Debunking the bible

"The reason people scoff at the Bible is because of their lifestyle. They don't want
there to be a God because God interferes with their lifestyle, and they scoff at
the Bible because of their lusts."

- Kent Hovind
[link to www.youtube.com]

Your premise has a flaw, in that you were using "courts of law" as a metaphor (or something to support your case-) weren't you?

In the U.S.A you have to give your oath with your hand on the bible.

So I guess you're saying that the courts (of the U.S.A)know all?

When in fact the courts, even to this day, admit (by practice) that they NEED the Bible for people to be sworn in.

Call it what you want, but that shows respect for that book that you think that you have all figured out.

do you believe in the bible ?

the answer is no, obvious in your failed attempt at reasoning.
therefore you have no credibility, and your testimony is void upon it's inception due to your predjudice.

wolf in sheeps clothing

you are right. That shows respect for that book.

So what? That fact has nothing to do with anything I said.

Your entire point was wrapped around how the word "testimony" was used in a court of law.....

In fact, that's how you started your argument.

What is obvious (to anybody who skimmed over your little "idea"), is that the Bible didn't get that word from the courts, and it's just the opposite.

So you are, in effect, trying to use the bible to disprove the bible- which you have stated yourself is powerless.

So which is it? Powerful or impotent

I wasn't testifying, Einstein

Nope. I would fricking LOVE for there to be an omnipotent God who was going to give me eternal bliss when I died.

That would be... awesome.

However, I am aware that people lie. So... yeah. Have to check facts. And it looks like the people who pass out the multitude of Holy books are usually lying.

In a court of law, we have something called 'testimony'

Whenever evidence is presented, someone has to 'testify'

The lawyer wants to show the murder weapon? He has a cop in court, who testifies that is the murder weapon.

Now... the person giving testimony has to be 'credible'. If the other side can prove that the witness is not credible, due to lack of knowledge or an ulterior motive, their testimony is considered 'doubtful'. There is a REASON TO DOUBT IT. And therefore, should not be considered as CREDIBLE.

In addition, witnesses are under oath. If they are found to be lying, they are penalized.



Now, the bible is called, "Testament".

You know why?

Because, it is basically testimony that was written down.

So... lets put the bible through the same process that anyone in court would go through.

Now, the question is not whether the people in the BIBLE are credible. Because you would first have to assume they exist.
No. For the information in the bible to even be considered, we need someone to TESTIFY that the information is credible.

Enter the Churches.

This is what they do. Men in robes and point hats tell you that the bible is true.

However... do churches have ulterior motives for saying this? Yes.

And have churces lied about things in the past? Have they lost 'credibility'?
Yes.

So their testimony must be discounted.

In which case, you also have to realize that there is simply no credible witness or testimony that says the Bible is even worth LOOKING AT! Much less thinking it is true.

I mean, if God came down from Heaven and blew up a city, like it said he did all the time in the Bible, then everyone would be a Christian. People wouldn't need blind faith.

But for some reason... no more miracles. No more mana from heaven. Or burning bushes. Or split seas. We just have to go on testimonial evidence.

In a court of law, we have something called 'testimony'

Whenever evidence is presented, someone has to 'testify'

The lawyer wants to show the murder weapon? He has a cop in court, who testifies that is the murder weapon.

Now... the person giving testimony has to be 'credible'. If the other side can prove that the witness is not credible, due to lack of knowledge or an ulterior motive, their testimony is considered 'doubtful'. There is a REASON TO DOUBT IT. And therefore, should not be considered as CREDIBLE.

In addition, witnesses are under oath. If they are found to be lying, they are penalized.



Now, the bible is called, "Testament".

You know why?

Because, it is basically testimony that was written down.

So... lets put the bible through the same process that anyone in court would go through.

Now, the question is not whether the people in the BIBLE are credible. Because you would first have to assume they exist.
No. For the information in the bible to even be considered, we need someone to TESTIFY that the information is credible.

Enter the Churches.

This is what they do. Men in robes and point hats tell you that the bible is true.

However... do churches have ulterior motives for saying this? Yes.

And have churces lied about things in the past? Have they lost 'credibility'?
Yes.

So their testimony must be discounted.

In which case, you also have to realize that there is simply no credible witness or testimony that says the Bible is even worth LOOKING AT! Much less thinking it is true.

If you were just saying that the people who wrote the Bible were liars then you should have stuck to that.

I wouldn't agree.

The same people would agree that agreed yesterday. Big whoop.

What's your point? Do you have an agenda to set the record straight?

Maybe you should try the book of Job for an answer. Read to what God says to Job.

No. That's the thing. A lot of people even debate WHO wrote the Bible.

Some people say that it was written centuries after the events in the bible and is still being rewritten today.

That was MY WHOLE POINT.

People are always debating whether the facts in the bible are true.

What I am saying, is that testimonial evidence like the Bible would never even be allowed into a court of law!

In a court of law, we have something called \'testimony\'

Whenever evidence is presented, someone has to \'testify\'

The lawyer wants to show the murder weapon? He has a cop in court, who testifies that is the murder weapon.

Now... the person giving testimony has to be \'credible\'. If the other side can prove that the witness is not credible, due to lack of knowledge or an ulterior motive, their testimony is considered \'doubtful\'. There is a REASON TO DOUBT IT. And therefore, should not be considered as CREDIBLE.

In addition, witnesses are under oath. If they are found to be lying, they are penalized.



Now, the bible is called, \"Testament\".

You know why?

Because, it is basically testimony that was written down.

So... lets put the bible through the same process that anyone in court would go through.

Now, the question is not whether the people in the BIBLE are credible. Because you would first have to assume they exist.
No. For the information in the bible to even be considered, we need someone to TESTIFY that the information is credible.

Enter the Churches.

This is what they do. Men in robes and point hats tell you that the bible is true.

However... do churches have ulterior motives for saying this? Yes.

And have churces lied about things in the past? Have they lost \'credibility\'?
Yes.

So their testimony must be discounted.

In which case, you also have to realize that there is simply no credible witness or testimony that says the Bible is even worth LOOKING AT! Much less thinking it is true.

Basically your agenda is to disprove the bible then? That's it?

Why?

What do you get out of that?

Do you think you'll be King?

Seriously dude. What's your point?

Do you think YOU are the one (after all this time) that will be the ONE to bring peace to the earth by destroying the bible?

No. I myself spent a great deal of thought looking at religions, doing soul searching trying to find out the truth.

So many religions. So many arguments.

Then, in my twenties I began to study philosophy. Decision making. Evaluation skills.

And I learned about how courts worked. And WHY they worked that way.

And when I applied these same mental processes to religious texts it totally altered the way I looked at them.

Suddenly I no longer searched through each line in the bible wondering... "I wonder if the man who wrote this was telling the truth"

I started thinking... "How do I know if this guy really existed?"

I started thinking, "These are just words in a book. Who says these guys even existed?"

And it changed my whole perspective. So my agenda was to share this tool. This thought process of looking at where information comes from, and consciously thinking "how credible is the source of this information?"

That was my agenda. That was all.