Plagiarism In The Bible

originally posted by: Jenisiz
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


The actually Library of Alexandria was destroyed to cover up the fact that Christianity pulled it's sources from much much older texts and claimed it to be their own. Several scholars have stollen scripts to preserve the truth so several stories are scattered and broken up, but manuscripts can be located. 10 commandments were stolen for example from the book of the dead.

Do you have evidence that the library was destroyed to cover up that fact?
It was trashed three or four times, and I'm assuming you're referring to the 391 event. Now, considering that religions attacking and destroying other religions religious texts is pretty normal behavior (sadly) I don't see any reason to just assume there was a conspiracy here, any more than this 2001 destruction of "idols" (statues of Buddha) was a conspiracy to conceal horrid things about Islam.

originally posted by: Tangerine

I agree. Prove that God exists and that Jesus actually lived. Testable evidence will prove the former and contemporaneous documentation will prove the latter. If you can't prove those two things, everything in the Bible is moot, plagarized or not.

Tangerine,
We cannot "prove" that *anything* exists, let alone that Jesus did. But it's my understanding that most contemporary scholars agree that a historical Jesus in some form, shape or fashion did, in fact, walk the earth.
As far as God existing, again, you can't "prove" that He exists. But (to shamelessly steal from brighter minds than I) there is a nifty syllogism that goes like this:
1. The universe has a beginning (we know this from science.)
And
2. All things that have beginnings have causes (we know this from observation and logic.)
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. (if the first two premises are true, than the conclusion must be true.)

Slam-dunk proof for God? I don't think so. But it's a pretty good argument for some sort of preexistent Unmoved Mover. I can certainly see why people wouldn't believe in a God, but I don't think belief in a deity is unreasonable.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Thank god there's a few that know something without me having to continuously search for sources that are common knowledge. Yes, I'm referring to that specific event. It's been set ablaze several times...by several different sects all in an attempt to prevent it's contents from disrupting those in power. This is just one of dozens of examples as to how religion is corrupted. It's not about seeking the truth or knowledge, it's about control. Don't search for the answers, the answer is god...this repeats throughout it's existence.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Tangerine

I agree. Prove that God exists and that Jesus actually lived. Testable evidence will prove the former and contemporaneous documentation will prove the latter. If you can't prove those two things, everything in the Bible is moot, plagarized or not.

Tangerine,
We cannot "prove" that *anything* exists, let alone that Jesus did. But it's my understanding that most contemporary scholars agree that a historical Jesus in some form, shape or fashion did, in fact, walk the earth.
As far as God existing, again, you can't "prove" that He exists. But (to shamelessly steal from brighter minds than I) there is a nifty syllogism that goes like this:
1. The universe has a beginning (we know this from science.)

Science doesn't say that at all. The Big Bang wasn't the start of the universe. Before the Big Bang, the entirety of the universe was condensed into a single point called the singularity. Then when the Big Bang happened, it started expanding. Scientists don't know how long the singularity existed beforehand; they don't know anything about it actually. So you should stop repeating this falsehood. The Big Bang just describes when the universe changed states.

2. All things that have beginnings have causes (we know this from observation and logic.)

Correction: all things contained in the universe have causes, that doesn't necessarily mean that the universe has a cause or that things outside the universe have a cause.

3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. (if the first two premises are true, than the conclusion must be true.)

Negative.

Slam-dunk proof for God? I don't think so. But it's a pretty good argument for some sort of preexistent Unmoved Mover. I can certainly see why people wouldn't believe in a God, but I don't think belief in a deity is unreasonable.

Except your argument is flawed.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim. Quoting an article that is based on a few conspiracy theory books is hardly proof.

okay, why do i get the impression that you deliberately chose not to look up a single person on the list i gave you? i show you right where to look and what to look for and you still wont do it. its not like theres some trick to reading it or anything. as for burden of proof...god didnt exist for 4 billion years before we came along. the concept of god is less than 1 million years old. spirituality is less than 1 million years old. less than one million years ago, burial wasnt a thing. worship wasnt a thing. we as a species INTRODUCED the idea. i dont see why we now have to prove that the idea was ours when god as an idea has been around for 1/4,000 (0.025%) of the current lifespan of the universe. not even 1 whole percent. not even HALF a percent. no record of spirituality from before that. but obviously, that means god did it.

what you just did here? burden of proof reversal

I can quote the bible for my points, and can even provide dates that the scholarly communty accepts.

i can quote wikipedia and provide sources and citations for at least half the people in the list i gave you, and they all qualify as messiahs. you can go and look right now, wikipedia isnt going anywhere. and if you dont trust wikipedia check the cited sources.

This should not be a monumental task. Either the evidence does not exist and the OP is beating around the bush, or the OP simply doesnt know what she's talking about and is relying on hearsay.

i see the possibility of vindication has been omitted entirely. unsurprising.

Here you go, folks:

originally posted by: Jenisiz
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Thank god there's a few that know something without me having to continuously search for sources that are common knowledge. Yes, I'm referring to that specific event. It's been set ablaze several times...by several different sects all in an attempt to prevent it's contents from disrupting those in power. This is just one of dozens of examples as to how religion is corrupted. It's not about seeking the truth or knowledge, it's about control. Don't search for the answers, the answer is god...this repeats throughout it's existence.

Well, yes, I use Wikipedia...
But I'm puzzled by your explicit assertion that sects are destroying these libraries to "prevent inconvenient truths from getting out," as opposed to suppressing variant religious beliefs. I suppose at one level one might equate the two. Is that what you're doing?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I didn't mention the Big Bang
I'm *not* a cosmologist or a physicist, so I'm probably out of my depth on this issue! You seem to know more about it than I do, so perhaps you can enlighten me: has the universe existed for infinity, or does it have a finite starting point?
My understanding of the issue is that currently it's believed to have a finite starting point, indicating that it came into being, and thus was caused. You take exception to this issue and believe the universe has existed for infinity?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

No, there is a third answer that you seemed to have skipped over. Science doesn't know the answer to if the universe had a beginning or not. The only definitive starting point that science can look at, is the Big Bang (which you just professed not to be too knowledgeable on); but like I pointed out, that isn't really the start of the universe. It's just the start of the standard model of space-time physics that we use to describe the universe.

a reply to: Jenisiz

Are you all not seeing the links I'm posting...for gods sake:

The only link I noticed was in your opening post, and it was nothing but a lame article. I saw no primary sources. If Im overlooking something, then please point me in that direction.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

No, there is a third answer that you seemed to have skipped over. Science doesn't know the answer to if the universe had a beginning or not. The only definitive starting point that science can look at, is the Big Bang (which you just professed not to be too knowledgeable on); but like I pointed out, that isn't really the start of the universe. It's just the start of the standard model of space-time physics that we use to describe the universe.

Then I stand corrected on my assertion that science knows the universe has a beginning Thanks!
But the two options I proposed still exist, and it is either finite or the infinite (I don't know of any other options.) Science simply hasn't determined which yet, am I right? (Edit to add: and doesn't science, or at least *scientists* indicate that it does, in fact, have a beginning? You're right, "knows" is probably too strong a word, but is there really much doubt that the universe came into being?)

Also, a question: how do we know the Big Bang wasn't the beginning? If I'm reading you correctly, we know that something came before the Big Bang, but we don't know what it was.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim. Quoting an article that is based on a few conspiracy theory books is hardly proof.

okay, why do i get the impression that you deliberately chose not to look up a single person on the list i gave you? i show you right where to look and what to look for and you still wont do it.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. In fact, I'd bet you could dip their nose in the water
and the horse would deny it.

I don't profess to know the answers, but I do know there are other books and sources out there that really call into
question the books of the bible. I think once someone is so indoctrinated it's almost impossible for them to accept
anything other than what they've been taught.

a reply to: Jenisiz
I am surprised you didn't mention Abraham Brahma. I was just
searching Google for this this morning. On the very first page you
can find several articles about how similar their stories are.

But does that really show plagiarism? Maybe they really were the
same person and all those centuries of oral tradition caused the story
to adopt the color of the local culture.

When we get to the New Testament, maybe the case is different.
For stories that are 1000 years old, though, I think any differences
show that the story is independently recalled and not copied from
another source.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I have done the research for myself, back when Zeitgheist first came out. I found the claims to be totally unfounded in exception for the case of the Osirian trinity, which I have already explained the Christ vs antichrist dichotomy earlier in this thread.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Why even bother resulting then if you're not reading the posts? I've posted several just like this you've managed to overlook twice among others.

Word for Word snip - Zoroaster was born in 660 B.C. into the Persian Spitma family. His mother, Dughdova was a virgin who conceived after a "shaft of light" had visited her. It is also interesting to note that Zoroaster's paternal linage is traced to the Persian Adam, Gavomart, similar to Jesus' paternal lineage being traced to Adam by Luke - The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Actually if there is one thing we DO know about the Big Bang, is that it wasn't the start of the universe. Pre-Big Bang was the singularity which contained all the matter and energy in the universe infinitely condensed to a single point. We just don't know anything about what it was like.

Any scientist saying the universe had a beginning is just guessing, but also any scientist saying that it didn't is also just guessing. Yes, only one of the two options is true (or maybe they are both true).

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Actually if there is one thing we DO know about the Big Bang, is that it wasn't the start of the universe. Pre-Big Bang was the singularity which contained all the matter and energy in the universe infinitely condensed to a single point. We just don't know anything about what it was like.

Any scientist saying the universe had a beginning is just guessing, but also any scientist saying that it didn't is also just guessing. Yes, only one of the two options is true (or maybe they are both true).

So you'd say it's impossible to put your finger on what existed before the Big Bang, because it's outside of scientific reach? And you'd agree that this singularity was either caused *or* preexistent? (Or, the third option being that said singularity doesn't obey the physical constraints of the universe as we understand them now, and thus our logic is inapplicable here?)

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yes, I'd say that pretty much sums it up. Here is a great article that sums up some of the leading ideas of what science thinks existed pre-Big Bang. As you can see, they are all over the map.

What existed before the big bang?

Here's a thought: What if our universe is but the offspring of another, older universe? Some astrophysicists speculate that this story is written in the relic radiation left over from the big bang: the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

Astronomers first observed the CMB in 1965, and it quickly created problems for the big bang theory -- problems that were subsequently addressed (for a while) in 1981 with the inflation theory. This theory entails an extremely rapid expansion of the universe in the first few moments of its existence. It also accounts for temperature and density fluctuations in the CMB, but dictates that those fluctuations should be uniform.

That's not the case. Recent mapping efforts actually suggest that the universe is lopsided, with more fluctuations in some areas than in others. Some cosmologists see this observation as supporting evidence that our universe formed out of a parent universe.

In chaotic inflation theory, this concept goes even deeper: an endless progression of inflationary bubbles, each becoming a universe, and each of these birthing even more inflationary bubbles in an immeasurable multiverse [source: Science News].

Still other models revolve around the formation of the pre-big bang singularity itself. If you think of black holes as cosmic trash compactors, they stand as prime candidates for all that primordial compression, so our expanding universe could theoretically be the white hole output from a black hole in another universe. A white hole is a hypothetical body that acts in the opposite manner of a black hole, giving off serious energy and matter rather than sucking it in. Think of it as a cosmic exhaust valve. Some scientists propose that our universe may have been born inside a black hole, and every black hole in our own universe could each contain separate universes as well.

Other scientists place the formation of the singularity inside a cycle called the big bounce in which our expanding universe will eventually collapse back in on itself in an event called the big crunch. A singularity once more, the universe will then expand in another big bang. This process would be eternal and, as such, every big bang and big crunch the universe ever experiences would be nothing but a rebirth into another phase of existence.

The last explanation we'll discuss also supports the idea of a cyclical universe, courtesy of string theory. It surmises that new matter and energy spring into existence every trillion years when two extra-dimensional membranes, or branes, collide in a zone outside our universe.

What existed before the big bang? It's still an open question. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Tangerine

I agree. Prove that God exists and that Jesus actually lived. Testable evidence will prove the former and contemporaneous documentation will prove the latter. If you can't prove those two things, everything in the Bible is moot, plagarized or not.

Tangerine,
We cannot "prove" that *anything* exists, let alone that Jesus did. But it's my understanding that most contemporary scholars agree that a historical Jesus in some form, shape or fashion did, in fact, walk the earth.
As far as God existing, again, you can't "prove" that He exists. But (to shamelessly steal from brighter minds than I) there is a nifty syllogism that goes like this:
1. The universe has a beginning (we know this from science.)
And
2. All things that have beginnings have causes (we know this from observation and logic.)
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. (if the first two premises are true, than the conclusion must be true.)

Slam-dunk proof for God? I don't think so. But it's a pretty good argument for some sort of preexistent Unmoved Mover. I can certainly see why people wouldn't believe in a God, but I don't think belief in a deity is unreasonable.

No scholar has ever produced an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived. Nothing written by a single person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived stating that said person witnessed Jesus living has ever been discovered. Testable evidence could prove that God's existence is fact, except that there isn't any. Could it be found in the future? Sure. Testable evidence could be found in the future proving that Frodo existed, too.

I don't recall scientists saying that energy had a beginning.

The prime mover theory in no way proves the existence of the Abrahamic God. Who created the prime mover?l

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: TzarChasm

I have done the research for myself, back when Zeitgheist first came out. I found the claims to be totally unfounded in exception for the case of the Osirian trinity, which I have already explained the Christ vs antichrist dichotomy earlier in this thread.

When you did this alleged research, what sources did you use? Cite them, please.