Who wrote the Bible then?

uck51js9zml2yt · 04-04-2019 1:22pm

Jolene Teeny Gum wrote: »

And what's your evidence for that claim?

Read the gospels and figure it out!

Man Vs ManUre · 04-04-2019 1:26pm

I always assumed Stephen Hawkins wrote it.

Pherekydes · 04-04-2019 2:25pm

Messiah Cold Form wrote: »

MAtthew...were eyewitnesses.

Matthew 9:9 is one of my favourite verses. Jesus meets Matthew in it.

Would it make you wonder how he witnessed anything that happened in chapters 1-9:8?

Wibbs · 04-04-2019 2:45pm

That's the other problem, the names. In that region of the world they weren't so inventive with naming, so if you stood in a Jerusalem street in the first century and hollered out Matthew or Yeshua(Jesus), or Mary, a helluva lot of heads would turn around. IIRC there's three "Marys" in the New Testament.

rafatoni · 04-04-2019 2:52pm

A lot of people on boards would believe McGregor wrote the bible if he said he did :rolleyes:

Hobosan · 04-04-2019 3:25pm

lawred2 wrote: »

there's money in fairy tales

There's fairy tales in money too...

Hobosan · 04-04-2019 3:36pm

topper75 wrote: »

Yes absolutely loved, loved, loved the bible.
Convinced it contained a secret code.

One of the greatest known human minds but there you go.

Divil for the alchemy too.

The goals of alchemists were met centuries later. Sure, it was an inexact science at the time, but the ideas and the equipment produced in the pursuit were fairly accurate in hindsight.

Obviously some of the ideas in alchemy were a dead end but overall it proved a worthwhile endeavour.

Avatar MIA · 04-04-2019 3:53pm

Hobosan wrote: »

The goals of alchemists were met centuries later.

Bitcoin? Turning smoke and mirrors into gold.

But, they're no way close to manufacturing gold from another element or creating the 'philosophers stone'.

smilerf · 04-04-2019 4:09pm

rafatoni wrote: »

A lot of people on boards would believe McGregor wrote the bible if he said he did :rolleyes:

He spouts some ****e but the Bible just about beats him in the spouting ****e department

Franz Von Peppercorn · 04-04-2019 7:03pm

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Bitcoin? Turning smoke and mirrors into gold.

But, they're no way close to manufacturing gold from another element or creating the 'philosophers stone'.

Alchemy led to chemistry.

We can convert elements these days in nuclear reactions.

Kivaro · 04-04-2019 8:03pm

topper75 wrote: »

It would be like me and my mates writing about the life of JFK there circa 2006 with lots of copying and pasting going on between us.

"...and he did go unto the town of Dallas in the province of Texas and a great multitude did welcome him and shout praises unto him."

Did you mean to say shoot praises unto him?

The Red Ace · 04-04-2019 8:14pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, I just saw the other day a claim to the fact Moses was in fact the first person to download information from The Cloud onto a Tablet.

Also it is believed he was the first man to ride a motorbike, he came down from the mountain in Triumph

pawdee · 04-04-2019 8:17pm

The Red Ace wrote: »

Also it is believed he was the first man to ride a motorbike, he came down from the mountain in Triumph

Incorrect. He was wearing a bra.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 04-04-2019 8:17pm

Atheists just aren’t as smart as they used to be.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-04-2019 8:26pm

Oh we are, but after years and years of asking intelligently for any evidence for the claims the theists espouse, "we" have decided to dumb it down a lot to see if we get any better results from them

You know, in the atheist hive mind and all.

Alas no matter how much I dilute it down for them, or how wide a net I cast for the evidence..... I have yet to get a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support the claim that our existence is due to the machinations of an intelligent and intentional non-human agent.

A claim that you would think would be a pretty much first step low bar to open up theist discussion with. It being.... well.... pretty much the whole foundation of their thought process and world view.

But nah, nadda comes back. Dey gotz nuttin. They just need to get hip to that fact. "We" certainly have. They just need to catch up

Heat Transfer · 04-04-2019 8:30pm

*tips fedora

Hobosan · 04-04-2019 8:43pm

Avatar MIA wrote: »

But, they're no way close to manufacturing gold from another element or creating the 'philosophers stone'.

They're no way close to achieving something achieved in 1980? This sounds absolutely fascinating. Can you explain how this is possible in laymans terms?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 04-04-2019 9:07pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh we are, but after years and years of asking intelligently for any evidence for the claims the theists espouse, "we" have decided to dumb it down a lot to see if we get any better results from them You know, in the atheist hive mind and all.

Alas no matter how much I dilute it down for them, or how wide a net I cast for the evidence..... I have yet to get a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support the claim that our existence is due to the machinations of an intelligent and intentional non-human agent.

I worked that out when I was eight.

A claim that you would think would be a pretty much first step low bar to open up theist discussion with. It being.... well.... pretty much the whole foundation of their thought process and world view.

But nah, nadda comes back. Dey gotz nuttin. They just need to get hip to that fact. "We" certainly have. They just need to catch up

What’s embarrassing is how little this matters in 2019. Maybe Islam is a problem for the future but not now, the odd school in Birmingham aside. The mental energy for debunking logical fallacies and intellectual fads could be better used against some of the crazier ideas of right and left.

After all the op, who no doubt thinks he’s a genius, thinks that they were using stones to write on during the roman era. The modern atheist just ain’t all that. Better to leave a wide berth on the historicity of Jesus too, which is in part what this thread is about, if there’s any theme to it at all.

kowloon · 04-04-2019 9:50pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Not quite that simple. Among the literate it also found favour. Indeed some of the greatest minds humanity has ever brought forth followed it. Isaac Newton was also a theologian.

He got hit on the head one too many times.

Avatar MIA · 04-04-2019 9:59pm

Hobosan wrote: »

They're no way close to achieving something achieved in 1980? This sounds absolutely fascinating. Can you explain how this is possible in laymans terms?

Alchemists didn't care about finding different forms of elements, they didn't care to be fathers of chemistry (which they were), they had very practical goals in mind.

If you told an alchemist that you could now create small quantities of short lived elements they'd have gone 'Meh. So, can we create gold?'

Edgware · 04-04-2019 10:10pm

Messiah Cold Form wrote: »

MAtthew, John and possibly mark ( for parts) were eyewitnesses.
Luke spoke to eyewitnesses.

James and jude(the brothers of Jesus wrote a letter each. Peter(an eyewitness) wrote 2 letters. Paul wrote most of the rest. Hebrews we was anonymous but accepted as part of the new testament.
The Old testament was written by an Egyptian prince(former slave). Shepherd's, royal advisors and a host of others.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians and the ignorant bastards never wrote back

Avatar MIA · 04-04-2019 10:20pm

Edgware wrote: »

Paul wrote to the Corinthians and the ignorant bastards never wrote back

Holy Ghosted!

Capt'n Midnight · 04-04-2019 10:32pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, I just saw the other day a claim to the fact Moses was in fact the first person to download information from The Cloud onto a Tablet.

No he wasn't.

Long before then Adam and Eve had an apple.

Roger_007 · 04-04-2019 10:42pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No he wasn't.

Long before then Adam and Eve had an apple.

Be that as it may, but the mention of TV was when God appeared to Moses in a Bush!

Capt'n Midnight · 04-04-2019 10:47pm

Wtf ? wrote: »

They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ? It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then so shorthand was out of the question too. I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?

They could have used a tablet and a stylus.

Cuneiform has been around for over five thousand years. So contemporal with Adam or Seth.

Ogham and runes used alphabets better suited to incisions or scratches.

Stuff has been scratched onto shells for the last 430,000 years so it's not even a human thing.

AllForIt · 04-04-2019 11:12pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh we are, but after years and years of asking intelligently for any evidence for the claims the theists espouse, "we" have decided to dumb it down a lot to see if we get any better results from them You know, in the atheist hive mind and all.

Alas no matter how much I dilute it down for them, or how wide a net I cast for the evidence..... I have yet to get a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to support the claim that our existence is due to the machinations of an intelligent and intentional non-human agent.

A claim that you would think would be a pretty much first step low bar to open up theist discussion with. It being.... well.... pretty much the whole foundation of their thought process and world view.

But nah, nadda comes back. Dey gotz nuttin. They just need to get hip to that fact. "We" certainly have. They just need to catch up

I don't believe that there is a God.

However I still have the problem about how life became so sophisticated all by itself from basic building blocks.

If it is explained as a process of evolution then fine but I still have to ask myself how evolution came about all by itself.

I still have to ask myself why is it that it is not the case that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever and how instead there is something. I don't get how something can make itself. Maybe there will be a scientific explanation for this one day but I doubt it will be explained in my lifetime.

Wtf ? · 04-04-2019 11:15pm

M5 wrote: »

Im guessing history was not your forte?

Enlighten me...OP back in the house.......

Wtf ? · 04-04-2019 11:18pm

Messiah Cold Form wrote: »

MAtthew, John and possibly mark ( for parts) were eyewitnesses.
Luke spoke to eyewitnesses.

James and jude(the brothers of Jesus wrote a letter each. Peter(an eyewitness) wrote 2 letters. Paul wrote most of the rest. Hebrews we was anonymous but accepted as part of the new testament.
The Old testament was written by an Egyptian prince(former slave). Shepherd's, royal advisors and a host of others.

Sounds like a a speech at the Oscars...

Wtf ? · 04-04-2019 11:22pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They could have used a tablet and a stylus.

Cuneiform has been around for over five thousand years. So contemporal with Adam or Seth.

Ogham and runes used alphabets better suited to incisions or scratches.

Stuff has been scratched onto shells for the last 430,000 years so it's not even a human thing.

lol !

Odhinn · 04-04-2019 11:31pm

Wtf ? wrote: »

Enlighten me...OP back in the house.......

It started to be compiled (the old testament part) in roughly 800 BC/BCE, the driving notion being to define Judaism and its practices.

I recommend the very readable
"The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?keywords=bible+israel+silverstein&qid=1554417040&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmr2

Franz Von Peppercorn · 05-04-2019 12:09am

Wtf ? wrote: »

Enlighten me...OP back in the house.......

Ok

They could hardly whip out a biro and quote JC word for word could they ?

No. They didn’t have biros. They had other ways of writing. Like we do.

It was hammers,chisels and a nice flat bit of stone back then

This was the Roman era. Writing was on wood, wax tablets but most importantly ink on parchment or papyrus - a technology thousands of years old by then.

so shorthand was out of the question too.

That doesn’t even follow.

I think I have been sold a pup all along.....?

You were definitely sold a pup by the education system.

PARlance · 05-04-2019 12:33am

Think the 10 Commandments threw you there OP.

They were on stone, no chisel though, God's finger apparently.

nozzferrahhtoo · 05-04-2019 1:57pm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I worked that out when I was eight. What’s embarrassing is how little this matters in 2019. Maybe Islam is a problem for the future but not now, the odd school in Birmingham aside. The mental energy for debunking logical fallacies and intellectual fads could be better used against some of the crazier ideas of right and left.

I can only speak for myself but one is not mutually exclusive with the other for me. I work to combat all kinds of unsubstantiated and harmful nonsense in our world where and when I can. Religion only a small aspect of that.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

After all the op, who no doubt thinks he’s a genius, thinks that they were using stones to write on during the roman era. The modern atheist just ain’t all that.

Thankfully I see no reason to think the OP is representative of..... well anyone at all really..... least of all the "modern atheist" whatever that is

AllForIt wrote: »

If it is explained as a process of evolution then fine but I still have to ask myself how evolution came about all by itself.

AllForIt wrote: »

I still have to ask myself why is it that it is not the case that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever and how instead there is something.

I think what is in play there is a perfectly natural human fallacy of "default" thinking which we are all prone to. So let me throw a curve ball and see if you enjoy thinking of it from the opposite direction for awhile.

Whatever way our brain works, we assume that "nothing" is the default and therefore "something" has to be explained. That no evolution has to be the default so how it came about needs to be explained.

So I wonder if a useful suggest is that instead of asking why is there evolution rather than not, or something rather than nothing........ that you are accepting "nothing" and "not" as the defaults in the first place.

Ask yourself why should there be nothing rather than something? Why can something not be the default? You think it is difficult to answer why there is something rather than nothing. Try answering why you think there should be nothing!

It'll fry your noodle when you get into it

I can not come up with a single reason whatsoever why there should actually be nothing. And I've tried.

Man Vs ManUre · 05-04-2019 3:24pm

If Mcgregor wrote the Bible then khabib wrote the Koran.

Fourier · 05-04-2019 3:35pm

Short version.

Ezra the scribe (or people working for him) around 450s BC gathered older oral tales and combined them with secular histories, the writings of prophets and priestly ritual and theological texts to produce the core of the Old Testament. This was so that there was a "standard" version of the Hebrew faith, something Persians expected of all their vassal people. The older oral tales are mostly from a time Israel was polythestic or some later ones from when it was mostly monolatric. The prophets were included because they were thought to explain why Israel had been invaded by Babylon. The priestly stuff was there to explain how to worship God.

Some works of literature and fables with a moral were added later around the 200s BC to complete the Old Testament.

The New Testament is basically biographies of Jesus from community memories of his life (four different communities), combined with letters (real and faked) of Paul since he was held in high regard and finally a single prophecy given by a Greek Christian on Patmos that was felt to have legitimacy by most of the Christian community.

AllForIt · 06-04-2019 4:42am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think what is in play there is a perfectly natural human fallacy of "default" thinking which we are all prone to. So let me throw a curve ball and see if you enjoy thinking of it from the opposite direction for awhile.

Whatever way our brain works, we assume that "nothing" is the default and therefore "something" has to be explained. That no evolution has to be the default so how it came about needs to be explained.

So I wonder if a useful suggest is that instead of asking why is there evolution rather than not, or something rather than nothing........ that you are accepting "nothing" and "not" as the defaults in the first place.

Ask yourself why should there be nothing rather than something? Why can something not be the default? You think it is difficult to answer why there is something rather than nothing. Try answering why you think there should be nothing!

It'll fry your noodle when you get into it I can not come up with a single reason whatsoever why there should actually be nothing. And I've tried.

You can fry my noodles all you like, I don't mind. I'd enjoy it actually.

But from what I get you are saying is that my mind is 'limited' in my thinking. That I feel there is a concept of something or nothing, a binary issue? And that perhaps it's not that simple when it comes to physics? And that maybe something is the 'default'.

You might be surprised but I've thought your same thoughts on the issues myself. I've thought to myself 'well maybe it's impossible for there to be nothing' because even nothing is something. If there were a vast empty nothingness then that's something even though it's nothing.

So I can get why there can't be nothing (somewhat) but then I'm still left with the problem about how atoms organized themselves into my brain such that I'm thinking about atoms that make up my brain.

Fry my noodles on that one all you like, I'd love to have a theory on it anyway that doesn't involve a creator.

BeerWolf · 06-04-2019 4:53am

Word of mouth... which we all know is prone to being altered by gross exaggeration, and in a time of ignorance people would believe.

Hell, even now people believe what the mass media feeds them right off the bat...

kneemos · 06-04-2019 6:49am

AllForIt wrote: »

You can fry my noodles all you like, I don't mind. I'd enjoy it actually.

But from what I get you are saying is that my mind is 'limited' in my thinking. That I feel there is a concept of something or nothing, a binary issue? And that perhaps it's not that simple when it comes to physics? And that maybe something is the 'default'.

You might be surprised but I've thought your same thoughts on the issues myself. I've thought to myself 'well maybe it's impossible for there to be nothing' because even nothing is something. If there were a vast empty nothingness then that's something even though it's nothing.

So I can get why there can't be nothing (somewhat) but then I'm still left with the problem about how atoms organized themselves into my brain such that I'm thinking about atoms that make up my brain.

Fry my noodles on that one all you like, I'd love to have a theory on it anyway that doesn't involve a creator.

I thought you were going down the double slit experiment there for a minute,the creator can be several different things.

Or even Shrodinger's cat.

nozzferrahhtoo · 06-04-2019 7:33am

AllForIt wrote: »

But from what I get you are saying is that my mind is 'limited' in my thinking.

Not you. All of us. We are evolved in that exact thinking. We start projects with nothing and get something. We are born with nothing and acquire things. We start with no knowledge, we learn things.

Throughout evolution and throughout our entire lives we are instilled with this "nothing to something" way of thinking. It is second nature to us and seems to get ramified in many ways every day of our lives.

So when we think of existence itself, we take that baggage with us. We assume nothing, then seek to explain something.

My point is just to suggest this is not valid at all. That there is no reason to expect nothing, and therefore no reason the something demands explanation. We can not at all explain why it is nothing existing that would not actually be what requires explanation.

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm still left with the problem about how atoms organized themselves into my brain such that I'm thinking about atoms that make up my brain.

This is essentially the same thing as above though. A good question in reverse is why SHOULDNT the atoms do this? You are sitting there thinking about it because that IS what atoms do. Perhaps there is nothing remarkable about it, other than it seems remarkable to us! But even the most simple mathematical equations can have complex results. So really I find it remarkable and wholly mundane at the same time.

It is basically the anthropic principle. And it requires no external creator at all. Nor would one be useful given it only shifts the same questions TO that creator. If we have to explain why we are able to think and exist.... then postulating a creator only means we then have to explain why IT can think and exist. So a creator explains nothing. Just pushes the same question up the chain.

And all I suggest is that perhaps it is the wrong question in the first place. Regardless of where one places it.

Sleeper12 · 06-04-2019 7:53am

Most of the old testament were stories & songs handed down generation to generation. Noah and the Great flood is an amalgamation of three of or four of stories.

The new testament was written or put together hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. Some heavy editing went on. It's wildly believed that there was a lot more than four gospels. Judas the hero of the jesus story most likely had a gospel. Mary magdalene is believed to have had a gospel.

YFlyer · 06-04-2019 1:06pm

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't believe that there is a God.

However I still have the problem about how life became so sophisticated all by itself from basic building blocks.

If it is explained as a process of evolution then fine but I still have to ask myself how evolution came about all by itself.

I still have to ask myself why is it that it is not the case that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever and how instead there is something. I don't get how something can make itself. Maybe there will be a scientific explanation for this one day but I doubt it will be explained in my lifetime.

Mostly because the quantum realm is ignored when explaining evolution.

recedite · 06-04-2019 1:16pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

it seems they've changed the things they teach kids in school now. The stations of the cross have gone from 12 to 6 in my sons religion book.

Post offices have gone the same way.
There just isn't the market any more.

decky1 · 07-04-2019 5:49pm

it's a bit like man evolving from the apes why is none of it happening now?

Capt'n Midnight · 07-04-2019 5:57pm

decky1 wrote: »

it's a bit like man evolving from the apes why is none of it happening now?

It still is.

The Koran is centuries newer and the Book of Mormon is less than 200 years old.

Then again lots of people think the New Testament is too new so there's that.

Arbitrary · 07-04-2019 6:09pm

Give a story one week with a sample size of 1,000 people and see how it evolves. I can't begin to imagine what that same story looks like after 500 years.

Fourier · 07-04-2019 7:05pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is essentially the same thing as above though. A good question in reverse is why SHOULDNT the atoms do this? You are sitting there thinking about it because that IS what atoms do. Perhaps there is nothing remarkable about it, other than it seems remarkable to us! But even the most simple mathematical equations can have complex results. So really I find it remarkable and wholly mundane at the same time.

Just thinking about this a bit I'm not quite sure the sentence in bold is true. It would require us to have demonstrated that all biological and chemical effects reduce to the physics of atoms which has never been done. You don't know if the chemistry of your neurons is "what atoms do" let alone if your mind is "what atoms do".

Ipso · 07-04-2019 7:13pm

Arbitrary wrote: »

Give a story one week with a sample size of 1,000 people and see how it evolves. I can't begin to imagine what that same story looks like after 500 years.

Th internet is a hyper example of this, just look st conspiracy theories to see how removed from reality people can get in a matter of hours.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-04-2019 6:20am

Fourier wrote: »

You don't know if the chemistry of your neurons is "what atoms do" let alone if your mind is "what atoms do".

"know" can be a powerful word. Well really the only thing we do "know", because we do not have conclusive proof of anything at all really, is what we have evidence for and what we do not.

Consciousness could be something more than merely the emergent property that results from certain complex formations of atoms. We simply have no evidence of this.

Any evidence we currently have in our limited and incomplete understanding of it however links consciousness entirely to the brain and the workings of the neurons/atoms underlying it. No evidence suggests anything else.

So when 100% of evidence, even incomplete evidence, points one way and 0% points the other way..... I will go with the former. YMMV.

Fourier · 08-04-2019 7:33am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

"know" can be a powerful word. Well really the only thing we do "know", because we do not have conclusive proof of anything at all really, is what we have evidence for and what we do not.

I mean "know" in a more colloquial sense than water tight philosophical demonstration, a more formal version of what I mean would be "scientifically supported".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Consciousness could be something more than merely the emergent property that results from certain complex formations of atoms. We simply have no evidence of this.

Any evidence we currently have in our limited and incomplete understanding of it however links consciousness entirely to the brain and the workings of the neurons/atoms underlying it. No evidence suggests anything else.

So when 100% of evidence, even incomplete evidence, points one way and 0% points the other way..... I will go with the former. YMMV.

This isn't true and my point was not explicitly about consciousness.

Forget consciousness, it has not even been scientifically established that the chemistry of organic molecules reduces to the physics of their atoms. So even this first level of reduction has not been established. Even a two electron system can have properties that do not reduce or even emerge from any properties of the two constituent electrons and as the number of particles in a system increases the number of properties that are not reducible to a combination of those of each individual particle grows faster than those that are reducible. (For convenience I'm ignoring the fact that strictly speaking particles do not exist in quantum mechanics)

Hans Primas's book "Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism" is a decent older account of the scientific issues with reducing chemistry to atomic physics.

So in no sense does 100% of the evidence point to everything about neurons or even biochemistry being linked to the working of atoms.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-04-2019 7:52am

Sounds a bit too far in the direction of linguistic pedantry for me I have to admit. I see nothing there really taking issue with what I am saying, just the words I am using to say it. I can restate it in vaguer words if it helps, but would still essentially be saying the same thing, as I am only using the word "atoms" because the user did. And responding to people in the same language they use to you is a useful rhetorical move.

So lets use the vaguer word "stuff" then. The user above us appears to be concerned that the "stuff" in his head has come together in such a way that it is capable of contemplating how the "stuff" in his head has come together. And as humans this is indeed amazing to us. And he is interested to explore explanations that do not require an appeal to a creator hypothesis.

And my point is that much like the expectation that "nothing" should be default and therefore "something rather than nothing" is what requires explanation..... perhaps this is just what that "stuff" does. Perhaps it is that "stuff" NOT doing it would be what requires more explanation, similar to that "why should there be nothing rather than something" might be what would require explanation. Much like the Anthropic Principle.... the reason the "stuff" is doing that is because that is what that "stuff" does in this universe.

Or TLDR version: Perhaps we just ask the wrong questions sometimes.

Who wrote the Bible then?

Comments