Dear Kathy,
Since you graciously agreed (in our recent conversation) to let me present you with some examples of the Bible’s problems, I decided to do it in this way so it would have its own comment thread. As I’ve said, when I was a Christian, one strike against the Bible was not enough to shake my faith — maybe it only seemed problematic, maybe there was an explanation we hadn’t uncovered yet, maybe the historical accounts were wrong, etc. But as the problems began to mount up, I reached a point where I could no longer deny the fact that the Bible had actual errors.
A couple of suggestions before we begin. Try to be as open-minded about this as possible. As you go through these examples, ask yourself if God would allow such problems to exist in a message that he wanted all people to accept and believe? According to the Bible, whenever God sent someone a message, whether it was Pharaoh or Gideon or Nebuchadnezzar or Paul, they had no question whom it was from. They didn’t always follow it, as we see with people like Pharaoh and Solomon, but they didn’t question the source of the message or what it stated. So why would God operate differently today? Why would he want us to be so confused about his message that we’re able to question whether or not it’s really from him?
Another thing to keep in mind is that even if you come to the conclusion that the Bible has actual problems, that doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. There are a number of Christians who don’t believe in inerrancy. And even if you lose faith in the Christian god, that still doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. A number of people, including several of our founding fathers, were deists. I have a lot of sympathy for that view and plan to do a post on it soon.
Some of the items listed here will have links that provide additional information, especially when the issue is too detailed to list here. I hope that you’ll check out those links, since some of them are quite significant points. And regardless of how this article strikes you, I hope it will help serve as a great springboard to launch you into your own research.
Some of the Problems
Creation
The creation accounts in Genesis do not match what we’ve learned through science. This isn’t shocking news, but it bears looking into. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with my deconversion, but I’ve learned more about both since leaving Christianity. It’s shocking how much misinformation I had been operating under. Not to say that all Christians are that way — that was simply my experience. But the evidence for both evolution and the Big Bang are far more substantial than I had ever realized. Two good resources for learning more about these issues are the following (though I’d also recommend checking out the recent Cosmos series, as well as some of the PBS NOVA specials):
http://jerichobrisance.com/2014/02/18/marcos-daddy-and-the-beginning-of-life-on-earth/
http://talkorigins.org/
Another problem with the creation accounts is that Genesis 1 says that plants and trees were made on the 3rd day, while man was made on the 6th. But Genesis 2:5-9 says that man was created before there were any plants or trees in the land. Also, the 1st chapter says that man was created after all the animals, but the 2nd chapter implies that it was the other way around. It seems strange that such discrepancies would exist only a chapter apart, but there are a number of textual clues that suggest the first 5 books of the Bible were assembled over a long period of time from various writings written by a number of different people. Many scholars believe that Genesis 1 and 2 represent two separate versions of the creation story that were both included because the compilers didn’t know which was more accurate. Whatever the reason, there’s no question that the differences exist and are hard to explain.
10 Plagues
During the 10 plagues, God afflicts all of Egypt’s livestock with a disease (Ex 9:1-7), and it specifies that it would affect the “horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks.” We’re told that all of Egypt’s livestock died. But the later plague of boils was said to affect both man and beast (verse 10 of chapter 9). Maybe it meant non-livestock animals. But Ex 11:5 says that the death of the firstborn would also affect Egypt’s cattle, and in Exodus 14, Pharaoh pursues the Israelites with horses.
Hares Chew the Cud
Leviticus 11:6 tells us that hares chew the cud. They do not. Animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. When they eat plant matter, it goes to their first stomach to soften, and then it’s regurgitated to their mouth. They spend time re-chewing it, and then it is swallowed and fully digested. Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) are recognizable because their chewing of the cud is very obvious. Hares (rabbits) don’t chew the cud; however, their mouths do move frequently, so it’s possible to see why some people may have assumed that they do chew the cud. Of course, God would know they didn’t, and this is why the passage is problematic. You can read more about this here.
Arphaxad
In the genealogy given in Genesis 11:10-12, we see that Noah fathered Shem and Shem fathered Arphaxad. At the age of 35, Arphaxad fathered Shelah. This information is confirmed in 1 Chron 1:18. But Luke 3:35-36 tells us that Arphaxad’s son was Cainan, and he was the father of Shelah.
Where does Luke get this information? It disagrees with the Old Testament, so who should we believe? Some have suggested that Genesis and 1 Chronicles simply left out Cainan for some reason. But why would they do that? To further complicate it, how could Cainan have fit in there? Genesis tells us that Arphaxad was 35 when he fathered Shelah. Does it really seem likely that Arphaxad became a grandfather by 35, especially when you consider the extreme old ages that people lived to at that time?
Another explanation is that some copyist messed up when copying Luke and Cainan is just a mistake. But this is not much better. First of all, the error would have needed to occur early for it to be in all our copies of Luke. Secondly, are we really comfortable saying that we have the inspired word of our creator, but it got messed up by some guy who wasn’t paying close attention? To me, that doesn’t lend a lot of credence to the idea of inspiration or inerrancy.
Instead, the most likely explanation is that Luke made a mistake. This, of course, would indicate that he was not inspired.
Problems in the Book of Daniel
In Daniel 5, the writer refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar 7 different times. Yet we know from multiple contemporary sources that Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus, who was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. The same chapter says that Darius the Mede took over Babylon, but this person does not seem to have ever existed. Daniel says that he was the son of Ahaseurus, and in mentioning this, the author of Daniel indicates that he was thinking of a later ruler — the persian emperor Darius the Great, whose son was Ahaseurus. This post in particular goes into the problems surrounding the 5th chapter, but if you’d like to learn about the problems in the rest of the book, you can access each article in the series here.
Jairus’s Daughter
In Mark 5:23, Jairus finds Jesus and says that his daughter is at the point of death. While they’re on their way to the house, some of his servants find them on the way and say that she has died and there’s no point in troubling Jesus further.
However, in Matthew 9:18, Jairus already knows that his daughter has died, but tells Jesus that if he’ll lay his hands on her, she’ll live. This may seem like a minor difference, but honestly, there’s only one scenario that could be true. Either the girl was already dead, or she wasn’t. And if Jairus already knew she was dead, then there was no point in his servants coming to tell him that (so of course, they don’t appear in Matthew’s account).
The Centurion
This is similar to the previous issue. Matthew and Luke both record a centurion who asks Jesus to heal his sick servant. Matthew 8:5-13 says that the centurion himself comes before Jesus to ask for help. Luke 7:1-10 says that the Jewish elders went on his behalf, and then he sent servants to follow up. In Luke, Jesus never speaks to, or even sees, the centurion at all.
Hight Priest
In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus talks about the occasion from the Old Testament when David ate the showbread, which Jesus said was in the days of Abiathar the high priest. However, in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, it appears that Ahimelech was the high priest. Some have tried to answer this problem by saying that Abiathar was alive during that particular episode, so Jesus’ statement is still true. But that’s obviously not the intent of the passage. After all, we would correct anyone who said that the tragedy of 9/11 occurred during the days of President Barack Obama. He may have been alive at the time, but that event did not happen while he was President.
430 Years
Galatians 3:16-17 says this:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Here, Paul says that the law came 430 years after the promises were made to Abraham. But in Exodus 12:40-41, we see:
Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.
If the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, then there could not have been 430 years between Abraham’s promises and the law. God made the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, and as we read on through Genesis, we see that Abraham had no children at this time. Later, he had a son named Isaac. When Isaac was 60 years old, he had Jacob (Gen 25:24-26), and Jacob had 12 sons that produced the 12 tribes of Israel. Already, we can see that some time has passed since Abraham received the promise. Once Jacob’s sons were all grown with families of their own, they finally settled in Egypt. Jacob was 130 years old at this time (Gen 47:9), and this marks the beginning of that 430 year period that the Israelites spent in Egypt.
That means that the time between the promise to Abraham and the giving of the law was actually over 600 years. So why did Paul say 430 years? I think it’s obvious that this was a simple mistake. He remembered the 430 year figure because that’s how much time the Israelites spent in Egypt, and so he simply misspoke. It’s not a big deal… except that he’s supposed to be inspired by God.
Jesus’ Birth
There are a number of issues surrounding Jesus’ birth. First, Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts contradict one another on virtually all the details, which you can read about here. Secondly, Matthew seems to invent an episode where Herod kills all the children in Bethlehem who are 2 and under, causing Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to flee to Egypt (instead of just returning home to Nazareth, because only Luke says that they started in Nazareth). Matthew does this in order to “fulfill” some Old Testament passages that actually have nothing to do with Jesus or killing babies. You can read about Matthew’s misuse of the Old Testament here — it’s quite blatant.
The Virgin Birth is one of the most famous aspects of Jesus’ story, and it was supposedly done in fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah. But it turns out that Isaiah was prophesying no such thing — he was talking about an event that was happening in his own time, and Matthew (once again) just appropriated the “prophecy” for his own devices. You can read all the details here.
Another problem concerning Jesus’ birth narratives is that Matthew and Luke both offer genealogies for Jesus, but they are completely different from one another. Worse, they don’t match the genealogies listed in the Old Testament, either. And Matthew claims that there was a pattern in the number of generations between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian captivity, and between the Babylonian captivity and Christ. But to get this neat division, he is forced to leave out some names. In other words, that pattern didn’t happen. You can read more about that here.
The Triumphal Entry
While not as blatant as most of these other issues, when Matthew recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he once again borrows from the Old Testament, but seems to make a mistake in his implementation. See here for more info.
Judas’ Death
Judas is well known for being the disciple that betrayed Jesus, but what’s not as well known is there are two different accounts of his death, and it’s very hard to reconcile them. According to Matthew, Judas threw his money down at the chief priests’ feet and went out and hanged himself. We’re not told where he did this. The priests then take the money, and instead of putting it back in the treasury (since it’s blood money), they buy a field to use for burying strangers. Because they bought the field with this money, it’s called the “Field of Blood.”
According to Acts, Judas bought a field with his money (we’re not told that he was remorseful), and he somehow fell down, bursting open in the middle and bleeding to death. The field was called “Field of Blood” after that because of the manner in which Judas died.
To make things more complicated, Matthew (of course) says that this happened in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy, but there’s nothing in Jeremiah that matches up. The closest reference comes from Zechariah, not Jeremiah.
These issues really complicate the notion of divine inspiration, and you can read more about them here.
The Crucifixion
There are several big problems with the way the gospels record the events of Jesus’ death, including the fact that different times of day are given for it, and even different days altogether. You can read more about this here.
The Resurrection
There are also a number of problems concerning the resurrection, some minor, some major. They’re too involved to get into here, but you can read all about them here and here.
The Problem of Hell
The notion of Hell is fraught with problems. It might even surprise you to learn that the Bible’s teachings on the afterlife change dramatically between the Old and New Testaments. I go into detail about Hell’s problems here, here, and here.
The Problem of Evil
Another huge problem for Christianity is the problem of evil, which I talk about here. This post also addresses the “problem of Heaven.”
The Bible’s Morality
While a number of people believe that the Christian god is the source of all morality, the Bible is actually filled with some monstrous acts that are either commanded by God, done with his consent, or carried out by him directly. I talk about some specific examples here, and I address some of the common responses to them here.
Conclusion
Kathy, there are a number of other examples that could be given, including the prophecy of Tyre that we’ve been discussing. But to me, these are some of the most significant and clear-cut problems. We could try to manufacture explanations for every one of these — some might be more believable than others. But why should we have to? If a perfect God inspired this book, why should it contain so many discrepancies? And honestly, some of these issues can’t be explained. They’re just wrong. The problems go well beyond internal contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. There are problems of authorship, problems with the doctrines, and problems with the way the texts were written, transcribed, and compiled.
I’m sure you’ve spent your time as a Christian trying to reach those who are lost. You’ve always believed that Christianity is truth, and it’s the one thing that everyone needs. But could it be that Christianity is just as false as every other religion in the world? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to leave it behind? When one is dedicated to finding truth, they have to be prepared to follow it wherever it leads. It’s not always easy or popular. It’s not even a guarantee that you’re right. All it means is that you follow the evidence where it leads to the best of your ability. If you find out that you’re wrong about something, you adjust course when the evidence dictates. If God exists, and if he’s righteous, what more could he ask for than that? I’ll close with my favorite quote:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
— Marcus Aurelius
Excellent. Is there truly anything that need be discussed?
Nuff said.
LikeLike
“Another problem with the creation accounts is that Genesis 1 says that plants and trees were made on the 3rd day, while man was made on the 6th. But Genesis 2:5-9 says that man was created before there were any plants or trees in the land. Also, the 1st chapter says that man was created after all the animals, but the 2nd chapter implies that it was the other way around.”
Nate where would this contradiction be? I’m looking and can’t find it. Genesis 2 is a summary of creation and beginning in verse 8 an account of God’s creating the garden of eden. I mean it tells you right there in black and white theres a Separate action of planting a garden.
Hint Nate. verse 8 and 9 aren’t about the creation of plants in the world its of god planting a particular garden
IF your very first point to Kathy starts out with misreading the text what will that say to her and how will you convince her to flake out on her faith?
Evolution? Meh a three month long debate within itself. I doubt you will proselytize her away from God based on that but theres a lot of fun in these alleged contradictions
LikeLike
“Excellent. Is there truly anything that need be discussed?
Nuff said”
As they used to say. If wishes were horses beggars would ride.
LikeLike
Glad you’re having a good time. 🙂
Here’s Genesis 2 in context:
The garden is mentioned in verse 8, that’s true, but that’s not what’s being talked about in verse 5.
LikeLike
and then chapters 1 & 2 are completely at odds over where god brought the birds out of…
LikeLike
“The garden is mentioned in verse 8, that’s true, but that’s not what’s being talked about in verse 5.”
Verse 5 is the creation of plant life around the world Nate. The garden as the text comes right up in your face and tells you is about the planting of a particular garden beside that
Again wheres the contradiction?
LikeLike
Mike, nates saying that even in vs 8, the plants didn’t start coming up until he put man there.
I don’t care so much about this problem, not because I don’t see it, it’s just very easy to dismiss and say he’s rehashing chapter 1, but not caring about the order…
I think it’s pretty easy to see nate’s point. he’s taking it literally – if you prefer figurative, then okay, in so doing you also acknowledge the literal problem.
what about the birds? land or water? I guess if we much these together, it’s both?
LikeLike
I guess Mike has already made it clear we’re not going to hear much from Kathy until he tees the ball up for her.
LikeLike
@Mike Anthony
Your interpretation of the bible is classic apologist with a large dollop of asinine.
You cherry pick your way to a feel good answer to help cope with your intellectual inferiority and then lambaste your detractors simply to shore up emotional inadequacies and yet have not the honesty or integrity to offer an explanation as to how your man god, Jesus of Nazareth is the reason and creator of it all.
*** edited ***
LikeLike
“Mike, nates saying that even in vs 8, the plants didn’t start coming up until he put man there.’
Nope you can’t save Nate he already said this was a contradiction with chapter one and theres none in sight. the creation of the garden of eden as even the text says is a separate action. so Go d caused plants to grow in a garden he was making for him. No contradiction with when plants were created in the world in general.
It aint hard people. Just read the text.
LikeLike
Mike, I can’t tell from your comments exactly what you’re saying. Even more perplexing is that you constantly claim victory without really offering anything concrete.
Genesis 1:11-12, 26, 31:
Genesis 2:4-9:
In Genesis 1, God creates plants, trees, etc on the 3rd day. On the 6th day, he creates man. So plants first, man later. But in Genesis 2, verses 5 and 7 say that man was created before the plants. There is no mention of the garden until verse 8 — until then, we’ve been speaking in general terms.
Now maybe you think there’s wiggle room there — that’s fine. But as they stand, when taken literally, they present a contradiction. Anyone can see that. When you pretend that there’s nothing at all in the text to hint at a contradiction, you only damage your own credibility.
LikeLike
Okay next and then thats all I have time for today
Ten plagues.
You know Nate at some point you are going to have to stop skipping the language the text was written in. So many of your alleged contradictions fizzle on you because you insist on your preferred translation and never look at either the Hebrew or the greek. Thats the case here in spades
miqneh
in chapter 9 exodus
refers to bought livestock (its actually translated as possession a few times) so its bought animals out at field grazing etc as the text says. I mean the passage even goes to the length of specifying which animals were in question as well
behēmâ
in 11:5 refers to any beast in all the land of egypt owned, wild or otherwise
Two different words
In addition 11:5 says all firstborn beasts in all of Egypt Chapter 9 says only egyptian owned. As you should know from the your bible teaching days the first born applied to the jews as well if they did not get blood covering on their doors
it will make me awhile to work through so much misreading and not studying the text but its not off to a good start for you but maybe you can convince Kathy the rest is much better
LikeLike
Interesting. I can see where Mike gets his POV … although I do feel he’s stretching it a bit. I think most people would say, if there are no plants, then how does God create the garden? But as Nate’s blog readers have already noticed, Mike seems to see scripture a bit differently than most.
LikeLike
“Now maybe you think there’s wiggle room there — that’s fine. ”
I dont need any wiggle room nate. Heres what the passage says
“Genesis 2:4-7 (KJV)
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.’
WHat does the passage say God made Nate? Let me cap if for you this time
the LORD God MADE THE EARTH and THE HEAVENS And EVERY PLANT of the field before it was in the earth, and EVERY HERB of the field before it grew:
The passage says they were already made!. READ.
How were they not on the earth? t was before they grew – They were in seed form Nate so the passage continues
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
The idea is easy peazy God had the mist water the earth so the plants would grow then afterwards
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
So the man comes AFTER the plant life was made and the passage tells you that point blank
NO problemo. Another contradiction bites the dust.
LikeLike
“But as Nate’s blog readers have already noticed, Mike seems to see scripture a bit differently than People who don’t study the text.”
I fixed that for you Nan. You can thank me later and I just answered your question. Nate’s ignoring entirely that the verse says plants were made in verse 5. it might be verse divisions that are confusing him but there are no verse divisions in the original text
LikeLike
Mike, this is flat-out ridiculous, maybe disingenuous. The text is clear, as I quoted above. So now you’re saying God had to wait for the plants to grow? He can speak them into existence, but not full-grown?
Keep up the acrobatics, Mike.
LikeLike
“The idea is easy peazy God had the mist water the earth so the plants would grow then afterwards”
NOT according to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Mike ! It says about Ch 2 v6, “the water under the earth that wells up in rivers; this water does not apparently fertilize the earth sufficiently for plant life”
LikeLike
“Mike, this is flat-out ridiculous, maybe disingenuous. ”
Uh – huh. DIdn’t take you long to do what you claim you never do eh Nate? Don’t question atheists motives eh? all because a treasured contradiction goes down from looking at the text.
“So now you’re saying God had to wait for the plants to grow? He can speak them into existence, but not full-grown?”
Oh wow now we are getting into some presuppositions about Genesis that are not even in there. That God said Poof let there be trees and they appear full grown. Guess what nate most of the creation of life is god telling the natural elements to bring forth life not appear fully formed poof. read the book
“Keep up the acrobatics, Mike.”
keep up running from any perfectly legit way of reading and translating the text just to suit your bias because it debunks your alleged contradiction
Meanwhile I wonder why the text was saying there was no man to till the ground since even if there were there would be no plants to grow.
Please you cherry pick your translations to get where you want to go
LikeLike
And looking at Christian websites ONLY when trying to determine when the first rain began. They are pretty much divided . Many say there was NO rain before the flood. So did God plant the Garden of Eden during Noah’s time ?????
LikeLike
“NOT according to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Mike ! ”
Oh Vey. The New Jerome Biblical commentary is my pope. Whatever shall I do now? lol
LikeLike
So which commentary do you want us all to use ? I used the Oxford commentary in the last post and you poo poo’d that too.
LikeLike
You’re not citing any references Mike except the Commentary of Mike. That hardly counts.
LikeLike
AND why are YOU dominating this post again ???? I thought this was Kathy’s time to shine in the sun ???
LikeLike
“You’re not citing any references Mike except the Commentary of Mike.”
Too silly as usually NO umm let me use Nate’s word ….tooo disingenuous. I could have sworn I cited the KJV translators as conjoining the verb made with plants and Herbs.
So does darby
AND every shrub of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for Jehovah Elohim had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.
Further to rebut Nate’s utter foolishness of claiming my position is absurd is the very word grow which his own treasure translation renders
“no small plant of the field had yet sprung ”
which is ṣāmaḥ
which mean TO SPROUT
as in to appear above ground
SO the passage is not saying plants do not exist in any form but that they had not sprouted above ground yet
Now of course Nate has revealed that he has this very common but utterly wrong idea that God says let their be life and they appear out of thin air. Even some christians hold this unbiblical view . however its utterly wrong God commands the earth and the waters to bring forth life and the ground to bring forth plants so theres no reason to think its instant and not a process (however long or short that might be).
LikeLike
Well done, Nate – I almost wish I had your patience!
LikeLike
I see Mr. Twister is back – (heavy yawn)
LikeLike
“? I thought this was Kathy’s time to shine in the sun ???”
Ha! Now thats disingenuous. You mean this post was nate’s opportunity to convince her to leave her faith in Godas his role as an evangelical. atheist.. Kathy will be around. she’s her own woman but hey
nate said I was at the mat in another thread so since he was anticipating I answered. 🙂
LikeLike
“How were they not on the earth? t was before they grew – They were in seed form Nate so the passage continues”
What about the Horsetails, Ferns, Mosses, and Liverworts. Plants that grow without seeds ?
LikeLike
“Now of course Nate has revealed that he has this very common but utterly wrong idea that God says let their be life and they appear out of thin air. Even some christians hold this unbiblical view . however its utterly wrong God commands the earth and the waters to bring forth life and the ground to bring forth plants so theres no reason to think its instant and not a process (however long or short that might be).”
So you believe even though God commanded it, he meant for it to take its natural process and grow ?
LikeLike
Great stuff, Nate. Link below is a fantastic interactive resource concerning biblical contradictions.
http://www.project-reason.org/gallery3/image/105/
LikeLike
Mike , I thought you believed in the “supernatural” where God could command something and it would be so ?
LikeLike
Genesis is fiction, as is the entire Pentateuch so why is this even being discussed?
Who cares what language it was written in or whether the verses are back to front or inside out and backwards. It is all crap.
Only biblical literalists consider this text relevant and such people are just a tad too indoctrinated or too silly.
They should rather hang out on AIG or Ken Ham’s FB page. Or sign up for the latest Ron Wyatt archaeological dig.
LikeLike
But now you are saying that God used “natural processes”. Hmmmm. Interesting
LikeLike
“But now you are saying that God used “natural processes”. Hmmmm. Interesting”
Kc this is why in a number of threads I just ignore you. You always make silly points and you can’t read a lick. I said nothing about natural processes. Your lying knows no end to put that in quotes like I said that. Only time I referred to natural was the elements – as in water, earth.
nothing nada zip about natural processes. Just stop ya lying ways bro.
LikeLike
@Mike, “Too silly as usually NO umm let me use Nate’s word ….tooo disingenuous. I could have sworn I cited the KJV translators as conjoining the verb made with plants and Herbs.”
Here is what bible.org has to say about the KJV, “the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature!
LikeLike
These are your words Mike NOT mine, “Oh wow now we are getting into some presuppositions about Genesis that are not even in there. That God said Poof let there be trees and they appear full grown. Guess what nate most of the creation of life is god telling the natural elements to bring forth life not appear fully formed poof. read the book”
Natural elements bringing forth life IS a natural process. As you said it is not “Poof, fully grown” You are twisting words Mike. Don’t be calling ME a liar !
LikeLike
You’re in total denial, Mike. But I have a little news for you. You CAN and HAVE been wrong before. It’s not in your being to admit it. That’s what Literalists can’t do. Your last comment proves it and I just called you on it ! You’re the Wizard of OZ and I just pulled back your curtain.
I have better things to do than deal with someone in total denial.
LikeLike
okeey dokee.. wow.. I’ll read it and comment later this evening.. 🙂
LikeLike
“Here is what bible.org has to say about the KJV, “the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus”
thanks KC I take it you are trying to illustrate what I mean by your silly points and attempting to prove my point. You succeeded. Genesis is written in Hebrew so talking about the greek has nothing to do with this discussion.
“Natural elements bringing forth life IS a natural process. ”
Says you not me which is why YES you LIED to say I said so. God commanding the earth to bring forth life is not a natural process its supernatural process but it need not be instantaneous just as the making of Eve was a supernatural event but not an instant “let there be light process” IN fact the creation of heaven and earth was a six step or more process but supernatural too and most of creation was not of the “let there be” variety
“You are twisting words Mike. Don’t be calling ME a liar !”
this coming from a person that just quoted me saying “natural process” when I said that nowhere. Dude you ARE lying. You are the one twisting my words. I said natural elements referring to the water and earth bringing forth life by God’s command NOT That the process was natural. Keep on rolling with the fibbing
LikeLike
this coming from a person that just quoted me saying “natural process”
I wasn’t quoting you. Since I can’t underline here I incorrectly used quotation marks to highlight my interpretation of what you were implying. I stand corrected . I CAN admit my mistakes.
I don’t retract my interpretation of what you were implying. Everyone here knows you meant natural process. You know it too, but too arrogant to admit it.
LikeLike
You forgot to chastise me for this too. You said, “fully formed poof”
I quoted you as saying, “Poof, fully grown”
Bring out the stones. It’s obvious you believe you really could pick up the first stone.
LikeLike
Indirect Quotations
Indirect quotations are not exact wordings but rather rephrasings or summaries of another person’s words. In this case, it is not necessary to use quotation marks. However, indirect quotations still require proper citations, and you will be commiting plagiarism if you fail to do so.
(https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/577/01/)
Thus my incorrect use of quotation marks.
LikeLike
“I don’t retract my interpretation of what you were implying. Everyone here knows you meant natural process. You know it too, but too arrogant to admit it.”
You just went from apologizing for one lie to lying again. I NEVER EVER meant nor thought natural process. I know no such GARBAGE. to you God looking at the natural elements of earth and water and commanding them to bring forth life means it was a natural process then fine thats YOU. I see God commanding an action then to me its not a natural process. Itmay be a process but not natural (unless you have a supernatural understanding of natural which you don’t).
I can think of two Miracles related in the Bible that involve either dipping in water or putting dirt on eyes as a PROCESS of healing. DO I think both were not miraculous but natural? No.
but like I said keep on with that fibbing train of yours
LikeLike
@Kathy
Thanks. Don’t feel like you have to reply right away, though. If most of these are fairly new to you, you’ll probably want some time to research them. It can be a lot to process…
LikeLike
OK Mike, 1 last time. Here again is what you said. (I made sure I copied and pasted this time)
“”Further to rebut Nate’s utter foolishness of claiming my position is absurd is the very word grow which his own treasure translation renders
“no small plant of the field had yet sprung ”
which is ṣāmaḥ
which mean TO SPROUT
as in to appear above ground
SO the passage is not saying plants do not exist in any form but that they had not sprouted above ground yet
Now of course Nate has revealed that he has this very common but utterly wrong idea that God says let their be life and they appear out of thin air. Even some christians hold this unbiblical view . however its utterly wrong God commands the earth and the waters to bring forth life and the ground to bring forth plants so theres no reason to think its instant and not a process”
You said “process” and you said, “so theres no reason to think its instant and not a process”
These are YOUR words Mike. You were chastising Nate for trying to make it supernatural by God saying let their be life and they appear out of thin air. You were NOT arguing if the process of growing a plant was natural or supernatural.
You are still wrong !
LikeLike
Why does anyone even bother responding to someone with so little knowledge of life on this planet?
LikeLike
I’m done , Arch. I asked the same think in Nate’s last post and now I’m doing it.
LikeLike
KC – here’s some info from my website that might be of help:
LikeLike
And that is exactly how he earned the name, “Mr. Twister”!
LikeLike
Thanks Arch. I wasn’t implying the OT was written in Greek. I was implying the KJV was full of errors. The source I used just happened to be using the Greek manuscripts as an example. If the KJV NT was full of errors why couldn;t the OT be too ? This was my point.
Thanks again
LikeLike
I also happen to think there are more accurate translations than the KJV because discoveries of older manuscripts over the past 100 years or so have shown the older manuscripts of not having certain scriptures that newer manuscripts do giving reason to believe redactors added them.
LikeLike
The more accurate translations even omit the scriptures in question. Other Translations leave them but include a footnote. How many people read the footnotes ?
While I was still a believer, even my pastor didn’t realize that these scriptures had been omitted from his NLV. Quite funny .
LikeLike
Sorry I meant NLT 🙂
LikeLike
No one can argue with an idiot, KC – sometimes it’s better to just give them a cookie and hope they’ll go away. Since he would shrivel without attention, the best solution is to simply ignore him.
LikeLike
I totally agree. I think everyone here engaged him more than they should have because most refused to believe he was as arrogant and delusional as he really is. We thought we could engage him. He is truly a legend in his own mind. 🙂
LikeLike
“You said “process” and you said, “so theres no reason to think its instant and not a process””
Sigh you know what Dude after this answer I will just probably go back to ignoring you. You are just too ignorant. Yes I said process and no reason to think Instant
and so?
If its your premise that if something does not happen instantly then it can’t be a supernatural process have at it. Meanwhile The Bible is filled with those kind of events. Go figure a 6+ step supernatural process is in the first chapter of the bible. Be ignorant.
The good news though is that you should now have no problem with the parting of the Red Sea according to the Bible. Since God used a natural element of wind in a process of separating waters Its all good because that makes it a natural process according to KC
Thanks KC! 🙂
LikeLike
“I also happen to think there are more accurate translations than the KJV because discoveries of older manuscripts over the past 100 years or so have shown the older manuscripts of not having certain scriptures that newer manuscripts do giving reason to believe redactors added them.”
ROFL is all i gotta say 🙂 :). You just pull things out of your armpit as suits. I am not a KJV only guy and none of my points rest solely on any one version
LikeLike
Hey Arch, other than a lack of attention, the other thing that drives him nuts is when he thinks other people think he is wrong. In his mind he can’t be wrong . Can’t handle it. 🙂
I’m outta here. Nite
LikeLike
Nate,
I think this is my favorite post of yours. Succinct, thoughtful, and clear, it lists many issues thoughtful people grapple with regarding the scriptures without being condescending, rude, or angry. Thank you for writing.
Kathy,
Nate’s right: take your time with this. It’s like eating an elephant, and it won’t go down easy. (I’m a former IFB preacher’s wife, I should know.)
All the best to you both,
~r
LikeLike
“He is truly a legend in his own mind. :-)”
Amazing! As I read your comment, THAT was going to be my reply!
LikeLike
@Arch: Great minds think alike ! 🙂
LikeLike
The fact that he actually believes that Moses existed, or that over 2 million Jews were led out of Egypt and wandered in the desert for 40 years, with no record of their existence, should give all of us a measure of his intellect – or should I say, lack of it?
LikeLike
I was going to say THAT next! Spoooky —
LikeLike
I fault indoctrination as much as anything. Some of us are freed of indoctrination placed on us, others aren’t. It can be a dangerous situation. Jim Jones, David Koresh just to name a few. Ol Jimbo is credited with the phrase “drinking the koolaid” Most young adults wouldn’t know this because they haven’t a clue who Jim Jones was .
LikeLike
“@Arch: Great minds think alike ! :-)”
You do know the rest of that don’t you?
“Fools seldom Differ” 🙂
LikeLike
List of Bible verses not included in modern translations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of Bible verses in the New Testament that are present in the King James Version (KJV) but absent from some Bible translations completed after the publication of The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881 and the later Novum Testamentum Graece (first published in 1898 and revised many times since that date). These editions of the Greek text took into account early manuscripts of the New Testament which had not been available to translators before the 19th century, notably those of the Alexandrian text-type.[1] The verses are present in the New King James Version, published in 1979, as well as the New American Standard Bible, though for most verses these translation include footnotes indicating doubts about their authenticity.
Most modern textual scholars consider these verses interpolations, or additions by later authors, but exceptions include advocates of the Byzantine or Majority Text and of the Received Text. When a verse is omitted, later ones in the same chapter retain their traditional numbering. Apart from omitted entire verses, there are other omitted words and phrases in some modern translations such as the famous Comma Johanneum.
Bart D. Ehrman believes that some of the most known of these verses were not part of the original text of the New Testament. “These scribal additions are often found in late medieval manuscripts of the New Testament, but not in the manuscripts of the earlier centuries,” he adds. “And because the King James Bible is based on later manuscripts, such verses became part of the Bible tradition in English-speaking lands.”[2] This same sentiment is expressed by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort.
Contents [hide]
1 New International Version
1.1 Matthew 17:21
1.2 Matthew 18:11
1.3 Matthew 23:14
1.4 Mark 7:16
1.5 Mark 9:44/Mark 9:46
1.6 Mark 11:26
1.7 Mark 15:28
1.8 Mark 16:9–20
1.9 Luke 17:36
1.10 Luke 23:17
1.11 John 5:3–4
1.12 John 7:53-8:11
1.13 Acts 8:37
1.14 Acts 15:34
1.15 Acts 24:6p–7
1.16 Acts 28:29
1.17 Romans 16:24
LikeLike
Oh wow WIkipedia says those verses are right to be left out…. so um – I guess I must be impressed right?
and the change on Christianity must be radical when
“”But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”
is left out of Matthew but appears in Mark 9:29
“For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”is left out of Matthew but is in Luke 19:10
You didn’t even bother to check if some of the same passages were included in other synoptic gospels even in newer translations did you?
you are deep bro.
Now when will this have anything to do with Genesis?
LikeLike
The bible has many problems and chief among them is at the beginning. It starts
Those four words are claims that are in need of proof and the god mentioned need to be demonstrated to exist and what it is before what follows can be accepted
LikeLike
Speaking of plants, KC, have you noticed that the plants were produced (Gen 1:11) on the third day, but that the sun wasn’t created (1:16) until the fourth? The temperature of the earth would have been the same as Mr. Twister’s I.Q. – absolute zero!
LikeLike
Nate, I’m still reading/ doing research.. interestingly, I was just recently debating the NT “contradictions”.. so I won’t need to do much research there.. but there are lots of others that I’m not as familiar with.
I can give a good foundational point / argument that covers several of your examples..
“. First, it’s important to remember that a partial report is not a false report. Just because each gospel author doesn’t report every detail of a story doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate.”
http://blogs.christianpost.com/confident-christian/do-the-gospel-resurrection-accounts-contradict-each-other-15311/
I think a common problem with unbelievers is again, a lack of objectivity. If accounts by DIFFERENT people matched perfectly, then that WOULD be a reason to question it’s truth. Witness accounts seldom match exactly. Objectivity would help to also see that if it was all fabricated, why even give 4 different accounts?? Why not just one?.. it would certainly lower the risk factor for mistakes. And that also applies to the entire Bible.. with all the dates, details, pages, words etc.. if it weren’t true, if it was all a giant lie, why so much detail? You say that the 1st 1 or 2 “contradictions” you were “ok” with.. you accepted that explanations would come.. but then there were.. ? how many? 10? 20? When you compare that to the seemingly endless details etc.. all the POSSIBILITIES for contradictions.. it’s nothing by comparison.. it’s just like the Tyre prophecy.. MOST of it isn’t disputed.. and all of that was improbable.. against the odds.. so, if a person was truly objective.. wouldn’t they consider that maybe they might be interpreting those 2 or 3 that supposedly weren’t fulfilled, incorrectly?? Again, I’m alluding to numbers.. with these examples it still seems like you’re swimming up stream.. all of the contradictions I’ve checked so far have explanations.. that I’m sure you’ve read and rejected.. so far they all make sense to me.. they are perfectly acceptable. The one about the time between the promise and the law I’m still learning about/ researching.. the numbers can work out if you try to think like they did 2000 yrs ago.. here’s a site that gives a possible explanation.. I especially like the statement at the end.. ” Ultimately, no matter how Paul did his math, the Holy Spirit approved it (2 Tim. 3:16), and makes the point that God is a God of promise (Gal. 3:18, 29). ”
http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40565
It’s about what is acceptable to God. (If God doesn’t want Tyre to mean “all” of Tyre (won’t be rebuilt), then it doesn’t have to mean that… unless He explicitly stated “all”… and He didn’t). Every day we make a statement about something and don’t mean “all”.. “I’m going home”.. ALL of home? Every square inch of home? You’re going to all of it? No, you’re probably going straight to bed because you’re so tired from a long days work.. like I am gonna do right now.. lol..
LikeLike
@Kathy.
I think you are missing a massive point here.
The Pentateuch is fiction.
The characters, Abraham, Moses etc are fictional.
The Egyptian captivity did not happen.
The Exodus did not happen.
The receiving of the Ten Commandments did not happen
The conquest of Canaan did not happen.
It is nothing but a story.
This is fact and there is not a recognised secular archaeologist who will question this.
Neither any but the most fanatical orthodox Rabbi.
In fact, a great many Christians recognise the fictional nature of the Pentateuch.
The character, Jesus of Nazareth specifically mentions Moses and Abraham and The Mosaic Law.
Joining the dots should be fairly straightforward from this point surely?
LikeLike
Well laid out challenges, Nate. As I have blogged, I realize that many former-believer atheists left their Christianity because of problems with the Bible. But though I had studied the Bible and Theology, problems-with-the-Bible was not my reason for leaving at all. My first foot out was due to seeing the foolishness behind placing soteriological value behind “believing”. I realized that we were all fools — I could not imagine a god that expected belief as a criteria. So my first step out was away from that god — the Christian god I was taught. So I then took on mysticism of sorts. The rest of the journey away from even mystical Christianity is another story, but that first step was the most important. (thus my post today on foolishness).
But after out, I saw all these Bible issues much more clearly — and all the issues. But it appears my Christianity was not as anchored in strong grip on the Bible but on God himself. When I realized that that God did not exist, my Christianity crumbled.
I am glad folks write like you do, because I do see that many Christians worship the Bible as their god and your type of challenges help them a lot. I don’t know all the exegesis pros and cons on each passage, and at times don’t care, because I am certain that whatever interpretation, there is no such god which they are purported to support. But from a scholastic viewpoint, I love watching the debates.
Nicely done.
LikeLike
“I think a common problem with unbelievers is again, a lack of objectivity.” – Kathy
this is evidently a common problem with believers as well.
I’ve been on both sides of the fence. That doesn’t prove anything except that I saw something that changed my mind.
But let me ask, since you’re claiming to be objective, what makes you believe the claims of the men who wrote, assembled and translated the bible?
Would you believe any man who claimed to speak for god and who claimed that you should because they also claimed to have witnessed miracles?
what sets the bible apart?
LikeLike
Sabio, very insightful comment.
I was more like nate, in that little by little issues within the text began to seem more abundant and more apparent. I had not allowed myself to even consider the logical issues with it when i was younger for fear of seeming ungrateful to god, or fear of questioning god, or the fear of being wrong if imagined heaven to be better than what it was, etc, etc.
When wrestling with the internal issues, it finally dawned on me that my faith had never been in god, but only in the claims of man. It was then, the realization that I was not questioning god, but the claims man made about god, that I found the courage to question the ethics of condemning people based on what they believed, and question the logical nature of heaven and hell and all they imply.
Now, if all of the issues within the bible could be resolved (I havent seen this done yet), i still dont think i’d rejoin the faith, because now I see so many other logical issues as well.
The first step for me was the bible itself, but i am fascinated that even though our initial steps were different, we eventually covered the same ground.
you had a great comment. I got a lot out of it.
LikeLike
@ william: thank you. Yep you understood my point. The huge variety of us out there is fascinating, eh? 🙂
LikeLike
Sabio & William,
Great comments from both of you. I was indoctrinated as a child in Pentecostalism. It was a sin for my brothers and I to own comic books. Our pastor for years said it was a sin to own a TV. Later he claims God revealed to him it was OK but must be limited. (this was after his kids kept hounding him for a TV). When we finally got one, all we could watch was the news and Gunsmoke.
My church experience was one big guilt trip from not studying my Sunday school lesson to missing church because I spent that Saturday night over at a friends house and went to church with him.
Like William & Nate, it was watching what was then called “History International” when they had series about the bible that caused me to start to question. From there reading books from Albert Schweitzer (The Quest for the Historical Jesus) and scholars like Geza Vermes and Bart Erhman . It all quickly fell apart from there.
I know what its like to defend my faith. It became harder and harder to do, the more I thought about it. I do have compassion for the believers who enter atheist blogs. I have little tolerance for those who instantly become arrogant and condescending however.
LikeLike
@ Sabio, William, and KC,
Sabio said:
” But though I had studied the Bible and Theology, problems-with-the-Bible was not my reason for leaving at all. My first foot out was due to seeing the foolishness behind placing soteriological value behind “believing”. I realized that we were all fools — I could not imagine a god that expected belief as a criteria.”
This was probably the major factor, looking back on it, in my own deconversion. Thinking about all the different religions, and the many who – along with Chrisitanity – put such an emphasis on right belief instead of what kind of person one is; mental ascent to some exact belief, which is supposed to transform one’s life but most often doesn’t. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. all indoctrinated in their own ways such that it makes it nearly impossible for them to believe anything else facing a fate of hell because of their geography?
It was only then that I began to see the problems with scripture. It’s not that I can’t still do the mental gymnastics it takes to make it all fit, it’s just that it doesn’t make any sense to have to do so. I can see how Christians arrive at their conclusions, I just don’t agree with them.
William said:
” I had not allowed myself to even consider the logical issues with it when i was younger for fear of seeming ungrateful to god, or fear of questioning god, or the fear of being wrong if imagined heaven to be better than what it was, etc, etc.”
I couldn’t even admit to myself I had any doubts for a long time. I couldn’t even entertain the doubts I had until I could give up my fear of disappointing God, and after I decided that God could handle any doubts I had, the fear of hell.
KC said:
“I do have compassion for the believers who enter atheist blogs. I have little tolerance for those who instantly become arrogant and condescending however.”
Me too. As I said before, I remember how all these “problems” were reconciled, and can still achieve some level of understanding of how they are – though I don’t agree with them. You have to go around your elbow to get to your thumb.
All the belittling and insults are just a bit much for me. I don’t think I’m smarter, or more enlightened, or more logical than anyone else. I just have different conclusions. I could be wrong. I’m just extremely skeptical of anyone who seems so certain of anything these days.
LikeLike
” I’m just extremely skeptical of anyone who seems so certain of anything these days.”
and yet Ruth I see a guy here who is VERY certain that he is seeing Christianity right even pretending against all logic known to man that he is open minded nevertheless
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/never-going-back/
“But now for the admission. Now for the part that I haven’t been able to say to my family yet: I don’t see any way that I’ll ever believe Christianity again. On the surface, that may seem like it runs counter toward my goal of being open-minded, but it really doesn’t. . The fact is, I’ve just seen too much. “I once was blind, but now I see.” The fact is, the Bible can’t fix its problems because it’s a closed document. ”
“Open minded nevertheless”? and he says I am the acrobat. So you should be skeptical of Nate then eh? Unless what you really mean is that you are extremely skeptical of anyone certain of what YOU don’t maintain.
as for being more logical and more enlightened why shouldn’t I and Kathy claim to be? Why would you even complain at such a thing? Are you guys really that blind to yourselves? It would appear so because Nate’s every other post is about how he is more enlightened to the “truth” than Christians are about their book and there is not a single comment section where people who believe the bible is not opined as ignorance.
Do I see you complaining with each other about that confidence? about what you now KNOW about believers and.or their beliefs? Do I see you bemoaning the arrogance of it? No its something you only talk about and object to when theres a theist on this blog confident, YES< that more than half of you don't know what you are talking about .
and thats why this confident theist who equally KNOWS he is more enlightened than you on the Bible can't take your charges seriously. He just sees it in reality and truth as just plain utter hypocrisy. You want done o=unto you what you won't do unto others (all "yous" by the way Ruth are collective not personally you).
even more so because the first person to ever hurl invectives and accusations in a discussion I was participation on this blog in was your beloved William not me and to complain about arrogance or condescension with Ark and Arch in your midst just ups the ante makes you all ROFLing hypocritical.
LikeLike
“and yet Ruth I see a guy here who is VERY certain that he is seeing Christianity right even pretending against all logic known to man that he is open minded nevertheless..”
and even so, nate lets you remain, despite your obtuse ridiculousness.
LikeLike
My apologies that my comment seemed like an appropriate jumping off point for an arrogant diatribe.
Mike, in nothing that Nate wrote that you just quoted did he insult another. He didn’t call them liars or stupid or ignorant. He wrote what he’s come to think as a result of his study. That might not suit you, and perhaps it is arrogant, but it’s not calling anyone names or belittling them.
I think you’ve been commenting here long enough to see that I don’t really comment here much. I read a lot that I don’t comment on. I don’t always agree with my fellow atheists and skeptics – you can ask Ark about that one.
I think you’d even have to agree that, for the most part I’ve treated you with respect and tried to carry on civil conversation. There have been a couple of times I’ve gotten a bit frustrated because you seem intent on assassinating character and not just ideas. It’s wearisome. I like to discuss things and don’t mind being challenged in my thoughts.
You feel confident in your position because you’ve studied and that’s the conclusion you’ve come to. Why are you offended at other people coming to a different conclusion. Obviously you believe you’re right or you wouldn’t hold the position you do. Nate is no different. He feels justified in his position because of the study he’s done. He feels he’s right in the position he holds.
Let me ask you this, Mike: There are many Christians who hold very differing positions from you on the interpretation of these scriptures. They are quite confident theirs is right. Do you go and challenge them in the same manner you’ve come to this blog and challenged unbelievers? Are you equally as disdainful of you’re fellow Christians who are getting it wrong?
LikeLike
even more so because the first person to ever hurl invectives and accusations in a discussion I was participation on this blog in was your beloved William not me and to complain about arrogance or condescension with Ark and Arch in your midst just ups the ante makes you all ROFLing hypocritical.
I haven’t gone back to read these comments to see what happened when and where. The one thing I’ve learned in this life that I am sure of is that I don’t get to control the behavior of others. The only thing I’m in control of is myself. I can either choose to behave like an insolent child or I can act like an adult. I choose the latter. I interact with individuals based on how I’m treated. Or not. I don’t have to engage.
The fact is that several of us have called for civility on both sides. Beyond that we can’t control whether it happens or not.
LikeLike
“Mike, in nothing that Nate wrote that you just quoted did he insult another. He didn’t call them liars or stupid or ignorant. ”
Ruth i quoted that in reference to your statement here
“” I’m just extremely skeptical of anyone who seems so certain of anything these days.”
(and yes despite this blog’s narrative nate insults when hes ready and even another atheist in another thread admitted as much. In fact he’s in this very thread suggesting my dishonesty).
and its perfectly on target in regard to that. I’m done on this subject and I stand by everything I wrote in my post before this as an obvious fact. Got to run now. Will look forward to your question on the other thread.
LikeLike
“and yet Ruth I see a guy here who is VERY certain that he is seeing Christianity right even pretending against all logic known to man that he is open minded nevertheless
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/never-going-back/”
Ruth, I just went to Nate’s post mentioned above and I didn’t see where Mike ever commented there, but Silenceofmind did. Maybe everyone else already knows this, but it appears to me that Mike Anthony and Silenceofmind might be the same person. Their commenting style is very similar. Condescending, berating, arrogant , etc , etc.
This would explain a lot. 🙂
LikeLike
“even more so because the first person to ever hurl invectives and accusations in a discussion I was participation on this blog in was your beloved William not me and to complain about arrogance or condescension with Ark and Arch in your midst just ups the ante makes you all ROFLing hypocritical.” – mike
Mike, what’s true is that i came off stronger than you, which I also eventually apologized for. But it’s dishonest to say your entry to this blog was full of grace and humility. I took offense at your tone and meant to be offensive in my reply.
let’s not continue to cry over spilled milk. Youre not being persecuted because youre so righteous, it’s because you’re a jerk.
If you want to refute anyone’s claims or points, okay, that’s what we’re all here for. and you’re not the only one guilty of it, but you do it very, very often, that is cast insults or accusations of laziness, dishonestly, or stupidity toward those you disagree with.
Most of us could shrug that off, because much like Ecc 7:21 teaches, we shouldn’t get too upset when someone does something to us that we’ve done ourselves to others. What gets most of us is when you cry about it when it’s done to you. Let’s not cast rocks from glass houses.
So, if my initial reply to you is the root of all this, then let me apologize again, sincerely – I shouldn’t have gotten so offended and there was no reason for me to reply the way in which i did. I am sorry.
this apology doesn’t mean that I think you’re right. Far from it. I think you owe several apologies yourself, but don’t care if you give them. Address the points and behave they way you’d like others to behave toward you.
And saying that nate is stupid or unjust or is one of the ring leaders in being rude or condescending, isnt convincing anyone of those accusations. It makes you look more that way. nate, of all people, is one of the most patient and courteous i have come upon.
In fact, i’d say he exudes more christian characteristics than you. If god is real, you should hope he judges on belief more than action. You can render evil for evil if you like, or we can move forward, and try to courteously discuss the issues.
LikeLike
It’s unlikely, Nate isn’t the sort. What you have demonstrated, however, along with a propensity to to be evasive, obtuse and wallow in obfuscation, is a profound ignorance of the book you revere and the man god you genuflect to.
All the hallmarks of a rank apologist.
LikeLike
Kathy – not here to bust your chops, you seem like a nice person – I just want to have a friendly discussion.
You said:
– and I agree absolutely, but agreement in witnesse’s stories are a lot like salt in soup -you can have too much, and you can have too little. As you may or may not know, the four Gospels were written anonymously – no one has any idea who wrote them – the four names they bear were later added by the Church. You also may, or may not know know, that the Gospel of “Mark” was the first written, a year or so after 72 AD, “Matthew,” about five or so years after “Luke,” sometime in the early 1st century, and “John” sometime before 150 AD (CE). Lastly, you may or may not know that the entire NT was originally written in Greek, the lingua Franca of the time – in fact, “Jesus” wasn’t even Jesus’ real name, it was only the Greek translation of his actual name: Yeshua.
All that said, “Matthew” was the Greek translation of the Hebrew name, “Levi,” and there was in fact, a Levi, the tax collector, who was a disciple of Yeshua, so we’ve got a good one here, right? Not so much – this “Levi” copies a full 60% of “Mark’s” gospel, and in many instances, does so word for word! The real Levi would have had his own story to tell, and would have no need to copy “Mark’s,” word for word – too much salt in the soup.
Remember that inspiring story in “Matthew” (4:18-21), where Yeshua is strolling along the shore of the sea of Galilee, when he spots Simon (Peter), his brother, Andrew, and brothers James and John, the sons of Zebedee, unloading their boats, and Yesh says, “Come with me, and I will make you fishers of men”? Well, here’s the thing – John, son of Zebedee – IF the Gospel of John was actually written by the real John – wrote his own account of how he met Yeshua (1:35-41), – by the Jordan River, while he, his brother James, and Peter and Andrew were all following John the Baptist – no fish involved, they were just looking for someone to follow, so John waded across the river, stuck up a conversation with Yeshua, the two went off and spent the night together, then came back the next day for James, Peter and Andrew. Not enough salt – the stories don’t even bear the slightest resemblance to each other.
LikeLike
“Maybe everyone else already knows this, but it appears to me that Mike Anthony and Silenceofmind might be the same person. Their commenting style is very similar. Condescending, berating, arrogant , etc , etc.”
Actually never read the comments on that section. the I am certain Christianity is wrong and I will never change my mind but I am open minded was just too ridiculous to follow up on.
But thanks. I will check him out. If you call him arrogant and condescending he just might be a nice and intelligent guy that knew how to answer you back
LikeLike
Actually never read the comments on that section…. I will check him out. If you call him arrogant and condescending he just might be a nice and intelligent guy that knew how to answer you back
Hahah! Well, if you’re not Silenceofmind, and you’ve never read any of his comments that explains why you didn’t get my reference of being able to prove something.
“He can do it.
In three sentences.”
Broken up just like that. lol
LikeLike
“But thanks. I will check him out. If you call him arrogant and condescending he just might be a nice and intelligent guy that knew how to answer you back” – mike
or he’s just a jerk too.
and so you’re saying nate isnt open minded because he wrote a post about leaving Christianity and never going back for various reasons?
Well what about you? you seem certain that Christianity is right and you seem certain you’ll never leave. Again, you’re the pot calling the kettle black.
and if you read nate’s post with an open mind you may see his point. I also think if you’d read the bible like any other book, you may see the issues there as well. But for you,. the bible is right, and probably the only trustworthy source out there. I suspect that you aren’t validating the bible with external evidences, but that you validate external evidences with the bible.
it’s just a suspicion, and I could be wrong – and i can admit that I might be wrong. I have been before, but have made big steps to correct much of those errors now.
LikeLike
” the stories don’t even bear the slightest resemblance to each other.”
Why should they? Matt 4:18-21 isn’t a story about how they met. its about when he called them into the ministry. Who takes off to follow some one full time who they have never met?
LikeLike
“Hahah! Well, if you’re not Silenceofmind, and you’ve never read any of his comments that explains why you didn’t get my reference of being able to prove something.
“He can do it.
In three sentences.”
Wait….. you thought I was this Silence fellow too? I thought KK was just being his usual snarky nonsensical self. Now I really have to check this guy out 🙂
LikeLike
@ Mike,
Wait….. you thought I was this Silence fellow too? I thought KK was just being his usual snarky nonsensical self. Now I really have to check this guy out 🙂
Nah (though one can never be certain because people run around here with a lot of alter-egos) …I was just trying to lighten the conversation with some humor which was apparently completely missed since you don’t seem to be familiar with him.
LikeLike
Mike, when i was a kid, if my dad asked me where i had been, and I said school.
I was at school and after that I went to the gas station and headed home.
And later he found out that after school I went to the movies with my girlfriend and then picked up Bill (because, why wouldnt we?) and then got gas before getting some burgers on our way home – he’d be angry with me – just like I’d feel like my kids were trying to decieve me if they left all that out.
If I had left out getting gas, my dad wouldnt have cared, because that’s inconsequential, but leaving out a date and bill, and food? Those are more significant.
But the issues we’re discussing with the bible arent merely left out details or omitted significant details, but alterations in other details from who was encountered, to how many to where, to what was said, etc.
It gives the impression of collusion to some. trying to get the stories close, but not going to the trouble to over every minute detail afore time, and so it’s the details that are betraying their lie. At least, that’s how it looks to some – like on a crime drama.
You may see these as being perfectly explainable – but that fact that you’d have to provide an explanation should let you at least see where some have questions regarding it.
now again, you may not agree with nate’s conclusion, but that doesnt mean it’s hard to see his problem. It makes sense and is reasonable as well as logical – this isnt hard to comprehend.
LikeLike
“Such irrational thinking by atheists is exactly what they complain about in Christians.”
Lol…thanks guys I am loving him already from his first post 🙂 :). he’s got a blog too I see.
LikeLike
So, Mike, how about explaining to us how Yeshua is the creator of the universe?
Even your new mate SOM has been unable to explain this. Maybe you are cleverer?
LikeLike
@KC – RE: “Gunsmoke” – 9 o’clock, Saturday nights, on CBS!
My parents used to plan their Saturday night around it (they didn’t get out much)! We’d have sandwiches, and chips, and Pepsi on TV trays in front of the television. You may not know whether or not it was going to rain, but you KNEW that “Gunsmoke” would be on at 9 o’clock, Saturday night, on CBS!
The show ran for 20 years, and until “The Simpsons” beat them out a few years ago, had the record of being the longest-running show on TV. Networks today will run a show for 13 or so episodes, take it off for a few months, then put it back on – how is a show supposed to gain a following like that? I’ve seen some quality shows canceled because they were poorly presented.
(Years later, watching re-runs, I would get quite a chuckle watching Matt Dillon riding his buckskin with the “mountains of Kansas” in the background! For those who don’t know, Kansas is flatter than a flounder.)
LikeLike
Ark I actually have a standing invitation for Ruth to ask me anything she wants. Girls tend to earn things boys tend to beg.
Still even if you had earned an invitation Sorry couldn’t find another party hat for you. I’ll send some cake home with Ruth.Probably for the best since all that spittle with cake would be sight to behold at my party. 🙂
LikeLike
Sabio: “problems-with-the-Bible was not my reason for leaving at all.”
William: “The first step for me was the bible itself”
If i may … the very creation of the book know as the “bible” – how it came to be was the death knell for any faith/belief i had remaining … the history of the creation of the book – not so much the content – forced me to recognize the whole thing was man inspired, derived and produced. Committees of men all with religious, political and personal agendas all pouring over ancient texts to determine what would fit their earthly needs to best assume and maintain power and control.
The very thought remains disgusting to me to this day. The ignorant world was hoodwinked by the power brokers of the day – surprise! (not)
LikeLike
“’Such irrational thinking by atheists is exactly what they complain about in Christians.’
Lol…thanks guys I am loving him already from his first post 🙂 :). he’s got a blog too I see.” – mike
yeah, and his blog is more of the same. So since you seem to like throwing insults and avoiding the issues while claiming to “blow the out of the water” you should go over there.
again, to point out the obvious thing here, by calling someone’s well thought out and organized issue “irrational thinking” doesnt make them question their rational position, it only makes them question yours.
For someone who claims to ride so high on the horse or logic, I’m surprised you haven’t realized this yourself yet – unless of course you do know that and have no intention to really discuss anything, but only draw attention to yourself by trying to get in the way of others…
LikeLike
Robert, valid point. I agree. And I often wonder at how long it took me to finally see it. I was blind, but now I see.
I was astonished about how everything really started making sense once I realized the bible was bogus.
LikeLike
“Ark I actually have a standing invitation for Ruth to ask me anything she wants. Girls tend to earn things boys tend to beg.
Still even if you had earned an invitation Sorry couldn’t find another party hat for you. I’ll send some cake home with Ruth.Probably for the best since all that spittle with cake would be sight to behold at my party. :)”
earned the right to talk to you? and who’s the arrogant one?
LikeLike
@William – RE: “only draw attention to yourself by trying to get in the way of others…” – and yet some of you guys keep responding to him, which is the only reason he stays —
LikeLike
@Mike
lol I really wish I was allowed to label you a D******d as you wear the mantle so well.
So, I guess we’ll just have to acknowledge you have Jack on this issue.
Yeshua the ”world-maker”. Hilarious! And Little Mikey the delusional sycophant.
LikeLike
Girls tend to earn things boys tend to beg.
Wow, really? Cuing the gender equality rant, now. Geez.
Boys don’t beg. They expect. Women have to work to earn what men expect should be theirs to begin with. Respect.
LikeLike
“lol I really wish I was allowed to label you a D******d as you wear the mantle so well.”
I’m all for it Ark. I think that people ought to be allowed to use words that reveal their of minority age status. That way you know whether to laugh at them or have them baker acted.
LikeLike
Yes William its come to that. I read ark more.
LikeLike
“Boys don’t beg. They expect.”
You are too kind my lady. Boys beg. Men …meh..sometimes.
LikeLike
Hi everyone 🙂
In regards to Genesis,
Personally for me, some of the reasons why I believe stem from my limited observation of nature. during my short time on earth I’ve seen things that strike me as strange.
For example.
Genesis 1:14-19 reads (King James Version)
I find it bizarre and pretty amazing when I stop and think about it, that above us all there is a huge uninhabited natural satellite in the sky, that is in effect revolving around the earth reflecting light directly from the sun. This interaction allows us to have a huge light during the night time.
I think I take this for granted most nights, but when I consider how that there is only one very close, very large, natural satellite that provides this light. I find it strange.
I don’t find it strange in the sense that its unusual, for its part of the world we are born into…I find it strange that we call this huge light “the moon” and not necessarily think too much more about it. I don’t think heaps about it most of the time…but when I do
I find it strange that our solar system is running in such a way that as a consequence we are provided with this light at night…this does strike me as very strange, well not strange since it is the way things are, but odd that things are this way.
Another example, which might be a bit cliché is rainbows 🙂
But seriously why should it be considered cliché?
I mean, on stormy or/and rainy days I’ve seen quite distinct and clear rainbows, recently I even saw a double rainbow. You can see variations of rainbows from the household hose or sprinkler. This phenomenon, although I can take it for granted, is another thing that strikes me as odd.
Genesis 9:11-17 reads
I do find it odd this phenomenon of rainbows, coming about through reflection and refraction of light in moisture (clouds) and water droplets, is a thing that just comes and signifies itself as a clear, distinct sign. An arch of multiple colours both in the sky and whenever this process occurs through water and rain.
Does this not seem odd to anyone else that phenomenons like this occur in this world we find ourselves in? Try to remove yourself from the fact that they are regarded as “normal”… the processes themselves are pretty bizarre. At least they are when I think about them.
Another verse that I think about sometimes is
Romans 1:20
I may not exactly understand what this means…but I am struck by how odd this set-up is in this world. It seems odd to me anyway.
LikeLike
Since I won the prize (
), isn’t it technically my party?
LikeLike
arch, i know you’re right, but i’m weak, and have compulsions…. I’ll work on it.
LikeLike
arch, i know you’re right, but i’m weak, and have compulsions…. I’ll work on it.
Don’t we all…
LikeLike
what? know arch is right?
ah, couldn’t resist. I knew what you meant, ruth.
LikeLike
@Portal – RE:
Portal, yes, the moon and sun and our solar system are remarkable. But the authors of the bible were writing about what they saw and thought.
The fact that they wrote about them doesn’t mean they had any real knowledge of them, it could easily means they saw them and found them remarkable like you do – and they assigned god to it to have an explanation.
LikeLike
Here’s an illustration of Hebrew cosmology based on scripture:
The Three-Story Universe
And here’s another:
http://ncseprojects.org/image/ancient-hebrew-cosmology
LikeLike
Wow, quite a salvo.
LikeLike
Here’s a textual criticism of the Genesis accounts:
What Are the J, E, and P Texts of Genesis?
LikeLike
@Ark
“It is nothing but a story.
This is fact and there is not a recognised secular archaeologist who will question this.
Neither any but the most fanatical orthodox Rabbi.
In fact, a great many Christians recognise the fictional nature of the Pentateuch.”
What is the evidence they use to support their claim?
LikeLike
Guys,
I was just expressing one aspect of why I believe in God, I’m familiar with quite of few criticisms. I’m sure I haven’t read them all.
I’ll check these out when I get the time. I do find DarkMatters videos really tasteless though
I have to say, that was like a barrage of links 🙂
LikeLike
William, you said:
“But let me ask, since you’re claiming to be objective, what makes you believe the claims of the men who wrote, assembled and translated the bible?
Would you believe any man who claimed to speak for god and who claimed that you should because they also claimed to have witnessed miracles?
what sets the bible apart?”
What sets the Bible apart is it’s credentials. A solitary man, like say Joseph Smith, has very little credibility. The Bible has many witnesses that span over thousands of years. That’s just one of several examples of what makes the Bible credentialed.
LikeLike
Here’s something completely unrelated to leave you with. Its late in Australia
Goodnight 🙂 and hope your afternoons go well.
LikeLike
@Portal – RE:
You’re aware, of course, that our “great light,” Sol, is in fact, a third-generation star. The verse above makes it sound as though your god created the stars as an afterthought – he had a little material left over, and didn’t want to see it go to waste, so after he finished carefully crafting our tiny insignificant planet, he created our average star and single satellite, the moon, then tossed out a few billion galaxies, each with a few billion stars.
It couldn’t have happened that way, because I wear a gold ring, with an attractive hematite setting – very nice, actually. What does that have to do with anything? Originally, the only element in existence was hydrogen, with it’s little single electron – the lightest element there is. But as hydrogen is consumed, it gives off as it byproduct – “ash” if you will – helium, a slightly heavier element. When all of the hydrogen in a star is consumed, it begins burning helium, the bi-products of which are Carbon-12 and Oxygen-16. Eventually, the gravity of the star can no longer balance the outward thrust of the combusting materials, and the star explodes, throwing off it’s outer layer, scattering the contents throughout regional space. In time – millions of years – this material joins with other material, including more hydrogen, which is free-floating in space – and forms another star, and the events repeat themselves. It takes three such novas to produce the heavier elements, such as lead and gold. We therefore KNOW that the stars were existing LONG before the earth came into being. (BTW – HAD the earth, sun and moon been “created” first, then the stars thrown in as additional lights upon the earth, understand this: the nearest star to us is Alpha Centauri, 4.5 light years away – it would take SO long for the light for all of the other stars to reach earth, even at 186,000 miles per second, that even Methusulah wouldn’t have had more than a handful to light his way to the outhouse in the middle of the night)
As for the “lesser light,” which isn’t a light at all, but merely a reflection of the original light, Sol, sorry – no “magical” creation – this is how it came to be:
I’d love to stay and chat about the NON-magical properties of rainbows (despite what the Leprechauns may tell you), but I have a lot of work to do, and little time to get it done. You seem like a good kid, keep looking for answers – the truth is out there —
LikeLike
Hi Arch.. I don’t think you are “busting my chops” at all.. I’m a conservative! I understand the concept of debate.. as it seems you do.. every group has exceptions, and yours & Nate’s and others here intelligent understanding of this is much appreciated.
” and I agree absolutely, but agreement in witness’ stories are a lot like salt in soup -you can have too much, and you can have too little.”
Agreed. And I think that’s where a lot of the issue lies.. what constitutes too much or too little?
I pointed out in my comment to Nate yesterday that he was accepting of a couple of contradictions but when it numbered 10 or 20.. it was too much.. but when you consider the huge amount of information that is vulnerable to contradictions (if untrue).. it’s a drop in the bucket.. which is what I’m going to address next with Nate.. this very point.
Just like the idea that if they all matched perfectly it would beg the question of truth, if there weren’t any seeming contradictions in a book as large as the Bible, it would ALSO seem suspicious. The question I posed earlier still remains (unaddressed).. if this is all a fabrication.. WHY would the authors, writers, compilers “editors”? include or leave these inconsistencies in?? This just doesn’t “jive” with what atheists are proposing.
“As you may or may not know, the four Gospels were written anonymously – no one has any idea who wrote them – the four names they bear were later added by the Church.”
This comment, I believe, is revealing bias.. (not trying to bust your chops here 🙂 .. I’m just being honesty.. it’s just not correct that we have “no idea” who wrote the Gospels.. we have very good ideas about who wrote all of them.. especially John.. and when you state dates of the writings.. why do we have the ideas of that, but not ideas of the authors? The ideas all come from the same place.. the writings themselves.
And, when any non believer cites dates and authors or non authors.. it’s certainly not anything I take as “fact”.. especially when no sources are given.. the mis information passed around by the atheist community is great. Just as the bias is great. (not saying here that bias doesn’t exist on my side too).
“Not so much – this “Levi” copies a full 60% of “Mark’s” gospel, and in many instances, does so word for word! The real Levi would have had his own story to tell, and would have no need to copy “Mark’s,” word for word – too much salt in the soup.”
Mark DID tell his own story.. but he also borrowed from another’s story (it appears).. maybe those were the parts he was not witness to.. How does this prove deception/ untruths?? It doesn’t.
You perceive “too much salt in the soup” because someone TOLD you it had too much salt.. or you looked for ONLY the salt and didn’t allow yourself to focus on anything else.. you aren’t trusting your own taste buds.. you aren’t applying objectivity.
About the contradiction with John.. without researching it, I suspect it’s another example of .. omission not being proof of contradiction.. maybe John didn’t mention the fish because he wasn’t fishing himself? The thing is is that these are not fictional stories.. they are about real people in real life.. that isn’t taken into consideration when atheists are desperately searching for “contradictions”. They want to apply everything literally and not allow context to enter into it. And the context here is.. real life.
LikeLike
A few quick and incomplete comments, as I apologize, but I don’t have time to read all the comments or write about all the questions. These are the ones I have handy at my fingertips.
As to the hares chewing cud, the biggest flaw in this criticism is imposing a modern technical definition of biology onto an ancient culture which had no such context. Sure, if we use modern definitions of what things mean and impose it onto an ancient context, we’ll end in all sorts of issues. The ancients had animals that chewed more completely and those that didn’t.
As to the genealogy comparing Genesis and Luke, merely look at what Luke is actually saying. The list Luke gives, for each of the persons, merely has a definite article between the names. So literally Luke is not saying Arphaxad was the literal next generation of anyone, but merely he was “of the” previous person. Further, throughout the Bible, “son of” and “father of” does not necessarily indicate a single generation. Jesus was called the son of David.
As to Jairus’ daughter, the answer is again in the original. One gospel says literally she was “at the last” and the other that she was “now come to an end” or “now die.” Merely look at a good lexicon, such as BDAG.
As to the centurion, when a person in authority send a word through a servant, it was common to say “the nobleman said.” We do the same now with Presidential spokesmen and corporate press releases.
As to the points around Jesus’ birth ….you’ve done an excellent job of contrasting circumstances that are not necessarily contradictions.
Every so-called biblical issue that the skeptics have claimed, my personal experience has shown that upon closer inspection, the issue is resolved and the bible proven true.
LikeLike
@William – here’s a plan – use your OCD to your advantage, work up a compulsion to ignore him! And for cryin’ out loud, quit apologizing to him! He sees that as a sign of weakness, and eats apologies for breakfast!
LikeLike
Regarding the Titles of the Gospels:
LikeLike
“what? know arch is right?”
It could happen —
LikeLike
And for cryin’ out loud, quit apologizing to him! He sees that as a sign of weakness, and eats apologies for breakfast! – arch
I can ignore him and probably will. But he is welcome to view apologies as weakness if he pleases, but he’d be foolish to do so.
I should have only addressed the facts without resorting to childish behavior and insults – they really only get in the way of progress. I only dish them out when i believe the individual I address them to are not actually wanting a discussion or wanting to listen, but instead only want to dictate. That doesn’t make it right of me.
but you’re right overall. Mike continually dodges the discussion and skips out of answering real questions, and spends most of his time trying to snipe others. Giving any attention to that type only fuels their indecency and i shouldn’t be party to it.
LikeLike
“About the contradiction with John.. without researching it, I suspect it’s another example of .. omission not being proof of contradiction.. maybe John didn’t mention the fish because he wasn’t fishing himself?”
There is no contradiction at all Ruth. Matt 4:18-21 isn’t a story about how they met. Its about when Jesus called his disciples to the ministry. Arch thinks its about when they first met when the text says nothing of the sort. John records an earlier encounter. Like I said before – the disciples get up and leave everything in Matt 4 because they already know him
We know this conclusively because John tells us John (the baptist) is not in prison yet
John 1:35-40 (KJV)
35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother.
Matt 4 tells us John was then in Prison
Matthew 4:12 (KJV)
12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
two different encounters entirely….Easy and smooth as silk.
LikeLike
“As to the hares chewing cud, the biggest flaw in this criticism is imposing a modern technical definition of biology onto an ancient culture which had no such context. Sure, if we use modern definitions of what things mean and impose it onto an ancient context, we’ll end in all sorts of issues.”
Yes. Great point that I was going to address next, We are talking about imputing the term rumination and its meaning into a usage of a term “chewing the cud” over 2,000 years ago and expecting it to have the exact same meaning as it does today and thats NOT even vaguely logical
Decent article on it here
http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud
LikeLike
@Ron – you left out D, the Deuteronomist Source —
LikeLike
kathy,
Instead of trying to directly address everything you brought up, let me focus on this quote that you offered:
At the beginning of this comment, you expressed the importance of objectivity, and I couldn’t agree more with that. But then you closed with this quote, which is the opposite of objectivity. This quote is saying that even if we can’t make sense of a passage, the fact that it was included in the Bible means it’s true. If that’s honestly how you view it, then I’m afraid you’re wasting your time here. There are definitely atheists who are unconcerned with evidence and objectivity, but the vast majority of people who frequent this blog are very concerned with the evidence. So, I’m afraid that the approach your quote is advocating just won’t accomplish anything with the rest of us.
You might be surprised to know that there are some passages that people claim are contradictions that I don’t think are. When people talk about the differences in the gospels about who visited Jesus’ tomb, I don’t find those to be true contradictions. It may just be that different gospels focused on different people. I don’t have a problem with those kinds of issues, and I think you’ll find that I didn’t list any of them in my post. The problems that concern me have to do with actual contradictions — like what time of day Jesus was killed.
In your last comment, you said this:
I’m afraid this just isn’t the case. In a story, like Star Wars, I don’t get all upset if they mess up the story and create a contradiction. But with history, contradictions show that some of the information is wrong. A contradiction can not exist in real life — so when one is recorded it shows us that there’s a problem with the document. And that’s what we see over and over in the Bible.
Again, let me stress that you should consider doing a lot of research into these before you feel the need to respond. You won’t be able to accomplish that in a couple of hours of internet research. Really dig into the issues. And you may find that the research spawns other questions:
Many more may follow, and they take time to research and contemplate. I hope you’ll really consider this advice — I can even suggest a few books, both by skeptics and believers, if that helps.
LikeLike
@Portal – sometimes the most effective medicine has the worst taste. I was merely trying to point out the absurdity of the claim that, “invisible qualities are clearly seen”!
LikeLike
Chewing the cud is actually pretty easy — rabbits don’t do it. They do engage in coprophagia sometimes, but so do pigs, and the Bible says pigs don’t chew the cud.
But thanks for the opposing view and the link to the article.
LikeLike
@humblesmith —
Thanks for stopping by.
That’s not been my experience, but I’m hopeful that Kathy will do some hardcore research into these — regardless of which position she comes to.
LikeLike
@Kathy
My goodness, you are serious, aren’t you? Then let me answer seriously. Why , science, of course.
May I inquire what evidence you use to support your claim, btw?
LikeLike
“The Bible has many witnesses that span over thousands of years. That’s just one of several examples of what makes the Bible credentialed.”
Kathy, assuming he’s still alive, SOMEwhere, there’s a retired NBC executive that goes to bed every night, sadly shaking his head and saying to himself, “I can’t believe I canceled ‘Star Trek’!” Star Trek began nearly 50 years ago, had to work with ever-decreasing budgets, and finally, after three years on the air, the plug was pulled. Then a Star Trek Saturday morning cartoon series began, using the voices of the original actors. Then Paramount (who owned the franchise) launched a new series, “Star Trek, the Next Generation,” which spawned “Star Trek, Deep Space Nine,” and Star Trek, Voyager.” That was followed by a Star Trek movie, with all of the original Star Trek cast, then four more, then ST, the Next Generation movies, and now a whole new set of adventures, with actors portraying the original Star Trek characters, and NetFlicks is in talks with CBS about a new Star Trek TV series. It has become a concept that will not die.
And over the course of that 50 years, literally thousands of writers have written for one or more episodes of the many series and movies – but it’s STILL fiction.
LikeLike
Nate, when I read this : ” As you go through these examples, ask yourself if God would allow such problems to exist in a message that he wanted all people to accept and believe?”
.. I thought of a response I gave to you on the Tyre article that you never responded to.. I feel that it is a strong point that I made and would really like a response to it, especially since, basically, you had asked the same question again here..
You: ““If he doesn’t condone human sacrifice, why would we condone hiding information from people that would save them?”
Me: “What information has God hidden?? We have the Bible, and we have Jesus’ instructions for us to evangelize, spread the GOOD NEWS… God has gone and goes to great lengths to reveal to us His gift of salvation.. even asking those who obey and love Him the most to sacrifice their own lives. They will be rewarded beyond our imagination.. but this is the price that is paid so we CAN know and believe.. yet even that isn’t enough for many. And it’s at that point.. when God has sacrificed Himself and those who love Him that He has had enough. The blame at that point is all on those who reject Him.”
What God is allowing is for us to know Him and what He did for us. Again, lives were given so we could know these things. You/ atheists don’t acknowledge this.. instead you focus on these FEW (by comparison) seeming “contradictions”.. and insist they disprove the entire validity of the message that ppl again, gave their lives to spread so we WOULD know the truth.
It’s pretty evident that God want’s us to make an effort. If not, we could easily assume that He would just reveal Himself and we wouldn’t have any questions at all. He wants us to seek Him, not be forced to follow Him out of fear. He wants us to GENUINELY love Him.. just as He genuinely loves us. This is what the entire faith is based on.. God creating us to love Him as He loves us. And this makes sense. It actually gives an explanation for our existence. There is NO OTHER rational explanation!
You are focused on the “contradictions/ mistakes” but, maybe they aren’t actually mistakes or contradictions. Maybe you are just interpreting them that way.. you must apply context because as I explained earlier, it’s real life.. it’s not fiction.. all kinds of circumstances affect the stories we read that are NOT included in the writings.. that’s real life. And if you don’t make an effort to find out the possible explanations that real life encompasses, you are most certainly going to see “mistakes/ contradictions”.
But, bottom line, the number of seeming mistakes are miniscule by comparison.. normally, when it’s not about God.. when bias is not present.. those mistakes would get the benefit of the doubt since they are so few by comparison. Again, in the Tyre prophecy, the scraping of the city and it being under water is an incredible prophecy fulfillment.. yet it gets ignored and instead atheists keep their focus on what is basically a technicality. I just don’t see this as being objective.
Later today I’ll address the creation “contradictions”.
LikeLike
I totally get what Kathy is asking. When I was a believer, I thought that I had incredibly good evidence for my position — I mean, I thought it was so obvious to anyone who just took the time to consider it. It’s just that I was ignorant of a number of things. There’s nothing really wrong with ignorance, as long as we correct it when we realize it. I don’t fault Kathy for her question at all — in fact, it’s the right one to be asking.
Kathy, there are many lines of evidence. Some of it is covered by the issues in this blog post, but there’s much more as well. Ark is right that science (biology, astronomy, physics, geology, etc) all independently point to an explanation of our universe that does not fit well with Genesis. There’s also evidence within textual criticism. I strongly suggest that you look at two books: Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. He’s agnostic, but he’s also a well-respected biblical scholar, and this book is a great introduction to the facts of textual criticism. I’d also recommend How We Got the Bible by Neil Lightfoot, who is a Christian. Those two books should give you a well-rounded knowledge of the issues concerning the canon and various biblical texts. There are also historical reasons to believe Christianity is false. And when thought about logically, a number of the doctrines don’t seem to make much sense.
But again, it takes time to gather and absorb all this information. It’s well worth the effort, though.
LikeLike
“The blame at that point is all on those who reject Him” – kathy
If the person believed it and rejected it, then okay – that may have merit. So i wanted to make sure I’m understanding your point perfectly.
Is it your position that everyone really believes it, but some simply reject it?
What about those people who look, and live ethically, but simply dont believe the bible’s claims?
What about the people who believe it, not because of their devout search for truth, but because they were raised that way – are they better than the good man who actually searches, but comes away unconvinced?
LikeLike
“Chewing the cud is actually pretty easy — rabbits don’t do it. ”
You are right Nate. its pretty easy. I’d add elementary for anyone that applies some scholarship
A) The english “chewing the cud” is not in the Hebrew manuscript (as the link so aptly shows)
B) anyone with even basic understanding of ancient literature knows you can’t apply a modern day meaning to a phrase used 2,500 years ago in different culture and language . you can sell that to unsophisticated readers but it won’t fly among anyone who have the first clue
You are never up to looking at the original language or culture which is why your claiming Kathy is not objective is just hopelessly off and all of your contradictions flop so badly.
LikeLike
Apologies, Nate. After dealing with Mike and others of his ilk the lines between simply ‘bloody- minded’ and genuine inquiry – if this is, in fact what Kathy is after – often get lost in the white noise of apologetics.
Then may I recommend to Kathy, or you can, Nate,as you seem to have her ear, archaeologists, Israel Finkelstein, Ze’ev Herzog and Rabbi David Wolpe as a jump off point?
LikeLike
Sorry, I didn’t mean to overlook this. I was referring to the fact that many people today are convinced that this God doesn’t exist. That’s what he’s hidden.
Making an effort is fine, but you’re applying that to knowing whether or not he even exists, and that’s nonsensical. I don’t mean that disparagingly, because people make this remark all the time, but there are some real problems with it.
First, some Christians believe that if God let his existence be known to us it would remove the need for faith, and it would take away our free will. But the Bible shows that this isn’t the case. Think of all the people in the Bible who had firsthand encounters with either God or Christ — did they suddenly not need faith? What about Peter? What about all the examples of faith listed in Hebrews 11? Virtually all of them had intimate relationships with God or Christ, yet were still described as having faith. Furthermore, many of them disobeyed from time to time, illustrating their free will. So if God allowed people back then to have knowledge of his existence, why can’t we have it today?
Secondly, if God really wants a relationship with us, why is he hidden? I know for a fact that Jennifer Lawrence exists, yet I don’t have a relationship with her. And looking at it from the other direction, when children believe in Santa Claus, they don’t have a relationship with him. Simply believing it doesn’t make it so. In real life, our relationships are with people we know. So if God wants a relationship with us, why doesn’t he have one?
LikeLike
I just read your latest reply and want to address this real quick.. you said:
“At the beginning of this comment, you expressed the importance of objectivity, and I couldn’t agree more with that. But then you closed with this quote, which is the opposite of objectivity. This quote is saying that even if we can’t make sense of a passage, the fact that it was included in the Bible means it’s true.”
My comment you refer to incl. quote: ” here’s a site that gives a possible explanation.. I especially like the statement at the end.. ” Ultimately, no matter how Paul did his math, the Holy Spirit approved it (2 Tim. 3:16), and makes the point that God is a God of promise (Gal. 3:18, 29). ”
Nate, you’ve misunderstood my words.. I would never put forth an opinion as a reason we “must” believe in the Bible. Where have I ever indicated I would do such a thing??
My preceding words set up the context for the reason for including the quote.. First, I give a link that gives a “POSSIBLE” explanation.. “possible” is being EXTREMELY objective.. and as a SIDE note..I stated that I LIKED the statement at the end.. this was NOT a presentation of evidence in any way.. I merely stated that I liked it.. that I agree with it. Not that you SHOULD also.
LikeLike
Those are good suggestions, Ark. I completely neglected to mention the evidence from archaeology!
LikeLike
My apologies, Kathy. Thanks for clearing that up for me. 🙂
LikeLike
Kathy, I have spent far more than half a day in front of this computer screen, and there are things I absolutely MUST get done – your comment deserves far more than the hasty response that I would have time to give it now, so I’m going to “flag” the email notification and mark it “unread,” so it doesn’t disappear into a black hole, and when I’ve caught up with everything, I’ll come back and respond – best I can do for now.
I will respond to this one point quickly though – “WHY would the authors, writers, compilers “editors”? include or leave these inconsistencies in??”
In my opinion, confusion and fear. Genesis 2, for example, was written around 950 BCE by the Yahwist Group, a group of priests in the Southern Kingdom of Judea. Nearly 500 years later, a group of priests, living in captivity in Babylon – who later became known to biblical scholars as the Priestly Source – sat about wondering why their god had allowed them to be taken captive and Jerusalem destroyed. Naturally, they decided it was all Man’s fault, so they rewrote Genesis, creating a more ethereal god – the one in the Yawist’s version actually came down to earth for walk-about, “in the cool of the day,” and made clothes for Adam and Eve on the Celestial Singer – in other words, he was too human. So the Priestly Source intended to replace the more Human god with one who was more “godly,” who stayed in his heaven and sent underlings to do his bidding, which we now know as Gen 1.
But the five books that would finally comprise the Torah, or the Pentateuch (and be falsely ascribed to Moses) weren’t redacted (edited) into a final edition until c.400 BCE, and at that time, the Redactor didn’t know to throw out one of the Genesises, or even which one to throw out (and certainly afraid of throwing out the wrong one), so he kept both, and thus we have two conflicting stories. MANY of the contradictions can be attributed to the fact that four sources who wrote the “Books of Moses,” were widely separated by distance and time, and the Redactor, in 400 BCE, had the daunting task of piecing many of those together like a patchwork quilt, but still, try as he did, there are many inconsistencies.
LikeLike
“Chewing the cud is actually pretty easy — rabbits don’t do it. They do engage in coprophagia sometimes, but so do pigs, and the Bible says pigs don’t chew the cud.”
Yeah, nate, i agree. I don’t think it could be clearer. I’ve heard many people try to excuse this by saying the ancient hebrew didn’t have a word for cud, therefore, “cud” is an imperfect transliteration…
I’m fine with that. What doesn’t make sense to me is what was the hebrew word getting at then? The hare doesn’t chew anything like the cud. In what way would the hare resemble the other animals in the list? What was the bible trying to say that hares chew or hares do?
as you’ve pointed out, hares chew poop, but then pigs do too and they were said not to chew the cud (or whatever the word should have been). SO if it’s not “cud,” and not poop, what is it?
Some may say, “what difference does it make? just don’t eat hares…” but the passage is pointing out physical and identifiable traits that that make these beasts either clean or unclean… what is that identifier if “cud” is wrong?
Saying that “cud” is misleading doesn’t resolve the issue. The hare is said to do something like these other animals, the scholars say it’s “chew the cud” but if they’re wrong, what is it that hares do that is like the other animals?
I agree, to me, this is a clear foul up. Elementary. The bible says “x” but “y” is the case.
LikeLike
“What is the evidence they use to support their claim?”
I’ll summarize for you kathy since they won’t. Silence among the very few contemporary (or near contemporary) historians.
What they won’t mention is how often the silence conclusions haven’t panned out
The ammonites were suppose to be a mystical creation of the bIble but then ooops evidence was found.
the kingdom of David was supposed to be mythical but oops then they found evidence for that
Belshazzar that Nate mentions (and claims to know for fact was not related to Nebuchadnezzar) was for claimed for MANY years according to Skeptics a completely made up character but then ooops they found evidence of that and then
He was never a ruler of Babyon but oops that held up too
Just a long record of claims by skeptics of drawing conclusions based on what always was scant evidence either way given few contemporary historians and having to dig what ever did exist out of the ground.
LikeLike
Mike is right that archaeology and history have supported the Bible at times, even when people had assumed it was wrong. But it’s also true that history and archaeology sometimes contradict the Bible — not because of an argument from silence, but from actual evidence. Belshazzar being the son of Nabonidus instead of Nebuchadnezzar and the problems surrounding Darius the Mede are just two. As Ark said, there are archaeological sources available with this information, if you’re interested.
LikeLike
“What is the evidence they use to support their claim?” – Kathy
good question. And when you get a chance, provide your evidence…
you know, Troy was once thought to be a myth – but oops, they found Troy.
King Arthur used to be thought of as a myth, but oops, they found evidence of him after all
and there are other things we could point to. Sure, some are even in the bible. But if once thought myths that are current history staples was evidence of god, then Homer and whoever talked about king Arthur (Walt Disney?) would be prophets… and I don’t think anyone here would actually buy that. So maybe instead of pointing to god, it points to age – at least in those stories.
But the bible has things in it like, where Jesus said a seed had to die before it would grow – this is false. We know today through biology that this is just wrong. If a seed dies, then nothing grows.
hares chewing cuds has been covered.
LikeLike
@Arch, “(Years later, watching re-runs, I would get quite a chuckle watching Matt Dillon riding his buckskin with the “mountains of Kansas” in the background! For those who don’t know, Kansas is flatter than a flounder.)”
I laugh at that too Arch. I lived in Kansas City for 24 years and traveled across Kansas many times. Never saw any big hills let alone mountains. LOL
LikeLike
@Mike.
This is a bullshit answer and you know it.
Archaeologists and especially Israeli archaeologists have been digging in the Sinai since they were told to go and find the metaphorical title deeds for their promised land and so far have turned up absolutely nothing.
Allbright turned up nothing of the Exodus, and not a single archaeologist, secular or biblical has found a single piece of evidence that can be tied to the biblical story.
As for Egypt, the same story. Nothing.
You are simply making yourself look utterly ridiculous and doing nothing but poisoning the well.
So rather than sitting on the sidelines espousing irrelevant nonsense, if you truly think you have more knowledge, more experience and more scientific understanding than an archaeologist such as Finkelstein or Devers then let’s read what you’ve got.
LikeLike
and on silence… sometimes “absence of evidence” is indeed “evidence of absence.” If the isrealite nation left Egypt with a bunch of Egyptian loot, it would make sense to find some artifacts, but there are none. Not in egypt or in the place they were believed to have traveled through.
this isnt proof, but it is absence of evidence that should be present. Like if you lost your keys and you searched the dining room 5 times for them and still cant find them. Do you just assume that your keys arent in the dining room, or do you continue searching the dining room because absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence?
LikeLike
Let’s remember that it is not only the artifacts that should have been evident of such a huge multitude of humanity moving across the country over such a lengthy period, but also the devastating effect this would have had on the Egyptian economy. And no such collapse is even alluded to – anywhere or anytime
Aside from the logistics, one then has to square away all the magical crap described in the bible, not least the parting of the Red Sea ( which we now know was actually the Reed Sea)
Mention has already been made f the destruction of animals and how nonsensical this was, especially if Pharaoh went tearing off after the runaways using horses!
It is a story. Plain and simple.
LikeLike
“This is a bullshit answer and you know it.”
Yawn…. I am never concerned with your spittle as evidence
“Allbright turned up nothing of the Exodus, and not a single archaeologist, secular or biblical has found a single piece of evidence that can be tied to the biblical story.”
Lol…..Why would there be evidence of the exodus. When have Nomads left ruins? If you had even said conquest you would make some half sense
“You are simply making yourself look utterly ridiculous and doing nothing but poisoning the well.”
No you are and I’d say rather transparent . I posted this
“The ammonites were suppose to be a mystical creation of the bIble but then ooops evidence was found.
the kingdom of David was supposed to be mythical but oops then they found evidence for that
Belshazzar that Nate mentions (and claims to know for fact was not related to Nebuchadnezzar) was for claimed for MANY years according to Skeptics a completely made up character but then ooops they found evidence of that and then
He was never a ruler of Babyon but oops that held up too”
As an indicator of the track record on skeptics such as yourselves making big claims of what was mythical and going bust
and the factualness of it sent you into full foam at the mouth mode (not that I care.After you see enough drool you get desensitize I guess 😉 ) . My point wasn’t even that archaeology supports the Bible as Nate alleged I said but that barfs like yours have proven to be false over and over again
Shucks give you decade or two back and you would be going on about David being mythical. So Dude pound as much ground as you want . What I posted was factual. Live with it or don’t , It don’t matter me none.
LikeLike
“Lol…..Why would there be evidence of the exodus. When have Nomads left ruins? If you had even said conquest you would make some half sense”
ruins? is this a joke? I cant believe you even bothered leaving this…
LikeLike
“As an indicator of the track record on skeptics such as yourselves making big claims of what was mythical and going bust”
yes and in time I’m sure even the koran will be proven true. I mean it hasnt been yet, but that’s just because skeptics like us are too impatient to act without evidence first.
LikeLike
“Belshazzar being the son of Nabonidus instead of Nebuchadnezzar”
Provided that Belshazzar was any offspring of Nebuchadnezzar the word for father would apply. You claimed earlier that Belshazzar was no relationship whatsoever. Put up the primary evidence for that claim and by Primary I don’t mean wikipedia says so or this historian said so . I mean proof. Make your case from artifacts and comtemporary witness because everything I have read indicates Belshazzar’s parentage is not well known
LikeLike
“ruins? is this a joke? I cant believe you even bothered leaving this…”
No your reply is one. tell us oh great swami what long term archaeological record do nomads leave in their trail. I’d say I can’t believe you have that little sense but…….
LikeLike
and no Wiliam I am still not reading but the occasional short sentence from you but I will JUST for your next post IF it has any sign of coherence at the beginning.
LikeLike
Really, you are sounding more and more like the backside of the biblical talking donkey, Mike.
And, once again, you have neatly done the theological two-step and managed to avoid addressing the relevant issue.
The Egyptian captivity is fiction, the Exodus is fiction, Moses is fiction, the receiving of the Ten Commandments from ‘Yahweh’ is fiction, the conquest of Canaan is fiction.
Now, you dispute this against every secular historian, every secular archaeologist every secular Egyptologist, most of mainstream Judaism and, surprisingly, a fair amount of mainstream Christian scholarship.( those that have been honest enough it admit it, that is).
It is taught as fiction in schools in Israel.
And of the above: Jews, and Christians have quite a large amount of vested interest in the Pentateuch being true. Yet, they have admitted it is, by and large, fiction.
That takes courage.
So, who is the average person likely to believe?
The wealth of scientists across the board of relevant disciplines and a great many religious officials or a rather silly Christian apologist who cherry-picks his way through a book of fallacious text merely to stroke his ego?
LikeLike
“No your reply is one. tell us oh great swami what long term archaeological record do nomads leave in their trail. I’d say I can’t believe you have that little sense but…….” – mike
trash. pottery. All sorts of things. Arrow heads. wagon wheels. broken tent poles. lost coins. etc, etc. This is pretty basic stuff. But none has been discovered. With the vast quantity of people, who were supposedly carrying are large bounty of egyptian goods, something should have been found. Again, not finding anything isnt necessarily proof, just as finding things wouldnt necessarily be proof of the exodus, but as far as evidence goes…. absence is evidence of absence.
or so the experts say. experts other than yourself, that is.
but not to worry. I’m sure you can easily dismiss this by thinking it either hasnt been found YET, or god made sure they wouldnt lose anything – because, after all, the bible is right.
LikeLike
“and no Wiliam I am still not reading but the occasional short sentence from you but I will JUST for your next post IF it has any sign of coherence at the beginning.”
thanks for the clarification. I think the efforts you made in the post really show that you pay me no attention at all.
I would suggest reading though. It may help make your comments a little better?
LikeLike
“The Egyptian captivity is fiction, the Exodus is fiction, Moses is fiction, the receiving of the Ten Commandments from ‘Yahweh’ is fiction, the conquest of Canaan is fiction.”
Let me summarize your response.
rhetoric,
rhetoric
rhetoric
and umm
rhetoric,
If we were 15 years back this is how your rhetoric would read
“The Davidic monarchy is fiction, the rule of David is fiction, David is fiction, etc etc. all the experts agree, all scientists agree. you dispute this against every secular historian, every secular archaeologist every secular Egyptologist, most of mainstream Judaism”
but then ……ooops
LikeLike
Once again, you omit such relevant details as the Egyptian captivity, the magical nonsense and of course, the Canaanite conquest.
Moses is a fictional character. This is established fact.
Why are you not dealing with this?
LikeLike
“trash. pottery. All sorts of things. Arrow heads. wagon wheels. broken tent poles. lost coins. etc, etc. This is pretty basic stuff. ”
O really so lets leave out the exodus since this is umm such basic stuff. How often do we find “broken tent poles” in those areas left by nomads hundreds of years ago William. I mean over a few hundred years even without an exodus people would pass over
and um why would would some coin being left by nomads be identified as having to be from the exodus?
“but as far as evidence goes…. absence is evidence of absence. ”
Nope Your logic is as usual fallacious – absence of evidence is absence of evidence
LikeLike
“Moses is a fictional character. This is established fact.”
ROFL…… David was too
LikeLike
@Ark & William, Here is some reading material for you my friends and a link to its Jewish Source.
There is still considerable controversy regarding when the various documents at the disposal of the Deuteronomists were first written down; but there is no doubt that, in weaving their material together, the seventh century author-editors were considerably influenced by the circumstances of their own time.
The saga of the Israelites, as told in the Bible, was designed as a morality tale to prove the importance of faith in the One God. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Joshua demonstrate that the Israelites were rewarded when they obeyed God, but were punished when they strayed.
The historical evidence to back up these events is sparse, and, in some cases, contradictory. In particular, the account of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century BCE were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html
LikeLike
@Mike
Okay, you are behaving like the talking donkey’s backside once more.
What next?
You going to cite chariot wheels on the floor of the Red Sea, Mike? Maybe show us evidence from one of Ron Wyatt’s digs perhaps?
Or maybe you are going to tell us that Noah and the flood were real as well?
I believe you should dispute the Exodus with Herzog or Devers, or Finkelstein or Wolpe?
Seriously,if you can’t come up with anything better than this diatribe then you should rather go and peddle your nonsense to those on AIG.
They will embrace you with open arms.
Truly, you are a very silly person.
LikeLike
They do engage in coprophagia sometimes, but so do pigs, and the Bible says pigs don’t chew the cud.”
No nate not the same thing if you had bothered to read the link and is confirmed elsewhere
http://www.ao.uiuc.edu/courses/ANSC207/week13/Rabbits/web_data/file4.htm
“Rabbits, are unique in the sense that they practice cecotrophy. Cecotrophy is the act of eating cecotropes or “soft feces”. This sounds similar to coprophagy, but it is not the same process. In the rabbit, small fiber particles are “selected” in the GI tract and sent to the cecum where they are fermented to synthesize proteins and vitamins, which will be part of the cecotropes. On the other hand, large particles are sent to the colon to form the regular or hard feces. Cecotropes are different from feces in that they are higher in moisture and protein than feces. Cecotropes are consumed directly from the anus in the early morning hours, therefore making difficult to see these feces. The function of cecotrophy is to provide the rabbit with the proteins and vitamins that were synthesized in the cecum and prevents these nutrients from being lost. It is a very important process, because it can provide up to 20% of their daily protein requirement.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecotrope
“The process by which cecotropes are produced is called “hindgut fermentation”. Food passes through the esophagus, stomach, small intestine, where nutrients are initially absorbed ineffectively, and then into the colon. Through reverse peristalsis, the food is forced back into the cecum where it is broken down into simple sugars (i.e. monosaccharides) by bacterial fermentation. The cecotrope then passes through the colon, the anus, and is eliminated by the animal and then reingested. The process occurs 4 to 8 hours after eating. This type of reingestion to obtain more nutrients is similar to the chewing of cud in cattle.”
If your beloved WIkipedia can see it as simliar process to chewing of the cud there is no reason 2500 years ago that a civilization could not have used the hebrew phrase it uses to denote the same kind of reingestion
LikeLike
“Okay, you are behaving like the talking donkey’s backside once more.”
Yawn…the thing about someone who is always going off with fury and spittle all the time is that after awhile its like all caps. it means nothing its just par for the course with them. You buy an umbrella and say ho hum….whats new?
“What next?
You going to cite chariot wheels on the floor of the Red Sea, Mike? Maybe show us evidence from one of Ron Wyatt’s digs perhaps?”
Yawn an appeal to Ron Wyatt I never brought up. Shall we talk about WIlliam hung next? Anyone watch American Idol?
“Or maybe you are going to tell us that Noah and the flood were real as well? ”
I could live with that especially local…Never was a whole world only kind a guy
“I believe you should dispute the Exodus with Herzog or Devers, or Finkelstein or Wolpe?”
Sure bring em over. We’ll do lunch. they got to be better than you
“Truly, you are a very silly person.”
Here Ark
http://www.merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day/
I’m thinking if you expand your vocabulary it might add more style to your rhetoric.
LikeLike
Arch said:
“And over the course of that 50 years, literally thousands of writers have written for one or more episodes of the many series and movies – but it’s STILL fiction.”
Thanks for the Star Trek trivia.. I did enjoy it, but as far as it supporting your argument.. it failed. No one died to testify to the truth of Star Trek.. in fact.. I’m pretty sure the creators of ST ADMIT it is fiction.. there are no claims that ST was based on real life. So, I don’t and never do understand these comparisons that atheists so often give.. no one died for the unicorn, the FSM, Spiderman.. etc etc.. no gospels written for any of these.. and not even a single claim that they are real.
On your other comment about the author of “Genesis 2” etc.. it’s always amusing to hear what atheists manage to come up with to try and explain away the Bible.. I appreciate you sharing this “information” but it holds absolutely no value without references to your sources.. again, the misinformation and just plain outright lies by true enemies of God are rampant in the atheist community. With this relatively new electronic age with social media, the atheist community has become stronger I’ve noticed.. and they, no doubt would/ do soak up everything you stated as fact.. which is such a shame. Not saying that you are lying.. but I AM most def. saying that what you are saying is false.. either due to outright lies or bias/ lack of objectivity.
But, there is definitely a “market” for anything anti Christian. And many are capitalizing on that… which just fuels the lies & misinformation.
LikeLike
Yet people have died for Allah, for Krishna, for Zeus, etc. Would you maintain that their dying for those gods makes those religions true? All the Bible shows us is that people wrote down stories they had been told — as far as I know, no one questions whether or not these authors actually believed what they wrote. I think most would agree that they believed, but that doesn’t make them correct.
Kathy, you’re once again claiming that atheists are not being objective when you haven’t studied these issues in detail yet. How do you know who’s being objective? How do you know whose position is false? Most everyone here has tried to be polite to you, because you usually seem to honestly want to discuss the issues. That’s all we want as well — even if we’re unable to agree. Why label one another as lacking objectivity?
I truly don’t understand your continued assertion that atheists are spouting misinformation, when you haven’t had time to research it yet…
Oh, and since you asked about evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis (which is what Arch was talking about), you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Most people acknowledge that the DH is just that — an hypothesis. It’s not saying exactly how the Pentateuch was written and compiled, but it’s probably something similar. Again, there are many reasons for thinking this, and to really grasp them all will require some detailed research. The information is not hard to come by, though.
LikeLike
About Belshazzar, I never said that he absolutely had no familial ties to Nebuchadnezzar. I said that his father, Nabonidus, did not:
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/me/c/cylinder_of_nabonidus.aspx
I’ve never seen a Christian source question that. Some have argued that Nabonidus’ wife was Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, which would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. But there is no historical evidence to back up this claim, and it has only been suggested in an effort to explain the way Daniel 5 refers to them.
Furthermore, another book from the 2nd century BCE (the same time period Daniel was most likely written in) shows this same misconception about the Babylonian kings:
LikeLike
“I’ve never seen a Christian source question that.”
Question what? the cylinder. No but what you quoted wasn’t from the cylinder. pretty much what I didn’t ask for – a quote with no primary evidence to back it up.
” Some have argued that Nabonidus’ wife was Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, which would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. But there is no historical evidence to back up this claim,”
Theres no evidence to say that it wasn’t the case either. Belshazzars parentage is as far as I have ever read an open question on his mother’s side
” and it has only been suggested in an effort to explain the way Daniel 5 refers to them.”
NO wrong again. it has been suggested because the word there can mean son or grandson or even great grandson.
So heres what we have. We have Daniel saying that Belshazzar is the son or grandson of Nebuchadnezzar and we presently have no concrete information about who his mother is
Yet we have you and other skeptics claiming the Bible is in error when your evidence of the error is nil given that the word can mean son of , grandson of or great grandson and you don’t know who his mother was.
Will you come back and again say I have no evidence? Probably because you don’t seem to understand that in order for you to prove an error you have to prove that there is an error not claim I have to prove there isn’t one.
See? Kathy doesn’t have to study all the issues to know when atheist are not being objective. Sometimes it shows up in one single issue.
“Furthermore, another book from the 2nd century BCE (the same time period Daniel was most likely written in) shows this same misconception about the Babylonian kings”
No it doesn’t because again you have presented no proof about Belshazzar’s mother and Baruch is not necessarily an independent testimony but is likely partially based on Daniel or a common source.
LikeLike
@Ark, “Once again, you omit such relevant details as the Egyptian captivity, the magical nonsense and of course, the Canaanite conquest.
Moses is a fictional character. This is established fact.
Why are you not dealing with this?”
The conclusion is somewhat startling to Bible readers who know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as immoral idolaters: most of the Israelites were in fact formerly Canaanites. The story of Abraham’s journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin. The consolidation of the Israelites into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time the Israelites were establishing themselves in the hills.
Thus the founders of Israel were not Abraham and Moses; but Saul and David. It was apparently Saul who consolidated the hill farmers under his rule and created fighting units capable of confronting the Philistines. It was David who defeated the Philistines and united the hill farmers with the people of the Canaanite plains, thus establishing the Kingdom of Israel and its capital city.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/davidjer.html
LikeLike
Mr. Twister strikes again! It wasn’t that “John records an earlier encounter,” it’s that John records an entirely different first encounter, contradicting Matthew, and there’s nothing but your word to say differently, and we both know what I consider THAT to be worth.
LikeLike
The word used in Daniel 5 is ab, which literally means “father.” There are times when it’s used as something like “forefather” but it’s typically done where that meaning is obvious — like referring to an ancestor that’s known to be several generations removed.
In Daniel 5, we have something very different. Seven different times, Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar are referred to as father and son — if that’s what the author literally thought, he couldn’t have expressed it any clearer. And we see where another author from about the same time period thought the same thing.
Furthermore, to believe that God actually inspired this writing, we have to believe the following: God inspired Daniel to call Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar father and son 7 different times, while never referring to Belshazzar’s actual father, Nabonidus. God would know that future generations would have several different contemporary sources showing them that Nebuchadnezzar was definitely not the father of Belshazzar and was not related to Nabonidus. If there was a connection via Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter, God did not inspire Daniel to mention it, nor did he make sure any other historian recorded it. Add to this the other problems in Daniel, like Darius the Mede, the book’s focus on Antiochus Epiphanes, and the fact that there’s no reference to the character of Daniel until sometime in the mid-second century BCE, and one is left to wonder why God decided to stack the deck so heavily against Daniel’s legitimacy.
LikeLike
“Mr. Twister strikes again! It wasn’t that “John records an earlier encounter,” it’s that John records an entirely different first encounter, contradicting Matthew,”
hehehe you are begging bread and I think even you know it. There is nothing in Mathew about it being a first encounter. You done gone ahead and perpetuated a whammy and it done did blew up on you is all
LikeLike
@Nate – he’s using a Creationist website to “try” proving his point – gosh, I can’t imagine THEY’d be biased! He’s saying you can judge 3,000-year old words by modern standards, but if I may translate idiot-speak, he’s saying that 3,000-year old shepherds and herdsmen wouldn’t know which animals chew the cud, and which ones didn’t. The writers, on the other hand, were priests, and WOULDN’T have any real reason to know that much about agriculture – IF, of course, they didn’t have any divine inspiration – otherwise, their accuracy should have been spot on, regardless of their personal knowledge and/or experiences. Yet it wasn’t – hmmm —
LikeLike
@arch — “God is not the author of confusion”!
LikeLike
@Nate — ” “God is not the author of confusion”!”
No, Mike is 🙂 The greatest compliment we could ALL give him. 🙂
LikeLike
This could be a new name we could all call him.
Confusion says ………………………………….
I’m liking it 🙂
LikeLike
“The word used in Daniel 5 is ab, which literally means “father.” There are times when it’s used as something like “forefather” but it’s typically done where that meaning is obvious”
really Nate. If no one knew the story of Israel would they know this verse was referring to forefather
Joshua 24:3 (KJV)
3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.
I kinda doubt Joshua was talking to Isaac or Jacob
Judges 18:29 (KJV)
29 And they called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father, who was born unto Israel: howbeit the name of the city was Laish at the first.
sounds like Dan gave birth tous but in the days of judges Dan had been dead for lets just say a looooooong time
“1 Kings 15:11 (KJV)
11 And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.’
Seems straightfooward enough except David was Asa’s great great grandfather
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_of_Judah
MOre?
2 Kings 20:5 (KJV)
5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the LORD, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the LORD.
David was his great great great how many greats I didn’t count father. I could probably og on for pages but it would be merciless to your point but used these also because they illustrate a point that answers this claim
“Furthermore, to believe that God actually inspired this writing, we have to believe the following: God inspired Daniel to call Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar father and son 7 different times, while never referring to Belshazzar’s actual father, Nabonidus”
As with the cases above a prominent figure in the history of Israel is referred to as father (David -even when great great grandfather) Nabonidus was not the crucial player in the captivity. He would later on become a question mark “who?”
So is perfectly within keeping of the convention to use Neb and it could be used 7o times it would make no matter because despite your denial and proven by the texts above it was perfectly legit
“God would know that future generations would have several different contemporary sources showing them that Nebuchadnezzar was definitely not the father of Belshazzar and was not related to Nabonidus”
And God would know that those generations would have hundreds and thousands of hebrew experts telling them it can and does refer also to grandfather and great grand father
“Add to this the other problems in Daniel, like Darius the Mede, the book’s focus on Antiochus Epiphanes, and the fact that there’s no reference to the character of Daniel until sometime in the mid-second century BCE, and one is left to wonder why God decided to stack the deck so heavily against Daniel’s legitimacy.”
He didn’t. skeptics as demonstrated by you just don’t do very good research and one is left to wonder why you never do.
Your old ever used fall back position that it should be clearer ignores that there are prohibitions for laziness as well Nate. God is not required to overcome your inability to do the research you claimed to have done.
LikeLike
“@arch — “God is not the author of confusion”!”
Here here 🙂
which is why all the post on this blog were written by you and not him and why you are responsible for your own confusion. Finally some personal responsibility?
LikeLike
“their accuracy should have been spot on’
Their accuracy was spot on due to what chewing the cud means in Hebrew
oh thats right we can’t actually read the Herbew text or understand word usage. Thats twisting. Rofl
LikeLike
Mike, all the examples you listed from the OT fit with exactly what I said. In every one of those instances, other passages had made it clear that he wasn’t talking about someone’s actual father, but someone more distant. In those instances, the distinction is obvious. That’s simply not the case in Daniel 5.
LikeLike
“Mike, all the examples you listed from the OT fit with exactly what I said. In every one of those instances, other passages had made it clear that he wasn’t talking about someone’s actual father, but someone more distant.”
Circular nonsense. think Nate. We only know they are talking about somebody distance because we know they are not father and son as we call it today. In cases where we don’t why would I present them as evidence for great grandfather being used for you to deny they were?
Your point is dead as doors. The passages no matter how you beg and plea refers and uses the word father to denote grandfather and great great grandfather and thats obvious. Will you show the objectivity to admit it – meh probably not but at the rate you are failing to prove your contradictions and errors rather than plead for it I rather doubt you are going to convince Kathy. Shucks no matter how you dislike me we might even have you sitting down for christmas dinner with your family this year.
LikeLike
yes, because of the context. The word used there primarily means “father.” When context dictates, it can take on secondary meanings, but Daniel gives us no such context.
Look, here’s my beef with you — and I’m not saying this to be rude, I’m just trying to be as forthright as possible. It’s your use of phrases like this:
You pretend as though these are simple issues, or aren’t issues at all, but that’s simply not true. As I’ve shown with the Belshazzar example, the passage as it’s written is problematic. Perhaps you find the idea of Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar being related through Belshazzar’s mother to be a perfectly good explanation. I disagree with you, but that’s fine if you believe that. But to pretend that there’s not even the appearance of an issue seems disingenuous. Am I wrong in that? I don’t want to get sidelined discussing your commenting style, but if you feel I’m completely off in my assessment, please let me know.
LikeLike
Actually, KC, the area of Kansas, just as you approach Missouri, is the closest Kansas comes to having mountains, at least there are some hills and multi-layered rocks there. I lived on a ranch for a year, had a couple of horses, just north of Grain Valley.I enjoyed watching Nichols Plaza light up at Thanksgiving, and I took my son and his girlfriend on the horse-drawn carriages when they visited. Beautiful country, been across it all the way to Cape Giradeau.
LikeLike
@Ark:
Dever was born into a Christian household, his father a minister, and attended theological schools before beginning his career in archaeology – today, he is an atheist, as 30 years in the Levant, chasing down claims of the Bible, has convinced him that the beliefs with which he was raised simply aren’t true.
LikeLike
@Ark – Exodus tells us that over 600.000 men left Egypt with Moses, and factoring in the women and children, or in Hebrew terms, property, that runs to about 2.5 million people at a time when the entire population of Egypt was only 3.5 million – what economy could take that kind of hit without a comment somewhere on a hieroglyphic? Why, it would be like America, if all of the Mexicans went home!
LikeLike
“Yet people have died for Allah, for Krishna, for Zeus, etc. Would you maintain that their dying for those gods makes those religions true? All the Bible shows us is that people wrote down stories they had been told — as far as I know, no one questions whether or not these authors actually believed what they wrote. I think most would agree that they believed, but that doesn’t make them correct.”
Nate, I didn’t make the claim that the martyrs of Christianity prove it’s truth. Why did you make that assumption? I do claim it is very compelling evidence of it’s truth. And those other ppl dying for Allah etc.. were they martyred? Or did they kill themselves? It makes a huge difference. You’ve got to consider the circumstances of each. Their deaths contributed / contribute nothing towards the truth of their gods. Blowing yourself up is just stupid.
“Kathy, you’re once again claiming that atheists are not being objective when you haven’t studied these issues in detail yet. How do you know who’s being objective? How do you know whose position is false? Most everyone here has tried to be polite to you, because you usually seem to honestly want to discuss the issues. That’s all we want as well — even if we’re unable to agree. Why label one another as lacking objectivity?”
I apologize again.. I really didn’t mean to be offensive.. my accusations weren’t directed at Arch, I was referring to atheists/ liberals in general… based on my experience in debating with atheists/ liberals. I realize this isn’t true of all.. but it is true of most I believe.
But I don’t know how you can fault me for wanting to know the sources of the claims being made. Especially since they were being made in a “factual” way. I don’t think Arch was being dishonest, but I do believe the information he gave is incorrect. You are right, I don’t know anything about the “DH”. But based on my experience with liberal “truths” and also my knowledge of God and Christianity.. I’m am extremely confident that the information is incorrect.
And every time I make the lack of objectivity claim, it’s backed up with the evidence of the debate going on at that time. It’s there for the other person or anyone else to challenge. I only make the claim because it’s what I strongly believe at the time.. I’m ALWAYS willing to listen to the arguments for why I might be wrong.. because I can certainly be wrong.. but if I was, wouldn’t there be a defense to my accusation? Just like I defended your accusation that I lacked objectivity? And I didn’t mind you making the accusation because you were being sincere.. it is what you believed.
LikeLike
ooops!
LikeLike
@KC —
“The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Joshua demonstrate that the Israelites were rewarded when they obeyed God, but were punished when they strayed.”
Another way of saying controlled by Pavlovian conditioning.
LikeLike
@Kathy – RE: “No one died to testify to the truth of Star Trek.”
19 men died flying airplanes into select targets for the glory of Islam – does that make you a Muslim?
RE: “I appreciate you sharing this “information” but it holds absolutely no value without references to your sources.”
I told you what a busy day I was having, and that I would get back with you when it was over, with additional information, but some of the things you’ve been saying in your comments – “it’s always amusing to hear what atheists manage to come up with to try and explain away the Bible” – and – “There is NO OTHER rational explanation!” – lead me to believe you aren’t sufficiently open-minded enough to benefit from any effort I might make, and you’ve shown me no reason to do so. Good luck.
LikeLike
You’re wasting your time, Nate – Kathy and Mike’s idea of using Occam’s Razor, is to slice off everything that doesn’t fit between the covers of their Bible.
LikeLike
@Nate – RE: “The word used in Daniel 5 is ab” – AB-solutely, which is where we get “Abram” and “Abraham,” the “father of many nations.”
LikeLike
RE: “Nate, I didn’t make the claim that the martyrs of Christianity prove it’s truth. Why did you make that assumption?”
You certainly implied it.
LikeLike
“really Nate. If no one knew the story of Israel would they know this verse was referring to forefather” – the OT was written by Jews, for Jews – who wouldn’t know?
LikeLike
Great points Arch !
LikeLike
“yes, because of the context.”
No because we know who the people are especially in the Judges example. Now would I give you examples where knowledge of who the players are does not necessarily show the relationship? Of course not. then you would just say the relationship WAS father to direct son. So you are being nothing else but circular in your thinking. Truth is there may be many examples where we don’t know that grandfather is meant because we don’t know the player’s (and it doesn’t mean a hill of beans because it does nothing to change any doctrine or teaching) This is the same issue with genealogies and one of he reasons most people consider Ussher to have been wrong to just add up begats.
” The word used there primarily means “father.” When context dictates, it can take on secondary meanings, but Daniel gives us no such context.”
Nate I have given you examples and the scholarship on this is clear. Ab in everyone of those passages shows CLEARLY, UNDENIABLY, AND CERTAIN that it can and was used for denoting great and grand parents. You don’t like it so you are fudging just like you accuse Christians of doing. If this were an issue that showed a contradiction or you thought sealed one of your contradiction you would be arguing the opposite.
Meanwhile this is the first time in any of our discussions where you even cared about context in word usage (even though you are plainly wrong nevertheless). In our Tyre debate you completely begged off Nehemiah’s use of the word build referring to an inhabited Jerusalem with homes and an armoury and POINT BLANK claimed it didn’t matter.
“Look, here’s my beef with you — and I’m not saying this to be rude, I’m just trying to be as forthright as possible. It’s your use of phrases like this:
Your point is dead as doors.
Will you show the objectivity to admit it
etc, etc”
Rationally that argument is dead Nate – not after recent posts and even this one. You have called me disingenuous in this very thread (and egads even in your last post), acrobat, Like clinton, obfuscator and yep even indicated just as I did that I would not admit things.
NO Nate what you really don’t like about me is I don’t sugar quote, I don’t care about being banned, I know the issues well enough to know you didn’t do all the homework you said you did and will point out the one thing maybe no one else will do with precision that could end up being very helpful to you to see – your own bias and yes even what some on your own side accuse me of – your own arrogance.
“You pretend as though these are simple issues, or aren’t issues at all, ”
Because they aren’t . I have it there in black and white How ab is used in relationship to grand parents and great parents. Like it or not the point IS dead. As long as that is an acceptable use of the word you can’t prove your error or contradiction and YOU not me or any apologist has the burden to prove your claims right we only have to show you can’t prove your alleged error. Whats funny about this is you actually use a character in Belshazzar which not so long ago skeptics like yourself using the same logic decided was a totally fictitious character So Daniel has already proven itself right against historians who swore it was lying on that issue
“As I’ve shown with the Belshazzar example, the passage as it’s written is problematic”
You’ve shown no such thing since Ab can and does mean grand parent in many texts
“But to pretend that there’s not even the appearance of an issue seems disingenuous”
A) the appearance of an issue to you living 2500+ years and in a different culture and speaking a different language is absolutely no evidence toward anything. I’ve tried to explain this to you before but you constantly deny how studying an ancient text is done.
B) theres not even a hint of an issue if the word can be translated grandfather since all that would be happening there is a reference to his relationship to a more well known and important figure in neb
C) you really are stepping up the duplicity to just take issue with me saying “will you admit it” and then turn right around and hint at my disingenuity simple because I don’t see it your way but the way ab is used in countless other Biblical texts.
I know you like to see yourself as unbiased and pure as the driven snow Nate (and thats part of your issue) but thats some serious hypocrisy right there and the second time you have questioned my genuineness in this thread after threatening to ban me on another thread for questioning any of your atheist readers.
time to take your blinders off and look in the mirror. Who knows a whole lot might be riding on it. Are you really as unbiased as you think you are? and were you really as unbiased as you thought you were when you “deconverted”?
LikeLike
Amazing. Sorry, Nate, best you just give Mike your lunch money and suck it up.
I guess there’s nothing for it. Screw Finkelstein, Devers, Silberman Herzog ,Wolpe, et al we must all accept the Word of Mike and reconvert.
Just one question….who’s going to tell the Muslims they’re wrong too? Mike?
LikeLike
“Nate, I didn’t make the claim that the martyrs of Christianity prove it’s truth. Why did you make that assumption? I do claim it is very compelling evidence of it’s truth.” – kathy
Then, Kathy, I think nate was saying it doesnt serve as evidence, much less as proof.
it only serves as evidence for their firm belief in something. And nate was giving evidence of other people’s firm belief in something else.
LikeLike
RE: “who’s going to tell the Muslims they’re wrong too?”
I think if he leaves for the Middle-East right now, he could get there just ion the nick of time! I think he should start with al Qaeda first.
LikeLike
Al Qaeda, Al Capone, Al Bundy. They each need Jesus, right?
LikeLike
Exactly, William – if people are made to believe that they have a soul, that it lives forever, and that if they give their short, human lives in servicer to their god, they’ll be transported to a paradise where they’ll live happily for eternity as a reward for their devotion, they are quite likely to make that trade, but it only proves the extent of their indoctrination, and the degree of their gullibility,nothing more.
LikeLike
“I guess there’s nothing for it. Screw Finkelstein, Devers, Silberman Herzog ,Wolpe, et al”
Ark bring the heat – Real primary evidence. You do nothing but appeal to authority which is fallacious.
And nix WIllaims beg that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That won’t work. the history of historians being wrong about what never existed and never happened has been shown to be wrong too many times – which is why you went into full spitting and sputtering mode when I brought up that fact.
LikeLike
Right, arch. There have been times where I thought I’d die for a hero sandwich, but then i realize that there wont be any sandwiches in heaven since there’s no hunger up there and all… so then i decide I’d rather live and eat a sandwich on my next lunch break.
But man, I believe that I really like sandwiches though.
LikeLike
“And nix WIllaims beg that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That won’t work. the history of historians being wrong about what never existed and never happened has been shown to be wrong too many times – which is why you went into full spitting and sputtering mode when I brought up that fact.”
Except it does work. If nothing is there, then that’s evidence that nothing is there. I did say it wasn’t the same as proof, though. But you can keep searching the dining room for your lost keys, I’m sure they’ll turn up eventually – because hey, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
But I’m with you, why trust in something that’s been shown to be wrong again and again? it’s one of the reasons I left the bible.
LikeLike
“I think if he leaves for the Middle-East right now, he could get there just ion the nick of time! I think he should start with al Qaeda first.
Naaaah. Lawrence Krauss is closer so I’ll start with him – your high priest of everything out of absolutely nothing Pink Fairy. Anybody got his work address? You should – right in your shirt pocket close to your heart. Or did it fall out while you were genuflecting and chanting to the nothingness? 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
Actually, I was hoping he’d start with the group who beheaded that guy on TV a few years ago —
LikeLike
“But you can keep searching the dining room for your lost keys, I’m sure they’ll turn up eventually – because hey, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. ”
thats right and If I can’t find my keys it doesn’t mean they never existed. By George I think the light bulb went off in his head and he got it. Call the press!! “Man Awakes out of Coma. News a t 6!”
LikeLike
@William – I like a Reuben, with a cold beer. Or a Philly CheeseSteak – whadaya tryin’ to do, ruin my diet? Now I’m hungry —
LikeLike
Yes, Excellent idea. I imagine they would welcome him with open arms….and c4, probably.
LikeLike
RFLMAO….ah…so experts have no validity and can thus be dismissed out of hand. Super. I understand perfectly.
And when it comes to ‘evidence’ of your man-god, to whom do you appeal?
His dad?
Good grief, you are such a plonker. Come back, Mister Ham…all is forgiven.
LikeLike
“thats right and If I can’t find my keys it doesn’t mean they never existed. By George I think the light bulb went off in his head and he got it. Call the press!! “Man Awakes out of Coma. News a t 6!”” _ Mike
Interesting point, since we’re not arguing about the existence of an Israeli nation, but where they’ve been…
LikeLike
Funny (sad, really) that YOU of all people, should mention “genuflecting…to the nothingness” —
LikeLike
RE: “appeal to authority which is fallacious" – the irony, Ark, is that if you had made an unsupported claim, he'd have been insisting on references, essentially demanding that you provide him with the very authority that he is calling fallacious – Mr. Twister —
LikeLike
Mike, I never set out to “prove” any of these contradictions. They simply are what they are. I see them as contradictions, because I can’t imagine a God who would purposefully create all these issues or one who would need apologists to help him make his case and fix his shortcomings. If you can imagine such a God and somehow square him with the adjectives omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving then help yourself. It just doesn’t work for me.
You know what else is funny? That until that discovery, Christians thought that he was Nebuchadnezzar’s son.
LikeLike
“RFLMAO….ah…so experts have no validity and can thus be dismissed out of hand. Super. I understand perfectly.”
ROFL poor kid doesn’t know that experts handle evidence and merely referring to their expertise without such IS fallacious
Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Read learn assimiliate…something…anything or as Kirk would say
“Must……hold ….back….ignorance…Scotty… we…need…more…power.
LikeLike
Mike’s only recognized authority is the bible. Sadly, I must admit, I was once this way. Skeptical of everything unless I read it between the covers of my Holy Bible.
Mike uses it as his measure. So if something doesn’t agree with the bible, then it is wrong, because the bible is always right. He’ll cite historians and archaeology as long as they agree with the bible, but that’s only because they’ve been validated by the bible, instead of the bible being validated by them.
It’s a tedious position, because when the bible contradicts itself, he must then say, “well, it’s wrong to view this passage literally, so it must be figurative so that it doesn’t conflict with this literal passage over here…” But then it doesn’t take long to realize the issue with “how do we know which one is literal and which is figurative, and then on and on.
you’re forced to argue with the goal of winning points, because you’re just not going to win on any logical merits.
LikeLike
I think it’s funny how mike routinely cites wikipedia, but then will criticize nate for doing so…
mathew 7:5, mike…. It’s in your book and it’s for you…
LikeLike
@Arch
“appeal to authority which is fallacious”
Maybe he thinks the word ‘fallacious’ has something to do with oral sex?
If he’s not blowing steam he blowing something.
LikeLike
“The ammonites were suppose to be a mystical creation of the bIble but then ooops evidence was found.
the kingdom of David was supposed to be mythical but oops then they found evidence for that
Belshazzar that Nate mentions (and claims to know for fact was not related to Nebuchadnezzar) was for claimed for MANY years according to Skeptics a completely made up character but then ooops they found evidence of that and then
He was never a ruler of Babyon but oops that held up too”
Who made these claims Mike ? Please name names and their credentials as you always ask us to do.
BTW they have found 1 piece of evidence with “A” David’s name on it. Here is what the Jewish Virtual Library has to say about that 1 piece of evidence.
“Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David (“House” or “Dynasty” of David”). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.”
If WE were using just 1 piece of evidence to support any of our claims YOU would laugh it off instantly !
LikeLike
“Mike, I never set out to “prove” any of these contradictions. They simply are what they are. ”
Kinda like your I am opened minded I will just never change my mind bit. eh? Heres my evidence and it shows what things really are but I am not saying its proving anything. Sheesh I am the acrobat? that was quite a spinning dismount.
Well great then Nate now we know all these times you are just opining your feelings not proving anything. good stuff.
“because I can’t imagine a God who would purposefully create all these issues or one who would need apologists to help him make his case and fix his shortcomings”
Sigh… the ever present fall back. I confused myself by not doing thorough research so its God’s fault I didn’t do good enough research because God should always accomodate laziness and lack of study of those who question his existence. Yes Nate I know I’ve read you fall back to that often.
“You know what else is funny? That until that discovery, Christians thought that he was Nebuchadnezzar’s son.”
They still do Nate. Grand SON. and you know whats the funniest? the word still is used that way in the bible and has always had that possible meaning with not a thing you can do about it. Case closed.
LikeLike
Sometimes I wish I had your patience, Nate, but most times, I’m glad I don’t.
LikeLike
As much as I love a good, rollicking to and fro with any number of apparently intellectually retarded apologists, a character such as Mike has decorated this post with so much banality that one finds oneself becoming what one despises after innumerable responses.
Truly, is there really any need to have to justify one’s POV to a person that considers the narrative construct, Jesus of Nazareth the be all and end all of his world?
I think I’ll leave Mike for those with more patience and wait until Nate posts again, hopefully, ,sans the little tit, Anthony.
LikeLike
“They still do Nate. Grand SON. and you know whats the funniest? the word still is used that way in the bible and has always had that possible meaning with not a thing you can do about it. Case closed.”
any you know very well that until it was discovered christians didn’t argue “grandson” but “son.” and the “grandson” part, that you’re claiming now, has no evidence. zero. It’s a supposition based upon the bible and what people used to think based off it only. It’s an attempt to reconcile the bible’s use of “son” when they now know, without a doubt, that belshazzer wasnt Neb’s son – so they guess (and that’s all it is) that his mother could have been the daughter or granddaughter of Neb.
Look it it.
But even so, I cant prove his mother wasnt related to Neb, and there are many other issues with Daniel. But it is true, and indisputable, that this issue could have easily been avoided had it been written more clearly. God didnt do that, i guess because, like you pointed out, god wants people to read his bible, and make the efforts to read everything else, wading through the evidence fro and against, and then just decide the the bible is right and take it on what is ultimately blind faith.
the same that is required to swallow the koran or any other holy book.
yeah, the case is closed.
LikeLike
RE: “…if something doesn’t agree with the bible, then it is wrong, because the bible is always right.”
That reminds me, William, of the note from Hank —
LikeLike
Arch, exactly right
LikeLike
“I think it’s funny how mike routinely cites wikipedia, but then will criticize nate for doing so…”
I think it funny that you don’t realize I started using it because it seems to be mostly what you guys use.
LikeLike
“any you know very well that until it was discovered christians didn’t argue “grandson” but “son.” and the “grandson” part, that you’re claiming now, has no evidence. zero”
Will I suggest you to a school’s drama department. You do a mean impression of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. I have all the evidence I need. Countless passages in the OT where the word is used for grandson and great grandson and you have nothing but a beg from Nate that they all don’t count. Its YOU with the ZERO evidence and its amusing to see you try and spin it the other way when you can’t
LikeLike
“I think it funny that you don’t realize I started using it because it seems to be mostly what you guys use.”
makes sense… I guess… It does look like the pot calling the kettle black though… by the way, have read Matthew 7:5? it’s a fascinating passage. It’s also kind of like making fun of a guy for drowning while you’re sinking underwater… I just thought that maybe you werent aware that youre that guy – but it looks like youre cool with it.
do unto others what they do unto you?
If i didnt find a source trustworthy, I wouldnt use it. I dont use wikipedia to cite anything, but that’s only because of its reputation and to avoid this very thing. It’s better now, wikipedia, than it was when it first appeared.
LikeLike
“But it is true, and indisputable, that this issue could have easily been avoided had it been written more clearly. God didnt do that,”
Nate has trained you well young Will – when your point cannot stand by the evidence go to the all purpose we thought it was confusing so our no evidence point still stands. Take the goalpost and run with it as fast as you can. Meanwhile in truth who was Bel’s father changes nothing doctrinally to matter. The only people who it makes any difference to that Bel was NEb’ son or Nab’s are skeptics whose ONLY interest in the relationship is to show an error.
They being thwarted by GOD’s use of a word that means grandson as well – who really cares?
Only the whining skeptics because they no longer can prove the error their bias swore was there and because yet another contradiction has bit the dust.
LikeLike
Wikipedia is a starting point, not a destination. The articles there contain links to the sources cited.
LikeLike
“Will I suggest you to a school’s drama department. You do a mean impression of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. I have all the evidence I need. Countless passages in the OT where the word is used for grandson and great grandson and you have nothing but a beg from Nate that they all don’t count. Its YOU with the ZERO evidence and its amusing to see you try and spin it the other way when you can’t” – Mike
what are we talking about?
You’re mentioning evidence and it’s confusing me… no evidence of what?
But, yes, often son and grandson and so on were summed up with son. many times son also meant son, and didnt mean grandson. This is the clear point being made. Once upon time, because of the daniel is written, christains believed “son” as in “son” and now, because of the evidence will say “grandson.” and that could be, but again there’s no evidence of this – it’s merely a guess and it’s only guessed because the bible says he was neb’s son, when we know he was not, so what could mean? it must mean “son.”
I feel silly having to go into this much detail explaining this.
and again, had Daniel mentioned Nabonidus or his “mother’s father, neb…” we would not be having a discussion on this issue now. It could have been written in such away to prevent any conflict (apparent or literal) and it would have been very easy to do so – yet it wasnt. I assume it’s either a mistake in the text or god just likes mixing things up.
if this were the only issue in the bible, I’d probably still believe it. But since it’s just one of many…
LikeLike
“Maybe he thinks the word ‘fallacious’ has something to do with oral sex?”
It doesn’t?
LikeLike
“if this were the only issue in the bible, I’d probably still believe it. But since it’s just one of many…”
Yes I know…”the put up a load of garbage that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and then claim some of them must be right because of the volume put up” gambit.
What else is new?
LikeLike
Ark – Cliff Klaven here – it’s a little known fact that Backpfeifengesicht is German for “a face that makes you want to hit it”. You might want to save that tidbit, you might find a use for it someday – soon.
LikeLike
William, I say this with the greatest respect – do you see how frustrated you are allowing him to make you?
LikeLike
(Should have added this:) I KNOW you wouldn’t allow any OTHER flyspec to frustrate you so much!
LikeLike
It seems that both groups are saying the same thing:
Group 1: “Your running away from the Truth!”
Group 2: “No, your running away from the Truth!”
And around and around it goes…
It’s actually pretty tiresome to read.
LikeLike
Regarding the discipleship…
It seems that either John the Baptist (JTB), or the author(s) of Matthew had a severe case of amnesia. In Matthew 3:11-16 we read that John recognizes Jesus as the Messiah:
Yet eight chapters later (Mt 11:1-3), we read that JTB commissions his disciples to go investigate whether or not Jesus is the Messiah they’ve been expecting:
Hard to believe that someone who felt himself unworthy to baptize Jesus, and then witnessed the heavens open and the Spirit of God descending like a dove upon Jesus after the baptism would need to make further inquiries about whether or not Jesus was the real deal.
LikeLike
And Lately these threads remind me of name calling in a schoolyard.
it’s sad to see it’s started up again here.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Excellent point, Ron!
LikeLike
Arch: “William, I say this with the greatest respect – do you see how frustrated you are allowing him to make you?”
I feel it too – gone on, i deserve it. tell me you told me so.
But I’m always frustrated, and now I think he is too. His rambling doesn’t really bother me. the more he goes on and on, is the more he wraps his rope around his own neck.
LikeLike
“…so our no evidence point still stands” – mike
No evidence of nothing? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
You have a book, that you claim god himself told people to write for him, because those people claim god told them to write it. You then declare that belshazzer’s mother was related to Nebuchadnezzar because evidence has shown that belshazzer wasnt neb’s son, as Daniel states seven times that he was, and because evidence has shown the Bel’s real father, the kind, had no relation to neb, so without evidence of anything, you HOPE that his mother was related in some way to neb and then go on to declare, “case closed,” the bible’s right. there is zero evidence for the supposition that belshazzer’s mother was related to neb in anyway. The only “evidence” you have for such is the bible.
My whole point is, “where is your evidence?” You’re essentially saying that your evidence for the bible is the bible. I wouldn’t have thought to do that, but that’s probably because I’m not an idiot.
the more I talk with you, the more certain I become. If you’d like to pretend any of these issues are cut and dry and obviously not problematic, then you are free to do so. i, on the other hand, have serious doubts with the bible’s authenticity based upon them.
and the fact this didnt have to be an issue at all, could have been clarified so easily as not to leave any question of accuracy, but then still wasnt avoided, makes perfect sense to me. I get it that you dont understand that.. if you’re having trouble understanding the implications of this simple concept, then i cannot help you, i’m afraid.
and saying that it shouldn’t be a problem, doesn’t resolve the problem. I’m not the only one troubled this; and having Mike (the self labeld christian who doesnt cat lie a christian) say, “it’s so easily explained away” just doesnt seem like enough to convince me.
I guess we’ll have to agree that we dont agree.
LikeLike
“I feel it too – gone on, i deserve it. tell me you told me so.”
I don’t do that, but I HAVE noticed that you highly prize your self-esteem, and I just didn’t want to watch you lose that – purely selfish on my part —
LikeLike
“It seems that either John the Baptist (JTB), or the author(s) of Matthew had a severe case of amnesia”
Yawn….. You guys do give true meaning to the phrase
“If at first you do not succeed. try try again”
I am not entirely sure anyone understood all the things that were required or conditioned on the messiah at the time but lets say he did and thought before Jesus was the messiah (though Matthew 3 doesn’t use the word). people ask questions to confirm what they already believe all the time. Furthermore doubts crop up in the human mind even under the best circumstances much less in Jail about to die. So the idea that someone asked to confirm what they already knew before but might have had doubts of proves nothing
except that
As usual you have no good point. its all just begging not proving a contradiction.
LikeLike
But William … Mike will never “agree” with anything that a “skeptic” would say so it’s hopeless he’ll ever agree with your last statement.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what a contradiction is according to mike.
again, I haven’t seen a contradiction that couldn’t be explained away with conjecture and supernatural patchwork. And then say that if you cant disprove my made up gap-filling-stories, then they’re valid…
it’s like trying to disprove bigfoot by demanding his body be presented.
I can argue that both Islam and Christianity are the true religion at the same time – and some people do.
Doesn’t make it a credible argument.
LikeLike
William listen to Ark and arch and ignore me because your silly response now is to claim that I must disprove your assertion of a contradiction instead of you proving that one must exist which is just utter empty nonsense.
the word can mean son, grandson or great grandson. Get over it. its used that way SEVERAL TIMES in the Bible. You are not going to change that fact. So do you know if Daniel is right and Bel is the grand son of NEb? No you don’t, no one has third party evidence and so your clam that Daniel is wrong is not something you can prove. .I can’t show third party evidence either but then I am not claiming to but what frustrates you is the FACT that arises out of that and that is – you have another contradiction you claim that you cannot prove
the end . case closed. those are the facts we have
LikeLike
“William listen to Ark and arch and ignore me because your silly response now is to claim that I must disprove your assertion of a contradiction instead of you proving that one must exist which is just utter empty nonsense.”
Oh, well listen, I wasnt saying it was a contradiction, but an error. Sure, you’ll go on to say that was his grandson. that’s cool, and may even be true, there’s just no evidence for that. I havent even disputed that son had to mean son all the I acknowledged the son, grandson and so on, thing you’re referring to again.
What I’m saying, and youre doing your best to try and not understand, is that christians once interpreted “son” in this regard as “son” and not “grandson.” I mention thsi littl;e fact only because you say the skeptics had to back peddle once secular history verified belshazzer’s existence = except that existence was different than what christians had imagined.
it’s only after the discovery of the evidence of belshazzer and and his real father, that the christians now have to say “grandson.” Which is fine. You certainly cant say he’s the son, so maybe it is grandson.
the point is, is that there’s nothing confirming this. So in this regard, you’re using the bible to validate itself. The bible says son, but we know that’s not right, so Bel’s mother must have been Neb’s daughter, because the bible says “son” seven times, it must mean “grandson.” It’s circular and it’s the bible confirming the bible.
that’s my point. Not that it’s a contradiction. No, I think it’s an error, but that’s not even my point. My point is and has been, regarding this, your position on Belshazzar is wishful thinking, yet you use it as a victory song.
I really dont know how much more simply i can state it for you. does this help?
LikeLike
Regarding the discipleship chronology:
Mark 1:16-19 says:
Those are all exactly identical. No one should ever think otherwise. only the unlearned in ancient greek would make such a mistake as to think these identical texts are contradictory. Why, in my opinion, they’re far too similar.
Praise alah and the man jesus. amen.
LikeLike
“Oh, well listen, I wasnt saying it was a contradiction, but an error. Sure, you’ll go on to say that was his grandson. that’s cool, and may even be true, there’s just no evidence for that.”
William sorry mi lad but you just don’t get basic common sense. Sure if you wish you can SAY there was an error but you don’t have the evidence to say so. The evidence that you wish to run away from is that the word can and IS used in the Bible over and over again as son , or grandson or even great grandson. YOU are still trying to pretend that isn’t the case but its a fact so lets see if we can break it down for you
Can you or nate show in Daniel that the word does not mean grandson even though in countless other passages the Hebrew says it can and does?
No you can’t
Can you say who Bel’s mother was? No you cannot
So whats the logical play here? simple. We don’t know that Daniel is wrong or right. I am not claiming to be proving it by referring to the Bible as you lie .I am saying there is no third party data to say either way.
Further even if every christian in the world reading the word in english thought son was the reading what you seem to be too obstinate to admit is that that IS allowed for and used in the Hebrew. Readers hundreds of years after work is written have nothing zip to do with what a passage means. Thats just VAST silly nonsense so your and nate’s claim that well Christians only came up with that after the fact is dismissed by the fact that the HEBREW WAS USED that way THOUSANDS Of years ago
So last time and you can babble on all you wish. I am not claiming that ANY position is proven because the Bible says so. I am saying there is no third party evidence to prove an error was made or a proper statement was made
That common sense position based o n the facts bothers you because either way it your positive claim for an error doesn’t wash based on available evidence. Move on to something else because the claim has been defeated for lack of evidence.
THE END.
LikeLike
“William sorry mi lad but you just don’t get basic common sense. Sure if you wish you can SAY there was an error but you don’t have the evidence to say so. The evidence that you wish to run away from is that the word can and IS used in the Bible over and over again as son , or grandson or even great grandson. YOU are still trying to pretend that isn’t the case but its a fact so lets see if we can break it down for you” – mike
yep, not what was said. I suggest reading the comment youre responding to.
LikeLike
“So whats the logical play here? simple. We don’t know that Daniel is wrong or right. I am not claiming to be proving it by referring to the Bible as you lie .I am saying there is no third party data to say either way.”
thta’s the point i’ve been making. but then why are you so sure it’s his grandson?
I dont doubt the possibility. I have already agreed, several times, that son can commonly be used for grandson as well.
I merely said what christians used to think son meant for belshazzer prior to the discovery of the nabonidus chronicle.
why are you so intent on arguing if we agree?
LikeLike
“Note that in Mathew and Mark’s versions:
– Peter and Andrew are casting nets
– they leave everything immediately after Jesus calls them
– James and John (who are preparing their nets in a boat further down the lake) do likewise after Jesus calls out to them from the shore.
But in Luke’s version:
– Jesus first boards a boat and tells Peter (no mention of Andrew) to go fishing
– Peter agrees to honor Jesus’ request after complaining he worked hard all night without catching anything (which implies they were already done fishing)
– James and John (their fishing partners) are signaled to come and help reel in the catch
– Peter is reluctant to follow Jesus and needs to be persuaded
– they all pull their boats ashore and leave everything behind to follow Jesus”
ROFL oh wow.. Luke adds some extra details that Matthew doesn’t so umm that s a contradiction. l loved this fudge especially
” Peter is reluctant to follow Jesus and needs to be persuaded 🙂 🙂
and yet both LUke and Matthew agree that as soon as Jesus tells them they will be fishers of men they do so straight away IN RON’S OWN QUOTE …..LOL
Luke
Then Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid; from now on you will fish for people.” So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him.
matthew
Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” At once they left their nets and followed him.
You guys are soooo hilarious!! lol
“Now compare this with John’s version (John 1:35-50)”
Nah thats been debunked….not the same time sorry
“Which means that JTB couldn’t have been in jail yet”
NO in John 1 he wasn’t. again its just not the same account. Sorry.
Sheesh I must excuse myself from this silliness. too much for one day.
LikeLike
@Arch,
I said: “No one died to testify to the truth of Star Trek.”
You: “19 men died flying airplanes into select targets for the glory of Islam – does that make you a Muslim?”
That comparison makes no sense. You don’t seem to understand the fundamental differences.. Those men killed themselves and as many innocent people as possible.. for the “glory” of “allah”… that is VASTLY different from Christian martyrs spreading the Truth of the Gospel WHILE their lives are being threatened for doing so. They harmed NO ONE.. THEY were harmed & killed merely for speaking their beliefs.
“I told you what a busy day I was having, and that I would get back with you when it was over, with additional information, but some of the things you’ve been saying in your comments – “it’s always amusing to hear what atheists manage to come up with to try and explain away the Bible” – and – “There is NO OTHER rational explanation!” – lead me to believe you aren’t sufficiently open-minded enough to benefit from any effort I might make, and you’ve shown me no reason to do so. Good luck.”
The only issue I had with your comment was that you were making “factual” claims without any references.. as if readers/ me are supposed to take your word for it. You gave no indication that you were going to give the references later.. the things being claimed were absurd.. so, all that put together was offensive to anyone reading who is seeking truth.. NOT what liberals/ atheists deem to be the truth… sorry, I should have handled it better.
And my statement that there is no other rational explanation, in a DEBATE forum.. is a challenge.. to ANYONE who disagrees. I find it very revealing that no one took up that challenge this time or ANY other time I’ve made it.
LikeLike
Yeah the desperation is setting in. WIll is now claiming he was in agreement though stating this
“Oh, well listen, I wasnt saying it was a contradiction, but an error.”
Sigh…catch you guys later or not.
LikeLike
William said:
“Then, Kathy, I think nate was saying it doesnt serve as evidence, much less as proof.
it only serves as evidence for their firm belief in something. And nate was giving evidence of other people’s firm belief in something else.”
Yes, that is my claim.. it is evidence of their firm belief, which is evidence (however compelling) for the truth of the Bible. My claim is that it is VERY compelling evidence. The only way to make it not compelling would be to show that those people who were killed by others were not sane or rational.. and there is nothing in the Bible or outside of it to indicate this.
LikeLike
@Arch..
“RE: “Nate, I didn’t make the claim that the martyrs of Christianity prove it’s truth. Why did you make that assumption?”
You certainly implied it.
And THAT is a large part of the problem with atheists.. you make incorrect assumptions. Proof and evidence are not the same thing. Just like the false assumption that “Tyre” means all of Tyre in that portion of the prophecy.. it’s not a valid assumption.
LikeLike
““Oh, well listen, I wasnt saying it was a contradiction, but an error.”
Sigh…catch you guys later or not.” – mike
taken out of context, I may can see what you mean. But in the context of my comment, it’s clearly my opinion, with the caveat it’s not proven and wasnt my point anyway.
Please, read the entire comment and try not to quote mine. i know how you hate that, but i also know what a hypocrite you are, so it’s difficult.
LikeLike
Isn’t it marvelous that God gave us his word in a language where there’s no distinction between father, grandfather, and ancient ancestor — between mainland and field — between cud and anything else? Truly his ways are mysterious.
Praise alah and the man jesus
LikeLike
“Tyre” means all of Tyre in that portion of the prophecy.. it’s not a valid assumption.” – kathy
evidently. I guess we just have to wait until the events unfurl before we can truly know what was being foretold. takes a little away from the miraculous impact, but it is the best way to find out what happens.
LikeLike
Excellent catch! You do good work, Ron!
LikeLike
I was a Christian when i assumed the bible was from god. When I questioned that assumption and researched it, i quickly departed Christianity.
LikeLike
Arch said: “Exactly, William – if people are made to believe that they have a soul, that it lives forever, and that if they give their short, human lives in servicer to their god, they’ll be transported to a paradise where they’ll live happily for eternity as a reward for their devotion, they are quite likely to make that trade, but it only proves the extent of their indoctrination, and the degree of their gullibility,nothing more.”
So, what is your better explanation then? People who believe we have souls have realized that there is no better explanation.. we are created beings, with purpose.. not freak accidences.
It’s the MOST rational explanation.. I believe I’ve already made this claim/ challenge, I wonder if this one will get ignored also.
And those who are gullible believe & give their lives based on the word of a SINGLE person.. Muhammed.. a pedophile and a murderer. THAT’S gullible.
LikeLike
“I was a Christian when i assumed the bible was from god. When I questioned that assumption and researched it, i quickly departed Christianity.”
And I assert that you lack objectivity.. that is based on my “research” of liberals/ atheists and the knowledge I have of Christianity based on the Bible.
LikeLike
“It’s the MOST rational explanation.. I believe I’ve already made this claim/ challenge, I wonder if this one will get ignored also.” – kathy
didnt mean to ignore your claim. I claim the opposite. And hope doesnt equal reality, but you could be right, and so could I. Although, we could both be wrong too.
“And I assert that you lack objectivity.. that is based on my “research” of liberals/ atheists and the knowledge I have of Christianity based on the Bible.” – kathy
that’s fair, because i think you lack objectivity. and are you saying that your research is base don the bible or that your Christianity is? If you mean your research, then i hope you mean that you research the validity of the bible and not that you merely read the bible and that that serves as your research.
if you mean that your Christianity is based on the bible, them i’d say good.
Why are you saying I’m a liberal and in what way do you mean that term?
LikeLike
Still waiting on Mike to provide names and credentials from his claims.
“The ammonites were suppose to be a mystical creation of the bIble but then ooops evidence was found.
the kingdom of David was supposed to be mythical but oops then they found evidence for that
Belshazzar that Nate mentions (and claims to know for fact was not related to Nebuchadnezzar) was for claimed for MANY years according to Skeptics a completely made up character but then ooops they found evidence of that and then
He was never a ruler of Babyon but oops that held up too”
Who made these claims Mike ? Please name names and their credentials as you always ask us to do.
BTW they have found 1 piece of evidence with “A” David’s name on it. Here is what the Jewish Virtual Library has to say about that 1 piece of evidence.
“Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David (“House” or “Dynasty” of David”). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.”
If WE were using just 1 piece of evidence to support any of our claims YOU would laugh it off instantly !
LikeLike
William, to me, a liberal is someone who adheres to all the beliefs & political views that are anti God/ anti Christian.
I realize there might be a different def. in the dictionary but in today’s world, I believe my def. is more correct. Look at ANY exclusively liberal belief and you’ll see it directly contradicts the Bible’s teachings.
I could be wrong about assuming you are a liberal, but I make these assumptions all the time, and haven’t been wrong yet.
“didnt mean to ignore your claim. I claim the opposite. And hope doesnt equal reality, ”
I know you claim the opposite William.. I’m practically BEGGING now to know the details of this “opposite” belief that atheists have.. so we can see whose is more rational.
And I believe you when you say you believe I’m not being objective.. that’s fine.. the only way to determine who is correct is to actually address the points/ specifics.
My research is based on all the knowledge I have of the Bible AND outside the Bible. I don’t know how anyone can be more objective. I ask questions.. but I don’t see atheists doing the same.. only trying to “debunk” other’s beliefs. It STILL leaves the ultimate questions unanswered/ ignored. And it, in my opinion, reveals the level of objectivity present.
LikeLike
I am really curious, Kathy, to know why you make this statement: Look at ANY exclusively liberal belief and you’ll see it directly contradicts the Bible’s teachings.
What exactly are the “liberal” beliefs that you see contradict the bible’s teachings?
Also, you say you base your knowledge on research “outside the bible.” Would you be willing to name of few of these resources?
LikeLike
. “I ask questions.. but I don’t see atheists doing the same.. only trying to “debunk” other’s beliefs.” – kathy
if this is how you really feel, then you havent been paying attention.
“I know you claim the opposite William.. I’m practically BEGGING now to know the details of this “opposite” belief that atheists have.. so we can see whose is more rational.”
well, what do you mean exactly?
Like:
Chritianity:
1) belief in an afterlife, because a book says, and because we;’re conscious now, so we must always be conscious.
Atheism/Agnosticism:
1) no belief in an afterlife. Do you remember what it was like before you were born? It’ll probably be like that.
Christianity:
2) a perfect god did not write a perfect book, but instead told people to write his perfect book, who then told us that god told them to do so. And it’s the way to show ourselves approved and it teaches that we aught to obey god rather than man.
Atheism/Agnosticism:
2) no book. nothing perfect. Rely on science. not that science is perfect, but it tries to learn and correct itself. Plus, we see tangible and real benefits of science.
Christianity:
3) no good enough to be good, but must also believe in the right guy the right way.
Atheism/Agnosticism:
3) it’s good enough to be good.
you mean stuff like this?
LikeLike
“you mean stuff like this?”
sigh.. no, that’s not what I mean.. i mean the opposite of us being created beings.. if we aren’t created beings what other explanation do you/ atheists adhere to? THAT opposite.
LikeLike
“I am really curious, Kathy, to know why you make this statement: Look at ANY exclusively liberal belief and you’ll see it directly contradicts the Bible’s teachings.
What exactly are the “liberal” beliefs that you see contradict the bible’s teachings?
Also, you say you base your knowledge on research “outside the bible.” Would you be willing to name of few of these resources?”
Nan, all liberal beliefs that conservatives don’t agree with are the beliefs I refer to. Abortion, gay marriage are 2 major examples.. another is support of political policies that strip away freedoms.
My research outside the Bible includes archaeological discoveries, fulfilled prophecies supported by outside evidence, outside historical records that verify things inside the Bible.. and just simply looking up.. and all around us.. that’s some of the very best evidence.
LikeLike
“And those who are gullible believe & give their lives based on the word of a SINGLE person.. Muhammed.. a pedophile and a murderer. THAT’S gullible.”
Lord Genocide (aka Yahweh) killed everything on Earth save for a boatload of animals and eight people.
Abraham married his sister Sarai and pimped her out to two kings. (Gen 10:10-20, Gen 20 ) impregnated her maidservant (Gen 16:4) and then banished Hagar and his son Ishmael to the desert with only a bit of food and a skin of water (Gen 21:8-20). Yet Gen 15:6, Gen 15:22, Rom 4:3 and Gal 3:6 “credited it to him as a righteousness” because he believed God.
Lot impregnated both his daughters in a cave (Gen 19:19-37), yet 2 Peter 2:7-8 claims he was “righteous”—three times!
Moses killed an Egyptian and thousands of Israelites. Joshua killed Canaanites.
David impregnated another man’s woman and had him killed in battle (2 Sam 11)., yet God considered him “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13:22, 1 Sam 13:14) who “kept my commandments and followed me with all his heart, doing only that which was right in my eyes.” (1 Kings 3:14, 14:8)
Lord Genocide made a bet with Satan to see if they could break righteous Job’s faith by destroying his health wealth and family.
Pot, meet kettle!
Who in their right mind would want to dedicate their life to worshiping the tyrant found within the pages of the Bible?
LikeLike
@Kathy
* Good! Anything anti-god or anti-Christian can only be encouraged, especially if it recognises personal freedom, and personal responsibility that is not behoven to a god found in a grotty little rag.
The bible contains some of the most disgusting and heinous examples of moral behaviour imaginable and much of it sanctioned or directly commanded by the despotic, tyrannical self-centered egotistical SOB called Yahweh.
Anyone who adheres to this rubbish and genuflects to this meglomaniacal make believe monster is either (sadly) indoctrinated or simply not right in the head.
LikeLike
@Kathy
Hi Kathy, there seems to be some confusion here. Nowhere in the bible does it outlaw abortion. In fact, if you actually read the bible you’d see that the Middle Eastern god Christians worship is quite definitively pro-abortion, personally and passionately performing many terminations and ordering countless more.
In Hosea 9:11-16, the son of Beeri prays for his god to intervene in earthly affairs and wreak havoc on the unborn of an entire population. “Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts… Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” To paraphrase, Hosea pleads that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children, to which the Christian god dutifully obeys and makes all their unborn children miscarry. Now, terminating a pregnancy unnaturally is unmistakably what we today call an abortion.
In Hosea 13:16 the Christian god is utterly diabolical as he dashes to “pieces” the infants of Samaria and orders “their pregnant women [to be] ripped open by swords.” This, self-evidently, describes mass abortions of such barbarity that it’s hard to even fathom.
In Numbers 5:11-21 a bizarre and abusive ritual is described which is to be performed by a priest on any woman suspected of adultery; a ritual which results in an abortion. In the text a potion is mixed and the accused woman is brought before the priest who says, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband may the Lord cause you to become a curseamong your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.” As clear as day this is a definitive description of an induced abortion; an act where poison is forcibly given to ruin the foetus and rid a woman of another man’s child.
In Numbers 31:17 Moses commands “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words, kill all women that are or could be pregnant, which is plainly abortion for the foetus.
In 2 Kings 15:16 the Christian god again orders pregnant women to be “ripped open,” which is both abortionand homicide on a mass scale. “At that time Menahem destroyed the town of Tappuah and all the surrounding countryside as far as Tirzah, because its citizens refused to surrender. He killed the entire population and ripped open the pregnant women.”
In total there are in fact twenty-six separate instances where this Middle Eastern god performs abortions on demand, conducts infanticide (the intentional killing of newborns), and murders toddlers en masse; acts recounted from 1 Samuel 15:3 to Isaiah 13:15-18 where this god not only smashes babies to death but also orders the rape of their mothers. In a word the Christian god is a heinous baby-killing, foetus-destroying monster, and as it turns out his son is also no friend of the unborn. In the Gospel of the Egyptians Jesus not only demands total abstinence but preaches for the outright separation of the sexes, stating that “sorrow” and what he repeatedly calls “error” will remain with man for just “As long as women bear children.” The statement is quite explicit: don’t ever get pregnant, and if you do then abortion is better than birth.
I hope this helps.
All the best
LikeLike
So your “outside research” basically includes resources that back up what the bible says.
“Liberals” also believe in helping the less fortunate (something the BIBLE teaches). IMO, believers tend to focus primarily on the issues you mentioned and fail to see that many of the core beliefs of liberals are much more bible-focused than conservatives care to admit.
As far as looking up and around me, I feel a profound wonder and awe, but I do not attribute it to some preconceived idea of God. But then, that’s where you and I (and many of the people on this blog) differ.
LikeLike
Jesus Was a Liberal
On Separation of Church & State
Paying Taxes:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar?s; and unto God the things that are God?s.” (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25)
Public Prayer & Displays of Faith:
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”(Matthew 6:5-7)
“Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows? houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.” (Mark 12:38-40, Luke 20:46-47)
LikeLike
Jesus Was a Liberal
Healthcare Reform:
“Be a good Samaritan” (Luke 10:30-37)
…plus he performed a countless number of healings for free.
Immigration:
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31)
“I was a stranger and you took me in.” (Matthew 25:35)
On Foreign Policy:
Make Peace, Not War!
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:9)
“Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39)
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27-31)
On Capital Punishment:
“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone.” (John 8:7)
“Thou shalt not ki11.” (Matthew 5:21)
On Justice:
“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” (Matthew 5:7)
“But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. (Matthew 6:15)
“Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:1-2)
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” (Luke 6:37)
“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” (Matthew 6:12)
LikeLike
Jesus Was a Liberal
On Wealth, Greed and Monetary Policy:
“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” (Matthew 6:12)
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.” (Matthew 6:19)
“You cannot serve both God and Money.” (Matthew 6:24)
“Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:23)
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25)
“But woe to you who are rich,for you have already received your comfort.” (Luke 6:24)
“Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man?s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” (Luke 12:15)
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor.” (Luke 12:33)
“Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22)
On Social Policy:
“Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:42)
“So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Matthew 7:12)
“If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Matthew 19:21)
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:39)
“I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Mathew 25:35-36)
“But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 14:13-14)
LikeLike
Very well put, Ron. 🙂 You just expanded quite nicely on what I was referencing.
LikeLike
Ron, you said:
“Pot, meet kettle!
Who in their right mind would want to dedicate their life to worshiping the tyrant found within the pages of the Bible?”
All your comment did was show how MANY different people have witnessed to the truth of the Bible, instead of one (Muhammed).. as I pointed out… and it reminded us that God has the SOVEREIGN right to take what He has created.. He’s just not in the same category as Muhammed.
It’s not reasonable to believe a single person’s claims who is a murderer and a pedophile.
All those people you referenced were not perfect, I wouldn’t try to claim otherwise.. which, is again one of the central messages of the Bible.. that we are sinners and need saving. But those people loved God and wanted to obey Him. Muhammed created his OWN “god”.. which was pretty much himself. This is nothing new with humans.. every faith is based on one man’s creation, where they essentially receive worship… which again is not the situation with the God of the Bible.
I know atheists have a strong desire to make God a “tyrant” etc.. but He gave the ultimate sacrifice for us.. no tyrant would do this. Somehow this part of the Bible ALWAYS gets ignored.. like so many other things that are inconvenient to the narrative and desire to set themselves against God due to pride.
LikeLike
“Good! Anything anti-god or anti-Christian can only be encouraged, especially if it recognises personal freedom, and personal responsibility ..”
Yes.. encourage the slaughter of innocent human beings… nothing “disgusting and heinous” about that!
And God gave us free will.. aka FREEDOM… and personal responsibility.
You don’t understand the messages of the OT.. you choose to see all the horrible things and blame as many of those horrible things on God as you possibly can. You aren’t interested in anything else.
LikeLike
“NO in John 1 he wasn’t. again its just not the same account. Sorry.”
You’ve just proven my point – it’s NOT the same account, it’s contradicts the synoptics.
LikeLike
“And my statement that there is no other rational explanation, in a DEBATE forum.. is a challenge.. to ANYONE who disagrees. I find it very revealing that no one took up that challenge this time or ANY other time I’ve made it.”
It’s one thing to hold a position, quite another to imply you are so closed-minded that no other rational explanation is even possible.
Are you honestly saying that you were unaware that Moses didn’t write the first five books of the Bible?
As for evidence, did you not read my quotation from Biblical archaeologist William G. Dever, raised in religion, who became an atheist after spending 35 years in the Levant, excavating Biblical sites?
And did you not watch the video I added, from Biblical archaeologist Israel Finklestein?
If not, why would I provide more evidence if you haven’t bothered to examine what I have already given you?
And you’re right about one thing, you didn’t handle it very well.
LikeLike
@Kathy,
You said:
William, to me, a liberal is someone who adheres to all the beliefs & political views that are anti God/ anti Christian.
I realize there might be a different def. in the dictionary but in today’s world, I believe my def. is more correct. *Look at ANY exclusively liberal belief and you’ll see it directly contradicts the Bible’s teachings.
What do you make of the many people who wear the Christian label who support a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage? Furthermore, I’m a big proponent of keeping our freedoms, but how is having them stripped away anti-God? Every teaching I can find on the subject within the Bible basically says to follow God no matter what lot in life you were given, whether slave or free. It does encourage slaves that if they can obtain their freedom there’s nothing wrong in that, but it doesn’t guarantee freedom.
LikeLike
“Sigh…catch you guys later or not.”
Here’s a plan: make it just a little bit later than not —
LikeLike
Kathy, let’s think about God’s sacrifice of his son. Jesus knew exactly what awaited him after his death — he would reign in Heaven. No other person has ever had that kind of knowledge when facing death. He did not have to experience the fear of oblivion that everyone else experiences. And while death by crucifixion is horrible, there are worse and more painful ways to die as well. Jesus had a really, really bad day.
What’s worse is that Jesus’ death was completely unnecessary. God was only saving us from himself — why not just implement a forgiveness plan that didn’t require human sacrifice and suffering? It shows that he’s really no different from the other Canaanite gods like Molech.
It’s funny to me that you are so dismissive of Islam while thinking your own religion is completely rational and well-supported. Really think for a moment about what it would be like if you had been born in Saudi Arabia. No doubt, you’d be a fervent believer in Allah and view Christians as the infidel. Can’t you see how impervious to evidence everyone’s beliefs are? It takes real work to try to strip away the preconceptions we’re given when we’re young and look at things objectively. It also takes real compassion for those who differ from us.
LikeLike
“Yes, that is my claim.. it is evidence of their firm belief, which is evidence (however compelling) for the truth of the Bible. My claim is that it is VERY compelling evidence.”
And Nate’s claim, as well as my own, was that people in the grip of religious mania can give their lives willingly for a multitude of reasons, proving the validity of nothing except the dangers of religious mania.
LikeLike
“All your comment did was show how MANY different people have witnessed to the truth of the Bible, instead of one (Muhammed).. as I pointed out… and it reminded us that God has the SOVEREIGN right to take what He has created.. He’s just not in the same category as Muhammed.”
They’re all FICTIONAL characters, Kathy. Stories made up by superstitious and scientifically illiterate men trying to make sense of their universe, and/or scribes wishing to exploit others… just like Mo, Joseph Smith and Ron L Hubbard.
The god of the OT doesn’t exist, because it’s a logical contradiction from start to finish.
LikeLike
It’s funny to me that you are so dismissive of Islam while thinking your own religion is completely rational and well-supported. Really think for a moment about what it would be like if you had been born in Saudi Arabia. No doubt, you’d be a fervent believer in Allah and view Christians as the infidel.
I have little doubt that any contradictions, discrepancies, errors we think we might be able to come up with a Muslim apologist would be able to use their commentaries, maps, books, and other materials to reconcile and harmonize their sacred text as well.
LikeLike
Yes, Arch is exactly right. Whether people give their lives willingly or through unwilling martyrdom is irrelevant — the point is that they believe so strongly they’re willing to give up the only life they have. That shows true conviction, whether you agree with their reasons or not. But conviction alone does not make one’s beliefs true. And it’s important to know that while it’s often claimed that the original disciples were martyrs, there’s not a lot of good evidence to support this. Most if not all of these stories are legends — in some cases, there are different stories for the same disciple.
LikeLike
I think you’re absolutely right, Ruth. In fact, it was this realization years ago that helped me start to question my own beliefs more dispassionately.
LikeLike
Nate, they would likely say we had to understand the language, culture and context.
LikeLike
“People who believe we have souls have realized that there is no better explanation.. we are created beings, with purpose.. not freak accidences.
It’s the MOST rational explanation.. I believe I’ve already made this claim/ challenge, I wonder if this one will get ignored also.”
Only if you can explain the creation of your creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator, and his/her/it’s creator – you don’t really want me to go on, do you?
There is far too much evidence in support of evolution to bother presenting it here – spend a little time on Google. We’re closer now than ever to determining how abiogenesis worked, especially after the discovery last year that Mars had microbial life as well, proving that life was not unique to the earth.
LikeLike
@Kathy
I strongly suspect that you haven’t actually read the Old Testament, for if you had you would be perfectly aware that your god, Yahweh, commanded pretty much all those horrible things you seem so dismissive of, not least of all the genocidal( fictional) Canaanite campaign.
For now, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and choose to believe you are suffering from indoctrination…..for now.
Please, go and read the Old Testament for your god’s sake.
LikeLike
Hi John, you said:
“Hi Kathy, there seems to be some confusion here. Nowhere in the bible does it outlaw abortion. In fact, if you actually read the bible you’d see that the Middle Eastern god Christians worship is quite definitively pro-abortion, personally and passionately performing many terminations and ordering countless more.”
“Thou shalt not kill “.. that’s the law prohibiting abortion.
What you don’t discern is that God and human beings are not the same.
God created human beings. He has the sovereign right to do with us as He wants.
You have to look at the TOTAL picture of the Old Testament to understand why God
“orders” people killed or allows horrible things to happen. Atheists don’t want to do that.
But primarily when God “terminates” a pregnancy, that in no way is an endorsement of abortion.
It is God using HIS sovereign right.. something we do NOT have.
“In total there are in fact twenty-six separate instances where this Middle Eastern god performs abortions on demand, conducts infanticide (the intentional killing of newborns), and murders toddlers en masse; acts recounted from 1 Samuel 15:3 to Isaiah 13:15-18 where this god not only smashes babies to death but also orders the rape of their mothers. In a word the Christian god is a heinous baby-killing, foetus-destroying monster, and as it turns out his son is also no friend of the unborn. In the Gospel of the Egyptians Jesus not only demands total abstinence but preaches for the outright separation of the sexes, stating that “sorrow” and what he repeatedly calls “error” will remain with man for just “As long as women bear children.” The statement is quite explicit: don’t ever get pregnant, and if you do then abortion is better than birth.”
Ok, in order..
“..Middle Eastern God performs abortions on demand,..”
On WHOSE demand? The Creator of the universe’s demand.
For reasons you don’t understand, but because you don’t understand, that
doesn’t mean God was wrong. It means you lack the knowledge that He has.. it means you don’t understand the big picture… but somehow THINK you do.. and therefore are perfectly justified in judging your Creator.. the Creator of everything. #liberals
“acts recounted from 1 Samuel 15:3 to Isaiah 13:15-18 where this god not only smashes babies to death but also orders the rape of their mothers.”
These are prophecies.. not “orders”. They are predictions of what is going to happen.. because they are enemies of God. God is allowing these things to happen, but He’s not “ordering” babies to be dashed or pregnant woman killed in these prophecies.
This inability to discern, an inability that is extremely common among liberals/atheists, is evident all throughout your examples. And also lot’s of distortions and twisting of the actual words/ context / meanings.. also common.
And I have no knowledge of the Gospel of the Egyptians.. or what you are claiming Jesus said. Nothing in the Bible to support that.
LikeLike
“All your comment did was show how MANY different people have witnessed to the truth of the Bible, instead of one (Muhammed).. as I pointed out… ”
Good Stuff Kathy 🙂
LikeLike
“It’s one thing to hold a position, quite another to imply you are so closed-minded that no other rational explanation is even possible.”
I’m INVITING anyone to argue otherwise.. that’s not closed minded.. it’s the opposite.
LikeLike
“<em"And I assert that you lack objectivity.. that is based on my 'research' of liberals/ atheists and the knowledge I have of Christianity based on the Bible.”
You really don’t strike me as having done much “research” at all.
LikeLike
Thank you Mike.. likewise.. I wish there were “like” buttons on WordPress.. your arguments are ALWAYS “spot on”.
LikeLike
“You’ve just proven my point – it’s NOT the same account, it’s contradicts the synoptics.”
Yes i know. Your standard of proof is for things biblical so flimsy you probably really do think I have but alas…..nope.no contradiction Its two different times and its rather obvious but I know you will beg until the cows come home despite the text in Matthew never saying it was their first meeting that it was – just so you can go where you want to go
LikeLike
“You really don’t strike me as having done much “research” at all.”
Oh the irony….lol…. I know. You read liberals such as yourself and think thats research
LikeLike
“another is support of political policies that strip away freedoms.”
What freedoms would those be, Kathy? The freedom to believe as you choose? The freedom to know that your government remains neutral when it comes to religion, allowing you to go to any government building and expect not to see some religious advertisement on the lawn or on the wall? Are those the freedoms we Liberals are trying to strip away?
LikeLike
Wow, that’s quite a handful of information, John – I’m gonna have to take notes!
LikeLike
Ron, re: Jesus was a liberal.
Oh sighhhhhh.. you are so wrong.. you/ liberals couldn’t be more wrong in trying to claim that Jesus’ teachings & words would make Him a liberal today. This is CLASSIC liberal twisting, distortion & the simple inability to discern differences.
Jesus would NEVER agree with the liberal views of today. Yes, Jesus had “new” ideas.. and liberals like to pretend that their “new” ideas would make them like Jesus.. but um.. no.
“Paying Taxes:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar?s; and unto God the things that are God?s.” (Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25)”
One of many PERFECT examples of liberals’ inability to discern and/ or distort.
Name ONE Christian who says we shouldn’t pay taxes. I know of no one who believes this.. so this claim has zero support… absolutely none.. except to support my claim of liberal confusion and distortion.
on public prayer, displays of faith.. Jesus was speaking about the Pharisees and their phony displays.. NOT Christians who are sincerely worshipping Jesus.
And this is the same for every example you gave.. it’s twisting and distortions of Jesus’ words and meaning. I’m not going to go through all of it.. too time consuming.. if you want to choose a couple of your best examples.. I’ll gladly address those. .and easily point out the twisting and distortions and basic lack of ability to discern differences.
LikeLike
Always good to have this particular nugget on-hand whenever abortion gets thrown out there.
LikeLike
Yeah, John. I’d have to say that was pretty impressive…
LikeLike
Hi Kathy…
So, let me get this straight: Abortion is fine if and when your particular Middle Eastern god does it, but not in any other circumstances.
That’s interesting….
LikeLike
Ah…yes, thought this just had to rear its ugly head sooner or later.
Divine Command Theory.
The refuge of the William Lane Craig Clones and other Sick in the Head Fundamentalist Christians.
You have my sympathy. You truly are not well.
Oh, and please, try to keep this stuff away from children, okay?
We don’t want any more dogma-ranting idiots let loose upon the kids, now do we?
Oh, and the TOTAL picture of the Old Testament? Try lies…..
LikeLike
Cheers Nate.
LikeLike
“He gave the ultimate sacrifice for us.. no tyrant would do this. Somehow this part of the Bible ALWAYS gets ignored”
You really don’t knnow anything about the Bible, except for what’s IN the Bible, do you Kathy?
Have you any idea why Yeshua (“Jesus'” REAL name, “Jesus” was only the Greek translation), if he ever existed (and there is no evidence that he did) needed to die?
First, you need to understand something about Jewish religious laws, especially the law about the “Sin Offering.” For the Sin Offering, people were expected to sacrifice an unblemished lamb – unblemished, because otherwise, unscrupulus sheep-owners could easily get rid of a sickly lamb that wouldn’t have lived anyway, and what kind of a “sacrifice” would that be? Poor people, where not able to afford a lamb, were allowed to sacrifice two doves instead. Eventually, the raising of these lambs was taken over by the Jewish priesthood, to assure purity. The sheep were raised in fields just outside the small town of Bethlehem, near a tower called the Migdala, from the top of which, a guard kept watch on the flock. When a ewe was about ready to give birth, she was brought into a cave-like structure undeer the tower – a place kept absolutely spotless – and there, she gave birth. Now if you’ve ever watched a young animal – especially of the livestock variety, sheep, goats, cattle, horses – they’re quite wobbly at first, and in danger of falling and possibly fracturing a limb. For this reason, the newborn sheep was wrapped in swaddling clothes, so it couldn’t move its legs, and placed in a manger until it could get it’s strength. THIS is the reason the anonymous Gospel writers needed to make Yeshua be born in Bethlehem, even though there was never a census that required male Israelites to go to the city of their birth to be counted (can you imagine what that would have done to business, if everyone stopped what they were doing and traveled to be counted?) and had him wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger – to let people know that here was the lamb, the sin offering to their god.
You see, according to Jewish tradition and prophesy, the Messiah was to be a great leader, he was to unite the Jewish people and make of them a great nation. Then this sad little carpenter’s son was born, lived a few years, and got himself crucified, not exactly fulfilling the prophesy. So how to spin this? I’ve got it! His death was on purpose! He was a Sin Offering to our god for our sins! Now all we gotta do is find a way for him to be born in Bethleham – any ideas? How about a census? Sure, that’ll work – we’re writing this 45 to 100 years after the event anyway, what will anyone know? We say there was a census, they’ll believe there was a census – we’re golden!
Maybe not exactly like that, but very similar —
The sin offering was intended to appease their god. What kind of god, in order to be appeased, requires that his own son be sacrificed?
LikeLike
Nan, you said: “So your “outside research” basically includes resources that back up what the bible says.”
Yes, outside evidence that supports the truth of the Bible.. I don’t get your point.
“Liberals” also believe in helping the less fortunate (something the BIBLE teaches).”
Um, sorry but that is NOT an exclusively liberal belief.. not only do conservatives adhere to these teachings of our God, we actually ACT upon it.. MORE than liberals do. We put our money where our beliefs are.. liberals prefer to use other ppl’s money to “help the poor”.
“IMO, believers tend to focus primarily on the issues you mentioned and fail to see that many of the core beliefs of liberals are much more bible-focused than conservatives care to admit.”
I know about the “core” beliefs of liberals.. they are mostly beliefs that go against God’s commandments / teachings. Yes, liberals also do things that are in line with God’s teachings.. but I can’t honestly understand what the reason would be for doing so except to try and prove to themselves that they are “good” WHILE they adhere to the other beliefs/ views… which is impossible.. you CANNOT be good and ALSO adhere to views and policies that go AGAINST God.. which include the killing of innocent unborn human beings.
“As far as looking up and around me, I feel a profound wonder and awe, but I do not attribute it to some preconceived idea of God. But then, that’s where you and I (and many of the people on this blog) differ.”
Yep, it is definitely where we differ. We see meaning and purpose.. atheists see a series of infinite accidences.. and a complete void of meaning and purpose.
LikeLike
Kathy, I don’t believe that a God who created everyone would have the right to do whatever he wanted with them and still be called “good,” much less “loving.”
Just imagine what’s entailed in those passages that John listed. Imagine what it would be like to eviscerate a pregnant woman — to gut her so that she’s forced to live just long enough to witness the death of her unborn child. Imagine being an Israelite in the time of Joshua and to have the job of going into cities and killing everyone, including small children. Imagine their terrible cries of fear and pleading; imagine the parents trying to shield their children to no avail. Do you really believe that a loving god would command such a thing? We should not skip over such horrors without really thinking about their implications. You are someone who is horrified by the concept of abortion, and that’s understandable — can you really sanction these other atrocities?
LikeLike
“I strongly suspect that you haven’t actually read the Old Testament, for if you had you would be perfectly aware that your god, Yahweh, commanded pretty much all those horrible things you seem so dismissive of, not least of all the genocidal( fictional) Canaanite campaign.”
We’ve read it all. We just don’t believe as you do that human life belongs to humans. You wish us to view it that way through your atheist perspective and when we don’t you assert greater sensibilities which you really don’t have but kid yourself you do. By your assertion God can never take back the life he gives that belongs to him. To you if people do not live forever its “genocide”. After all today millions of people will die , thousands of them from the same race and in all of them life is being taken away by a decree of God
Add to that in your circular thinking you think that its particularly egregious because you think this is all the life one can ever have but we don’t (and neither does God) so we can understand your misplaced rage if not condone it. Physical life is your whole realm but to theists and God its a fleeting instant whose only lasting consequence is what we do that counts toward a continued existence.
Theres another reason we are miles apart. We see God as God. You view any action he does or commands as if he were you or your next door neighbor. That would be barbaric because should i hold the life of a baby in my hand to kill it I do it with no knowledge of his/her future and I do it with no regard for the afterlife. I have no control but the physical death. I don’t know what its thinking, whats in its heart or whether it will be mass murder when it grows up or a mother Theresa
Of course you will claim there is no excuse for why God would slaughter any baby . its barbaric and evil.
However should I stand in the past and hold a baby Hitler in my hand I think I would have a dillemma on my hand and I might take issue with the universality of that rule. In fact if someone showed me death camps and mass graves and people writhing in gas chambers and then put the baby Hitler in my hand I don’t think I would pass easily on the opportunity to be “barbaric”.
Theist believes God knows those things more than us and we believe unlike you that life belongs to God. You ask us to be atheists in our thinking but we decline.
Now of course this gives you all kinds of opportunities to foam at the mouth about suicide bombers and all kinds of things done in the name of God but we don;t hold that anyone can add to the book of revelation so all revelations of who should die in war severely limited in scope and circumstance as they were had to have really been from God and not post AD
Will you slobber at this like you know it all? OF course but when God had it in his hand to risk himself to save everyone hanging on a cross he dispelled your caricatures and earned the benefit of the doubt of his omniscience and you won’t fool or deceive any REAL christian with that argument or that atheists are more moral – not when you derived that sensibility from the very culture that got its ethos from the same book.
As the Human torch would say – Flame On!
LikeLike
Jesus was a JEW. He was born a JEW, raised a JEW and preached the Law of Moses and preached to JEWS. He also died a JEW.
In fact Jesus came to save the chosen people, who, surprisingly, were, JEWS.
Your GENTILE religion, Kathy, is based on the teaching of the disgruntled biblical character Saul of Tarsus who didn’t get on very well with the disciples and came off second best so he decided to forge his own religion,Christianity
Have you read Acts and the Epistles by the way?
LikeLike
“So, let me get this straight: Abortion is fine if and when your particular Middle Eastern god does it, but not in any other circumstances.
That’s interesting….”
“fine”? Why would you use that word? What did I say that would imply that? No where in the Bible is God “fine” with humans dying.
Again, you ignore the enormous FACT that God and humans are NOT on the same level. And also the enormous FACT that He knows MORE than we do.. we are clueless in the big picture.
It’s “interesting” that liberals insist on putting themselves on the same level as the Creator of themselves and the universe.
LikeLike
“You don’t understand the messages of the OT.. you choose to see all the horrible things and blame as many of those horrible things on God as you possibly can. You aren’t interested in anything else.”
And YOU refuse to see them for what they are! If I lived a perfect life, good and kind and generous, yet deliberately murdered ONE innocent person, that single heinous act would negate all of the good I had ever done, yet the OT is full of heinous murders of innocents, both carried out by your god, as well as under his specific orders, and all you say is, “well, he created us, life is his to take –”
All that “creation” garbage aside, what does the action itself tell you about the character of the one committing it? You claim he “gave” us life – have you ever given a gift? How often have you taken it back?
LikeLike
“Kathy, I don’t believe that a God who created everyone would have the right to do whatever he wanted with them and still be called “good,” much less “loving.” ”
Nate ou are just inserting in your own human frailty, sin and ego into the character of God as if he were human. God does not do “what ever he wants” with people. He does according to his righteousness. YOU don’t believe that includes any judgement according to his omniscience but ti does. OF course you don’t believe in any of it but i mean if you are to understand where Kathy is coming from
” to gut her so that she’s forced to live just long enough to witness the death of her unborn child. Imagine being an Israelite in the time of Joshua and to have the job of going into cities and killing everyone, including small children. Imagine their terrible cries of fear and pleading; imagine the parents trying to shield their children to no avail.”
when you are painting these pictures don’t forget to paint the ones where they offered up their own children to false gods or did any of the atrocities they did, I’ll reserve my judgement on the children. You might be surprised (if you believed in an afterlife) what happened to them.
In this tellings you do you always tend to leave out why it was done – exactly as i alluded to – future considerations . Still I don’t know why you are getting so upset. IF these are all made up stories no one really died and if the Bible is reliable then it has to be viewed from the context of theism not athiesm
LikeLike
You’re right — I don’t believe these stories are true. Nevertheless, as Thomas Paine said, they are some of the most blasphemous things anyone could say about a god, if he’s a good one. It’s just another indication that these men were not actually inspired at all.
LikeLike
I knew my def. of liberal was going to generate some debates.. I’m trying to keep up with everyone’s comments.. I definitely want to address every one of them.. well, the coherent ones anyway.. 🙂
Mike, your last comment nailed it.. again.. hopefully it won’t be too difficult for atheists to grasp
your point/ sincere perspective.
LikeLike
“Again, you ignore the enormous FACT that God and humans are NOT on the same level. And also the enormous FACT that He knows MORE than we do.. we are clueless in the big picture. ”
This is always what they miss Kathy and I think you have little hope of them seeing anything else. Even on a human level it depends on whose doing the action
I am quite allowed to sleep with a woman tonight that no one else can because I am her husband.
I can take a car out of a drive way because well its belongs to me.
I can kill a many any time I want if he’s standing in my living room unannounced and a threat to my family.
and God if he knows the future as completely as the past he can call for something I can’t but interestingly he seldom ever has – only in a few isolated cases many thousand of years ago he made a call based on his omniscience he seldom ever did again in the hundreds of recorded years in the Bible. What I don’t know about that call is as the book says elsewhere – legion.
LikeLike
“Mike, your last comment nailed it.. again.. hopefully it won’t be too difficult for atheists to grasp
your point/ sincere perspective.”
My lady I would not hold my breath too long on that or you might turn the color of your jeans
LikeLike
RE: “IF these are all made up stories no one really died” – you don’t get it – it goes to the character of the believer, who believes these stories really happened, yet still sits in church every Sunday going, “Rah, Rah, Rah, Sis Boom Bah – yeeeeeeeeeeay GOD!”
LikeLike
Aw, how sweet – a mutual admiration society of two – anybody suspicious that they’re working together –?
LikeLike
“You’re right — I don’t believe these stories are true. Nevertheless, as Thomas Paine said, they are some of the most blasphemous things anyone could say about a god, if he’s a good one. ”
and what authority is Thomas Paine on blasphemy? Nate you thought like an atheist so you came to atheist conclusions. Thats no surprise. If you only see the physical and temporal then yes babies dying is horrible but unfortunately they don’t all grow up to be sugar and spice and everything nice we like to input to babies because they are cute.
Think about it Nate. I was a baby ….don’t you feel a little different about babies now? 🙂 🙂
Most theology suggest that babies go to heaven (a very important verse being one in which God Takes David’s child). lets say it turns out that heaven is real
(I know inconceivable to you). I wouldn’t think the babies would be even one hundredth as upset as you are. Who knows they may be even a little miffed at your idea idea that they shouldn’t have been sent there especially if their parents had raised them because they probably wouldn’t be there
such a thought just smacks outrageous to you but thats because – you thought like an atheist
LikeLike
Mike, I thought the bible said we were created in God’s image ? Then why wouldn’t we expect him to behave like we are suppose to ???
Still waiting on your sources and their credentials for the people who
1.)“The ammonites were suppose to be a mystical creation of the bIble but then ooops evidence was found.
2.) the kingdom of David was supposed to be mythical but oops then they found evidence for that
3.)Belshazzar that Nate mentions (and claims to know for fact was not related to Nebuchadnezzar) was for claimed for MANY years according to Skeptics a completely made up character but then ooops they found evidence of that and then
He was never a ruler of Babyon but oops that held up too”
Who were the scholars and their credentials who claim 1 & 3 didn’t exist ???
Answer to 2.) BTW they have found 1 piece of evidence with “A” David’s name on it. Here is what the Jewish Virtual Library has to say about that 1 piece of evidence.
“Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David (“House” or “Dynasty” of David”). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.”
If WE were using just 1 piece of evidence to support any of our claims and scholars referred to it as “Not conclusive” YOU would laugh it off instantly !
LikeLike
Hi Nate.. you said:
“Kathy, let’s think about God’s sacrifice of his son. Jesus knew exactly what awaited him after his death — he would reign in Heaven. No other person has ever had that kind of knowledge when facing death. He did not have to experience the fear of oblivion that everyone else experiences. And while death by crucifixion is horrible, there are worse and more painful ways to die as well. Jesus had a really, really bad day.”
Have you ever witnessed via tv or in person.. when a death row inmate’s day finally comes?
They’ve spent years thinking about that day.. many can’t even walk to the room/ chair/bed without being helped. Jesus knew His whole life what was awaiting Him. It wasn’t a “bad day”.. it was His whole life. And it was torture of the worst kind. “The Passion of the Crist” gives a good idea of what He went through. “a bad day”?? And I haven’t even addressed the emotional toll.. knowing He would bear the sins of all mankind.. knowing at that time that His Father who loved Him and whom He loved and lived His life for would reject Him as He bore our sins. The time when He would need the Father the most. “a bad day”?? Nate you are engaging in incredible ignorance by not acknowledging these things. This is what I meant earlier.. these are REAL stories.. of real events.. of REAL people.. with the same feelings, emotional and physical that you have. Jesus felt all of it. Until you’ve looked at the Bible from that “possible” perspective.. you haven’t been objective.
And to say that He didn’t need to do it is the ultimate ignorance.. God wouldn’t go through this if He didn’t have to in order to save us. His sacrifice was the most amazing display of love in existence.. But instead of considering all of these things, atheists hastily decide that they just know more than God.. too bad you couldn’t tell Him He didn’t need to go through all of that horror.. you could have spared Him all that suffering.
Sorry for my tone.. it’s NOT directed at you personally, I’ve heard all this before.. it’s directed at the overall blatant deliberate CHOSEN ignorance of those who want to create their OWN truth.. because their pride and ego rejects can’t allow them to accept THE Truth revealed to them in the Bible.
LikeLike
“I was a baby ….don’t you feel a little different about babies now? 🙂 🙂” – Not at all, all babies are born innocent, but along the way, some, like you, get warped and twisted by their parents and significant others. Sad, really.
LikeLike
“I thought the bible said we were created in God’s image ?” – Does that mean god has a belly-button? Did Adam and Eve have belly-buttons? If so, why? Definitely food for thought – speaking of food —
LikeLike
Yes, outside evidence that supports the truth of the Bible.. I don’t get your point. –Kathy
My point is what others have been trying to say again and again. Try reading sources that disagree with the bible and then form your opinions on what is true and what isn’t. When you limit your research only to that which “supports the truth of the Bible,” you are NOT looking at it from an objective, neutral position. You are simply confirming what you already believe.
I would daresay the folks on this blog that continue to disagree with you (and Mike) are those who have not only read the bible (as well as the “evidence that supports” it), but have ALSO thoroughly investigated the claims made against it. In the end, they found the latter carried the most weight. This may not work the same for you, but you’ll never know until you try.
As several have already commented, they have been in the same place that you are. In other words, there simply was NO OTHER WAY to see it but that GOD was the be-all and end-all. But somewhere along the way, they discovered the fallacy of this belief and became non-believers (notice, I did not say “atheists” as not every non-believer totally rejects the supernatural, e.g., Deists).
Kathy, I don’t disrespect your faith in the “Sovereign God,” but I do feel you are living in a bubble. And I think the original intent of Nate’s posting to you was to try and poke just a tiny hole in that bubble so you might see what’s on the outside. (Forgive me, Nate, if I’m seeing this incorrectly.)
LikeLike
Good point Arch ! Maybe God does have a belly-button. Maybe that’s the way HE was created. 🙂
LikeLike
“atheists hastily decide that they just know more than God..” – not at all, atheists decide, and usually not at all hastily, I was six when I first began having doubts – that we know more than the superstitious idiots that made up all of those stories and passed them off as the truth. Any boy or girl with a public High School education knows more today than those guys learned in their lifetimes.
LikeLike
John Z. You provided great points for Kathy to consider.
“What you don’t discern is that God and human beings are not the same.
God created human beings. He has the sovereign right to do with us as He wants.
You have to look at the TOTAL picture of the Old Testament to understand why God
“orders” people killed or allows horrible things to happen. Atheists don’t want to do that.”
Her answer above is troubling at best. He has the sovereign right to do with us as He wants. Atrocities ? What atrocities ? You have to look at the Total picture , John !
Pretty hard core and scary.
LikeLike
Ken, it’s frightening. I guess Kathy’s god coined the term: Do as I say, not as I do.
LikeLike
@kc & John..
You both continue to fail to grasp the difference between God and man. God knows ALL, man does not. Read Mike’s comment @ 5:43pm.
Boy, the pride and arrogance sure runs deep with liberals.
LikeLike
“I guess Kathy’s god coined the term: Do as I say, not as I do.”
I was raised to be a biblical literalist. The points you made about god to Kathy were the deal breakers for me but it did take awhile.
My final straw was when I conducted a bible study with other businessmen and the topic was David and his sin with Bathseba. In 2 Sam 12 : 11 “This is what the Lord says: Because of what you have done, I will cause your own household to rebel against you. I will give your wives to another man before your very eyes, and he will go to bed with them in public view. 12 You did it secretly, but I will make this happen to you openly in the sight of all Israel.” AND
13 Then David confessed to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”
Nathan replied, “Yes, but the Lord has forgiven you, and you won’t die for this sin. 14 Nevertheless, because you have shown utter contempt for the word of the Lord[a] by doing this, your child will die.”
Totally illogical . But Kathy says it is god’s sovereign right to do this and we need to see the Total Picture
LikeLike
Nate said..
“It’s funny to me that you are so dismissive of Islam while thinking your own religion is completely rational and well-supported. Really think for a moment about what it would be like if you had been born in Saudi Arabia. No doubt, you’d be a fervent believer in Allah and view Christians as the infidel. Can’t you see how impervious to evidence everyone’s beliefs are? It takes real work to try to strip away the preconceptions we’re given when we’re young and look at things objectively.”
I dismiss Islam because I know about it’s god and it’s teachings/ beliefs. And I believe in the God of the Bible for the very same reasons and also because of God’s presence in my life.
When people are little / young, yes, they usually aren’t mature enough to think for themselves, they just obey their culture/ parents etc. But, adults fully understand that they have freedoms and choices.. EXCEPT if the religion they are brought up in is Islam or Mormonism as 2 good examples.. neither respects our right to choose what to believe/ follow. They both use intimidation and death (Islam) if you try to think for yourself. This is not true of Christianity. God gave us free will, so we could CHOOSE Him. “allah” desires to force people to follow him but apparently couldn’t make human beings do this himself and instead uses terrorists and violence. These are completely DIFFERENT religions. Well, Islam is a religion.. Christianity is a faith.. something you can’t force through threat of death.
Just learn with an open mind about Islam and Christianity and then you’ll understand the differences.
LikeLike
“Boy, the pride and arrogance sure runs deep with liberals.”
Kathy , it’s not with pride and arrogance that we comment about you and Mike. It is with sadness.
I won’t stoop to berating you.
LikeLike
“They both use intimidation and death (Islam) if you try to think for yourself. This is not true of Christianity. God gave us free will, so we could CHOOSE Him. ”
Yes and IF I choose not to serve YOUR god, I receive eternal life in HELL. And you don’t consider this coercion by intimidation ?
LikeLike
Mike may be your best bud, or your husband, or your Dad, but he hasn’t anything to say that any of us here want to hear. You claim the apostles were “real” people – here’s a REAL, real person, on the near-death of his daughter:
http://jerichobrisance.com/2014/06/25/prayer-and-most-desperate-paisley-part-5-1/
LikeLike
Ruth, you said:
“What do you make of the many people who wear the Christian label who support a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage? Furthermore, I’m a big proponent of keeping our freedoms, but how is having them stripped away anti-God? Every teaching I can find on the subject within the Bible basically says to follow God no matter what lot in life you were given, whether slave or free. It does encourage slaves that if they can obtain their freedom there’s nothing wrong in that, but it doesn’t guarantee freedom.”
I see those ppl as not obeying God’s will. I can’t know what is in their hearts but I can’t reconcile a claim to love God and also support taking innocent life that He loves and created and support something that is destructive to His creation.
” I’m a big proponent of keeping our freedoms, but how is having them stripped away anti-God?”
Ruth, that’s what is at the root of the anti God / liberal movement.. if liberals can take away freedoms, including/ ESPECIALLY freedom of religion, they’ve made a HUGE accomplishment in the fight against God and the saving of souls.
And yes, the teaching is to follow God.. but it’s something we must CHOOSE to do.. or not do as so many here have clearly chosen. You are using your freedom that God gave you.
LikeLike
““Boy, the pride and arrogance sure runs deep with liberals.”
Kathy , it’s not with pride and arrogance that we comment about you and Mike. It is with sadness.
I won’t stoop to berating you.”
My comment had NOTHING to do with your comments about me and Mike.
LikeLike
me: “They both use intimidation and death (Islam) if you try to think for yourself. This is not true of Christianity. God gave us free will, so we could CHOOSE Him. ”
you: Yes and IF I choose not to serve YOUR god, I receive eternal life in HELL. And you don’t consider this coercion by intimidation ?
Are you “coerced”? Doesn’t look like it. Ask Meriam Ibraham about “coercion”..
http://www.examiner.com/article/meriam-ibrahim-rearrested-with-u-s-citizen-husband-daniel-wani-and-children
Sin must be punished.. that you/ atheists feel intimidated by that isn’t going to affect that reality/ fact.
LikeLike
“As for evidence, did you not read my quotation from Biblical archaeologist William G. Dever, raised in religion, who became an atheist after spending 35 years in the Levant, excavating Biblical sites?
And did you not watch the video I added, from Biblical archaeologist Israel Finklestein?”
No, I wasn’t aware of them.. please direct me to them if they’re not hours long or entire books.
LikeLike
“And it’s important to know that while it’s often claimed that the original disciples were martyrs, there’s not a lot of good evidence to support this. Most if not all of these stories are legends — in some cases, there are different stories for the same disciple.”
It’s mostly the same kind of evidence we have for ANY historical figures from that long ago. There’s no good evidence to believe they weren’t martyred considering the information we do have.
LikeLike
“I dismiss Islam because I know about it’s god and it’s teachings/ beliefs.” – they worship the same Abrahamic god and the same patriarch. If your god doesn’t threaten people into believing in him, then what is hell for?
LikeLike
@Kathy – RE: “please direct me to them” – they’re on this page, and it would take me as much time to find them as you, and since I went to the trouble of finding and posting them for you, I guess if you want to see them, you can find them. Free will, remember –?
LikeLike
““I dismiss Islam because I know about it’s god and it’s teachings/ beliefs.”
You: they worship the same Abrahamic god and the same patriarch. If your god doesn’t threaten people into believing in him, then what is hell for?”
That’s what they claim.. but it’s a different god.. it’s not the God of the Bible. It’s the god of the Koran written by Muhammad.
And again, sin must be punished or atoned.. If we don’t accept Jesus as our savior, there is no atonement and therefore we cannot be with God. Hell is where we go to be separated from Him.
LikeLike
“If we don’t accept Jesus as our savior, there is no atonement and therefore we cannot be with God. Hell is where we go to be separated from Him.”
So what did people do during the thousands of years before your Yeshua came along?
And BTW, the Bible says that in Hell, you burn – you don’t call that intimidation?
LikeLike
BTW – you never did attempt to explain why your god felt the egotistical need to sacrifice his son to himself.
LikeLike
You know, Kathy, I don’t get the impression that you have any desire to discuss anything at all – I get the feeling you just want to sing “Jesus Loves Me” at the top of your lungs, while jamming your fingers in your ears. I can’t imagine that you and I have anything more to say.
LikeLike
““If we don’t accept Jesus as our savior, there is no atonement and therefore we cannot be with God. Hell is where we go to be separated from Him.”
So what did people do during the thousands of years before your Yeshua came along?
And BTW, the Bible says that in Hell, you burn – you don’t call that intimidation?”
Arch, I don’t have all the answers.. I do know that God is just and good.. and I do know what happens to us who are here today and are aware of Jesus and what He’s done for us.
Is it intimidating you? Apparently not. Or maybe you are intimidated but are rebelling against God and His rules. Which I believe is the case with most who reject God. Which only shows just how powerful pride and ego is… and why the Bible warns us of this trap over and over. It’s almost laughable that people think they can rebel against God as if they could “win”.. I say “almost laughable” because it’s actually very tragic. Pride is one of satan’s favorite tools.. along with lust and greed.
LikeLike
Yes, Kathy, you’ve hit on it right here! It is laughable, because it’s actually not true. I used to think this too, but I finally found out just how wrong I was. People very, very rarely “rebel” against God — at least they don’t for long periods. People who are atheists are genuinely atheists. By that, I mean that they truly do not believe in the god of the Bible. They are not afraid of Hell, because they don’t believe it’s a real place.
Many of these people are good, kind people. They do good things, they are upstanding members of their communities, etc. Surely Ruth, if no one else on here, strikes you as someone who would probably fit that description? These are not people who think they can rebel against God, they simply don’t believe he’s there. Why would God allow such people to hold that delusion? According to the Bible, it’s not what he wants — he wants everyone to “come to repentance” — he wants us all to believe. In Acts 9, he dealt with a similar case by actually having Jesus appear to the individual and tell them how mistaken they were. In Acts 10, he dealt with another such case by sending an apostle along with miraculous signs. According to the parable of the lost sheep, he’ll go far out of his way to find those who are wandering.
So if many people are able to sincerely believe that this god is not real, what does that say?
LikeLike
RE: “I do know that God is just and good” – No, you don’t, Kathy – you know that some men who wrote the Bible SAY that your god is just and good, but you don’t even know, as you’ve amply demonstrated, anything about the men who wrote this or how reliable they may or may not be.
RE: “maybe you are intimidated but are rebelling against God and His rules” – Let me explain the sequential order required for that to come about – first, you have to believe there IS a god, then you have to decide, out of the thousands of choices that have been invented over the eons, WHICH god, and then, and only then, can you rebel against him/her/it. I can’t very well rebel against something I perceive as non-existent.
LikeLike
Btw, it may surprise you to learn that the OT doesn’t teach about Hell. Heaven either, for that matter. If you remember, the OT talks about Sheol, which is not the same as Hell. Sheol was the destination of all dead, whether good or bad. The notion of Heaven and Hell was inserted into some of the Jewish sects due to all their years under the influence of the Persian and Greek empires.
This is a really significant fact to consider, as it calls into question the modern conceptions of afterlife that are found in most versions of Christianity. I’ve written about this in some detail here, if you’re interested.
LikeLike
But Nate, that would require that Kathy learn something about the history of the Bible, how, why, and who wrote it, rather than simply what can be found between the book’s covers, and that is something she appears not inclined to do.
LikeLike
Nan, you said:
“Try reading sources that disagree with the bible and then form your opinions on what is true and what isn’t. When you limit your research only to that which “supports the truth of the Bible,” you are NOT looking at it from an objective, neutral position. You are simply confirming what you already believe.”
Nan, I appreciate your comment.. it seemed very sincere. But here’s the thing.. I DO know and learn about opposing arguments to the Bible. One of the very best ways to learn? On debate forums. When someone presents a point on something I don’t know about, I have to learn about it in order to debate it. And I’m pretty sure I’ve already heard most of the arguments. There is a point where you have to draw the line.. I don’t mean to stop learning about opposing views but ,as I mentioned earlier, it’s become a pretty good market today.. they are all coming out to write their book and grab some of that money/ market.. this is true of many writers on many different subjects.. but with religion, it’s got the added personal bias. I’ve had many people recommend Ehrman’s (sp?) book.. but they couldn’t give me a valid reason .. how this guy is different and why I should trust his “objectivity”.
Everything you’ve addressed about my lack of objectivity, I am fairly sure applies to all of the atheists here. Objectivity is my “specialty”.. it’s what I’ve taken pride in for all of my adult life. Not that I’ve always been perfectly objective.. and that’s part of it.. admitting that you might not always be. Seldom do you get these kinds of admissions from atheists/ liberals.
Honestly, as I think about some of the comments I’ve made here, I really can’t believe you believe what you do about my lack of objectivity.. which to me, shows your lack of objectivity.
The only thing to do when people disagree is to address the specifics.. could you provide any of my comments that show that I’m not being objective? You may refer to my exchange with Arch and how I don’t know about the theory of the true authors of the 5 books.. I’m not opposed to learning about it, but I would need some encouragement.. something that tells me it’s not just more ridiculous stuff that’s being passed around and believed and has no real supportive evidence.. just bias along with a desperate need to disprove the Bible. There is just so much of it.. it must be weeded through.
“As several have already commented, they have been in the same place that you are. In other words, there simply was NO OTHER WAY to see it but that GOD was the be-all and end-all. But somewhere along the way, they discovered the fallacy of this belief and became non-believers ”
I’ve never seen my faith as the “only way”, I’m fully aware of the other religions and non religion theories. Believe it or not but Christians question.. and it’s not against God to do so. He gave us inquiring minds. And He also gave us a source for the answers. There for anyone to pick up and read.. with honesty and objectivity.
I keep getting reminded that the non believers here were once “believers”.. and then discovered the “truth”.. this is a popular “selling point” for those wanting to make money off of this market. my understand is that Ehrman is one of those supposed “converts”. But this doesn’t work for me or anyone who understands the atheist mind. You all make this point while also claiming that people believe what they grew up in.. except you all I guess, you decided to think for yourselves.. well Christians do too.
Bottom line Nan, I’m here ready and willing to debate ANY point you all want to throw at me.. I’m extremely confident I will have the better argument. It’s very hard to be that confident if I’m not aware of the opposing view/ arguments. You HAVE to be objective to take on all the people I have and survive with confidence in tact.
LikeLike
Nan, just now as I was scrolling through the comments looking for the ones I haven’t addressed, I re-read this comment of yours.. which came BEFORE the last comment you left me about my lack of objectivity.
You said: ““Liberals” also believe in helping the less fortunate (something the BIBLE teaches).”
And I responded: Um, sorry but that is NOT an exclusively liberal belief.. not only do conservatives adhere to these teachings of our God, we actually ACT upon it.. MORE than liberals do. We put our money where our beliefs are.. liberals prefer to use other ppl’s money to “help the poor”.
Claiming that conservative / Christians don’t believe in helping the less fortunate shows an extreme lack of objectivity. There is no basis for this belief.. what evidence do you have that supports this claim?? but I do know that the biased liberal media pushes this lie and that the biased liberal media aka main stream media.. it’s what most of the population gets fed to them. So, to some SMALL extent, you have a little bit of an excuse.. BUT, after I had just explained to you how fallacious your belief was.. that helping the less fortunate was NOT an exclusive liberal belief.. you STILL went on to point out how I lack objectivity. And never addressed your false claim. It’s very frustrating when people accuse you of something that they themselves are actually guilty of. And liberals do this a lot. In fact if liberals didn’t do this, they actually couldn’t be liberals.
Here’s an article.. there are numerous studies that show that conservatives give more to help the needy.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79888.html
LikeLike
“I would daresay the folks on this blog that continue to disagree with you (and Mike) are those who have not only read the bible (as well as the “evidence that supports” it), but have ALSO thoroughly investigated the claims made against it. ”
Implying of course they are the only ones. the usual narrative that if you haven’t flaked out of your faith its likely because you have not studied and yet they bring some of the most half baked alleged contradictions to the floor. I’ve been debating skeptics for years investigated the claims against the Bible and on the evidence decided on the Bible. That narrative doesn’t work with me and hopefully not with Kathy
The one thing that you all are most deluded on is your own knowledge of the Bible. Nates shown some fairly basic lacks in areas so that just won’t work and f that were not enough you run to the hills most times whenever the original languages are discussed.
Most of you do not know squat about Hebrew or greek but here you are holding yourselves out as having fully researched the bible.
LikeLike
“You may refer to my exchange with Arch and how I don’t know about the theory of the true authors of the 5 books.. I’m not opposed to learning about it, but I would need some encouragement.. something that tells me it’s not just more ridiculous stuff that’s being passed around and believed and has no real supportive evidence.. just bias along with a desperate need to disprove the Bible. There is just so much of it.. it must be weeded through.”
Perhaps you missed it, but I posted that information here:
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/letter-to-kathy-the-bible-has-problems/#comment-11278
LikeLike
Yet an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-perfect god stood idly by and watched as millions of its “chosen” people were tortured and executed.
Congratulations! Your moral code is superior to that of the god you claim to worship.
LikeLike
Here’s something to ponder:
Stone-age campers from 800,000 years ago left evidence of their existence, yet millions of people wandering the desert for four decades ~3500 years ago left no trace of their stay whatsoever.
http://nauka.in.ua/en/news/articles/article_detail/4751
LikeLike
Mike, ” I’ve been debating skeptics for years investigated the claims against the Bible and on the evidence decided on the Bible. ”
The first part should say, “I’ve been berating skeptics for years” And the reason you have decided on the evidence on the Bible might also be attributed to indoctrination . If you think skeptics are ignorant of what the bible really says, I would venture to say there are as many christians who are this way as well. Your calling should be berating ignorant christians whose only exposure to the bible is the 1 scripture sermons their pastors deliver.
Kathy, “Bottom line Nan, I’m here ready and willing to debate ANY point you all want to throw at me.. I’m extremely confident I will have the better argument. ” No arrogance here !
Most scholars , theist or atheist don’t exude this kind of confidence when discussing the bible. What do you know that they don’t ?
LikeLike
“Yet an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, all-perfect god stood idly by and watched as millions of its “chosen” people were tortured and executed.”
Yawn…..Do you ever improve? You get one point busted up by My Hitler example and you try and float another one. I might have stopped Hitler because I can’t see ahead but God saw further ahead and used Hitler to bring about a fulfilled prophecy of Jews taking back Israel after thousand of years.
Further When the world has only people who trust in God (chosen people or not) instead of following your lead you can blame God for all the mayhem and for not intervening. As long as there are people like you they will have to take some responsibility for their own actions and the fallen human race for one of their own – Hitler.
LikeLike
“I’ve been berating skeptics for years”
Thats probably correct as well. do better and I can stop 🙂
LikeLike
“Stone-age campers from 800,000 years ago left evidence of their existence, yet millions of people wandering the desert for four decades”
They lived in one place not moved though like nomads. You keep googling though. Improves your internet skills
LikeLike
“Btw, it may surprise you to learn that the OT doesn’t teach about Hell. Heaven either, for that matter.?”
She’d be surprised Nate because you are lying. Though The OT doesn’t get into Hell very much it certainly DOES talk about Heaven where God resides and SEVERAL passages in the OT indicate that saints do die and go to him. The illusion you have created in your mind that the NT’s teachings of Heaven and Hell had to have come form the persian and greek influence is just that – an illusion
LikeLike
RE: “could you provide any of my comments that show that I’m not being objective?” – Does, “There just is no other alternative” qualify?
LikeLike
Yes, Ron, I saw that you had, which was why I was in no hurry to drag out my own material, but it would seem that Miss Objectivity chose not to avail herself of that information.
LikeLike
Lol…and round and round it goes…and where it stops noone knows.
Hey, Nate. You’re a dad. Ever had a ‘tís not, tis so ‘debate’ with one of your kids?
😉
Please…..I beg you…wrap this up and post something else!
This pair are currently ”lost to the cause”.
It’s like reading comments by unklee on speed.
LikeLike
That’s likely a problem, Ron, for Mr. Congeniality and our starry-eyed debate Queen, because there’s a high degree of probability that they don’t believe the Earth IS 800,000 years old.
LikeLike
“God saw further ahead and used Hitler to bring about a fulfilled prophecy of Jews taking back Israel after thousand of years.”
Amazing logic going on in that twisted little mind – he tells us above that his god “used Hitler” to bring the Jews back to Israel, killing roughly 10 million people in the process – but it’s all Mankind’s fault:
“As long as there are people like you they will have to take some responsibility for their own actions and the fallen human race for one of their own – Hitler.“
LikeLike
Mike, clearly you don’t know your biblical history. The 2 million-plus Hebrews (allegedly) spent decades in Kadesh Barnea. This is the primary reason why it was the very first archaeological site singled out for extensive excavations nearly 100 years ago… excavations that lasted 70 years until every reputable archaeologist in the world conceded there simply was no evidence of any massive encampment.
You also seem utterly ignorant of the fact that Canaan was under Egyptian military rule at the alleged time of both the Exodus and Conquest. Egyptian administrative centers were located in Gaza, Yaffo and Beit She’an, as well as on both sides of the Jordan River, and garrisons were stationed at strategic points, including Jerusalem.
LikeLike
“They lived in one place not moved though like nomads.” – so are you saying they moved every day, for 40 years? I find in Exodus, places they camped for what appeared to be a considerable length of time.
LikeLike
“Amazing logic going on in that twisted little mind – he tells us above that his god “used Hitler” to bring the Jews back to Israel, killing roughly 10 million people in the process – but it’s all Mankind’s fault:”
Sorry Arch I missed the part where God swept out of heaven and put those people in gas chambers and not members of mankind. Were they Cherublims or arch angels? Amazing illogic in that mind of yours. This is the desperation of the skeptics mind. You would think if you had the goods you would stick with it but the very fact you have to make these twisted claims that somehow God is responsible for the holocaust says it all.
LikeLike
“Mike, clearly you don’t know your biblical history.”
John I’ve probably forgotten more than you ever knew. Wow me with your brilliance on the subject
“You also seem utterly ignorant of the fact that Canaan was under Egyptian military rule at the alleged time of both the Exodus and Conquest. ”
Sigh…You seem utterly and absolutely ignorant that I have previously addressed the dating of the period as far from a settled matter. Put your money where your mouth is and i will debate you on it. However your just so pronouncements of superior understanding may take a hit so think about it before you bluster again.
P.S. You will have to do better than Ark and Arch referring to historians without looking at the primary evidence including the problems of Egyptian chronology.
LikeLike
You know, KC, when I first came to the conclusion, years ago, that there was no god, I hadn’t yet studied the actual history of the making of the Bible, and so still believed that everyone in the Bible probably did what the book said they did, minus the magic shows and tried finding logical explanations for things the characters had done. And so, I tried to figure out why the Jews stayed in the Sinai, under inhospitable conditions, for 40 years. Was it that they were hiding, in the one place the Egyptians wouldn’t think to look for them? Was it so that the older ones, who had no knowledge of the Hebrew god, having spent 400+years in Egypt, could die off and be replaced by younger ones that Moses and his priests had had time to indoctrinate?
I finally concluded that old Moses – being, after all, a guy – just refused to stop and ask for directions.
LikeLike
Here’s a thorough debunking of the Exodus account:
Tall Tales of Wilderness Wanderings (direct links to these articles midway down page)
1. Population and the Size of the Hebrew Camps – The accuracy of census figures in the book of Numbers is assumed to show that the Hebrews who left Egypt would have numbered at least 2.5 million.
2. The Size of the Hebrew Camps – The Hebrew census figures are used to show what the minimum size of the Hebrew camps would have been.
3. Sacrifices and the Size of the Hebrew Camps -The Hebrew sacrificial laws are examined to show the logistical improbability that they could have been practiced in the Sinai wilderness.
4. What About the Meal Offerings? – The meal offering requirements are examined to show the improbability that enough grain could have been found in the Sinai region to practice these sacrifices.
5. Where Did They Get the Wood? – The burnt-offering requirements are examined to show the improbability that enough wood would have been available in the Sinai region to offer the sacrifices commanded and to keep the fire on the altar burning perpetually.
6. Yahweh’s Quails – Logistical impossibilities are examined in the story of the quails that Yahweh sent to the Hebrew camp.
7. Another Problem with the Quails – A discrepancy in the story of the quails is examined.
8. At Least the Priests Had Meat – The logistical impossibility of just four priests being able to eat all of the meat from animal sacrifices is examined.
9. Getting the Whole Congregation Together – The impossibility of all of the adults in a nation of three million gathering at one time in front of the tabernacle is shown.
10. When Nature Called – Sanitation problems in Yahweh’s plan for human waste disposal is examined.
11. The Water Problem – The enormous problem of finding water for three million people and their large herds of livestock in the Sinai region is examined.
12. Clothes with Lifetime Warranties – The enormous problem of keeping millions clothed for 40 years in the Sinai region is examined.
13. What Priests? – An anachronistic reference to priests before the ordinations of Aaron and his sons is examined.
LikeLike
Hello everyone,
Unless someone has something else substantive to add, I’m going to ask that we wind this down. The conversation has drifted into all kinds of different directions, but we’ve largely left behind the original topic.
Kathy, I do hope you’ll take some time and do some deep research into some of these issues. I also hope you’ll read Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman. The reason people keep suggesting him to you is that he covers information about the texts of the New Testament that you don’t usually hear about, but it’s common knowledge among biblical scholars, and it’s not considered controversial. Once you’ve finished that, I suggest following it up with How We Got the Bible by Neil Lightfoot. He’s a Christian who very much believes in inspiration and probably believes in biblical inerrancy. He’ll cover some of the same ground that Ehrman does, but from a different perspective, which should help give you a well-rounded picture of those particular issues.
Finally, I also recommend Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns. He’s a Christian as well, and his book focuses on the Old Testament and how it fits within the culture of the Levant during that time.
LikeLike
“Further When the world has only people who trust in God”
Munich – Speech of April 12, 1922
Adolf Hitler
LikeLike
RE: “the very fact you have to make these twisted claims that somehow God is responsible for the holocaust says it all.”
First of all, YOU’RE the one who said, “god used Hitler” – YOUR words, not mine.
Further, could your god have foreseen it? If not, he’s not omniscient. Could he have prevented it? If not, he’s not omnipotent.
If he existed, and was the omniscient, omnipotent god he advertises to be, he could have foreseen it, could have prevented it, but allowed it to happen, when he has intervened (according to the Bible) in countless other lives – then, yes, he is directly responsible.
How about when he had all of the first-born of Egypt killed, after having deliberately “hardened Pharaoh’s heart,” thereby removing his free will? He was directly responsible for those deaths, as well (HAD the fabricated Exodus story been true).
LikeLike
“I’ve been berating skeptics for years”
Thats probably correct as well. do better and I can stop 🙂
Mike, why is it you can make comments to me about trivial things but you won’t answer the other questions I have posed to you 3 times ?
One more time ………..
1.)“The ammonites were suppose to be a mystical creation of the bIble but then ooops evidence was found.
2.) the kingdom of David was supposed to be mythical but oops then they found evidence for that
3.)Belshazzar that Nate mentions (and claims to know for fact was not related to Nebuchadnezzar) was for claimed for MANY years according to Skeptics a completely made up character but then ooops they found evidence of that and then
He was never a ruler of Babyon but oops that held up too”
Who were the scholars and their credentials who claim 1 & 3 didn’t exist ???
Answer to 2.) BTW they have found 1 piece of evidence with “A” David’s name on it. Here is what the Jewish Virtual Library has to say about that 1 piece of evidence.
“Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David (“House” or “Dynasty” of David”). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.”
If WE were using just 1 piece of evidence to support any of our claims and scholars referred to it as “Not conclusive” YOU would laugh it off instantly !
LikeLike
RE: “I have previously addressed the dating of the period as far from a settled matter.” – For once, we agree, it’s GOTTA be hard to pin an exact date on a non-existent event.
LikeLike
ROFL….HAHAHAHA…..Farrel Till….oh my.
You’ve made my day Ron. I might find the time to deal with him (yet gain) over the weekend. I think nate should put up a piece about him seeing he’s all your hero and it would be fun to have all my debunking of Mr till in one place.
LikeLike
“Further When the world has only people who trust in God”
On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)
By Martin Luther (1483 – 1546)
Part XI
[ Chapter XI is the most well known section in this book]
LikeLike
Ron, you’re a veritable fount of information, but I can’t get the link to work on “Tall Tales of Wilderness Wanderings” – I suppose it could be my browser, but could you give me an actual URL, just in case?
Thanks —
LikeLike
@ Arch
It seems to work for me, but here it is again:
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/AuthorFarrellTill1.html
LikeLike
Why don’t you just ignore Ark like the rest of us, and allow this topic to run it’s course? The hits certainly aren’t hurting you in the Google ratings, and even Mr. Twister has to run out of hot air SOMEtime!
LikeLike
Arch, “I finally concluded that old Moses – being, after all, a guy – just refused to stop and ask for directions.”
Well said ! I believe Moses may have been the “Father of guilt trips” too. Remember why God wouldn’t allow him to cross over into the promised land ? . Moses was not permitted to enter the Promised Land because of a transgression (Deut. 32:48-52). Moses was told to speak to a rock to get water from it, but instead he struck the rock repeatedly with a rod, showing improper anger and a lack of faith (Num. 20:7-13). (http://www.jewfaq.org/moshe.htm)
What did he tell the children of Israel the reason was ? Deut 3: 23 At that time I pleaded with the Lord: 24 “Sovereign Lord, you have begun to show to your servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do? 25 Let me go over and see the good land beyond the Jordan—that fine hill country and Lebanon.” 26 But because of you the Lord was angry with me and would not listen to me.
The he repeats it again in Deut 4: 21 The Lord was angry with me because of you, and he solemnly swore that I would not cross the Jordan and enter the good land the Lord your God is giving you as your inheritance. 22 I will die in this land; I will not cross the Jordan; but you are about to cross over and take possession of that good land.
This may have been where Christianity got the idea of using guilt to keep people in line. Just my opinion. 🙂
LikeLike
/
LikeLike
Thanks, Ron.
LikeLike
KC – ask any Jew, baseball may well be our national pasttime, feeling guilty is theirs. They’ve turned it into an artform.
Have you seen THIS? There’s a Jewish belief that cemeteries can somehow infect you with evil – don’t ask me – this gentleman, seated among other passengers on an airliner, has entirely encased himself in a full-body condom (plastic bag), so that in the event, the plane should inadvertently fly over a cemetery, he won’t get any evil on him.
LikeLike
Mike, by all means, dazzle me with your “revised” dating for the alleged events, and the evidence you have to support this revisionism.
This should be fun…
LikeLike
@Mike
LikeLike
It’s another Inerrantist’s obfuscation effort, KC – I’ve seen it before – in which they try to claim that the reason no evidence of the Exodus has been found, is because archaeologists are looking at the wrong time period. I doubt you’ll get any straighter answer than you have to any of your other questions. The time must come, when they run out of excuses.
LikeLike
Oh, I’ve seen it before too, Arch. Brace yourself: the *un-published* Christian evangelical Egyptologist, Kitchen, is going to be presented… for only he can dash the *published* conclusions of every archaeological department in the world.
LikeLike
You are so right Arch.
John Z also said, “Mike, clearly you don’t know your biblical history. The 2 million-plus Hebrews (allegedly) spent decades in Kadesh Barnea. This is the primary reason why it was the very first archaeological site singled out for extensive excavations nearly 100 years ago… excavations that lasted 70 years until every reputable archaeologist in the world conceded there simply was no evidence of any massive encampment.”
To use a song title from the Oak Ridge Boys maybe they need to “Dig a little deeper in the well”. 🙂 I doubt this will work however. 🙂
LikeLike
“Mike, by all means, dazzle me with your “revised” dating for the alleged events, and the evidence you have to support this revisionism. ”
No sorry poor laddie. Ask around I don’t do debates like you lazy skeptics love em. You are going to have to put your big pants on and put up your PRIMARY source evidence for your claims. You didn’t do anything but barf a comment and what ark does won’t suffice either – linking to some summary without the data behind it. Proof baby.None of this lazy barfing and foaming at the mouth
LikeLike
“Brace yourself: the *un-published* Christian evangelical Egyptologist, Kitchen, is going to be presented… for only he can dash the *published* conclusions of every archaeological department in the world.
Oh my so you think it would be one of those this historians/egyptologist versus kind of things in regard to exodus eh? No like I told you – problems with egyptian chronology not merely presenting two different views. Like the good book says
Line upon line . precept upon precept. You deal first with the underlying issues and build upwards. You are already showing you are not up to it.
LikeLike
Mike, you haven’t done that to YOUR claims yet ! How can you demand this of John when you haven’t done it ?
1.)“The ammonites were suppose to be a mystical creation of the bIble but then ooops evidence was found.
2.) the kingdom of David was supposed to be mythical but oops then they found evidence for that
3.)Belshazzar that Nate mentions (and claims to know for fact was not related to Nebuchadnezzar) was for claimed for MANY years according to Skeptics a completely made up character but then ooops they found evidence of that and then
He was never a ruler of Babyon but oops that held up too”
Who were the scholars and their credentials who claim 1 & 3 didn’t exist ???
Answer to 2.) BTW they have found 1 piece of evidence with “A” David’s name on it. Here is what the Jewish Virtual Library has to say about that 1 piece of evidence.
“Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David (“House” or “Dynasty” of David”). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.”
If WE were using just 1 piece of evidence to support any of our claims and scholars referred to it as “Not conclusive” YOU would laugh it off instantly !
LikeLike
Mike
So you can’t even give me the revised dates from which you’re working, and the evidence to support this claim?
Interesting…
LikeLike
“So you can’t even give me the revised dates from which you’re working, and the evidence to support this claim?”
Don’t be lazy John. DId you provide any source for your data? You can beg until the cows come home. others will tell you I don’t do the one sided debates lazy skeptics like. Sorry
LikeLike
Nate, as much as I would like to add another comment (re: objectivity), I will honor your request above. The way I see it, your original posting pointed out several examples of the bible’s problems and you asked Kathy to review them with an open mind and offer her POV. As seems to be the pattern on your blogs, everyone gets involved and soon the thread is going every which way.
I feel this is a discussion that really should be taking place between you and Kathy, so I’m going to bite my tongue (keep my fingers in a fist?) and allow the discussion to get back to the original premise. Maybe others will do the same?
LikeLike
Mike
So I’m to gather from your inability to even identify the dates you’re working from (and the evidence to support this revisionism) that Kitchen is indeed your single source, huh?
Solid…
LikeLike
“Like the good book says ” – the dictionary?
LikeLike
“So I’m to gather from your inability to even identify the dates you’re working from (and the evidence to support this revisionism) that Kitchen is indeed your single source, huh? ”
I’m gathering you are just another of the merry crew that has no grasp of primary evidence for things he reads and barfs who has no idea about issues in egyptian chronology and that those issue do not arise from kitchen.
transparent
LikeLike
But ENTIRELY expected
LikeLike
Who’s this Ark you keep going on about?
LikeLike
I’ve been reading along. Went to jump into the mix. Typed my comment. The index finger poised to hit *Post Comment* . . . and I stopped. Eyes wide open. Momentary freeze . . . instructions came to the forefront, hit delete! Delete this comment. Danger Zoe. Danger.
Delete I did.
Nate,
What about putting a comment limit on posts like this, or even a time limit, maybe discuss for a few days and then you turn off comments?
LikeLike
Fascinating stuff, Mike. Like I said: solid…
LikeLike
Actually, I am now quite interested in this revised dating of the Exodus that seems to have almost taken centre stage here.
Moses and his tale has always been a favorite of mine, so Mike, please, let us have your ‘take’, or at least the take of the archaeological evidence you consider offers a more solid foundation for the biblical account.
LikeLike
Ark, it’s already perfectly clear that Mike is basing his entire assumption on the outlandish claims made by Kitchen and Hoffmeier, both evangelical Christians.
LikeLike
“Mike is basing his entire assumption on the outlandish claims made by Kitchen and Hoffmeier, both evangelical Christians.”
LOL such desperation now that he realizes he will be required to do some work. However I do like the touch here though “both evangelical Christians” oooooh that INSTANTLY disqualifies them
What are Kitchen’s qualifications again? Maybe you should go look him up on everyone favorite research tool here
Meanwhile not up for debating the problems with egyptian chronology eh? Not tied to Kitchen either if you did a lick of research. Rather not know them but rely on them since ignorance is bliss?
LikeLike
@ JZ,
I think that Mike doesn’t like to offer up too much at first because he perceives he’s in enemy territory. I’m not speaking for him – I’m just giving my ‘take’ on why he doesn’t offer up too much at the start. Until us atheists give up our sources and data for things so he can shred them, he’s not about to put up his to be shredded.
Because we all know that shredding from both sides will ensue.
LikeLike
there are so many tangents and sub topics that have been discussed now…jumping around, I think this can have the effect of confusing what is actually being discussed. One topic at a time people please 🙂 I find things become very disjoin