My Theory About The Bible
- Thread starter Increan
- Start date
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
As the claimant, perhaps you should attempt to prove your 'babble' true.Originally posted by Increan
No one has still been able to prove that my theory is false. All of you just started blabbing.
How can any of u dimwits saying that the bible was made up actually believe what ur saying. I hope ur joking too! I dont think u fully grasp whats been going on. And just because it was written over 1,500 yrs, it doesnt mean that all of that history was frantically written down in the 1499 th year :bugeye: I think ur joking arent u!! u cant actually believe what ur saying!!
Teg:
Well, I have to apologize. It's just that I have a thing for the Whore of Revelations.
"Revelation, Chapter 17
SAB
17:1
And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
17:2
With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the
earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
17:3
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of
names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
17:4
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
17:5
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE
MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."
Awww maaaan, it's a damn shame she doesn't exist.
She probably wouldn't be single anyway.
Well, I have to apologize. It's just that I have a thing for the Whore of Revelations.
"Revelation, Chapter 17
SAB
17:1
And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
17:2
With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the
earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
17:3
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of
names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
17:4
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
17:5
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE
MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."
Awww maaaan, it's a damn shame she doesn't exist.
She probably wouldn't be single anyway.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
As such it is, in my opinion, a rather childish point. It serves only to demonstrate a misuse of the term "theory".
It's still a valid theory until proved otherwise. There is no misuse.
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I stand corrected. There is, indeed, a layman's sense of the term "theory". It is precisely this use (and abuse) that we encounter in the diatribe of so-called "Creationist Science".
There is also theory in the scientific scence, which implies testability. It is in this sense of the word that issues of 'validity' are relevant. There is a vast difference between scientific theory and inane speculation. That you would suggest that yours is "a valid theory until proved otherwise" is simply laughable.
Sorry, but you are simply far less clever than you believe.
Who's trying to be clever? It's suppose to be funny.
The whole point of it is to show how uncredible the bible is historicly. It's just funny that no one has any proof that the bible wasn't written by insane people or just a family with each generation adding to a family story book. This thread was just started for a laugh that's all. You have taken it way too seriously.
Some people just don't get it.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I respectfully suggest that you read "Who Wrote the Bible" by R.E. Friedman, and familiarize yourself with the immense amount of archaeological, paleographic, and textual critical scholarship that you so conteptuously dismiss. There is real analysis out there by folks such as Tov, Mazar, Dever, Silberman/Finkelstein, and many many others. In fact, the bible was not written as you suggest. Trust me: I do not take you seriously at all.
As for the issue of methodology, the inability to prove something is proof of nothing. Worse, the failure is entirely yours as author of a non-falsifiable 'theory'. Such an approach can serve only to render you the subject of ridicule rather than its source.
You just prove my theory more by stating that "the inabilty to prove something is proof of nothing". You seem to be the only one ridiculing me. Stop trying to make people think you are intelligent by posting these responses. Obviously you have good debating skills, but like I stated in the first place, no one has been able to prove me wrong.
You know I am just keep doing this because you seem to be getting more upset and are dumbfounded how I can not understand what you are stating. I fully understand all that you have stated and your argument against my theory, but it still does not prove it false and thats the whole point. Just laugh and stop trying. It's getting you no where.