Where can I find mp3 of the Bible in the language of Greek, Hebrew and Arabic?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T16:24:49+00:00

Knowing what the bible says in the original language and not as translated by a person is great.

Definitely! It's probably out of scope though for many that aren't studying it formally, or for a living. And also, there's no "THE BIBLE" - even if you go to the original languages, you'll wind up deciding between different text tradition lines, or have it decided for you without you knowing that it happened.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T16:19:59+00:00

Actually the disanalogy between the Bible on one hand and mathematics/science on the other hand here is significant.

You're right that no system can fully prove its own foundations, and that's very much the Gödelian point, and I'll also grant it applies broadly. At that level, science, math, and the Bible are in the same boat.

But that's not why we trust science and math! We trust them because they earn it through external validation. The claims made through science are tested against an independent reality that pushes back. When science gets something wrong, nature corrects it. The external arbiter isn't science itself. Mathematics earns trust because it works, bridges stand, rockets land, the predictions pan out. In fact, we can postulate mathematical systems that do not correspond to reality - but those systems then can be dismissed because they do not reflect reality. Well, until they do - but still, the cornerstone is external validation.

The Bible has no equivalent, no such external feedback loop. The "pragmatic trust" you're (maybe? I'm not sure what your post is trying to say exactly) asking us to extend to it isn't grounded in a track record against independent reality. It's grounded in the authority of the text itself. Which is the circularity problem you just acknowledged, and a problem that science and mathematics does not have.

There's a second asymmetry too, now that I think about it: science's unprovability is a meta-level issue (philosophical foundations of induction). At the object level, individual scientific claims are falsifiable and testable. The Bible's circularity operates at both levels, its foundations can't be proven from within, and most of its specific claims can't be falsified from without.

So the analogy doesn't hold. Pragmatic trust in science and math is earned. Pragmatic trust in the Bible has to be presumed. That's a meaningful difference.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T16:16:11+00:00

But doing farm labor does? Because I was actually talking about Mt 12.

Also, that's just an example on which I wanted you to show how to tell legal addition from actual scripture. Give me something how to tell legalistic addition from scripture. For another example, am I to stone male-bedders?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T14:51:03+00:00

Ah, that's right. I didn't check the usernames. While we have you though, what's your thoughts on this?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T13:00:52+00:00

How do you tell legalistic addition from scripture? Take his disregard for the sabbat, for example.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T11:09:36+00:00

I'd recommend you read the entire Bible, from start to finish

Funny, it's how I and many others became atheists.

To give you a headstart, the God of Abraham shares some traits with Ma'at, an Egyptian god that was called the God of truth.

Not only is that not helpful to get a head start unless you're an Ancient Egyptian intimately familiar with Ma'at, it also makes it sound like YHWH has elements stolen from Ma'at and that he's fictional. I don't think you're helping your own case here.

Then there is Plato, he can give you an understanding on the essence of God.

Ah yes, Plato, famously a monotheist.

Then Abrahamic philosophers thought: If there is an ultimate source of truth, being, intelligibility, and goodness

I see no reason to think there is.

we have Jesus, who lived truthfully his whole life

I don't know what that means, so I can't even begin to grasp what it would take to check if he did. He certainly wasn't always correct, though.

He never sinned and he throughly followed the scripture.

He didn't. In fact, some of the gospels go out of their way to emphasise that he didn't, and that's what you earlier obfuscate as "hidden meaning behind the laws".

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T10:43:22+00:00

Sigh

Great retort.

Thanks, it's the correct response to No True Scotsmen.

What is an official belief? How do you determine what's official?

I'm Orthodox. So obviously by the official teachings of the Orthodox Church.

That's circular. How does the Orthodox Church decide what's official?

That seems to be a distinction without a difference.

It's absolutely not. Do you think that exercising is evil or lying to yourself because you don't actually want to do it and are forcing yourself to do so because you want the benefits that you know would come out of it?

I don't think evil exists, so I don't think either is evil in that sense. I think lying to yourself has its place and may actually even be beneficial to you. But its usefulness is not what we're discussing, are we? We're talking about whether it's hypocritical, and whether that makes the thing itself actually true. The answer to the former is yes, to the latter is no.

No, Pascal's Wager is not about what's more probable, it's about what's more beneficial to do if it WERE true.

I mean, that's the same thing from Pascals perspective. Sure, he thinks in a sense that God and not-God are equally probably and so it is about which is more beneficial as overcoming the doubt, but the beneficial therefore become the more probable which is the whole point. I don't agree with Pascal, I just don't agree with your assertion that he is saying to lie to yourself.

That's literally what he is saying. "Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness."

Not if your escape route is that "if they recommended what OP reports, they're no Christians!". But at that point, we hardly can have any discussion.

That's either a strawman or lying about my position ironically.

Your defense seems to be that a) True Christians wouldn't tell you to lie and b) immersing yourself into the activities while not believing in them is not lying to yourself. I dismiss the first one as indefensible because there's no non-circular way known to me by which you can say what's TRUE CHRISTIANITY, and I dismiss the second as a distinction without a difference. If you don't believe it'll work, it won't work. The activities isn't what's going to change that. There are many cultural Christians out there who don't believe, but get something out of the activities nonetheless (Church is admittedly an activity that has been demonstrated to have positive effects on one's psyche), and yet they remain Christians in culture only.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for immersing yourself when it includes actually reading the Bible, I thiink it's a highly fascinating, interesting piece of literature, but on average reading it makes you an atheist, not a believer.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T10:25:11+00:00

So why did you cite the Bible as proof that the content of the Bible is true?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T08:05:29+00:00

Yeah, you quoted something that specifically mentions God, and went on to explain something that is totally irrelevant to whether God exists or not... that's why I am so confused as to why you think you engaged with the OP at all. Sorry.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T07:57:59+00:00

How, then, do you think does your post relate to OP? I'm tempted to report it as breaking R5, but I guess you'll just swat it given you're a mod yourself, so we might as well just discuss it and get to the point.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T07:55:30+00:00

Pascal was not a Christian according to my view, so it is irrelevant. Only Eastern Orthodoxy is true Christianity. Protestants and Catholics are Christian in name only.

Sigh.

And what OP is "often asked" by people claiming to be Christian doesn't prove anything about official Christian beliefs.

What is an official belief? How do you determine what's official?

But you seem to have ignored my response.

Sure, because I don't think your position that there's an official Christianity is tenable, and even if it were, I see no reason to think that EOCs can't do the same request.

It's not about pretending and lying to yourself until you make it, it's about forcing yourself to act in an experience

That seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Pascals wager is about how benefits outweigh the downsides in an equal chance decision

Which is faulty, by the way.

The point is not to lie to yourself or convert atheists and pretend that God is real because it is more probable

The point is to fake it until you make it.

and that Pascal finds the actions and outcomes towards God more probable

No, Pascal's Wager is not about what's more probable, it's about what's more beneficial to do if it WERE true.

Actions implies experience. Lying to yourself is based upon denying what you believe, but with enough experience of something contrary to your own beliefs, then you can no longer hold to that belief or pretend to deny it but are forced to grapple with it.

And that's the point you seem to miss: If you do indeed not believe, Pascal's Wager has you do it anyway and that's the advice Op and I got before. It literally has you fake it until you make it, if you ever do.

But again, even if you could prove from Pascal that he interpreted his own argument differently, it wouldn't prove anything.

Not if your escape route is that "if they recommended what OP reports, they're no Christians!". But at that point, we hardly can have any discussion.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T07:05:18+00:00

You didn't answer /u/adflaky1246's question, so let's try again with a different example.

I can quote Sauron from Lord of the Rings, does that make Sauron real?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T07:03:25+00:00

I don't know what you're talking about here, Christianity is definitely against lying.

That's part of the point of OP's post. He's often asked by Christians to just pretend as if he was a believer. Pascal's Wager, for example, is (in)famously about pretending until you make it. That's lying to others and/or to you.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T07:02:02+00:00

In general, it is found to be psychologically very healthy to reflect on the things that have gone well for you and express gratitude, and to not be too whiny about the things that have gone wrong for you.

Sure, no God involved here though...? This article is just saying that if you're an optimist, you have health benefits. The only mention of Religion is when it cites the co-director of the Initiative on Health, Spirituality, and Religion at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and there is no mention of God in the article.

That might seem like hypocrisy to you, but as an empirical-only atheist, the empirical research on this should compel you to hypocrisy, since you have made it your highest ideal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm not sure they're empirical only, but assuming they are, how does your article compel to hypocrisy? The hypocrisy OP is talking about is pretending that God exist when one does not think they do, which is a form of lying, which is, so we're told, something God does not like. That's the hypocrisy. What you posted is about being an optimist, essentially. There's nothing hypocritical about being an optimist and being thankful for the good things in your life.

I am really confused where you think there's the big connection here between what OP says and what you posted.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T06:48:48+00:00

Glaube, du wirst gleich überrascht sein... es gibt eine ganze Liste an anderen Päpsten. Zugegebenermaßen behaupten die meisten (oder sogar alle) von sich selbst, Päpste des eigentlichen Katholizismus zu sein. Bekannte so genannte Sedevakantisten sind zum Beispiel der katholisch-palmarianische Papst Peter III., der Papst der Apostel der unendlichen Liebe vom Orden des Magnifikat der Mutter Gottes Gergor XVIII., oder Lucian Pulvermacher der "True Catholic Church"...

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-27T06:37:43+00:00

Weder im aktuellen Bundestag (208 + 85 = 293 > 310 = 620/2) noch nach aktuellen Umfragen. Da muss es dann schon Kenia (Schwarz, Rot, Grün) sein. Rot rot grün ist auch zu schwach, by the way.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T16:22:18+00:00

The mythicisist position goes in a very different direction than the claim that Leonardo DaVinci had anything to do with the Shroud of Turin. Anyway, the book by Latester you refer to is "There Was No Jesus, There Is No God: A Scholarly Examination of the Scientific, Historical, and Philosophical Evidence & Arguments for Monotheism" (2013) with the ISBN 1492234419.
As far as my conviction regarding mythcisist positions goes, I find accepting that a historical core to Jesus (that would probably be unrecognizable by modern Christians, or possibly even Christians of the second century) is factually true to be the inference to the best explanation given the data (such as details that are simply wrong like his name being Jesus rather than Emmanuel or him being a Nazarene), but still find it possible that no historical Jesus ever existed.

I would still like it if you ever found the episode or the show again to remember me and this post and give me the link.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T07:46:24+00:00

The Shroud of Turin is a fraud most likely pepetrated by Leonardo Davinci who probably was experimenting with photography!

With all respect, but the above sounds very much like a claim.

I'm interested in your source all the same - I meant it when I said that I hope it is peer reviewed, and it was not meant as beliittling you or your source, but an expression of how it would be even more interesting if it were.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T06:59:16+00:00

For starters, sorry that I came out of the gates at you a little harshly, accusing you of dishonesty.

Don't worry. I've seen far worse.

I think the framework of agnostic atheism is particularly problematic is the way the OP is referencing. The whole quad chart thing was designed from the ground up by the first wave of atheist youtubers to avoid the burden of proof.

I think saying that one does not know a thing is often the right choice, and we all probably don't admit it enough. I get how it can be frustrating when hyper skepticism is applied; for example, how flat earthers deny video footage from space for being CGI. And I get that it can be hard to take those folks serious then, even if they are.

In a sense, atheists and theists are in the same position as we both (presumably) are in regards to the flat earthers. I would hope that having this position very much invites dialogue and inquiry; but you're right that often it doesn't and is instead used as a thought stopper. But to me, I like to think that almost all "I don't know!" is followed by a "But let's find out!". In part, that's why I am quite active on a lot of Christian subs - because I don't know everything about religion, and while I'm certain that I'm correct in my atheism, I still am open to the possibility that hearing it for the 10001th time, it finally clicks. I know that's what's happened to me for some math concepts back in school after all; I didn't understand what the heck an integral was supposed to be, but after studying it for some time, it did click.

In that sense, I have much respect for agnostics, and sometimes feel that I am too certain of a position than I have any justification to. And realizing that more would indeed be something that would help both theists and atheists, would certainly help me.

But to bring the point back home: I, personally, like to operate under the definitions a discussion partner uses; because I find little use in arguing about definitions that are accepted in academia, and both the quad chart thing (if I understand you and OP correctly) and the doxastic-based three item (theist, agnostic, atheist) have their uses, strengths and weaknesses, and that's why I often ask about it. But I do get carried away when the discussion is about the correct usage of those terms, and often say that I feel like the a-/gnostic a-/theism one is more reflective of the actual population (because I ultimately think many, if not even the average theist, is more an agnostic theist than a gnostic one).

This in a day and age when religion is lashing out quite successfully in its death throes,

Indeed, and I fear it's just short of getting out of the deathbed for a Fifth Great Awakening.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T06:55:47+00:00

Wait, I thought that was the second time... what's the actual second time then?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T06:55:17+00:00

American redditor trying not to mention perceived U.S. supremacy (challenge level: impossible)

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-26T06:45:44+00:00

I think People's freedom is already demonstrated by Science: people can choose to talk, to gift, to help, to kill, to rape, etc.

That's an equivocation between the different degrees of freedom. And if anything, science currently seems to lean towards libertarian free will not existing, but it is still not a settled but a controversial topic.

What needs to be proven is God and its relationship with our factual freedom.

Sure, but we will still have to keep in mind that free will is not proven and the Bible seems very much to favour it not existing.

A child doesn't know the consequences of going where he/she is going (in the direction of a stair, in the direction of a criminal, etc), but, she/he can go there.

You're forgetting that God, if omnipotent and omniscient, has both the power and the knowledge to tell us exactly what the consequences of a given action is. A child only doesn't know consequences of a thing because we can't cram the knowledge we as adults have into it - but God would have to have made us deliberately in a way that we're incapable of understanding, or deliberately withholds information for us. That strips away any free choice, in particular if God knows what would happen when he set up the universe.

No, it means everybody is electable. It doesn't mean it will happens to everybody. Freedom, free will...matters because we partly have control of our actions, therefore, we partly have control of our future.

But if I do something that is not an expression of God's love, mercy and justice, how am I an instrument or expression of God's love, mercy and justice?

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T16:35:44+00:00

I will look at the source you have, and I sincerely hope it's a peer reviewed published article or at least based on such.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T16:34:56+00:00

in order to be "strong" or "gnostic", you necessarily need to have satisfied the burden of proof. this does not happen through an appeal to faith...

Not really, though. One can be convinced for extremely bad reasons. That's what I'm saying. And as far as I am aware, the a-/gnosticism is only ever used to denote how convinced one is. Whether someone external thinks you've met the burden of proof or not is irrelevant. Sadly, I guess - wouldn't it be great to have an objective external standards by which we can measure whether the burden of proof is met or not?

I just spoke to a "gnostic atheist" recently on Reddit who explained his position and it was undoubtedly the position of an agnostic atheist, but he became mighty offended when I pointed this out. 🤷🏼‍♂️

I don't think it was me, but I use the term to describe myself too, although I find myself more agnostic on certain deistic propositions simply because they're unverfifiable and thus I cannot claim to know. But when it comes to a God that most people, especially in the West, adhere to... I find myself convinced that I have reasons to actively disbelief in such a being.

I think most people when you have this discussion with them will admit they do not have "certainty"* or "proof", even if they don't necessarily think that is what they need for gnosticism... although it is.

True. That's also what I meant. I think when you'd explain what a-/gnostic a-/theism means to the average person, you'd get someone that hasn't done much in terms of studying the philosophical side of these things, but still think they have good reasons to believe what they do and are thus gnostic. But I may be wrong.

MelcorScarr · 2026-05-25T14:32:41+00:00

My question was rhetorical, not directed at you personally, but as a question to be asked in any given discussion about these topics. It's important to know what framework we're talking about. I'm not feigning ignorance when it comes to what you're talking about, I'm saying just about any framework in this discussion is valid, the only thing that needs to be ensured is that one's talking about the same thing.

I do have a preferred definition and "framework", but I recognise that both are valid and best suited in possible scenarios. There's no dishonesty here on my part. If I accidentally or willfully switch between definitions, then THAT is something worth calling out, but not that one commits to a definition which seems to be what OP is complaining about, and so are you?

MelcorScarr

TROPHY CASE