At this point you either have to deny observable science and geometry used to calculate astronomical distances or you have to deny that the bible is to be taken literally. Once this decision is made you can either forget about it or you can count it as the first strike against the so-called “solid foundation” of the bible.
At this point you either have to deny observable science and geometry used to calculate astronomical distances or you have to deny that the bible is to be taken literally. Once this decision is made you can either forget about it or you can count it as the first strike against the so-called “solid foundation” of the bible.
Agreed, Dave. I think that most literalists, like the ones at AIG, deny observable science. There are those who go down the road of myth and allegory with Genesis, but I’m not sure what they do with original sin and death prior to original sin if they keep it. There are also those who deny original sin but then I’m not sure what the purpose of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is. For me, when original sin fell, the rest of the house of cards wasn’t far behind.
It was the product of my mind’s efforts to not let Kathy get to me. I was even thinking, “Whaaa?” when I was writing it.
I am proud to say that i too have worn a colander. I needed a strange hat when I was an appraiser at a Destination Imagination tournament. I grabbed a colander, affixed a moose figurine to the bottom of it and tied it under my chin with a huge bow. Nobody there thought it was even remotely strange.
Present your best argument.. I’ll address that next. ~ Kathy
Of course you want the “best” because its easier to attack one argument than 20 of them. My case against Christianity is a cumulative case and it’s all of them together that make a strong case. Anyhow, I find this very convincing: The origin of “Yahweh”.
I am going to quote the Christian scholar Thom Stark:
Well as scholars like Frank Cross, Chris Rollston, Mark Smith and others have demonstrated and have known for some time, the earliest texts in the Hebrew Bible give a strong indication that the early conception of Yahweh was that he was an ancient Near Eastern tribal deity. As I argue in my book, following Rollston, the Song of Moses in Deut 32 indicates that Yahweh was believed to have been one of the children of the Canaanite deity El Elyon (God Most High). The song describes how the nations were originally formed, and what it says is that the peoples of the earth were divided up according to the number of El Elyon’s children (the junior members of the divine pantheon). Yahweh, Israel’s patron deity, was one of Elyon’s children.
If you look at this passage from the dead sea scrolls (our oldest copies) you can see what he’s talking about:
Deut. 32: 8-9
When Elyon divided the nations,
when he separated the sons of Adam,
he established the borders of the nations
according to the number of the sons of the gods.
Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance.
In later versions like the MT and LXX the phrase “sons of the gods” gets changed to “son’s of israel” or “god’s angels” because the editors were trying to cover up the original meaning. in Canaanite literature El Elyon is the chief deity at the head of the pantheon. This passage makes it appear that Yahweh was one of the sons of Elyon and that he was assigned to Israel.
I apologize if this was brought up in the Kathy threads, while I read a large portion of the comments I did not read every single one.
There is no “original sin.” It’s one of Paul’s made-up ideas.
I totally agree, but most Christians subscribe to some form of Pauline Christianity. And if there is no original sin there is no good explanation for the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to that theology. This is what Kathy has been getting at when she’s asked Laurie repeatedly to give her a Reader’s Digest version of Jesus’ supposed sacrifice.
I apologize if this was brought up in the Kathy threads, while I read a large portion of the comments I did not read every single one.
I don’t think this has been brought up to Kathy. I started reading The Human Faces of God and never finished. I’ve gone back several times and attempted to read it through, getting a little further each time. I had forgotten about that passage about Israel being Yahweh’s inheritance from his Father El Elyon.
Sir John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, published his calculations in 1644, before Ussher’s were completed. Lightfoot even went a step further – he swore on a stack of Bibles that Man was created at exactly nine o’clock in the morning – at least by god’s Timex!
“I apologize if this was brought up in the Kathy threads” – No, it hasn’t been. I gather that was taken from the Ugaritic texts? I have a slightly different theory, but each is better than the one offered by the Bible.
I don’t even like me when I’m angry. : ) A little anger is alright,, of course. Anger happens. I just don’t want to escalate and end up with another Pope Incident on Facebook. One thing leads to another, you know.
The part about El or El Elyon being the head deity is from the Ugaritic texts, yes. The part about Yahweh being one of his sons is from that passage from Deuteronomy. What makes it an important passage is that it is from the song of Moses which is one of the oldest parts of the bible.
I thought I told you about that, sorry. I tried to post “Poke me with a fork” on Facebook, but, as you know, I am very prone to typos. I posted, “Pope me with a fork” instead. Well, my worlds collided on Facebook, ending up with one of my longtime atheist pen pals saying, :F%#@ the Pope!” It also happened to be atheism awareness week,and I had changed my avatar to a big ‘A’ for the week. Eventually, my mother, who is an atheist, called me up and told me off for saying something so disrespectful about the Pope.
The point is to an outsider, my Facebook page appeared as if I was obsessed with atheism, and was really angry about it. Anger can motivate us to action, but it can become an impediment if it gets out of control.
5000 comments later and some of you are beginning to think Kathy might be a troll. oh, LOL.
I can already tell you exactly what Kathy’s answer to the age of the earth is.
she always says that “in the bible it says that a day can be a thousand years for god.
then she will also argue that god created the universe “old”.
hey Kathy, you ignorant cow, get your big fat worthless ass to the gay pride festival this Saturday at J.D. Hamel Park from NOON to 6 P.M. and tell all the gays that giving them the right to marry is worse than terrorism, the end of our society as we know it.
then you are going to get the hell beat out of you.
oh, but you are way too much of a coward to actually stand up for what you believe.,
Dave, I’m not interested in spending a lot of time on your “best argument”.. so can you condense it as best you can? What’s the claim, and what SPECIFICALLY is the evidence that backs up this claim. Please give the best arguments.. in other words, be as brief as possible, if I find it a good argument then I’ll have the interest to learn more.
Neither of your rebuttals contains any real substance. Can you provide a link to a page with this archaeological evidence? Do you have a book or an archaeologist’s website?
Also to that claim that absence of evidence is not proof: Absence of evidence for the mechanism by which evolution occurs, and absence of evidence for a first cause is not proof. If absence of evidence isn’t proof for archaeology, certainly the same should apply for origins?”
I’m always looking for both proof and good evidence.
In other words, Dave, she can’t comprehend your insightful, extremely well-written, sensible and intelligent twenty points you made. Like I say, though, for those reading along who DO think, it was well worth your effort!
I’m sure I’m not the only one that notices Kathy’s “links” are always to bible-based, Christian websites, whereas most links provided by others are to sites that offer studies by professionals in a wide range of fields. (Of course, they’re all “liberals.”)
Are you challenging those claims of archaeological evidence Nan? Because that IS the point.. the evidence.. not whose site the evidence is posted on..
And Carmen, you miss the point again.. I’m asking for a condensed and precise claim/ argument. I’ve wasted enough time on desperate claims from atheists and liberals.
Yes, Kathy, I am challenging the claims that are shown on bible-based, Christian websites. For example, on the page that talks about meat being sacrificed to idols at facingthechallenge.org, the writer makes this statement:
Archaeologists have discovered dining rooms in the temples of Asclepius and Demeter at Corinth. They have also found an inscription identifying the local meat market.
What in the world does a dining room or an inscription have to do with meat being offered to idols? This is supposed to be proof???
Further, most of what is said related to archaeological discoveries on these sites is carefully selected to “prove” certain bible passages or scriptures.
If you’re going to use archaeological evidence to prove what you believe to be true about your faith, you need to examine all the archaeological evidence. This would mean extensive research of the places, events, and people of biblical times. Do that and then come back with your evidence and I think you will find people willing to discuss what you have uncovered.
Finding Truth 
At this point you either have to deny observable science and geometry used to calculate astronomical distances or you have to deny that the bible is to be taken literally. Once this decision is made you can either forget about it or you can count it as the first strike against the so-called “solid foundation” of the bible.
LikeLike
gliese,
When I first started reading it I was all like, ‘whaaaaa?!?’
By the time I got to the end I was all like, ‘hahahaha’.
For the record, I thought you were really putting a colander on your head…you wouldn’t be the first.
LikeLike
At this point you either have to deny observable science and geometry used to calculate astronomical distances or you have to deny that the bible is to be taken literally. Once this decision is made you can either forget about it or you can count it as the first strike against the so-called “solid foundation” of the bible.
Agreed, Dave. I think that most literalists, like the ones at AIG, deny observable science. There are those who go down the road of myth and allegory with Genesis, but I’m not sure what they do with original sin and death prior to original sin if they keep it. There are also those who deny original sin but then I’m not sure what the purpose of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is. For me, when original sin fell, the rest of the house of cards wasn’t far behind.
LikeLike
Ruth,
It was the product of my mind’s efforts to not let Kathy get to me. I was even thinking, “Whaaa?” when I was writing it.
I am proud to say that i too have worn a colander. I needed a strange hat when I was an appraiser at a Destination Imagination tournament. I grabbed a colander, affixed a moose figurine to the bottom of it and tied it under my chin with a huge bow. Nobody there thought it was even remotely strange.
LikeLike
Of course you want the “best” because its easier to attack one argument than 20 of them. My case against Christianity is a cumulative case and it’s all of them together that make a strong case. Anyhow, I find this very convincing: The origin of “Yahweh”.
I am going to quote the Christian scholar Thom Stark:
If you look at this passage from the dead sea scrolls (our oldest copies) you can see what he’s talking about:
In later versions like the MT and LXX the phrase “sons of the gods” gets changed to “son’s of israel” or “god’s angels” because the editors were trying to cover up the original meaning. in Canaanite literature El Elyon is the chief deity at the head of the pantheon. This passage makes it appear that Yahweh was one of the sons of Elyon and that he was assigned to Israel.
I apologize if this was brought up in the Kathy threads, while I read a large portion of the comments I did not read every single one.
LikeLike
Ruth,
There is no “original sin.” It’s one of Paul’s made-up ideas.
LikeLike
There is no “original sin.” It’s one of Paul’s made-up ideas.
I totally agree, but most Christians subscribe to some form of Pauline Christianity. And if there is no original sin there is no good explanation for the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus according to that theology. This is what Kathy has been getting at when she’s asked Laurie repeatedly to give her a Reader’s Digest version of Jesus’ supposed sacrifice.
LikeLike
I apologize if this was brought up in the Kathy threads, while I read a large portion of the comments I did not read every single one.
I don’t think this has been brought up to Kathy. I started reading The Human Faces of God and never finished. I’ve gone back several times and attempted to read it through, getting a little further each time. I had forgotten about that passage about Israel being Yahweh’s inheritance from his Father El Elyon.
LikeLike
ANYthing with the word tequila in it is a recipe for disaster!
LikeLike
@Dave –
Sir John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, published his calculations in 1644, before Ussher’s were completed. Lightfoot even went a step further – he swore on a stack of Bibles that Man was created at exactly nine o’clock in the morning – at least by god’s Timex!
LikeLike
“Anger is a luxury I can ill afford.”
Translation:
“Don’t make me angry – you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry –“
LikeLike
“I apologize if this was brought up in the Kathy threads” – No, it hasn’t been. I gather that was taken from the Ugaritic texts? I have a slightly different theory, but each is better than the one offered by the Bible.
LikeLike
Arch,
I don’t even like me when I’m angry. : ) A little anger is alright,, of course. Anger happens. I just don’t want to escalate and end up with another Pope Incident on Facebook. One thing leads to another, you know.
LikeLike
The part about El or El Elyon being the head deity is from the Ugaritic texts, yes. The part about Yahweh being one of his sons is from that passage from Deuteronomy. What makes it an important passage is that it is from the song of Moses which is one of the oldest parts of the bible.
LikeLike
“Pope Incident”? I guess I’m not familiar with that.
LikeLike
I thought I told you about that, sorry. I tried to post “Poke me with a fork” on Facebook, but, as you know, I am very prone to typos. I posted, “Pope me with a fork” instead. Well, my worlds collided on Facebook, ending up with one of my longtime atheist pen pals saying, :F%#@ the Pope!” It also happened to be atheism awareness week,and I had changed my avatar to a big ‘A’ for the week. Eventually, my mother, who is an atheist, called me up and told me off for saying something so disrespectful about the Pope.
The point is to an outsider, my Facebook page appeared as if I was obsessed with atheism, and was really angry about it. Anger can motivate us to action, but it can become an impediment if it gets out of control.
LikeLike
5000 comments later and some of you are beginning to think Kathy might be a troll. oh, LOL.
I can already tell you exactly what Kathy’s answer to the age of the earth is.
she always says that “in the bible it says that a day can be a thousand years for god.
then she will also argue that god created the universe “old”.
and as I’ve said before, Kathy’s arguments always boil down to her accusing people of being baby killers, which she did here with dave:
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/open-conversation-part-3/#comment-21606
hey Kathy, you ignorant cow, get your big fat worthless ass to the gay pride festival this Saturday at J.D. Hamel Park from NOON to 6 P.M. and tell all the gays that giving them the right to marry is worse than terrorism, the end of our society as we know it.
then you are going to get the hell beat out of you.
oh, but you are way too much of a coward to actually stand up for what you believe.,
TROLL!!!!!
LikeLike
“F%#@ the Pope!”
LikeLike
Dave, I’m not interested in spending a lot of time on your “best argument”.. so can you condense it as best you can? What’s the claim, and what SPECIFICALLY is the evidence that backs up this claim. Please give the best arguments.. in other words, be as brief as possible, if I find it a good argument then I’ll have the interest to learn more.
LikeLike
Ruth,
“Are we looking for proof or good evidence?
Neither of your rebuttals contains any real substance. Can you provide a link to a page with this archaeological evidence? Do you have a book or an archaeologist’s website?
Also to that claim that absence of evidence is not proof: Absence of evidence for the mechanism by which evolution occurs, and absence of evidence for a first cause is not proof. If absence of evidence isn’t proof for archaeology, certainly the same should apply for origins?”
I’m always looking for both proof and good evidence.
Archaeological evidence:
http://www.faithfacts.org/search-for-truth/maps/archaeological-and-external-evidence
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php
The MAIN point here is that NO archaeological evidence has been found that disproves the Bible.
The Bible is FULL of dates, events, historical figures.. so if it’s all made up, it would be very easy to find evidence to prove it.
And I’ve never claimed to have “proof” of our origins.
LikeLike
In other words, Dave, she can’t comprehend your insightful, extremely well-written, sensible and intelligent twenty points you made. Like I say, though, for those reading along who DO think, it was well worth your effort!
LikeLike
Oh, and look Ruth – we’re getting back on the merry-go-round – WHEEEE!!!
LikeLike
I’m sure I’m not the only one that notices Kathy’s “links” are always to bible-based, Christian websites, whereas most links provided by others are to sites that offer studies by professionals in a wide range of fields. (Of course, they’re all “liberals.”)
LikeLike
Are you challenging those claims of archaeological evidence Nan? Because that IS the point.. the evidence.. not whose site the evidence is posted on..
And Carmen, you miss the point again.. I’m asking for a condensed and precise claim/ argument. I’ve wasted enough time on desperate claims from atheists and liberals.
LikeLike
Yes, Kathy, I am challenging the claims that are shown on bible-based, Christian websites. For example, on the page that talks about meat being sacrificed to idols at facingthechallenge.org, the writer makes this statement:
Archaeologists have discovered dining rooms in the temples of Asclepius and Demeter at Corinth. They have also found an inscription identifying the local meat market.
What in the world does a dining room or an inscription have to do with meat being offered to idols? This is supposed to be proof???
Further, most of what is said related to archaeological discoveries on these sites is carefully selected to “prove” certain bible passages or scriptures.
If you’re going to use archaeological evidence to prove what you believe to be true about your faith, you need to examine all the archaeological evidence. This would mean extensive research of the places, events, and people of biblical times. Do that and then come back with your evidence and I think you will find people willing to discuss what you have uncovered.
LikeLike