

Others have refined this concept to distinguish between agnostic atheism (the view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist) and agnostic theism (the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence)

If you still have the glimmer of hope, I hope you find what you are looking for!

You know my views on the Bible as well, you don't need to believe everything in it.....It wasn't supposed to be a literal interpretation nor do I care the semantics of it all.....I can tell you I didn't need it for my personal views on the topic....

Best of luck my man! I still love you either way

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

I like it that way. I feel that the vaguer my beliefs, the more open I am to all possibilities. If I allow that any possibility could be true then it helps me to not dismiss outlandish claims outright just because they conflict with my confirmation bias. It also allows me to revisit claims that I have previously dismissed when new evidence comes to my attention.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

I like it that way. I feel that the vaguer my beliefs, the more open I am to all possibilities. If I allow that any possibility could be true then it helps me to not dismiss outlandish claims outright just because they conflict with my confirmation bias. It also allows me to revisit claims that I have previously dismissed when new evidence comes to my attention.

Fair enough, but who is to say you wouldn't accept new evidence if you did believe in something? For gosh sakes you are on ATS brother!!

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

I don't. I'm not perfect, and I would never claim to be such. I recognize that even -I- still have to battle my confirmation biases when confronted by new evidence. Though if you remember the things I used to post about and say when I first joined back in 2012 versus what I say and post about now, you'd know that I have evolved my beliefs since then. So I take certain solace in knowing that, my method may not be perfect, but it's effective.

Though ATS didn't teach me this. I've always been an evidence minded person. I like researching and understanding a topic before I speak on it. I like letting people that demonstrate superior knowledge in a topic speak and overrule my opinions on a topic since they likely know more about it than me. Though that doesn't stop me from asking to clarify things from them though, or I'll go look that particular thing up independently to see where they are coming from.

A 1,500 year old bible about Jesus is nothing compared to the about 2,000 year gospels of Jesus.

The 1,500 is not near the time Jesus is said to have lived, but the earliest gospels are.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

I don't. I'm not perfect, and I would never claim to be such. I recognize that even -I- still have to battle my confirmation biases when confronted by new evidence. Though if you remember the things I used to post about and say when I first joined back in 2012 versus what I say and post about now, you'd know that I have evolved my beliefs since then. So I take certain solace in knowing that, my method may not be perfect, but it's effective.

Though ATS didn't teach me this. I've always been an evidence minded person. I like researching and understanding a topic before I speak on it. I like letting people that demonstrate superior knowledge in a topic speak and overrule my opinions on a topic since they likely know more about it than me. Though that doesn't stop me from asking to clarify things from them though, or I'll go look that particular thing up independently to see where they are coming from.

I remember quite clearly really....I respect a lot of what you say even though we differ in opinion from time to time....I guess that's just the family on here and who we usually pick our "battles" with....There are reasons I always ask you things or others I do the same to on here....Believe me, a lot is for me to learn as well maybe not in knowledge all the time but how you think....Just let's me get closer to the "real" you if that is even possible on an internet forum!

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Why don't you just say:

You shall not put the LORD your God to the test... [ESV] Deuteronomy 6:16

???

Worked for Jesus....

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

Why don't you just say:

You shall not put the LORD your God to the test... [ESV] Deuteronomy 6:16

???

Worked for Jesus....

I think you are being a smart butt here, but I can't clearly depict if you are or not because of my views on the bible....Which if you know my views I don't think you would be trying this on me....

But hey, I am always game....Even if I don't quote scripture nor care for most of it in literal terms...The Bible is a guidebook for people who want to interpret what Jesus meant in his words, not to be used in literal terms...

When you say "worked for Jesus" you are comparing something I tell Krazy to what Jesus said? Who could, if you believe, put the Lord to the test? Do you even understand the meaning behind that?

I am sorry it is hard to reply when I don't believe you even care about the words nor the meaning...

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

I can't help you with your paranoia, but when people questions the Bible, use the bible to counter them. It's a game, it's quite entertaining. Can put a smile on the devil's face for a change if you do it right.

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

I can't help you with your paranoia, but when people questions the Bible, use the bible to counter them. It's a game, it's quite entertaining. Can put a smile on the devil's face for a change if you do it right.

Are you talking about the 2 different Bibles that are being discussed here?

Sorry but I didn't quote scripture once to disprove this Bible.....Simple.

If that is entertaining to you somehow, fine I guess...

I don't understand your last comment either....This:

Can put a smile on the devil's face for a change if you do it right

I am missing the logic behind this statement...If any is present?

What game are you speaking of exactly? If you believe for one second any believer is going to accept something like this as a "game" you are sadly mistaken. Actually it is more of a joke than a game...