From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon bible.svg

This Bible related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>


[edit] History (and science) section

I seem to recall some speculation that the Bible was wrong when it mentioned the "Hittites" as a nation/state since secular history and science were mute on there being such a people...for a long time. But evidence for there being a "Hittite" people emerged from secular history and archeology. Alas I do not recall where or when such evidence came to light. CЯacke®

[edit] I'm not one to usually post stuff from r/atheism, but...

Anyone feel they can explain the mindset behind this? All I can come up with is an argument similar to what creationists use to argue the "gaps in the fossil record" PRATT except reversed. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There may not be a lot of years between when the New Testament was written and the supposed oldest copy... but is that oldest itself unaltered, does the modern copy look like it, and has it been interpreted consistantly for its entire run? Or is the oldest known copy peppered with corrections, is the modern copy in a totally different order, and have people interpreted the text to mean just about anything they want to? This chart omits a staggering amount of information. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 22:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's really quite incredible, and completely ignores that the other books have copies that didn't survive, so why does that have anything to do with reliability? And if you think about it, what does that say about, for example, Harry Potter novels or the phonebook? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so uh the oldest known copy of the Bible that contains the Old and New Testamate. . And this doesn't even get into the number of times that people haven't needed to cut it up to change its meaning. Or the times it's just been ignored entirely, rendering its meaning for those in seats of power practically null. Oh, those wacky renaissance popes. And their incest and their orgies. And pretty much everything else they ever did. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRsufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Counter Conservapedia Bible Project

Daniel Dennet has suggested that religions be reformed so that their toxic elements are not so harmful. I know that many of you, like me, are atheists and couldn't care less about what the Bible says, but we have to recognize that the memes contained within its covers or on the pages of its PDFs. Think of it as a literary exercise. We could potentially create an even bigger schism between religious apologists and fundamentalists by rewriting their holy book so that it doesn't contain so many errors. I know that in principle, this is flawed. What I am proposing is of the same nature of the Conservapedia project: propaganda. They want to propagandize the Bible by deleting or editing text so that it galvanizes their ideological base and convinces them that 'Gott mit uns' and to support their political agenda in the 21st century. We all know that the Bible itself is a propagandist work of fiction. It's connections to God are a demagogue's wet dream and will continue to trouble us. The Dalai Llamma recently tweeted, "I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether." I say we help Christians along with this and water down their Holy book. We can continue to promote Atheism to try to prevent the world from ending in holy war, but if politicians can continue use the KJV to promote violence and homophobia I think it will prevent us from achieving our final objective. Imagine no religion. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

"Imagine no religion". I spent the day reading vicious attacks from an "in group" of male gamers to an "out group" of female gamers who wanted changes. It was vile. It was tribal. It was "us v. them". It was dehumanizing. It was very HUMAN. nothing changes if you get ride of religion. Something else takes it over.
Besides, the single best way to get a Christian to think about their religion, is to have them actually READ the bible, as is. That sounds like a platitude, but there are a few studies that suggest it really is the best way to get people thinking. "why would god want you to stone a raped woman?" "why would god say to go and not only kill the men who you are at war with, but RAPE the women and slaughter the innocent children." actually reading it, especially with someone who knows how to disect it, is a very useful propaganda.  :-) --Green mowse.pngGodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 04:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
-imagines a world with no religion- well, some great music, art pieces and other things would be gone... you'll find this amazing BON, but not everybody wants to crush religion. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello BON, your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. I would be happy to join your project. I've been rewriting the Book of Psalms in accordance with my own religious views. I've done about 50 odd so far, which sounds like I'm a third of the way through, but probably less, because I started with the shorter ones. See here. (((Zack Martin))) 05:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The God of the Bible

Made humans in (complex/multiple genders) image.

Until Adam and Eve ate the apple they went around naked (or possibly occasionally wore protective clothing - against brambles etc). So God goes around naked but in 'Religious Art with a Capital A' when in his masculine aspect wears clothes - why (and who makes them).

Also, God in his masculine aspect must be uncircumcised. He also has 'hinder parts' which (forget whom in the Bible) saw.

What else can be deduced about his appearance? (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that any pictures of the Christian/Jewish god are artist renditions, yes? As such, complaining about why he's wearing clothes in certain pictures is as worthless as asking why Jesus appears to be white/black/Asian/Korean/Arabic in XYZ painting.
You state that the Christian/Jewish god must be uncircumcised, but this position is unsupported by any evidence even Biblical. In fact, were such a god omnipotent, then he could be uncircumcised one second, circumcised the next, and uncircumcised again the next. Without a specific source for the Christian/Jewish god having "hinder parts" the claim is fruitless. ... After all, there a hojillion copies of the Bible online, go to one, search for "hinder parts" and back up your claim.
TL;DR: depictions of gods vary as more often than the artists themselves. Nothing significant can be derived from them. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 03:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Syllogism - Man is made in God's image; the Abrahamic covenant, therefore God is uncircumcised.

'Given the number of deities shown at least partially clothed' the idea is worth considering (even if merely as a way of passing the time).

The biblical quotation is Exodus 33:18-34:9)

Any further discussion can probably decamp to [1]. (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

[edit] New Wikipedia page Failed Bible prophecies needs your brilliant minds

If you participate, please try to follow the current format and try to avoid the kinds of edits that happen here at RationalWiki. Y'all know what I'm talking about. However, it's people like you that, when serious, come up with the best stuff. (under the Polyglot Bible) is a good way to check the translation of the Bible, word for word. I've got the failed destruction of Tyre and Jesus being Emmanuel there. RationalWiki has a good list on the page Biblical prophecies, that I'd like to see copied over to Wikipedia. I think more people would see them, that way. Knowledgebattle (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Good idea! Wikipedia needs more guerilla scepticism. Though, I've gathered that it's always a really bad idea to openly state that you're "originating" from another wiki. And - obviously - on Wikipedia, wikipedia's rules apply, not ours. So, e.g., don't go in and earn their wrath by trying to inject snark into Wikipedia. You're doing Dog's work, son. Dog speed! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yea, the snark and sarcasm is what I was referring to, for things to avoid. The page has already had a few Christians up in arms, calling it an "attack page", and it's up for deletion. The speedy deletion was denied, because it doesn't actually mean the qualifications for an attack page. On the Talk page, I mentioned how Wikipedia also has other failed prophecies/predictions made throughout history (and therefore, this is no different). Talk page: Knowledgebattle (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents

One of the reasons why I became skeptic is the Bible (and something similar could be said of the Qur'an). Is very shallow to be "a history of the world":

1) Genesis. The Heavens and Earth simply pop in. No mentions at all of all those things that science has revealed us (the Big Bang and everything that followed up to formation and evolution of the Solar System, the cosmic web of galaxies, subatomic particles, bacteria and virus...). Everything is just what people of millennia ago knew and for the case the ending would have incorporated some of those ideas we know about the future of the Universe, not looking like... well.

2) An alternative name could be "Adventures of the Jews". No mentions of people outside Israel and surrounding territories (no Chinese, Native Americans, etc. that if it was gonna be a book for all the mankind should have been mentioned at least.)

3) Inconsistencies and big gaps in the life of Jesus. Someone so important should have been far more fleshed out.

I could go on (mistakes on translation, edits on the original texts, etc) but it's hard to take seriously that book. It could be forgiveable if so many people had not died because it and Fundies wanted it passed down the throats of everyone. --Panzerfaust (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif I think you'll find the Qur'an is different though. There's a cryptic reference that possibly says water is necessary for life. <sarcasm>I wonder how Mohamed knew that living in what was practically a desert?</sarcasm> Christopher (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, I can recognize the artistic value of the Bible plus all the art that has come from the scenes depicted there. But it's too little to redeem it compared to what has been caused not by the Bible itself -it's just a book after all- but by the men who forced and force everyone to accept what's written on it without questions. --Panzerfaust (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools