Skeptical Bible Study: Tower of Babel

I was listening to a recent speech that Matt Dillahunty gave in Australia (listen here if you’re interested), and in part of it he brought up the story of the Tower of Babel, found in Genesis 11. It’s a story I’ve thought about several times since leaving Christianity. I don’t recall everything Matt said about it, though I know I’ll be making some of the same points he did. I haven’t been a Christian for about 5 years now, and it’s sometimes hard to imagine that I ever believed stories like this one, though I definitely did. And a number of other conservative Christians do as well.

A few days ago, I asked my wife if she remembered what God was angry about in this story, and she gave the same reason that I thought: God was angry because people were being prideful. In case you’ve forgotten, the crux of the story is that several generations after the flood, mankind was growing numerous, and they all had one common language. They decided to build a tower that would reach Heaven (see how prideful?), so God put a stop to it by confusing their language. This caused the various groups to split up, each person going along with whomever could understand him or her.

However, after looking at the details a bit more, it turns out that my recollection was a bit off. First, the people weren’t actually being prideful at all. Instead of trying to build a tower to Heaven — God’s abode — they were just trying to build a tall one to make it easier to stay in one geographic area:

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. 2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”
— Genesis 11:1-4

The phrase “in the heavens” is just talking about the sky, not the realm of God. For just a moment though, let’s pretend that they really had been trying to reach God with their tower. Why would that be such a bad thing? Doesn’t the Bible repeatedly tell us to seek after God? Furthermore, would they have succeeded? On September 12, 2013, Voyager 1 actually left our solar system. In all those miles, it didn’t bump into Heaven. No earth-based tower would ever run the risk of reaching God’s home. So not only were the people not attempting that, even if they had been it wouldn’t have succeeded, and it actually would have been flattering toward God.

So if God wasn’t angry at them for being prideful, why did he confuse their language and force them apart? The next few verses give us the answer:

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.
— Genesis 11:5-9

Essentially, God was just being a jerk. He was like a kid stirring up an anthill. I mean, God forbid (literally) that people advance technologically, right? Wouldn’t want them discovering things like the germ theory of disease, after all. And why prevent wars by keeping people within the same culture? Much better, I guess, to create different cultures so mistrust and bigotry can form. Furthermore, if this was such a problem at the time, why hasn’t he stopped us again? We’ve figured out ways to overcome language and culture barriers now. We’ve done so much more than just “build a tall tower.” God’s motivation in this story simply makes no sense at all.

However, if you step back for a moment and stop trying to view this as literal history with an actual god, things become clearer. Imagine living thousands of years ago and trying to make sense of the world around you. You think the world is flat and that the sun revolves around it. You don’t understand the cause of thunder storms, earthquakes, or volcanoes. You can’t imagine how animals and humans got here without some kind of creator. And if there’s a creator, why didn’t he make life easier? Why does he allow disease and starvation? There are so many difficult questions that just have no answer. And so people began to formulate answers as best they could. It’s easy to see that one of those questions may have been “why didn’t God (the gods) give us all the same language?” And so they came up with an answer.

Looking at it from that perspective, it’s much easier to understand how a story like this came to be. These people were dealing with the world as they saw it — and to them, the only reason they could think of for God not wanting everyone to have the same language, is that they would accomplish too much. They had no idea that humanity would one day find a way around that problem, rendering their explanation invalid.

Speaking as someone who grew up believing that stories like this were actual history, I know how easy it is to just go along under that assumption without question, especially if those around us believe as we do. It’s not stupidity; it’s either isolation and ignorance, or it’s stubbornness. We can help the isolated and ignorant by just being available to discuss these things when they come up. And with the Bible, there are plenty of examples to be found.

Advertisements

682 thoughts on “Skeptical Bible Study: Tower of Babel”

  1. I never believed that the Tower of Babel was anything but a story (a kind of fable or “just so” story to give a pseudo-explanation for the existence of multiple languages). So it never caused me problems.

    What did cause problems and raised questions were:

    the resurrection – mostly because the reports were so vague that they could not be considered evidence;

    the casting out of demons. In at least one case, it seemed to describe the symptoms of schizophrenia, but attributed this to demons and claimed that the demons had invaded pigs. To me, this seemed to be a clear case of a misunderstanding based on lack of knowledge at the time the gospels were written. But it was enough to cast doubt on the idea of miracles.

    Like

  2. I had a thought recently along similar lines. If I had a question about biology, I’d go find someone with a degree in it. Why would I ask my mechanic about how cells divide or what sort of evidence there is that supports the theory of evolution?

    Somehow, that common urge to seek a respected professional gets thrown out the window when I went to church. I’d hear pastors talk about all sorts of things they weren’t really qualified to opine on. Not once did I think, “You know, maybe I should double-check pastor’s statements on astronomy with an astronomer.” It’s like there’s a filter that gets taken out at the door, left out during the service, and then replaced in a defective condition afterwards.

    At any rate, I’m happy to see you posting again! Great post!

    Liked by 4 people

  3. Nate, try to read this differently.

    First, let’s read it as history, as you have.

    Now remember the first commandment God gave to mankind when he made us: “Reproduce! Increase! Fill the land and subdue her!”

    This is usually translated as “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it”, but it’s not so poetic. The Hebrew is more directive.

    Oh, and in Hebrew, there’s never, ever any “earth”. There is only land. Land is a far more ambiguous term.

    So, the first commandment was to reproduce and fill the land.

    Then after the Flood, what was the commandment given, again, to Noah and his sons and daughters-in-law: “Reproduce! Increase! Fill the land and subdue her.”

    So, there were two fundamental commandments given to mankind: reproduce, and fill the land.

    The animals, too, were commanded to reproduce. Mankind was specifically commanded to FILL THE LAND. Twice.

    The land is wide, it’s a whole world, Man was given dominion over all of the land, and what’s more, he was ordered to take dominion over ALL of the land.

    So, what were they doing at Babel? Clumping. Twice God commanded to fill the land, before and after the Flood. Now, there was a whole world for man to expand into laterally, filling it in with babies and families. And instead, man wanted to clump together and built upwards, not laterally.

    That was not what God wanted them to do. It broke his commandment. So he made it impossible for them to stay together by confusing their language, causing them to scatter and fill up all the land.

    That is why God destroyed the Tower of Babel and confused the languages: to fulfill the purpose of his directive: fill the land.

    One can question his motives if one wishes, but the sin here was disobedience: ‘I said spread out and fill up the land. And you’re choosing instead to build a city and clump.’

    Now look back in Genesis. Who built the first city, clumping people? Cain did. He named it after his son, Enoch.

    And what did Nimrod do? Built cities and conquered an empire, killing people.

    The problem with people clumping in cities (before their time) is that men don’t tend their garden in cities. They don’t exercise dominion over the animals. They don’t fulfill their appointed role. And when men live on top of each other like that, they dominate each other, and resort to force to do it. And God never authorized that. When men spread out, under those conditions in those times, there is little or no disease. Disease comes with crowding. Crowding is bad for chickens and for men. It was not what God intended for men.

    So, when men started to go “off plan”, he shifted their languages and caused them to scatter, returning them to the rails he set out for them (and preserving them for a few thousand years from the epidemics and problems of cities). That’s all.

    Like

  4. Hi Nate, thanks for another interesting post.

    You highlight the key change that I have noticed in reading the Bible, post faith. That is, these stories suddenly make sense if we see them as a primitive people trying to explain the world as they found it. They, however, don’t make sense if we see them as a supreme creator explaining to humanity what really happened.

    But I must acknowledge that humanity is creative and given enough time people able to come up with plausible ‘theological’ truths in these ‘divine’ stories in an effort to rescue their ‘inspiration’.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. @Nate

    Actually I agree with Crown, and to the best of my knowledge his interpretation seems to be the mainstream thinking with regards to this passage even in Protestant circles (Crown is Catholic if i’m not wrong?)

    Like

  6. Crown,

    I see what you’re saying, i just dont think it makes sense either.

    I mean, look at cities and suburbs today. When a city grows to its max, people naturally move outside it’s boarders, and that’s true even if they want to continue their business in said city.

    people reproduce. we’re not captive pandas. multiplying is not one of our problems. Scattering and moving would be a natural eventuality from population growth.

    and neither should we forget all the people who are natural adventurers and explorers. Louis and Clark didnt need to have their language stripped away so that they would venture out, nor did columbus.

    I am wondering if there are any similar stories of language origin from any other cultures. Believers will often point to flood stories among different cultures as evidence of noah’s flood. It would be interesting if a lot of cultures had a flood story (as floods happen all over) but none have a tower/language story – as that’s not as common as a flood…

    Liked by 3 people

  7. on the “Jim Baker show yesterday, his guest said the tower of babel was actually a star gate to another dimension, he then went on to say we are building one now, in the name of god shiva. funny stuff.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. Duet 9:1 talks about cities that the israelites were to take whose walls “went up to heaven…”

    I agree with nate, i dont think that genesis intended to imply that those in babel were actually trying to reach “heaven.” I think it was simply a phrase used to describe “tall.”

    and like nate, even if they were trying to reach heaven, how high could they have built their tower with handmade bricks and mortar? we’re not talking anywhere near the height of modern skyscrapers.

    it’s nonsense.

    and for every explanation that tries to make this story sensible in light of god, only presents more questions that arise from new nonsense that arises.

    To me, the only explanation that makes complete sense, is that who ever came up with this story, came up with it as a way to explain how the only 8 people left on earth became so many different people with differing looks, cultures and languages.

    they were lacking in knowledge in so many ways, that it’s only reasonable they would include nonsense… a perfect god doesnt seem to have that excuse.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Thanks @Nate for a great post.

    @Crown, you did a nice job trying to logically explain what happened and why, but it still doesn’t make sense. If God was trying to keep people on the right path that he laid out for them, why didn’t he try the language confusion to end the wickedness that angered him during the time of Noah instead of drowning everybody and everything in the flood? Could have kept a lot of blood off his hands if he’d thought of it before. Also, your premise that God wanted them to farm doesn’t hold water. Even if these people lived in the city they were building, they still would have had gardens – even people in the city have a sense of self-preservation and know they need to eat! As far as multiplying and subduing the land, there were obviously already other people on the earth, as they say they want to distinguish themselves from them.

    There have been many, many huge cities built over the past few thousand years, empires that dominated the known world – why didn’t God pull the same trick and create even more languages to keep this from happening? And there have always been people who were multi-lingual and could help translate material from one culture to another – why doesn’t God strike them down. My family hosts foreign exchanges students to assist them with perfecting their English and having a bigger world view, but not once have any of my religious friends suggested that is an ungodly thing to do because God confused language on purpose and we shouldn’t mess with that! I know from studying linguistics that, while the breadth of languages can be baffling, the development of languages is very organic and naturally evolves just like biology. The story of Babel and all of the stories from the Pentateuch are obviously derived from stone age man’s attempt to explain the world around him. They are poetic myths, part of our human heritage, but certainly not anything modern people should base their faith or their lives upon.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. Great post as usual Nate. Clearly legend using the same standards we would judge the legends of other religions. Or perhaps we should re-vamp all of the linguistic departments at the universities across the world since practically everything they do is based on language development?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Ya know, I think it is because we really only use stories to support our desires for community, celebrations, identity and more — most of us (at a deep level) don’t really care about the “truth”. And stories really aren’t meant to be the truth.

    This goes for patriot stories and more — not just religion.

    Now, when sects start tell you it is the truth, some believers buy into that of course, but even them most don’t believe — they just use it as a symbol of belonging and participation.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. This was great!! That’s been one of my problems with the Christian God…. What did these people do wrong? If they were building a tower to get close to God, isn’t that a good thing?

    I think you’re right, this is a story that was created to explain why we have so many races and languages. Great piece!! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  13. … maybe with stories like these, but when we’re telling a story, as in relaying history, truth is typically desired.

    The tower of babel is presented as history as it’s written. Sure there are those who wont buy it, and may only view it as metaphor or what have you, but we all know of those who do indeed buy it just as it’s presented – as history.

    many of us also view this as one piece of evidence that speaks on the bible’s credibility.

    so i guess it depends on the context of the story, how it’s presented, who the intended audience is, as well as the story’s implications and so on.

    Like

  14. For starters, Nate is right. The word “heaven” doesn’t exist in ancient Hebrew. Neither does the word “earth”. These are two 17th Century English words used to translate ancient Hebrew, and doing it tendentiously.

    The word in Hebrew – ha’shamayim – is properly translated only as “the skies”; and “ha’aretz” is “the land”. No “heaven”, with that double meaning that it has in English – there is no dual concept in the Hebrew. And no “earth” meaning a planet, only the dry land, as opposed to the seas.

    That’s it.

    So the ENTIRETY of the speculation about man trying to reach God “in heaven” is a fabrication of modern language speakers with modern concepts and traditions. It isn’t actually IN the Scripture itself at all.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. i think the whole thing is a complete fabrication.

    but i agree, i don’t think genesis was trying to say that they were trying to reach god’s abode or that god was angry over it.

    however, I can see why people think it does mean that. the majority of people in the world aren’t scholars or masters of their own language, much less different languages. As a believer, I would be prompted to ask, “why would a perfect and all knowing god, purposely write something in a way and/or allow it to be translated in such a way as to confuse people, when their understanding of this book is so paramount and of such importance as to save their eternal souls?”

    Like

  16. There are so many difficult questions that just have no answer. And so people began to formulate answers as best they could.” – In other words, a case of reverse engineering – this is how things are, how could they have gotten that way?

    It’s important, when discussing this subject (or any others), to know the history behind the Bible passage. Genesis tells us that Abraham came from Ur, a large metropolitan city in the south of Mesopotamia, near the Persian Gulf – even if we accept that, as opposed to my own theory that the Ur in question was in fact Ur-fa, a small village in northern Mesopotamia, near the Syrian-Turkey border, we still must accept that Mesopotamia was, if not the birthplace of an actual, historical Abraham, at least the origin of the genetic stock that would become the Hebrews.

    The entire Tower of Babel fable, Genesis 11, was written by the Yahwist (J) Source, a group of priests writing in Jerusalem, in the Southern Kingdom of Judah around 950 BCE. Gen 10:6-10, written by the Priestly (P) Source in captivity in Babylon about 550 BCE, could well be viewed as a prequel to the Tower story, in that it takes us from Noah to Babylon – it tells us that Cush was the son of Ham and the father of Nimrod, of whom it was said: (Gen 10:10) “And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad (Akkadia), and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.” It may be recalled by some that I have often outlined the history of Mesopotamia, occupied for four thousand years by the Sumarians, then overrun by the Akkadians and occupied by them for 500 years, then taken over by the Amurrites for another 500, so placing the Tower in the time of Accad – the Akkadians – is at least time-appropriate.

    While we’re on the subject of the P Source writing much, if not all of Gen 10, note this often-repeated sentence in that chapter: “These are the sons of (insert name of son here), after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.” – would not, “after their tongues” imply that other languages were already spoken? That said, it should come as no surprise that Chapter 11 begins with, “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

    Several paintings have since been done, mostly during the European Renaissance, as to what the Tower must have looked like:

    However the actual object, the subject of the Tower of Babel fable, could only have been a Mesopotamian ziggurat, pictured below. Every major city in Mesopotamia had one, dedicated to a particular god of the rather extensive Mesopotamian pantheon. The very term itself, “babel” is the Hebrew word for the Mesopotamian word, “Bab-i-li,” which means, Gate of the Gods. Interestingly, the Hebrew word, “balil” – “he confused” – has a similar sound, and the authors of the J Source, much like Shakespeare, seemed, throughout their writings, to enjoy a good play on words.

    As can be seen, there is a small chamber on the tower’s apex. It was well known to the Mesopotamians, whether Sumarian, Akkadian or Amurrite, that various gods, from time to time, liked to pop down to earth to see how things were going – the chamber was designed to be their abode on earth, a place for them to take their sandals off and kick back for however long they liked.

    It is mentioned that pride was the builders’ downfall, in wanting to build a tower to heaven. If my son, as a little boy, had ever come down the sidewalk with his little red wagon filled with scrap auto parts and headed for the back yard after informing me he was going to build his own car, I would have smiled sadly, knowing he was headed for disillusionment, but at the same time, I would have been bursting with pride that despite the odds, he was willing to TRY such a project. The god of the Bible doesn’t seem to care as much about his children as I do mine, but then I never felt the need to drown my children, except that once.

    Given the circumstances above – a real god would be totally confident in his omnipotence, and would feel no threat from the building of any such tower to heaven. “Boys will be boys,” he would chuckle. He’d sit there with his Lazy-boy cocked back and a steaming plate of nachos in his lap, in front of his big-screen – and I mean BIG-screen! We’re talking CineMax on steroids! – he’d reach for the little cloud where he’d parked his cold can of Bud, and cackle his holy head off as he watched the idiots below try to build the tower, passing out from oxygen deprivation as the tower rose ever higher, until they finally came to the realization that you simply can’t get there from here.

    Liked by 3 people

  17. ah, indeed. As a father, i enjoy watching my children try and learn. I want them to have the courage to be adventurous and to dream and strive. they will make mistakes, and at times i will need to correct them, but I cant fathom a time I would punish them for ingenuity and work ethic… but then, I cant fathom a situation in which I’d feel like i had to torture them forever and always in fire and what have you…

    Like

  18. William, I want to answer this comment: “As a believer, I would be prompted to ask, ‘why would a perfect and all knowing god, purposely write something in a way and/or allow it to be translated in such a way as to confuse people, when their understanding of this book is so paramount and of such importance as to save their eternal souls?'”

    You would have to ask a Protestant that question. The supermajority of Christians in the world are Catholics and Orthodox, and they don’t believe that God wrote or translated the book,

    The supernatural authority your question gives to a book is idolatry to most Christians, a very Protestant form of idolatry, and it is what separates Protestants from the bulk of Christianity.

    So it is with the Bible. Jesus didn’t write anything. He left a Church, not a Bible dispensary.

    Like

  19. i grew up protestant (of a sort) so i dont have any first hand knowledge of catholicism, but i do wonder if it’s any different here.

    Protestants have their bibles, which is what we have for jesus, and the catholics have their clergy (who get what they know about jesus from the bible).

    I dont want to talk past anyone, or even be rude, but whether we’re getting spiritual guidance from a book with issues in it, or from a group of men with their own issues (of various things), confusion will result – at least for some.

    and with both, what is there to validate their claim as being a divine conduit? whether it be the tower of babel or father whomever, there are issues and problems that come up. I hear talk of miracles, just I hear talk of lots of things, but unlike grass and animals, i haven’t seen any. What is there?

    Like

  20. William,

    I’ve seen and experienced miracles, which is why I am stubborn in insisting on the real existence of God and the Devil. I know these things are so. I also know that won’t help you much.

    It matters how one goes about these inquiries. One must be seeking truth. For example, what you said above about the Catholic clergy having their problems is certainly, undoubtedly, without question true. Look at all of the pedophilia. Joan of Arc was a messenger from God and look what the Bishop of Rouen did to her. But that merely speaks to human frailty.

    By the same token, one could become a Tea Partying forest-trailer dweller. After all, government is based on systems of laws and hierarchy of authority, and there is corruption in all government, and government put 12 million people in gas chambers, and 20 million in the Gulags. And government left piles of bones in the killing fields of Cambodia. Government cuts off hands in Saudi, and the US government enforced slavery and segregation and committed genocide against Indians. Governments commit terrible crimes, and there are corrupt people in government, therefore, government is a complete moral failure, and all people should resist the very idea of government with every fiber of their existence. For all governments have been corrupt, and all government is oppressive, and the very IDEA of government leads to the oppression of the human spirit through petty law. Therefore, people should be atheists to avoid oppression by false gods, and anarchists to avoid oppression by real men. Government is always rather corrupt, and all government tends towards evil. Therefore, we should seek to free ourselves from it just as we free ourselves from all religion, for exactly the same reasons.

    Right?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Crown,

    I wasnt even meaning the clergy problems of sexual misconduct, but rather the same problems as the bible has, internal consistency issues, etc. If all the clergy agreed on all points of doctrine perfectly, that may be one thing, but they dont, so it seems more like people… people without divine guidance.

    I’m not a non-believer because the religious can do bad things. your point is taken quite well. I am a non-believer because i no longer find religion or the god’s I have been presented with as believable.

    There seems to be problems and holes in the stories and explanations. the gods i have been told about resemble imaginary and mythological creatures far too closely.

    I do not know what catholics thing of Elijah’s test against the prophets of ba’al, but I cannot help but think that if such a trial were presented today, that no god would pass it. Does that mean that such gods are sleeping, or that they’re not real?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. I’ve seen and experienced miracles, which is why I am stubborn in insisting on the real existence of God and the Devil.

    Yes, boys and girls, Crown has had a dove fly into his face and seen dead animals come back to life – but you can trust him, he’s a lawyer —

    Like

  23. That’s right, Archaeopteryx, I have broken my neck and been paralyzed, and healed. I have been grabbed out of the air by God and spoken to. I’ve been pushed into the black abyss and seen a gate of the City of God, far above. I’ve felt the heat of Gehenna beneath my feet. I’ve had the Holy Dove fly into my face and disappear into my head, knocking me down and driving off a visible demon. I’ve had a dead lizard and a dead mouse come back to life in my hands. I have experienced many miracles and visions. That is all true.

    And you’re right, you can trust me, not because I’m a lawyer, but because lying is a sin, and given that I know God directly, I’m not going to start committing one of the sins on his list of things that will cause him to finally reject me. I’ve been given a taste of that rejection once, in the black abyss. I never intend to return.

    I’m an anonymous person who found a website called “Finding Truth” once upon a time because I Googled “Proof of God Through Miracle”. I was looking to find people who had experienced miracles, like me, to discuss and compare notes.

    Well, I only found one, and not here. And his experiences merely confirmed within him everything that he already believed. Because I think about God differently than he does, he doesn’t like to converse much with me.

    Knowledge that there exists at least one invisible being capable of reading my thoughts and manipulating my physical body caused me to go seeking such information as I could about God. God and I spoke about Physics. We didn’t talk about Scripture. So I read lots of Scriptures, of lots of different cultures. They all, including the Bible, seem like legends and myths.

    But I sought out miracles – third party, physical miracles, to corroborate my own and thereby confirm to myself that I’m not simply a madman. There are such miracles. We’ve discussed them on another thread. What those miracles all have in common is that they are Christian, and almost all of them are specifically Catholic. So, there’s my answer: proof by miracle, and there’s the reason why I focused on Catholicism.

    That’s all true. It is about those truths that I would like to have a discussion with William, But I don’t want to do it HERE. The problem with THIS site is that a bunch of ex-Protestants, full of that particular religion’s theories and idols, have rejected religion in general because their own preposterous idolatry failed. But instead of seeking truth without prejudice, they put God to the test by making him not only conform to what is agreeable to them, but also what would be agreeable to their former religion.

    It is very unpleasant for someone like me, who actually has some ANSWERS to some of the questions some of you pose, to come to a place like this and try to have a discussion. People like you MAKE it unpleasant – you don’t want to hear what I have to say. What I have experienced and have to say means that what you believe is totally wrong, and you don’t want to hear that or think about it, so you attack ME.

    I went away from the other thread thanks to a couple of you. The latest thread popped up in my mail, I read it and ventured a comment. But you’re back, rarin’ to go, rarin’ to tear into my character and sanity because I say things that you don’t believe are possible. Therefore, I must be a liar. That is your logic. You don’t realize that you are a profoundly ignorant and stupid man.

    You are ignorant of the things that I know. You don’t know them. You have not experienced miracles. You do not know.

    You are stupid because you think you DO know – that they don’t exist, and that therefore somebody, such as me, who says they do through personal experience, is a liar or crazy. You’re wrong on both counts. I’m telling the truth. And I am not crazy.

    But you’re supremely arrogant and belligerent about it, really “IN MY FACE”, And lost souls who feel the same way flock together and bray insults at me in arrogant, ignorant stupidity when I speak.

    Ignorant, because you don’t know. Stupid, because you think you DO know and because you block your ears and your minds to anything that doesn’t fit your ignorant narrative – like a bunch of atheistic Muslims – and arrogant because you are confident enough in your ignorant stupidity to go attack anybody who says different, like me.

    Even though I know what I am talking about and telling the truth.

    And you wonder why God never talks to you.

    He doesn’t do parlor tricks. He certainly doesn’t do them to convince some MAN that he doesn’t particularly like anyway. He doesn’t like men who abuse his messengers. I gave you no cause to abuse me other than to tell you the truth. You’re exactly like the Jews who killed Jesus, you know: proud, arrogant, stupid, blind and stubborn.

    But you win.

    You win.

    Talking in a forum where people like you hang out is as pleasant as a root canal.

    You win. You’ve shouted me down. I don’t need to put up with abuse for telling the truth.

    You win. Your little Shrek-swamp of ignorance and bigotry is preserved – your very own chasse-gardee, until of course your heart gives out, your spirit leaves your body, your flesh falls to dirt and you go on and find out a truth you’d heard about all along. You can take it up with them. I wasn’t sent to save you. I wasn’t sent at all. I came here to talk. You make it worthless for me to waste my time here.

    You win.

    William…well, he loses. Maybe his mind was open. Maybe he wanted a dialogue about things he has not seen and doesn’t understand. Maybe he wanted to hear something new and think about it.

    You have successfully guarded the gate of “Finding Truth”, to make certain that nobody who might bring a truth that a belligerent idiot like you does not want to hear gets through without getting vomited and shit upon.

    Who needs it? William, maybe. Nate, maybe.

    Not you.

    I certainly don’t.

    And you chose for all of them.

    Now enjoy your echo chamber with your friends.

    And cast execrations at me as I go. It will make you feel better, jackass.

    There, that made ME feel better.

    Now I’m gone.
    I get the last word.

    Rage away. I won’t see it.

    Sorry, William, you might have learned something. Maybe God will send you an angel someday to help you square it away.

    But you’ll never find one HERE, because the gates are guarded against them.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. @Crown

    I have broken my neck and been paralyzed, and healed. I have been grabbed out of the air by God and spoken to. I’ve been pushed into the black abyss and seen a gate of the City of God, far above. I’ve felt the heat of Gehenna beneath my feet. I’ve had the Holy Dove fly into my face and disappear into my head, knocking me down and driving off a visible demon. I’ve had a dead lizard and a dead mouse come back to life in my hands. I have experienced many miracles and visions. That is all true.

    I don’t think anybody doubts your sincerity on this. Unfortunately I can also name sincere bomohs, hindus, taoists, buddhists, muslims and many other religious people that have the same claims as you. Btw, the concept of hell is not a christian/catholic exclusive, neither is miracle claims.

    So yes, you believe in what you saw, they believe in what they saw. So who wins? Your God wins by default, because He say so?

    And seriously, get a grip on yourself, the last post by you sounds like a crazy meltdown. You are better than that, your God demands you to be better than that, the indwelling holy spirit within you enables you to be better than that.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Anyway, doubt that Crown will read this since I do not reply directly from email threads.

    So yes, he can have his last word.

    That being said – anybody doubting his claims of being a lawyer now? I have actual lawyer friends (and please trust me because everything you read on the internet is true) and the barbs that they throw in court is even more scathing than what Ark and Arch can throw.

    I honestly don’t understand the crazy meltdown.

    Then again I’m not a crazy m******f****r that gets upset because people don’t believe in my god and want to argue/debate me – in an atheist blog no less.

    “This is madness.”

    “Madness?”

    “THIS IS RELIGION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    Liked by 1 person

  26. “That’s right, Archaeopteryx, I have broken my neck and been paralyzed, and healed. I have been grabbed out of the air by God and spoken to. I’ve been pushed into the black abyss and seen a gate of the City of God, far above. I’ve felt the heat of Gehenna beneath my feet. I’ve had the Holy Dove fly into my face and disappear into my head, knocking me down and driving off a visible demon. I’ve had a dead lizard and a dead mouse come back to life in my hands. I have experienced many miracles and visions. That is all true.

    And you’re right, you can trust me, not because I’m a lawyer, but because lying is a sin, ”

    I wonder if Crown does full disclosure of these facts to potential clients before he represents them in a court of law ?

    Like

  27. …the barbs that they throw in court is even more scathing than what Ark and Arch can throw.

    Powell, you wound us to the quick. Ark – show him your quick!

    Liked by 2 people

  28. I wonder if Crown does full disclosure of these facts to potential clients before he represents them in a court of law?” – Likely not, KC, just as Brandon doesn’t tell his patients that he’s a batshit crazy porn addict.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Nice guys. Real nice. I wanted to see where he was going with that and you had to do your thing. Arch, you remember when I said on one of Nan’s threads how just once I’d like to log into an Atheist blog and see you guy disagree? This wasn’t it!

    Anyway. let me add something of merit while I’m here. I always viewed the story of Babel as more of a character lesson for us as people. I’ma gonna paraphrase this, KJV says they are unified and look what they have accomplished. If they can do this then they can do anything.

    I always took this as a lesson to look at what we accomplish when we are unified. Nazi Germany came to mind.

    In closing, I’d like to say, you guys suck.

    Like

  30. Powell, RE: “Brandon is a doctor?

    Oh yes, I thought everyone knew – he has bragged that, much like Dr. Frankenstein, he has held a human brain in his hands – his own, I can only presume.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Nice of you to pop in, Hayden, but why do you sound like you got up on the wrong side of the floor?

    Like

  32. Cause YO – MAMA was… Oh wait. Wrong forum…
    I wanted to hear what the kid had to say. You just assumed he was a liar for all of us. So now I’ll NEVER know.

    BTW, I never got to thank you for smoothing things over for me on Zoe’s blog. I do actually appreciate that. I didn’t mean t upset her and when I did I felt it best to just shut up so I couldn’t make it worse. Thank you Arch.

    Like

  33. I tried to explain that you were an acquired taste, to be taken in very small doses.

    I wanted to hear what the kid had to say. You just assumed he was a liar for all of us. So now I’ll NEVER know.

    Are you referring to Crown? There are a number of Nate’s posts that he has rambled on about his “miracles” of having a bird fly into his face and dead rats coming back to life. I’m sure you can find them. Besides, I didn’t tell him to leave, but I’ll admit I did rather enjoy his “Charlie Sheen” imitation.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. if I saw dead things becomes alive again and had a broken neck suddenly healed, I’d likely find that very convincing of whatever it was i thought was doing those things.

    But I’d also understand people’s skepticism if I told them about it.

    prophecies and miracles would be quite compelling – to the people who witness them.

    I was a protestant of sorts, but i wasnt an idolater. I viewed the bible as inerrant, but not because it was my idol, but because it was supposed to be a message from god; the one true, perfect god.

    maybe there is still a god or gods in some fashion, but other than existence (if this is even good evidence) , I haven’t really seen evidence for any – but what i am sure about is that the god of the bible is fictitious and that accounts and stories of miracles are not on the same level as witnessing miracles.

    and sending someone a sign? why not just appear to the person you want to contact and speak to them? why, instead, corporate in some “sign” that could be interpreted a number of ways or even attributed to a number of things? why not just appear to them in a convincing way and say, “I am this specific god, here’s how you can be sure, and here’s what i want you to do…”

    Crown, I think that in order for me to be convinced of your god’s existence, I’d have to see or experience something similar to what it would take for you to believe in Thor or Odin or Zues or Sheva…

    Like

  35. if I saw dead things becomes alive again and had a broken neck suddenly healed, I’d likely find that very convincing of whatever it was i thought was doing those things.

    But I’d also understand people’s skepticism if I told them about it.

    Interestingly, William, I didn’t see anything in there about finding a good therapist.

    Like

  36. neurologist may be a good idea too – just rule out tumors and what have you.

    seeing is believing, hearing is gullible. The wise realize that if you can see shapes in clouds or in wood grain, then you cant always trust what you thought you saw.

    It stands to reason that if there were an all powerful god, that he could raise lizards and mice from the dead, and that he could heal broken necks… but if said creator of all doesnt like some of his creation, then it stands to reason that he his not like a loving father. and if he could prove himself to all of his creation, like he did with crown, but he does not, then it stands to reason that he may be jerk, albeit a divine jerk, if he’ll punish those who dont believe in him.

    Like

  37. I guess I just don’t understand the need for the whole existence/evidence argument. I haven’t been involved in too many debates of that nature as a Christian and even now as a deconvert.

    I left religion because I just couldn’t sike myself out to believe (after being a Christian from three to 39 years old) any longer. I also didn’t want to associate with God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Church and the like after knowing all that I had learned over the years. My sources weren’t from atheists, but Christians, Church, religious literature, prayer and the Bible, as well as watching and listening to the world around me wherever I traveled and resided.

    I wouldn’t call Crown crazy. I had some episodes that I considered to be supernatural. I think this occurs in us even more when we are incredibly “spiritually hungry”. For instance, a few years back (a year before my deconversion) we had a completely new heat and air system installed in our house. In doing so, the guys also installed a couple of extra registers in our master bedroom. At that particular time we had our boys sleep in their rooms while praise and worship music played. I noticed that even when I turned their music off as they got up in the mornings I heard what sounded like “Heavenly sounds” in my bedroom. Obviously, it was just extra noise through the new registers of the A/C flowing into my room. However, I wanted to believe it was a daily angelic visitation I was experiencing.

    I also remember hearing things and seeing things that were horribly scary as a kid. Well, I was physically and mentally abused and suffered extreme neglect. When you couple that with extreme indoctrination through Church, my parents and televangelists of the torture and death of Jesus and the constant reminders and description of hell, what can one expect?

    I wish Crown the best because if he has really experienced such dramatic events he doesn’t need ridicule, he needs love and understanding.

    Like

  38. @William

    I think you hit the nail for me on this one:

    “But I’d also understand people’s skepticism if I told them about it.”

    I mean one hear miracle claims all the time, from many different religions. Hence, it takes a tremendous proud and conceited person to say/think that somehow only his/her miracle is legit, while the rest are all the work of the devil/false/delusions.

    I dunno, maybe because I stay in a decent size city (5+ million) and interact with many different races and religions on a daily basis. Perhaps if I grew up in a smaller town where the only 2 options are Christianity (whatever flavor you may have, maybe multiple) and Atheism, then all the supernatural claims will definitely point to Jesus.

    @Arch

    I dun think Crown was making a Charlie Sheen impression. He said you win, while Charlie Sheen will be saying that he himself won. WINNING.

    @Hayden

    I don’t remember anybody saying Crown was lying. Some were ridiculing him for believing his experiences are supernatural, but not saying that he didn’t experience it. The experience was certainly real for him that we all can agree on.

    In any case, you said you were looking forward to see what Crown has to say, what exactly were you looking for? I thought he has already made his stance rather clear.

    Also, not sure if it’s polite for you to call him “kid”, for all you know he’s as old as Unklee, and being in the 40s doesn’t make you much of an old dog yourself.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. @Powellpowers “I don’t remember anybody saying Crown was lying.”
    Yeah I kinda assumed that one. If Arch had really thought the “Kid” was ill I think he would have been kinder in how he handled that. If for no other reason than to persuade him to get some help. Arch does have a heart. I don;t believe he would want someone with a disorder to harm themselves. Since he instead took the “b-o-y” head-on. I feel it’s safe to ASS – U – Me:) he thought he was a liar. So, I deduced Arch thought Crown was lying because Arch is a decent person.

    “…what exactly were you looking for?” I’m really not sure. It just seemed like he was going somewhere and I was looking forward to asking him some questions at the time.

    “…not sure if it’s polite for you to call him “kid”,” F*&K polite! I’m from Texas!

    “…and being in the 40s doesn’t make you much of an old dog yourself.” You stalkin me?

    Like

  40. If Arch had really thought the “Kid” was ill I think he would have been kinder in how he handled that. If for no other reason than to persuade him to get some help.

    Are you kidding, Hayden? That man has no intention of seeking any kind of help, he thinks he’s right and anyone who doesn’t see that, is automatically wrong. Yes, I will treat anyone with kid gloves who seems to honestly want help or lacks direction and knows it, but Crown wouldn’t have listened to any of us, regardless of what approach we took.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. Hey Arch, Well I meant if you thought he was genuinely bozo bonkers.
    Or are you actually admitting that you are a low down dirty no good… what’s another word for horse manure?

    Like

  42. But I DO think he’s genuinely bonkers, but he has to bottom out before he can ever be helped, and coddling him is only enabling him.

    what’s another word for horse manure?” – Polo – that’s hockey played on horseback, or – are you ready for it? Horse hockey!

    Like

  43. “what’s another word for horse manure?” – Polo – that’s hockey played on horseback, or – are you ready for it? Horse hockey!

    I was NOT ready for it.

    Like

  44. OK. I Looooooved this part! “We as Christians do not want to make our mind more flexible.”

    Yeah. I noticed.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. “So, there were two fundamental commandments given to mankind: reproduce, and fill the land.”

    If Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel (deceased), and Seth were the only human beings on earth, who did Cain and Seth impregnate to “reproduce and fill the land”??

    …sisters not mentioned in the text? …their mother??

    I am on pins and needles to see how conservative Christians explain this little Bible dilemma and still maintain their belief in the objective morality of their perfect god, Yahweh/Jesus.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Hey Gary. They’re gonna say there were other people not mentioned. I forget the excuse they use but something about how A&E were the only ones in the garden or some such.

    Like

  47. Arch that story you linked to reminded me of the fuss in my neck of the woods when some old folks started practicing tai chi to improve their suppleness.

    Like

  48. …something about how A&E were the only ones in the garden or some such.” – So who reported the conversation? Did A or E keep a diary?

    Liked by 1 person

  49. If there were other people on earth, then the whole Garden of Eden story is a load of crap. Either Adam was the first man or he wasn’t. Jesus seemed to believe he was, so Jesus was wrong.

    It is amazing how Christians must twist themselves into pretzels to maintain the credibility (in their minds) of their ancient tall tale.

    Like

  50. Dr. Alice Roberts BBC series consists of five videos, each about an hour long, that traces Mankind’s spread around the globe. I won’t post the others, as it would slow down the blog’s loading time, but all five are fascinating viewing.

    Like

  51. Let me add to this an excerpt from Belgian anthropologist Dr. Jean-Pierre Hallet’s 1973 book, “Pygmy Kitabu – bear in mind that this particular tribe of Pygmy, living secluded lives in the Ituri Forest in Congo, had never seen a white man nor ever heard of the Judeo/Christian creation story:

    The Pygmy first man, paradise and forbidden tree legend

    One fine day in heaven, God told his chief helper to make the first man. The angel of the moon descended. He modeled the first man from earth, wrapped a skin around the earth, poured blood into the skin, and punched holes for the nostrils, eyes, ears and mouth. He made another hole in the first man’s bottom, and put all the organs in his insides. Then he breathed his own vital force into the little earthen statue. He entered into the body. It moved… It sat up… It stood up… It walked. It was Efé, the first man and father of all who came after.

    God said to Efé, “Beget children to people my forest. I shall give them everything they need to be happy. They will never have to work. They will be lords of the earth. They will live forever. There is only one thing I forbid them. Now–listen well–give my words to your children, and tell them to transmit this commandment to every generation. The tahu tree is absolutely forbidden to man. You must never, for any reason, violate this law.”

    Efé obeyed these instructions. He, and his children, never went near the tree. Many years passed. Then God called to Efé, “Come up to heaven. I need your help!” So Efé went up to the sky. After he left, the ancestors lived in accordance with his laws and teachings for a long, long time. Then, one terrible day, a pregnant woman said to her husband, “Darling, I want to eat the fruit of the tahu tree.” He said, “You know that is wrong.” She said, “Why?” He said, “It is against the law.” She said, “That is a silly old law. Which do you care about more–me, or some silly old law?”

    “There it was–the forbidden tree of God. The sinner picked a tahu fruit.”

    They argued and argued. Finally, he gave in. His heart pounded with fear as he sneaked into the deep, deep forest. Closer and closer he came. There it was–the forbidden tree of God. The sinner picked a tahu fruit. He peeled the tahu fruit. He hid the peel under a pile of leaves. Then he returned to camp and gave the fruit to his wife. She tasted it. She urged her husband to taste it. He did. All of the other Pygmies had a bite. Everyone ate the forbidden fruit, and everyone thought that God would never find out.

    Meanwhile, the angel of the moon watched from on high. He rushed a message to his master: “The people have eaten the fruit of the tahu tree!” God was infuriated. “You have disobeyed my orders,” he said to the ancestors. “For this you will die!” (Hallet, 144-5)

    Another version has God creating the man and woman, and placing them in the forest, where they wanted for nothing. However, after the woman gets pregnant, she desperately desires the tahu fruit, and forces the man to pick it for her, much to his objection. Angered, God says:
    You broke your promise to me! And you pulled that poor man into sin! Now I’m going to punish you: both of you will find out what it is to work hard and be sick and die. But you, woman, since you made the trouble first, you will suffer the most. Your babies will hurt you when they come, and you will always have to work for the man you betrayed.” (Hallet, 119)

    Remarkably, the Pygmy origin story largely revolves around a monotheistic God the Father who resides in heaven, as was related to Hallet by Efé elders of the Erengeti region. Hallet lived with this tribe for a year, and concludes, “There is no reason to suspect that the Pygmy ‘Garden of Eden’ story is anything but original, and there is much reason to suggest it may well be the oldest account we possess.

    Liked by 1 person

  52. “So the ENTIRETY of the speculation about man trying to reach God “in heaven” is a fabrication of modern language speakers with modern concepts and traditions. It isn’t actually IN the Scripture itself at all.”

    Crown unfortunately I don’t think this writer has done any research Biblical or otherwise. He’s contrived an answer that suits him while ignoring the very eastern culture of the time he purports to have knowledge of. Its not his first time either but its interesting to see him still at it – doing victory dances of how silly a Bible story is because he ignores/is completely unaware either biblical or cultural context.

    Truth is high places (the higher the better) have a LONG history of pagan worship in those days and in that area. They were a central part of said pagan worship of which Babylon originated quite a bit. They are antithetical to true worship all throughout the OT – Often times even astrological in nature. There is nothing at all about them building a tower to get closer to the true God or to advance technologically (that one was really amusing). This is about their own pride and false worship systems.

    But it is what is is in the rubber stamp club…unfortunately (for nate not I) I see my name in several old posts in a clear breach of our agreement so its fair game to post as I wish as long as it is open….. well….from time to time (2-3 times a year) when I’m bored.

    and don’t mind dear William. he never fails to miss a point he doesn’t want to get. 😉

    Like

  53. “but all five are fascinating viewing.”

    Alas no time. I am too fascinated by more evidence coming out of Archaeology backing a Davidic Monarchy. Your beloved Finkelstein must be going out only at nights these days.

    I see that SaintPaulieGirrrll! has unseated you my dear arch. He is without a doubt my favorite poster. The things he says and the viciousness in nature with sans any real action being taken by Nate proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that Nate’s policies of stifling expression only applies when he is being rebutted.

    Like

  54. Often times even astrological in nature.” – Certainly correct, where do you think the 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples originate, if not from the zodiac?

    This is about their own pride and false worship systems.” – I can’t argue with that either, since all worship systems fall into that category.

    Like

  55. Nate’s policies of stifling expression only applies when he is being rebutted” – Of course I can’t imagine that happening to you, as I’ve yet to see you as capable of rebutting him, or much of anyone else for that matter.

    Like

  56. ” I’ve yet to see ”

    Alas you might have finally found some truth if you had just limited your post to the word’s quoted above

    Like

  57. ““Often times even astrological in nature.” – Certainly correct, where do you think the 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples originate, if not from the zodiac?”

    I know a couple that had 12 offsprings. With your stellar reasoning was that a result of the Zodiac as well? lol

    Thats where 12 tribes came from (do you people ever read?). The twelve disciples are not derived from the zodiac but undeniably from the 12 tribes/sons.

    Like

  58. I know a couple that had 12 offsprings. With your stellar reasoning was that a result of the Zodiac as well?” – No, my stellar reasoning tells me they were to cheap to invest a little into birth control.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. ” No, my stellar reasoning tells me they were to cheap to invest a little into birth control.”

    As the kids sometimes say…… “duh”. Now see if you can strain your brain to figure out what that does to your argument that 12 tribes must have been derived from the zodiac? especially since Birth control would not have been invested in ancient times either.

    Fear not. I have confidence it will go right over your head 😉

    Like

  60. Well, when one takes into consideration that the Jacob/Israel story was written by a bunch of priests in Jerusalem, I doubt that it had anything to do with birth control, and far more with ancient superstitions about the sacredness of certain numbers, such as 7, and let’s not forget 40, of “forty days and forty nights” fame. The 12 signs of the zodiac could quite well have been one of those numbers, since there is no archaeological evidence that Abe, Ike, or Jake ever existed.

    As far as things going over my head is concerned, you must be under the mistaken impression that I’m as low to the ground as you are.

    Like

  61. “Well, when one takes into consideration that the Jacob/Israel story was written by a bunch of priests in Jerusalem,”

    You mean like your beloved Finkelstein had taken into consideration that the davidic monarchy was definitely invented as well….lol

    Just one of the findings since you tried to float that drivel

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141216100433.htm

    “you must be under the mistaken impression that I’m as low to the ground as you are.”

    IF I were that would render you grounded deeply in the dirt which would have some poetic parallel seeing as how your argument the 12 must have been derived from the zodiac was just firmly driven several feet under as well 😉

    Like

  62. Lets see

    Since arch has shown no improvement over the months of my absence let me see…anything else of interest?? well…..not that much interesting but there is this

    “If Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel (deceased), and Seth were the only human beings on earth, who did Cain and Seth impregnate to “reproduce and fill the land”??

    …sisters not mentioned in the text? …their mother??”

    Meh…..not the only options. After all where did Adam get his wife from? Genesis doesn’t cover the issue one way or the other so all options are on the table including they got their wives the same way their father Adam did. No relative need apply. You guys should read a bit more widely. You don’t seem up on things at all.

    Like

  63. Oh, yes. I forgot. God “poofed” Cain and Seth a couple of extra females.

    This is why it is useless to debate these people, Arch. When backed into a corner, they can always pull out the “poofing” card.

    Interesting dilemma, though, this latest poofing explanation. If God created wives for Cain and Seth, did he create them perfect or as sinners? If he created them perfect, why aren’t they still living, as only Adam, Eve, and their descendants were cursed with death? If we look hard enough, will we find two ten thousand year old women hanging out somewhere in the Near East?

    If God created them as sinners and therefore mortal, then these women were condemned to death without the option of executing a free will to choose righteousness. What an evil bastard that would make the Judeo-Christian god, now wouldn’t it? But why do I bother working myself into a psychological lather over these hypothetical questions? Christians will simply call on more poofing to keep this nonsensical ancient tale from dying the quick death that it so deserves.

    Liked by 1 person

  64. Here is something I came across this weekend:

    Muslims believe that several New Testament Bible passages predict the coming of Mohammad. Muslims believe that the reason that Christians do not recognize these Mohammad prophecies in their Bibles is because they are incorrectly interpreting the original Greek! Can you imagine these arrogant Muslims believing that they understand the Christian Bible better than Christians??

    How outrageous! How shocking! How absurd!

    Why…it is almost as absurd as seminary graduates from Christian Bible colleges in Texas and Virginia believing that they understand the messianic prophecies in the ancient Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) better than every Jewish rabbi and sage living on the planet today and every rabbi and sage of the last 2,000 years!

    Like

  65. I am currently reading articles by Jewish rabbis regarding why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah. There is a really good book by a Jewish rabbi entitled, “26 Reasons why Jews Reject Jesus as the Messiah”. One of those reasons is the following:

    Jews have always believed that the true Messiah will be a member of the tribe of Judah and a direct descendant of King David…through his BIRTH FATHER. If the messiah claimant’s father is not a descendant of David, he cannot be the messiah. If the New Testament is true and Jesus was born of a virgin, then he is automatically disqualified from being a messiah candidate.

    Adoption by Joseph would not have solved the problem. His Davidic heritage MUST come from his birth father. And the ancestry of the mother is irrelevant.

    I believe that this one issue sinks all claims for Jesus to have been the Messiah or sinks his claim (if he even made it) of being the Son of God. It’s one or the other (or neither). Christians try to concoct some really wild harmonizatons such as an exception for the children of unmarried women, but according to Jews, this is nonsense…besides it would confirm what Jews have always said: Jesus was a bastard

    Liked by 1 person

  66. “Oh, yes. I forgot. God “poofed” Cain and Seth a couple of extra females.

    This is why it is useless to debate these people, Arch. When backed into a corner, they can always pull out the “poofing” card.”

    I’d ask you to not be silly but I gather you would not or could not comply. Genesis already has a wife being supplied to Adam. Thats part of the narrative you are debating. Thats not an invention to the text thats a part of it’s general context .

    now since I have to first teach you how to debate logically. You can not presume your conclusion as a point against an opposing viewpoint and call it a meaningful point. Its circular. So saying “oh they invoke a supernatural God and I don’t believe in one so they are incoherent ” is just nonsense debating skills.

    In short since God already “poofs” Eve into existence you cannot show an internal inconsistency in a similar situation happening with Adam’s sons. So you are an atheist. so what? Is that a newsflash? get to work showing me how you can have a natural reality that doesn’t have an an ultimate cause and i’ll watch you twist yourself into a pretzel on the subject of the supernatural.

    “Interesting dilemma, though, this latest poofing explanation. If God created wives for Cain and Seth, did he create them perfect or as sinners? If he created them perfect, why aren’t they still living, as only Adam, Eve, and their descendants were cursed with death? ”

    Your dilemmas are in your head and don’t exist in the premise. Apparently I have to teach you about Adam and Eve in the text too. Eve was made from Adam. If Adam had been a sinner then she would have been one as well.

    Nada dillema. IF the wives were made from the sons they would be sinners too.

    See why I have a hard time buying you guys were really Christians? you don’t even have the basics down

    ” But why do I bother working myself into a psychological lather over these hypothetical questions?”

    You bother because you are isolated to little corners like this because most sensible people do not buy the materialistic fairy tale construct that the universe can escape a causeless and therefore supernatural origin.

    I’d gladly debate you on that issue since your comrades have either ran for cover on this subject or in the case of your beloved Nate tried to silence it because he can’t debate on it

    Like

  67. ” Can you imagine these arrogant Muslims believing that they understand the Christian Bible better than Christians??

    How outrageous! How shocking! How absurd!”

    Sorry but the only thing shocking and absurd is your logic . Both the christian scriptures and the Jewish scriptures ( which is really where you wanted to go with this) have been around for close to two thousand years. Its entirely possible that a Muslim that applies himself can understand the NT better than a Christian if he studies it particularly in its original language. Nothing forbids it

    No one alive today can make a claim that because they are or a particular race or persuasion they automatically have a better understanding of an ancient text especially since none of them were alive when it was written. SO despite a preambling beg the issue comes down to the merits of the text and what the text says not what a groups says it says.

    There is no argument from authority based on being Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Like any other kind of point it must be argued on the merits. Anything else is nonsense

    Like

  68. You mean like your beloved Finkelstein had taken into consideration that the davidic monarchy was definitely invented as well….” – As far as I know, he never said that, he simply said that all evidence pointed to it being much smaller and far less all-em=ncompassing than your Bible portrayed it to be.

    How many aliases have you invented since last you were here? Do you get banned from blogs, then invent a new one? It wouldn’t surprise me.

    Like

  69. “Jews have always believed that the true Messiah will be a member of the tribe of Judah and a direct descendant of King David…through his BIRTH FATHER. If the messiah claimant’s father is not a descendant of David, he cannot be the messiah. If the New Testament is true and Jesus was born of a virgin, then he is automatically disqualified from being a messiah candidate.”

    Your previous preamble beg having been defeated this can be dismissed on the same grounds. This is why you begged for race to be a deciding factor as to whom to believe. Unfortunately for you, there being MANY messianic Jews your jews versus Christian argument dies on ALL Accounts. There are many Jews that accept Jesus as the Messiah

    There is no text that states a king must be one only through his birth father. Messiah though must take up the mantle of David. In some cases he is to be so similar to david he is called by his name.

    Who preceded David for David to be king? Guess what it was Saul and Saul was Not David’s father. When God chose David he chose who he wished not a descendant of Saul. The claim a king must always be directly related through a father died the death when David became king and its David that the messiah was to be modelled by. Furthermore the act of taking a man king besides God was considered a rejection of God himself to be their king (I samuel) that had and has to be corrected.

    “I believe that this one issue sinks all claims for Jesus to have been the Messiah”

    You believe a great many things that are nonsense but unfortunate for you David’s monarchy itself proves you wrong

    P.S. You are late. Most of such points have been answered for years even by other JEWS

    He has two more volumes and ummmm you’ll love it …..he’s Jewish.

    Like

  70. Do you ever even listen to yourself and the nonsense you spout, Mike? Or do you just ramble on and hope somebody buys it? Women made from Seth and Cain? Gen 2 being anything but just another creation myth? What has to happen for a person to become that deluded?

    Like

  71. “As far as I know, he never said that”

    Rubbish. He’s scoffed at the idea for years at anyone that suggested a Davidic monarchy was real

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/12/david-and-solomon/draper-text

    and you were harping on his conclusions claiming that any and all finds backing the kingdom of David was for tourist reasons. LOL but given you once tried to claim a mountain was several miles away from where it is today just to save face on another of your claimed biblical inconsistencies gone splat i know you will deny it.

    0 for infinity finding an honest atheist (agnostics I have met a few honest ones)

    Like

  72. ” Women made from Seth and Cain? Gen 2 being anything but just another creation myth? What has to happen for a person to become that deluded?”

    LOL this coming from the guy (and later group) that defended the ideas of Krauss of everything coming out of nothing.

    Women coming from Seth and Cain is so ordinary a starting point when you put everything coming out of nothing don’t you think? (I know ..rhetorical…you don’t).

    The whole anti supernatural thing works only on people who don’t realize you peddle even better fairy tales than the most diehard religious fanatic. BTW Krauss has this great video where he states that its possible in QM that a fully formed human being could appear out of thin air. Whats a little biblical reproduction compared to that?

    You’ll love it. lol

    Like

  73. So Arch, I’ve said this before and I guess I’m going to say it again. WHY ARE YOU TALKING TO MIKE!?

    Like

  74. ” Women made from Seth and Cain? Gen 2 being anything but just another creation myth? What has to happen for a person to become that deluded?”

    He’s still delusional that he can answer my points. You at least have enough sense to know you are incapable of debating substantively on anything.

    Liked by 1 person

  75. Interesting, Mike – I say that Finklestein opted for a hamlet, as opposed to a grandiose city, and what is the subtitle of the article you sent me to: “Was the Kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire—or just a little cow town?” – now why would they refer to a “cow town” if Finklestein had said that a city of David was nonexistent?

    From your same article:
    Israeli archaeologist David Ilan of Hebrew Union College doubts that Mazar has found King David’s palace. ‘My gut tells me this is an eighth- or ninth-century building,’ he says, constructed a hundred years or more after Solomon died in 930 B.C.

    Ilan continues:

    Here would be a second reason to be skeptical of Yossi Garfinkel’s conclusions: He announced them, swiftly and dramatically, despite the fact that he had only four olive pits on which to base his dating, a single inscription of a highly ambiguous nature, and a mere 5 percent of his site excavated. In other words, says archaeologist David Ilan, “Yossi has an agenda—partly ideological, but also personal. He’s a very smart and ambitious guy. Finkelstein’s the big gorilla, and the young bucks think he’s got a monopoly over biblical archaeology. So they want to dethrone him.”

    It consludes with:
    Absent more evidence, we’re left with the decidedly drab tenth-century B.C. biblical world that Finkelstein first proposed in a 1996 paper.

    Maybe you should actually read these all the way through before you offer them as evidence of anything. Your reputation here is far from great as it is. If you read your Bible the same way, I can certainly see why you’re so confused.

    Like

  76. “Apparently I have to teach you about Adam and Eve in the text too. Eve was made from Adam. If Adam had been a sinner then she would have been one as well. Nada dillema. IF the wives were made from the sons they would be sinners too.”

    I am willing to debate anyone…except a moron.

    Compared to this prick, UnkleE is a sweetheart.

    Liked by 1 person

  77. Hey, listen Mikey – I need to hit the rack, and I have to go out of town tomorrow, but you just go ahead and rant, your blitherings will still be here when I get back.

    Oh, and I’ll take Krause’s universe from nothing LONG before I’d even remotely consider your “a little desert storm god named YHWH did it”!

    Like

  78. ” now why would they refer to a “cow town” if Finklestein had said that a city of David was nonexistent?

    Try and keep up Poor arch. I said DAVIDIC MONARCHY not city of David. finkeltsseins claim for years was that no such monarchy as described in the BIble could have existed. I linked to that for this quote you conveniently left out representative of his (and your) position and mocking of the idea —

    “During David’s time, as Finkelstein casts it, Jerusalem was little more than a “hill-country village,” David himself a raggedy upstart akin to Pancho Villa, and his legion of followers more like “500 people with sticks in their hands shouting and cursing and spitting—not the stuff of great armies of chariots described in the text.

    “Of course we’re not looking at the palace of David!” Finkelstein roars at the very mention of Mazar’s discovery. “I mean, come on. I respect her efforts. I like her—very nice lady. But this interpretation is—how to say it?—a bit naive.”

    SO nice try at a switch to “city of David” but what has continued to gain weight is that FInkelstein and YOU were wrong on the monarchy of David.

    Maybe you should read better and ummm consult the recent finds too

    Like

  79. Hayden – remember “The Artist Formerly Known As Prince“? Well, ABlacksmanagain is the basketcase formerly known as Mike. He plagued us with his nonsense and snide, caustic remarks for about a month last year.

    Like

  80. “I am willing to debate anyone…except a moron.”

    NOt true. I sense you have great debates in the mirror with one. 😉

    Like

  81. You know, I kinda enjoy the exchanges between Mike and Arch. I think it’s nice to have Christians throwing insults at atheists similar to how some of us have been insulting Unklee.

    I much rather have this insult match with some arguments in between versus the full meltdown of Crown.

    Like

  82. “Hey, listen Mikey – I need to hit the rack, and I have to go out of town tomorrow, but you just go ahead and rant, your blitherings will still be here when I get back.

    Nah…Nate doesn’t have the guts to continue keeping up strong posts against his position. He usually comes up with some contortion mess of a distinction without merit to absolve himself but the Grrrrrl character can post the most vile of things – mind you I love the kid for exposing Nate’s duplicity. So more power to him. I’m not complaining.

    I’ll be hitting the rack soon myself catch you in another few months….maybe 😉

    “Oh, and I’ll take Krause’s universe from nothing LONG before I’d even remotely consider your “a little desert storm god named YHWH did it”!”

    I do love a confession that i was right so thanks for that. I’m just amused you wrote that as if it was something I would not welcome hearing I have no problem with you accepting the truth of what I said. I already knew you will swallow anything supernatural as long as it not God. So as they say….its all goooood.

    Like

  83. “You know, I kinda enjoy the exchanges between Mike and Arch. I think it’s nice to have Christians throwing insults at atheists similar to how some of us have been insulting Unklee. ”

    Give me a break, Powell. UnkleE has dished out just as much as he has received. I wouldn’t expend too many tears and sniffles for him.

    Like

  84. “. He plagued us ”

    True I did plague you similar like how I just plagued you on Finkelstein, your openness to Kruauss’s supernatural claims and definitely plagued your nonsense that a mention of 12 offsprings must be tied to astrology because you beg for it.

    Like

  85. @Gary

    I agree with you, but I guess it’s a different style? At no point was unklee being rude. You may accuse him of being pretentious/smarmy etc but I would find it hard to call him sarcastic even.

    Liked by 2 people

  86. “Give me a break, Powell. UnkleE has dished out just as much as he has received. I wouldn’t expend too many tears and sniffles for him.”

    We share something in common. I share no tears and sniffles taking your points apart and watching you incapable of answering anything on the issues raised because you had no clue of what you were talking about. I was a little embarassed for you but it passed quickly

    Like

  87. “You know, I kinda enjoy the exchanges between Mike and Arch. I think it’s nice to have Christians throwing insults at atheists similar to how some of us have been insulting Unklee.

    Theres a communication issue that many religious people face now. They have atheists calling them morons and stupid and a lot of time because of their religion they feel they have to be gentle in their response and not point out the stupidity in the other party. i’m sympathetic to their concerns but not pointing them out in return creates an imbalance in message and gives the attackers of religion the sense that our failure to point out their own stupidity means they do not possess a great deal of it.

    Like

  88. @Mike,

    You know the funny thing? There are atheists saying the same thing about christians. I can imagine Ark repeating the same thing word for word.

    Perhaps I just like to see some balance. Makes it easier for true neutral (if that’s even possible) to decide based on facts and less emotions.

    Like

  89. Powell,

    UnkleE isn’t sarcastic???

    Did you read his “Gary Method” rant?

    Whatever.

    Anyway, I would encourage everyone, Christian and skeptic, to read what Jewish rabbis say today and have said for the last 2,000 years about the messianic claim of Jesus. It is very interesting reading. Yes, Christians have a rebuttal to every point, but listen to both sides with an open mind.

    Is it really possible that Jews do not understand their own Scriptures in regards to the qualifications for the Jewish Messiah? They either must be very dense or very stubborn, hard-hearted, and sinful (wicked) people. As a fundamentalist, I was taught the latter about Jews. Maybe this is true, but maybe (and probably) it is a trumped-up excuse by Christians to explain away the fact that only a very small minority of Jews have ever believed Jesus’ messianic claim.

    Like

  90. “You know the funny thing? There are atheists saying the same thing about christians. I can imagine Ark repeating the same thing word for word.”

    That is no doubt true but it is not a central message of christianity, judaism or Muslims that atheist are ignorant, stupid or anti science. Its pretty hard to claim that a central message of new atheism right now is not that religious people are dumb and antiscience. Judging by the message its a KEY message for them

    “Perhaps I just like to see some balance. Makes it easier for true neutral ”

    I don’t think you will very often because to be honest (and not just inflammatory) this blog is more about finding kindred spirits to “rubber stamp” each other and their decisions. Like I have said before its more like a gathering for ex-employees of a company to get together and moan and groan about how the employee (their church or religion) had it all wrong, was really evil should be shut down.

    the last thing that ex employee group wants to hear is that the company is not that bad or worse the company was fine but they were the issue.

    Like

  91. “Is it really possible that Jews do not understand their own Scriptures in regards to the qualifications for the Jewish Messiah? They either must be very dense or very stubborn, hard-hearted, and sinful (wicked) people.”

    You were not even able to answer my points to that last claim but you are back showing you again you do not know what you are talking about. How is it possible for some Jews to be wrong about their own scriptures? how about the simple fact that their own scriptures REPEATEDLY states they were wrong about their understandings of God and the law and umm their scriptures.

    Its like you have never read the prophets of the OT. From Isaiah 1 to Zechariah the message is that the Jews lacked understanding , were sin prone, twisted the law and neglected their law (scriptures).

    That not to say gentiles didn’t or wouldn’t have either but when Jewish inspired texts indicate that being Jewish did not convey superior understanding of God the law or the scriptures claiming that Jews have unquestioned authority interpreting those scriptures that criticize them is total nonsense

    Like

  92. As to whether Jews were stubborn ( but no more so than gentiles I would say) You can start your reading as I said in Isaiah 1. Heres a taste

    Hear me, you heavens! Listen, earth!
    For the Lord has spoken:
    “I reared children and brought them up,
    but they have rebelled against me.
    3 The ox knows its master,
    the donkey its owner’s manger,
    but Israel does not know,
    my people do not understand.”
    4 Woe to the sinful nation,
    a people whose guilt is great,
    a brood of evildoers,
    children given to corruption!
    They have forsaken the Lord;
    they have spurned the Holy One of Israel
    and turned their backs on him.

    Nothing in jewish scriptures backs your claim that being Jewish gives special abilities to understand God or Jewish scriptures.

    Like

  93. @Gary

    To be honest I was shocked when I saw the “gary method”. Not his proudest moment I would say.

    That’s why I did say I agree with you, that Unklee does dish out some himself. Whether he has taken it as much or perhaps more I would say is subjective.

    Regardless, I though the name of the game is whoever gets angry first loses?

    Like

  94. “Regardless, I though the name of the game is whoever gets angry first loses?”

    Oh Sweet! My records not that bad then.:)

    Liked by 1 person

  95. Arch, unless Hayden is over 50, he may not know what those numbers represent. 🙂

    I’m sure Mike on the other hand could explain those into a reason to believe anything in the Bible however.

    Liked by 1 person

  96. this could all be settled very easily. We can even use a method that the bible says god and one of his prophets used.

    We can set up an alter, and each believer can take their turn praying to see whose god lights the alter first. I do not think anyone’s god will do it, though. Perhaps they’re tired or on a trip, but i think it’s because they’re not real.

    Maybe god was angry at those in babel because of their pride… but then why doesn’t he confuse prideful people today? Maybe he changed their languages out of sport and for amusement, or perhaps god just didnt like tall towers (although he’s willing to let them be created today), it’s just that it doesnt seem consistent with the rest of history or present day – but i suppose god can do what god wants.

    the real issue in my mind is that this story isnt given to us by god, but by an author who claims to have divine knowledge. the author just claims… and we’re to buy that? I dont trust him, for reasons that should be obvious. ABlacksmanagain and others may feel like I am wrong in that conclusion, which is fine as i think they are wrong to buy it, but if they were honest (and they may be) then at the very least they could understand my skepticism regarding the accuracy of a story such as this.

    Like

  97. “That’s why I did say I agree with you, that Unklee does dish out some himself. Whether he has taken it as much or perhaps more I would say is subjective.”

    and You’ve stumbled upon why the little group here loves me so. they all know I give out better than they can muster for me to receive

    Exhibit A………

    Like

  98. “I’m sure Mike on the other hand could explain those into a reason to believe anything in the Bible however.”

    being sure on anything implies a sufficient knowledge of any subject that you do not possess. I would see no significance in those numbers but I can’t help but notice that your avatar is still an apparent metaphor for how far knowledge soars above your head.

    🙂

    Like

  99. “Maybe god was angry at those in babel because of their pride… but then why doesn’t he confuse prideful people today”

    You make no point. If you read the text you would see the action was taken for what more they could have done not just for the action already taken. Language and nationality still divide the planet today and at every turn of history. it rather effectively divides many people even in the same country (India is notorious for its disparity in part based on language). So there is no point to be made that God should do again what already is in place.

    “but if they were honest (and they may be) then at the very least they could understand my skepticism regarding the accuracy of a story such as this.”

    and who said they didn’t understand your skepticism. You think that understanding should some how equate to validation. Many of you like to insert yourself into a debate as if anyone really cares what your position is. In a debate its about the issues not whether you are skeptical or in Arch’s case what he will or will not accept.

    The tower of babel is light stuff. Nothing special or remarkably hard to believe. Languages DID diverge. Only a dolt in linguistics can’t see that in even present day languages. You only have your back up at the concept because a text mentioned God had something to do with it. The word “God” has you all jumping about at absurdities but you can’t address the absurdities of materialism explaining ultimate reality.

    Short sighted to the bitter end.

    Liked by 1 person

  100. I’ve never really put much stock into the “universe from nothing” theory. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it just doesn’t seem like the most plausible explanation in my view. I think the eternal multiverse or the eternal oscillating universe theories make more sense. The atheists will cringe, but I would even adopt the eternal conscious mind theory before I would adopt the “universe from nothing” theory. I just don’t see how absolute nothingness could ever produce anything (to be fair I don’t think Lawrence Krauss holds this view – his version of “nothing” still has “something”).

    If nothing creates nothing and something exists, then I think it’s safe to conclude that something has always existed.

    Like

  101. Arch, unless Hayden is over 50, he may not know what those numbers represent.” – He probably thinks I’m describing a girl’s measurements.

    Like

  102. (to be fair I don’t think Lawrence Krauss holds this view – his version of “nothing” still has “something”)” – Yes, Gary, it relates to Quantum Mechanics and the idea that virtual particles are continually popping in and out of existence.

    Like

  103. Hi everyone,

    Just wanted to briefly say that I appreciate all the comments. Sorry I was so out of pocket last week — we took the family to Disney World and had a great time! 🙂 So I’m just now starting to actually read all the comments. I’ll probably chime in again once I’m caught up.

    Thanks!

    Like

  104. ” I just don’t see how absolute nothingness could ever produce anything (to be fair I don’t think Lawrence Krauss holds this view – his version of “nothing” still has “something”). ”

    Only Krauss will not admit it. Instead he plays semantic games with the word nothing which is why its fair game for him to be called out on it as even some atheists have done. Thats not the only problem with the idea. It also a totally unscientific proposition. We have ZERO experimental evidence that QM works outside of spacetime which universally is accepted as something. So to invoke an explanation for the creation of spacetime that is only verifiable with an existent spacetime is balderdash. Finally like many of the new atheist Krauss is oblivious to religious beliefs. Both Judaism and Christianity claims that God creates by law. the existence of quantum laws before any physical reality would be a point for Religious belief not a point against it.

    “If nothing creates nothing and something exists, then I think it’s safe to conclude that something has always existed.”

    It also safe to say that that something does not operate by natural processes since all natural processes have a cause and that something has none. its a nail in the coffin to believing that reality is ultimately based in materialism. Its not a therefore God conclusion but it is a therefore not materialism for anyone who really gets down to thinking about it.

    Like

  105. “Language and nationality still divide the planet today and at every turn of history. it rather effectively divides many people even in the same country” – Ablacksmanagain

    Very true. It’s just that god also seems to later punish and criticize people for being divisive and having a “my nationality is superior to yours” mentality. It just seems to me that an omnipotent god would have to make a lot of effort at being this short sighted. It is one of the things that makes me question the claims of these men who told this story.

    “and who said they didn’t understand your skepticism.” – Ablacksmanagain

    Who said I didn’t think they didn’t understand my skepticism? True, there are some who do not, but rational people do. But those who say things like, “Nothing special or remarkably hard to believe,” seem to have difficulty seeing who such a story requires a lot of trust in supernatural claims to believe.

    “You think that understanding should some how equate to validation. Many of you like to insert yourself into a debate as if anyone really cares what your position is. In a debate its about the issues not whether you are skeptical or in Arch’s case what he will or will not accept.” – Ablacksmanagain

    Doesn’t this work both ways? And I don’t like debates, I much prefer discussions, but I suppose at times the distinction is slight if not moot.

    “Languages DID diverge. Only a dolt in linguistics can’t see that in even present day languages. You only have your back up at the concept because a text mentioned God had something to do with it.” – Ablacksmanagain

    Sure there are different languages. And sure people are divided by those languages and nationalities. I can see that. as you said, a dolt can see that. in some ways this obvious difference in languages may make some curious people ask why that is… and then it’s not hard or remarkable to see how ancient people created a story for their children, and that it was told enough times that people started believing it.

    And the mention of god? Well that is one reason I have a hard time with this. Do you buy every story that says god had something to with it? but also for the reasons that had been presented, like people still make tall towers (much taller today so this event didn’t stop that), nations are still prideful (so this event didn’t change that), people naturally multiple and that multiplication mandates that people move out for more space and resources (so this event didn’t really force that anymore than nature would have). The one thing this story does seem to do, is to give a possible explanation for how and why there are different languages – kind of like a lot on ancient legends, no?

    Like

  106. “The word “God” has you all jumping about at absurdities but you can’t address the absurdities of materialism explaining ultimate reality.” – Ablacksmanagain

    when i was a believer, the only reason i believed this story was because it was in the bible. I suspect that’s the same for you. reading this out of any other book , and you’d scoff it away as absurd – because it is.

    And i dont have to address the absurdities with materialism or anything else when i’m discussing a story in the bible, as they have nothing to do with each other.

    There are much more than 2 possibilities. I am not even sure how you’re using “materialism” nor am i sure what that has to do with the tower of babel. The tower of babel has enough of its own absurdities to contend with.

    the bible being absurd doesnt prove “materialism” nor does “materialism” being absurd prove the bible.

    that’s my take.

    Liked by 1 person

  107. “”Very true. It’s just that god also seems to later punish and criticize people for being divisive and having a “my nationality is superior to yours” mentality.

    Where pray tell? you just clean made that up to get to your shortsighted claim. In the history of scripture there is not a nation that suffers judgment merely on the basis of their feeling superior. Feeling superior AND taking action against israel yes. One gentile nation feeling superior to another by itself….nada

    which is why that argument has nada going for it

    ” and then it’s not hard or remarkable to see how ancient people created a story for their children, and that it was told enough times that people started believing it.”

    the intellectual problem is that you can say that about anything, Give it 500 years and the narrative for some with 9/11 will be that planes crashing into skyscrapers was a story created by people who hated muslims to justify their hatred. They can then say just like you “its not hard or remarkable to see how they created that story for their children”

    Lets face it you determine what is legend and what is real by your supernatural bias chiefly. However like I said you are not capable of defending your materialistic anti supernatural premise when it comes to something so basic as ultimate reality. All of you generally duck and run when that subject comes up but it is key to determining rationally whether a bias against the supernatural has merit or not.

    “And the mention of god? Well that is one reason I have a hard time with this. Do you buy every story that says god had something to with it? but also for the reasons that had been presented, like people still make tall tower…”

    this is your and Nates blunder from not reading the text. the passage is crystal clear that the action was not taken merely on the basis of eliminating pride or for stopping building tall buildings. It says so plainly

    “5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.”

    So it was to thwart and slow down future plans beyond building tall buildings

    how you two and others can miss that the action was to prevent future plans and not merely plans to build tall buildings is testament to this blogs and its participants’ nature of making up strawmen in their heads to claim they knocked down what the Bible never states.

    Have difference in language created different cultures that have kept people from being united? Yes. then mission accomplished.

    Like

  108. “Women coming from Seth and Cain is so ordinary a starting point when you put everything coming out of nothing don’t you think? (I know ..rhetorical…you don’t).” – Ablacksmanagain

    this is confusing me. are you saying that both of these on are on the same level of credibility? I dont know krauss or what he says, but are you saying his position has just as much merit as women being created out of Seth and Cain and vise versa?

    Liked by 1 person

  109. “when i was a believer, the only reason i believed this story was because it was in the bible. I suspect that’s the same for you. reading this out of any other book , and you’d scoff it away as absurd – because it is. ”

    You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t get the sense in anything you have ever written that you have the supernatural powers of mind reading. Quite the contrary you usually make a fool of yourself when you presume to tell me why I believe what I believe. I did not come from a christian family and did no accept stories because they were in the Bible because i had no great allegiance to the Bible before becoming a believer. So stop projecting your own paper thin christian experience to my life and spare us the intellectual dishonesty of telling me what i think and why.

    “And i don’t have to address the absurdities with materialism or anything else when i’m discussing a story in the bible, as they have nothing to do with each other.”

    Like I said you can always run away as you have before but until Nate decides he wishes to change the way he moderates this board (which he will have to do to squelch my voice this time – actions have consequences) you will be called out on the inconsistent underpinnings of what you consider absurd and that IS your bias against the supernatural that can only exist because you dodge the issue.

    “the bible being absurd doesnt prove “materialism” nor does “materialism” being absurd prove the bible.”

    Sorry you make no sense whatsoever. Your definition of absurd is based on the plausibility of there only being the material and not the supernatural. You can dodge and dance all you wish. Absurd is a relative word to your presuppositions so in any debate/discussion with me i will raise the subject and you can either finally answer or babble on why you don’t need to. It won;t change my bringing it up.

    that’s my take.

    Like

  110. “this is confusing me. are you saying that both of these on are on the same level of credibility? I dont know krauss or what he says, but are you saying his position has just as much merit as women being created out of Seth and Cain and vise versa?

    Good night! You bring back memories of the futility of your reasoning and why after a while I ignored your posts.

    Whats there to be confused about? Whats more difficult?

    To start with a human male body and a create a female “clone” (not exactly but for the lack of another word) or to have nothing at all and create everything from it?

    I wait with bated breath your contorted answer.

    TO spell it out – Krauss has less merit by several orders of magnitude

    Like

  111. “you just clean made that up to get to your shortsighted claim. In the history of scripture there is not a nation that suffers judgment merely on the basis of their feeling superior.” – Ablacksmanagain

    I don’t know, I think the story of Jonah is a good example. I think Jesus with the Samaritan woman was another. And of course, paul says that there is neither jew nor greek, as if he’s trying to persuade them to not look at nationality or to be divided by such differences. Obadiah is a good example. In one verse he says rails against edom for the violence they did, but then says that it was their gloating at israel’s misfortune that made them as guilty as those who did it.

    But also, what leads people to commit violence or deeds against another? Does not the feelings of distain and the like?

    “the intellectual problem is that you can say that about anything, Give it 500 years and the narrative for some with 9/11 will be that planes crashing into skyscrapers was a story created by people who hated muslims to justify their hatred. They can then say just like you “its not hard or remarkable to see how they created that story for their children” – Ablacksman

    well these aren’t really the same are they? Even if they don’t have airplanes 500 years in the future, they’ll have airplane wreckage and old airplanes and airplane parts laying around. They’ll likely still have some written accounts of it, of an even that requires nothing miraculous… and they’d have more than one source to help confirm it. But true, they may still find it incredible and may be very skeptical – which is another reason to find this tower of babel story skeptical, as it takes the belief in a supernatural claim, from only one source and no other evidences…. If it’s so easy for people to find a naturally plausible even incredible, then they are much more likely to have a hard time buying one like the tower of babel. Yeah, old fable like stories that come without proof or evidence, from superstitious men who lived in superstitious times, just isn’t the best way to win the confidence of others – and it’s not just me.

    “Lets face it you determine what is legend and what is real by your supernatural bias chiefly. However like I said you are not capable of defending your materialistic anti supernatural premise when it comes to something so basic as ultimate reality. All of you generally duck and run when that subject comes up but it is key to determining rationally whether a bias against the supernatural has merit or not.” – Ablacksman

    LOL, I realy don’t know what you’re talking about. I really don’t mind discussing it, but I’d have to read up on “your materialist anti supernatural premise” in order to discuss it with you. I’m still not sure what it even has to do with the bible or babel.

    “this is your and Nates blunder from not reading the text. the passage is crystal clear that the action was not taken merely on the basis of eliminating pride or for stopping building tall buildings. It says so plainly” – Ablacksmanagain

    I’ve given you the reasons why I don’t think the “Pride” issue made sense (although I agree it’s what the passage is talking about) and why I don’t think it made any change. I think it gave them one more thing to be prideful over if anything else. But then I also addressed other points that I have other believers (not as educated as yourself) believe regarding this story. You’re just not the only one I’m writing to.

    “So it was to thwart and slow down future plans beyond building tall buildings” – Ablacksmanagain

    And what did that accomplish?

    “Have difference in language created different cultures that have kept people from being united? Yes. then mission accomplished.” – Ablacksmanagain

    Because god hates unity?

    Like

  112. So it was to thwart and slow down future plans beyond building tall buildings” – We’ve since been to the moon, how well did that work out for the Big Fig? “The best laid plans of mice and gods –“

    Like

  113. JESUS FAILED TO FULFILL ANY OF THE SIX AUTHENTIC JEWISH MESSIANIC CRITERIA

    INTRODUCTION: The word “messiah”[1] means anointed with oil. All kings,[2] high priests,[3] and prophets [4] in the Jewish Bible are described as “messiahs” because they were all anointed with oil into God’s service. Many Jewish prophets foretold that a particular messiah, the Messiah ben David, would appear and fulfill six major prophecies that will lead the world into a special Messianic Era. These messianic criteria are and have always been universally accepted by the Jewish People. Jesus did not qualify as the Jewish Messiah ben David for the simple reason that he did not fulfill any of these criteria. The Messiah ben David must:

    1. have the correct genealogy by being
    descended from King David and
    King Solomon,

    2. be anointed King of Israel,

    3. return the Jewish People to Israel,

    4. rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem,

    5. bring peace to the world and end all war,

    6. bring knowledge of God to the world.

    THE BIBLE’S MESSIANIC CRITERIA ARE EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE: “Faith” is irrelevant to the Jewish concept of the Messiah ben David, because an individual either fulfills these prophetic criteria or he doesn’t. Christianity requires faith that Jesus is their “messiah” precisely because he didn’t fulfill any of the Jewish messianic criteria. Christianity’s concept of faith in Jesus is therefore a substitute for this defect. It is important to note that the fulfillment of each of the six Jewish messianic criteria is empirically verifiable and therefore no faith is required to determine the identity of the Jewish Messiah ben David. For example, the entire world will be able to observe that the Temple has been rebuilt, the Jews have returned to Israel, the entire world believes in God, and the world is at peace. Virtually none of the Christian messianic “proofs” are empirically verifiable.

    Like

  114. It also safe to say that that something does not operate by natural processes since all natural processes have a cause and that something has none. its a nail in the coffin to believing that reality is ultimately based in materialism

    If the cyclic universe or multiverse theories are being considered then they are said to be eternal. Since they are eternal (without beginning) they do not have a cause, similar to the eternal conscious mind theory. In all of these theories we have an infinite chain of events (mindless processes or conscious thoughts) which may seem impossible, but could still be true. I have yet to see a good argument for dismissing the idea of infinity existing within reality.

    Like

  115. Gary, you know of course that listing of attributes for the anticipated Jewish messiah is exactly what Christians say the so-called “anti-christ” is supposed to present when he arrives to deceive the world.

    Like

  116. THE FIRST MESSIANIC CRITERIA IS GENEALOGY: Of the six primary Jewish messianic criteria, the only one that the Christian Bible claimed for Jesus was genealogy. The Messiah ben David must be Jewish, from the Tribe of Judah, from the seed of King David, and from the seed of King Solomon. (See genealogy chart).

    1.He must be Jewish.[7] One is Jewish if their mother is Jewish.[8]
    2.He must be from the tribe of Judah.[9] Under Jewish law, tribal affiliation is through the birth father only.[10] Since Jesus allegedly had no human father, he had no tribal affiliation. Therefore, Jesus was not from the tribe of Judah and is eliminated from messianic consideration.

    The book of Chronicles in the Jewish Bible lists the genealogy of Abraham through King David plus an additional 29 descendants. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke provide conflicting genealogies for Jesus in an unsuccessful attempt to demonstrate that Jesus fulfilled the messianic criteria of genealogy. These three genealogies are listed, compared, and contrasted on the following page.

    JESUS DID NOT QUALIFY: NOTES TO THE GENEALOGIES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE [11] Matthew and Luke made numerous mistakes in their so-called “genealogies” of Jesus that eliminate him from messianic consideration. The numbers to the left of the text below refer back to the numbers on the genealogy chart on the preceding page:

    (1) He must be from the House of David.

    [12] Matthew 1 and Luke 3 traced Jesus’ lineage through Joseph back to King David. However, the Gospels assert that the “holy spirit” was Jesus’ father (not Joseph).[13] There is no indication in the Gospels that Joseph ever adopted Jesus although under Jewish law certain family and tribal affiliations must be through the birth father and cannot be claimed by adoption.[14] For example, if a Jewish priest, (a Cohen), has a male child, he has the status of a priest by birthright. However, if he adopts a child whose birth father was not a Cohen, the child does not have the status of a priest like his adopted father. Since Joseph was not Jesus’ birth father, there is no evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was from the house of David, which cannot be conferred through adoption under Jewish law. This eliminates Jesus from messianic consideration.

    (2) He must be from the Seed of Solomon[15] According to prophecy, the Messiah ben David must descend through David’s son Solomon. Not only was Solomon a king, he built the first Temple, which has profound messianic implications. Matthew claimed that Jesus descended through Solomon but Luke claimed that Jesus descended through Nathan, David’s other son (who was not a king). This eliminates Jesus’ genealogy through Luke.

    (3) A Fifteen Generation Difference: Luke’s genealogy from David to Jesus is fifteen generations longer than Matthew’s genealogy from David to Jesus. This undermines the Christian claim that the Gospels are the “word of God,” because God certainly knows the genealogy of King David. Some Christians attempt to solve this fatal problem by claiming that Luke’s genealogy is actually that of Mary, although Mary is not mentioned in Luke’s genealogy. Further, this claim is rendered meaningless by the fact that Jewish law only recognizes tribal affiliation through the father.[16] Even if one could consider the genealogy of the mother, if one assumes a generation is at least twenty years, this means that Joseph was at least three hundred years older than his wife (fifteen extra generations times twenty years per generation equals a three hundred year difference in their ages). This gives new meaning to the idea of a “May-December” relationship.

    (4) Who was Jesus’ Grandfather? The two “genealogies” do not agree on the identity of Jesus’ grandfather. According to Matthew, Jesus’ grandfather was Jacob and according to Luke he was Heli. This creates another devastating contradiction, further undermining the credibility of the genealogies given for Jesus by Matthew and Luke.

    PAUL AND THE GENEALOGIES: The apostle Paul was the putative author of the Epistles Titus and Timothy, which subtly address the issue of Jesus’ genealogy:

    •”But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.”(Titus 3:3)
    •”…nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than Godly edification which is in faith.” (1 Timothy 1:4)

    CONCLUSION: The flawed and contradictory genealogies in Luke and Matthew are extremely problematic since genealogy is the only authentic messianic criteria that the Christian Bible claims that Jesus fulfilled. Jesus is eliminated from messianic consideration because of the myriad of errors and problems in both Matthew and Luke’s genealogies.

    Like

  117. I” don’t know, I think the story of Jonah is a good example. I think Jesus with the Samaritan woman was another. And of course, paul says that there is neither jew nor greek, as if he’s trying to persuade them to not look at nationality or to be divided by such differences. Obadiah is a good example. In one verse he says rails against edom for the violence they did, but then says that it was their gloating at israel’s misfortune that made them as guilty as those who did it.”

    You haven’t read much of anything you just wrote. Jonah is a book about sparing a gentile nation because they repented of their many sins not merely because they thought highly of themselves over other nations,Paul is talking about those that have been made one in Christ by believing in him not nations in general and edom was chastised by God for wanting to take over Israel land.

    to put it blunt. You are totally clueless as to every single one of those passages. Please do some reading and come back when you are ready.

    “well these aren’t really the same are they? Even if they don’t have airplanes 500 years in the future, they’ll have airplane wreckage and old airplanes and airplane parts laying around”

    Every generation has believed that their civilization would not fade away. You step ahead a few thousand years like the story of Babel now is and you very well could have nothing but written accounts and video and given that the technology will be way ahead video could be as doctored and created out of pixels as easy as writing accounts was for the time of Babel

    “I’ve given you the reasons why I don’t think the “Pride” issue made sense (although I agree it’s what the passage is talking about) and why I don’t think it made any change”

    sigh we don’t agree. Please go and do some reading and you will see I do not just point at pride. High places were used primarily for pagan worship. You cannot leave that out of the context. Would God be displeased that they were building high places to worship other Gods? yes and it makes total sense that he would not be pleased with it.

    I’m sorry but you really haven’t changed. You don’t know what you are talking about, don’t understand the issues and don’t even read what it is that you claim I am agreeing with you on. too much of a waste of time for me…sorry will start ignoring your posts again.

    Like

  118. Nan,

    Evangelicals and fundamentalists will not be around to worry about the Anti-Christ. Remember, they have been raptured by that time.

    Like

  119. True enough, Gary. I just find it “interesting” that Christians can screw around and manipulate scripture to create their own stories (similar to what the bible writers did).

    Like

  120. “. Jesus did not qualify as the Jewish Messiah ben David for the simple reason that he did not fulfill any of these criteria. The Messiah ben David must:

    1. have the correct genealogy by being
    descended from King David and
    King Solomon,

    2. be anointed King of Israel,

    3. return the Jewish People to Israel,

    4. rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem,

    5. bring peace to the world and end all war,

    6. bring knowledge of God to the world.”

    Lol….IF i were you i would have left out messiah ben Joseph too because it completely destroys your concept that more than one advent of messiah was invented by Christians. If its your first time hearing the term Messiah ben Joseph…..google awaits.

    What every antimissionary Jew leaves out of the qualifications is the most repeated and clear one

    That the gentiles would receive and trust him (Isiaih 11)

    and they have absolutely no coherent explanation whatsoever for how eternal righteousness was brought (something only the messiah can do) in before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as required by daniel 9. Sorry but Jesus totally fulfills the requirement of messiah to bring in eternal righteousness end the sacrifice etc before AD70 and he is trusted and accepted by the gentiles. Isiah 11 is explicit that when the messiah does gather the Jews to Israel it will also be with gentiles who already have put their trust in him . In order to do that he obviously must be known to him before he is anointed and rebuilds the temple

    Please go do some studying beyond talking points and make this a real debate. Right now you are just reading points and have no grasp of the material

    P.s. if not for christianity the world would seldom know of the torah so your number 6 has been totally fullfilled by Yeshua.

    Like

  121. The discrepancies in the genealogies of Jesus are interesting. I had never realized the issue of there being a fifteen generation difference between the two accounts. As the author above says, if you assign 20 years to a generation, that would mean that Joseph was at least 300 years older than Mary! That gives new meaning to the term, “robbing the cradle”!

    Can you imagine the reaction of the keeper of the inn in Bethlehem when a 300 year old geezer shows up with a young virgin. No wonder he didn’t give them a room!

    Like

  122. Early on, Peter linked to this article, which gives a much fuller treatment of the story than I did. I highly recommend it, especially in light of some of Mike’s comments.

    Mike, I’m not quite clear on how you view this story. Are you saying that the people were being punished for pride, even though that’s not stated in the account? The passage itself says that God dispersed them to prevent them from accomplishing great things. Seeing as they were still at the “tower-building” level, what great things do you suppose God was worried about that haven’t been done since? Were they going to skip straight to faster-than-light travel, or something?

    And as a side note, is there a particular chronology you hold to for things like the Flood? Because historical and archaeological evidence already provide other problems for the typical Bible chronology of the Flood and tower of Babel. We know that other cultures (and languages) existed long before the Flood is typically claimed to have happened, which means they would have existed before the tower of Babel too…

    Like

  123. Yeah Gary, the genealogies are very problematic. Almost more confusing than the discrepancies are the couple of names that Matthew and Luke have in common. Very hard to get your head around how that could be possible…

    And one of the things that always got me was Matthew’s attempt at fitting the genealogy into these divisions of 14, 14, and 14, but he has to eliminate some names to make them fit. By far the most likely explanation is that Matthew and Luke were working off two different sources for the genealogy. They were never intended to fit together.

    Like

  124. THE SIXTH MESSIANIC CRITERIA IS THAT HE WILL BRING KNOWLEDGE OF GOD TO THE WORLD. Jesus did not bring knowledge of the Jewish God to the world. The Christian Bible directly contradicts the Jewish definition of God and directly contradicts all fundamental Jewish teachings about God. Most of the world still does not know God. Ironically, whenever a Christian missionary proselytizes a non-believer he proves that the Messiah ben David has not yet come. His act of proselytizing is a graphic demonstration that the world is not yet filled with knowledge of God.

    ISAIAH: “They will neither injure nor destroy in all of My sacred mountain; for the earth will be as filled with knowledge of Hashem as water covering the sea bed.” (Isaiah 11:9)

    ISAIAH: “The glory of Hashem will be revealed, and all flesh together will see that the mouth of Hashem has spoken.” (Isaiah 40:5)

    ZEPHANIAH: “For then I will change the nations [to speak] a pure language, so that they all will proclaim the Name of Hashem, to worship Him with a united resolve.” (Zephaniah 3:9)

    JEREMIAH: “They will no longer teach – each man his fellow, each man his brother-saying, “Know Hashem! For all of them will know Me, from their smallest to their greatest – the word of Hashem – when I will forgive their iniquity and will no longer recall their sin.” (Jeremiah 31:33)

    CONCLUSION: Jesus failed to bring knowledge of God to the world and is therefore eliminated from messianic consideration. The Messiah ben David by definition is the man who fulfills the six authentic messianic criteria discussed above. The Christian idea of “belief or faith” in this messiah or in his identity is never mentioned in the Jewish Bible because it is irrelevant. In Jewish terms, failure to fulfill even one of the messianic criteria is conclusive proof that individual is not the Messiah ben David. Therefore, when Jesus died without fulfilling any of the six messianic criteria, this was conclusive proof that he was not the Messiah ben David.

    THERE IS NO “SECOND COMING” CONCEPT IN THE JEWISH BIBLE: Missionaries respond with their “second coming” theory, which asserts that Jesus will accomplish everything when he comes “next time.” There are two major problems with this Christian answer. First, the second coming theory has no scriptural basis in the Jewish Bible. In fact, scripture states that when a person dies, “on that day his plans all perish.”[30] Therefore, according to scripture, when Jesus died, his plans ended. Second, the second coming theory can apply to any person who has ever lived and therefore is totally meaningless. For example, one can claim that their Gentile grandmother was the messiah. When challenged that she didn’t accomplish anything, one can say that when she “comes back” she will be born a Jewish man with the correct genealogy and will accomplish everything!

    Gary: That is a great point. If Christians can pull the “Jesus is coming back to fulfill all the prophecies” card to make up for Jesus’ failure to fulfill even one of the six cardinal messianic prophecies, then I (or anyone else on the planet) can say that when I die I will come back to fulfill all the prophecies, and there is no way, my Christian friends, that you can prove I will not. Any excuse you give such as, “Well, you aren’t descended from King David” can be explained away with “poofing”: God will “poof” me the Davidic DNA! And, voila! I am the descendant of the King of David and therefore a candidate for the Jewish messiah!

    I dare you to prove me and my magic “poofing” card wrong!

    Like

  125. “[12] Matthew 1 and Luke 3 traced Jesus’ lineage through Joseph back to King David. However, the Gospels assert that the “holy spirit” was Jesus’ father (not Joseph).[13] There is no indication in the Gospels that Joseph ever adopted Jesus although under Jewish law certain family and tribal affiliations must be through the birth father and cannot be claimed by adoption.[14] For example, if a Jewish priest, (a Cohen), has a male child, he has the status of a priest by birthright. However, if he adopts a child whose birth father was not a Cohen, the child does not have the status of a priest like his adopted father. Since Joseph was not Jesus’ birth father, there is no evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was from the house of David, which cannot be conferred through adoption under Jewish law. This eliminates Jesus from messianic consideration.”

    Yawn….The NT does not claim that Yeshua is a priest after the order of Cohen but after the order of Melchisdek so the Cohen has no application, Citing Cohen as application to king’s line shows you don’t know what you are talking about beside parroting what you have heard. Further the messianic prophecies make no claim that Messiah must be anything but the descendant of David. Mary qualifies as royal line. Again David himself was not anointed through being a king’s son which no matter how you ignore and refuse to engage the point destroys your premise that a king must be descended from another king. David’s father was Jesse.

    Please go crack a Bible open. Saul was the king before David and was not his father therefore any rule that claims an anointed king must be the son of an anointed king is not a biblical rule since the Bible very clearly indicates David had no such father.

    about 90% of your argument just went splash down the drain

    ” Some Christians attempt to solve this fatal problem by claiming that Luke’s genealogy is actually that of Mary, although Mary is not mentioned in Luke’s genealogy.’

    There have been numerous explanations but nothing can be concluded for certain either way. Unfortunately the practice of naming children after other people in the family even generations later makes it almost impossible to tell.

    You see this all through middle eastern history and it can get quite confusing but was the convention of the time even outside of the bible. People reused names like water and sometimes even with kings it got confusing because you could have say a King name harry son of John for example destroying a city and a king being defeated by men of the same city in another narrative who was Harry son of John. two different people one name.

    At any rate there is no fatal problem. You merely want it to be. Yeshua being descended from Mary is enough because there is no rule in the bible that a king must be descended from another king directly. If so David himself who messiah was to be descended from could not be a king either.

    that continues to be the undeniable fatal flaw in your argument.

    Like

  126. “You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t get the sense in anything you have ever written that you have the supernatural powers of mind reading. Quite the contrary you usually make a fool of yourself when you presume to tell me why I believe what I believe. I did not come from a christian family and did no accept stories because they were in the Bible because i had no great allegiance to the Bible before becoming a believer. So stop projecting your own paper thin christian experience to my life and spare us the intellectual dishonesty of telling me what i think and why.” – ABlacksman

    but, Mike, I didn’t say I knew that is what you thought. I was merely sharing what I suspected was the case. A lot of people, not just myself, form ideas about other people based on experiences with them.

    do not fret, i am aware that such suspicions are not always correct. However, i was letting you know my assumption so that you could clarify in case my assumption was incorrect.

    so, besides the presence of different languages today, why do you think the story of the tower of babel is true, if your belief has nothing to do with the bible itself? does this have more to do with the “Materialism” you’ve mentioned a few times?

    “Like I said you can always run away as you have before but until Nate decides he wishes to change the way he moderates this board (which he will have to do to squelch my voice this time – actions have consequences) you will be called out on the inconsistent underpinnings of what you consider absurd and that IS your bias against the supernatural that can only exist because you dodge the issue.” – ABlacksmanagain

    I dont think I’ve dodged anything. I’m happy to discuss whatever you like, it’s just that i dint know what you’re talking about or how it relates to the tower of babel. If you can recommend some reading material I will try to accommodate.

    “the bible being absurd doesnt prove “materialism” nor does “materialism” being absurd prove the bible.” – me

    “Sorry you make no sense whatsoever. Your definition of absurd is based on the plausibility of there only being the material and not the supernatural. You can dodge and dance all you wish. Absurd is a relative word to your presuppositions so in any debate/discussion with me i will raise the subject and you can either finally answer or babble on why you don’t need to. It won;t change my bringing it up.” – ABlacksman

    I wasnt calling either absurd in the quote of mine you listed, jut trying to point out that even if both were absurd or not, does nothing to further or harm the other subject – as they don’t rely on each other. or did you mean to reply to different quote?

    Like

  127. “Whats there to be confused about? Whats more difficult?” – ABlacksman

    it was the way you worded it. and again, i dont know who krauss is or what he thinks – I’ll google him later.

    I think you’ve clarified for me though, thanks.

    Clones do make much more sense that spontaneous creation or existence from nothing.

    Like

  128. “THE SIXTH MESSIANIC CRITERIA IS THAT HE WILL BRING KNOWLEDGE OF GOD TO THE WORLD. Jesus did not bring knowledge of the Jewish God to the world. The Christian Bible directly contradicts the Jewish definition of God and directly contradicts all fundamental Jewish teachings about God. Most of the world still does not know God. ”

    begging bread does not make for a solid argument. its nothing more than rhetoric It is undeniable that without Christianity the torah ten commandments for example would not be known world over. It was Christian missionaries that bought it to the world.

    You could perhaps make the argument that the concept of a trinity is not biblical and I would agree since the word no where appears even in the NT but besides that Christianiy violates no knowledge of the Hebrew God.

    Not that I have not heard the argument. its just never stood well in a debate with me but you are open to try. I have debated the issue with Rabbis and they were unable to answer several points I raise in such debates

    “ISAIAH: “They will neither injure nor destroy in all of My sacred mountain; for the earth will be as filled with knowledge of Hashem as water covering the sea bed.” (Isaiah 11:9)”

    🙂 perhaps you should have started with another passage because a full view of the passage weakens your case vastly.

    Here is the more fuller passage.

    9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

    10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

    11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

    12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

    13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

    14 But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.

    now common sense and clear reading indicates clear progressions in the text . First before there can be peace and righteousness vs 11 must take place and jews must be gathered back a second time vs 14 indicates a retaking of land and a conquest but what does vs 10 say ?

    well there must be an Ensign who is a root of jesse to which the people including gentiles see as a banner to be gathered to. So as this and another Isaiah passage indicates the essiah will gather more than just jews. That is the gentiles must be aware of him before he fulfills other conditions

    Its rather fatal to your argument that Messiah must fulfill all conditions before he is messiah if the gentiles are already aware of him and accept him before he does.

    Quite fatal.

    “THERE IS NO “SECOND COMING” CONCEPT IN THE JEWISH BIBLE:”

    you can stick your head in the sand all you wish.Outside of christian sources multiple rabbis have seen enough in the Bible that they have written about multiple messiahs including the Messiah ben Joseph that I just informed you of.

    Messiah ben joseph was specifically written about because of passages in Zechariah that indicates a role for a dying saviour of the country (me who they have pierced) and because the most sensible reading of Isaiah (particularly the dead sea Isaiah scroll ) indicates such as well.

    Like

  129. The problem with Luke’s genealogy is that it has Mary being a descendant of David’s son, Nathan. Even if tribal affiliation could be passed down from the mother (which it cannot!) Mary is disqualified (and therefore Jesus is disqualified) because Mary was not a descendant of Solomon, as the prophecy mandates.

    So Jesus strikes out again.

    Like

  130. “You haven’t read much of anything you just wrote. Jonah is a book about sparing a gentile nation because they repented of their many sins not merely because they thought highly of themselves over other nations,Paul is talking about those that have been made one in Christ by believing in him not nations in general and edom was chastised by God for wanting to take over Israel land.” – Ablacksman

    Sorry, the mistake is mine. I assumed that since you were a theologian that some parts would go without spelling out. Jonah is a s you say, but he despised the gentile nation and the book concludes with god chastising jonah for has racism, reminding him that god created them and loves them too. It’s really a decent story with nice moral at the end.

    You’re also right about paul, except that paul was admonishing them to overcome a bias that was instilled in them at the tower of babel – an obvious consequence of god’s wanting to divide the people, is that they’d be divided.

    And Obediah was criticizing the edomites because they took joy in Israel’s despair and yes, they wanted to loot the Israelite land… land god was removing them from because of their disobedience. But even if they did “do something” – they only did it because of their national and language differences. Differences that were supposedly made by god. But, at least creating new languages made pride go away…

    “Every generation has believed that their civilization would not fade away. You step ahead a few thousand years like the story of Babel now is and you very well could have nothing but written accounts and video and given that the technology will be way ahead video could be as doctored and created out of pixels as easy as writing accounts was for the time of Babel” – Ablacksmanagain

    Again, we’re talking about different things. I like history and much of it seems plausible. Sure, some of the bigger parts, and I even mean the parts that don’t require any supernatural belief, of events in battles and what have you, I take with a grain of salt – but even so, there are many accounts I think happened as described – because there’s evidence and/or they’re not hard for me to imagine happening.

    Certain stories seem just like stories, either too convenient, or just too grand in scale or from questionable sources. I just don’t believe everything I hear or read and I don’t think you should either.

    “sigh we don’t agree. Please go and do some reading and you will see I do not just point at pride. High places were used primarily for pagan worship. You cannot leave that out of the context. Would God be displeased that they were building high places to worship other Gods? yes and it makes total sense that he would not be pleased with it.” – Ablacksman

    We do not. Where does genesis or anywhere else in the bible say that god was afraid they’d use the tower for pagan worship? And, did stopping them from building the tower stop pagan worship? No. so certainly a better god would have done something that actually brought about the end he desired.

    “I’m sorry but you really haven’t changed. You don’t know what you are talking about, don’t understand the issues and don’t even read what it is that you claim I am agreeing with you on. too much of a waste of time for me…sorry will start ignoring your posts again.” – Ablacksmanagain

    Does this mean you’re leaving? Regarding the bible, I know a fair amount, but wouldn’t claim to be a scholar. Some of the materialism and krauss stuff you’ve brought up, I have acknowledged I know nothing about, nor why or how it even relates to these bible stories. But I will also suggest that pots shouldn’t call kettles black.

    Like

  131. There is one Christian blogger who has an answer to the above problem: ALL Jews are descendants of King David, therefore Jesus qualifies!

    That is like saying that all Englishmen are descended from King James.

    What a moron.

    Like

  132. “And one of the things that always got me was Matthew’s attempt at fitting the genealogy into these divisions of 14, 14, and 14, but he has to eliminate some names to make them fit.” – nate

    and count david twice.

    but i’m not a mathematician nor am i an aramaic or greek scholar, so i cant really be sure what they’re saying at all.

    Like

  133. Isaiah also said that a young woman would have child and lo and behold, a young woman had a child in Isaiah 8.

    I mean, so, he wasnt really wrong.

    Like

  134. “Mike, I’m not quite clear on how you view this story. Are you saying that the people were being punished for pride, even though that’s not stated in the account? The passage itself says that God dispersed them to prevent them from accomplishing great things. Seeing as they were still at the “tower-building” level, what great things do you suppose God was worried about that haven’t been done since? Were they going to skip straight to faster-than-light travel, or something?”

    Try not to be silly Nate. Your God was trying to prevent them for technological advances theory has no weight much less faster than light cracks. My point is simple but I will spell it out again for you. many times the purpose of building high places in mideast culture of the time was for the purpose of astrological and other pagan based worship. we have nothing in this text that violates that context and purpose. In fact it can be argued this was the chief reason for building many such structures (no shortage of space like in New york).

    This concept of high places for pagan worship is seen over and over in the Old testament and has nothing to do with just mere aversion God had to them building high structures. It had to do with connection to the pagan worship You merely assume into the text that the purpose of building the tower was merely for its height when it states

    “whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name,”

    However given that we know that such structures attracted people to pagan worship it is just as likely the name they would get would be from having such a tall structure for that purpose. Sure the text does not state it was their arrogance but that doesn’t stop you from claiming that it was to stop them from developing technology which is nowhere in the text either and the historical purpose of such structures is much more historically attested to than your theory.

    Like

  135. “Jonah is a s you say, but he despised the gentile nation and the book concludes with god chastising jonah for has racism, reminding him that god created them and loves them too.”

    Oh what drivel. Jonah is upset that their sins are to be forgiven. He wants them to pay for their sins. Making the story all about racism is just too silly. I am sorry I just can’t read anything more you write. Please continue with any foolishness that comes to your mind. Feel free to swear you understand the texts when it is clear you have not even read them closely

    Like

  136. William,

    It is amazing that if one simply looks at the OT “Jesus as messiah” prophecies you see how blatantly contrived they are. I think Matthew (where most of these alleged prophecies are proclaimed) went scouring the OT and concocted tales about Jesus to try and fit the prophecies to legitimize Jesus fraudulent claim as the messiah.

    It is as plain as the nose on your face if anyone takes the time to read the entire “Virgin Birth” chapter in Isaiah that the prophecy was to occur at that time, not three hundred years later during Jesus’ time AND the Hebrew word “alma” simply means “young woman”, not virgin.

    And the “Suffering Servant” chapter in Isaiah can easily be shown to be the Hebrew god’s servant, “Israel”, a term used throughout the OT to refer collectively to the Jewish people. One only has to read the chapters preceding this chapter to see who exactly the “suffering servant” is.

    Talk about Cherry Picking verses! Shame on you, Matthew!

    Remember, folks, Matthew is the only gospel author who mentions guards at the tomb and dead people roaming the streets of Jerusalem the day of Jesus’ resurrection. It is also Matthew who is the first of the gospel writers to propose the virgin birth and the trip to Bethlehem to validate the “Davidic messiah” false claim. Luke then came along and simply bought Matthew’s tall tales hook, line, and sinker, since Luke states as fact that he was not an eyewitness and simply retold the stories of those who supposedly were.

    If any believes that Matthew was an eyewitness to a virgin birth and to zombies roaming the streets of a major city, I’ve got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

    Liked by 1 person

  137. “The problem with Luke’s genealogy is that it has Mary being a descendant of David’s son, Nathan. Even if tribal affiliation could be passed down from the mother (which it cannot!) Mary is disqualified (and therefore Jesus is disqualified) because Mary was not a descendant of Solomon, as the prophecy mandates.”

    Gary why don’t you put up the passages that promise A messiah through Solomon. lol because I am getting a sense you don’t have a clue what they are.

    Like

  138. “Jonah is upset that their sins are to be forgiven.” – ABlacksman

    oh, and why would that be? because he has a bias against them? I never said that racism was all there was to it, no do i think that’s all there was to it, but it was there. It’s obviously there in the OT and NT. I really dont understand why you’re acting as if it’s absurd.

    I am quite familiar with the passages. I’ve always said that I do not have a perfect understanding of them – but it looks like you an i are in good company there.

    Like

  139. “This concept of high places for pagan worship is seen over and over in the Old testament and has nothing to do with just mere aversion God had to them building high structures. It had to do with connection to the pagan worship You merely assume into the text that the purpose of building the tower was merely for its height when it states” – ABlacksman

    isnt this pure conjecture? it seems like you’re discounting what the text says, but then adding something that isnt there, and then proclaiming it to be so obvious.

    …and perhaps it is. what passage do you get the notion that god confused the languages at babel to prevent pagan worship on their tower?

    this is really an aside, but have you ever wondered by there so many many pagan and idol worshipers that time… at a time where the real god was active in the lives in men… they had all this miraculous evidence and divine intervention, yet those instead believed in statues and trees more than this god…

    it seems to me that perhaps this points to embellishments in the bible god’s deeds and power…. seeing as how people were so much confused as to think statues, rocks and trees were just as powerful as the hebrew god.

    granted, this aslo somewhat conjecture – but it doesnt take belief in anything that looks invisible or imaginary to accept.

    Like

  140. Try not to be silly Nate. Your ‘God was trying to prevent them for technological advances theory’ has no weight much less ‘faster than light’ cracks. My point is simple but I will spell it out again for you. many times the purpose of building high places in mideast culture of the time was for the purpose of astrological and other pagan based worship. we have nothing in this text that violates that context and purpose. In fact it can be argued this was the chief reason for building many such structures (no shortage of space like in New york).

    This concept of high places for pagan worship is seen over and over in the Old testament and has nothing to do with just mere aversion God had to them building high structures. It had to do with connection to the pagan worship You merely assume into the text that the purpose of building the tower was merely for its height when it states

    “whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name,”

    However given that we know that such structures attracted people to pagan worship it is just as likely the name they would get would be from having such a tall structure for that purpose. Sure the text does not state it was their arrogance but that doesn’t stop you from claiming that it was to stop them from developing technology which is nowhere in the text either and the historical purpose of such structures is much more historically attested to than your theory.
    — ABlacksman


    And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.
    — Genesis 11:6-8

    Mike, your assertion about paganism just isn’t supported here. Furthermore, as William pointed out, this certainly didn’t stop paganism. In fact, one could argue that it only exacerbated it, since different deities and religions were tied to different cultures. There’s nothing in Genesis to indicate that people had even moved away from worshiping the “one true god” yet, since this was so soon after the flood. Keeping everyone in one culture with Noah as its common ancestor could probably have helped keep people away from paganism longer.

    Like

  141. discussions on the genealogies in Matthew and Luke seem pointless to me. they’re obviously different when they should match if both were accurate.

    and any excuse or attempted explanation at defending them is based only on contrived imaginations based on the presupposition that “they must be true since they’re both in the bible.”

    they obviously do not match. they are obviously a problem. and any contradiction can be explained away in the way this issue is.

    nothing of note in support of them. If you’re gonna imagine the “fix” then the only limit is the imagination.

    Like

  142. Dear Rabbi,

    I read that the Messiah will not only be a descendant of King David, but also of his son Solomon. What is the source for this?

    Answer:

    Let’s start with King David.

    Various verses throughout Scripture clearly state that the Messiah, known in Hebrew as the Moshiach, will be a descendant of the house of David:

    And a shoot shall spring forth from the stem of Jesse [David’s father], and a twig shall sprout from his roots. (Isaiah 11:1)

    Behold, days are coming, says the L‑rd, when I will set up of David a righteous shoot, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and he shall perform judgment and righteousness in the land. In his days, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is his name that he shall be called, The L‑rd is our righteousness. (Jeremiah 23:5–6)

    The reason that the Moshiach (Hebrew for “Messiah”) will be a descendant of King David is because, once David was anointed king by the prophet Samuel, he acquired the kingship for himself and his descendants forever. The verse thus states (II Samuel 7:16), “Your throne shall be established forever.” This acquisition was conditional, applying only to his righteous descendants, as the verse in Psalms states (132:12), “If your children will keep My covenant . . . their children shall also sit on your throne forever.”

    Nevertheless, G‑d assured David that the monarchy would not be taken from his descendants forever:

    If his children will forsake My Torah and cease walking in My statutes . . . I will punish their transgressions with the rod, and their sins with plagues. Nevertheless, I will not utterly remove My grace from him . . . His throne shall be . . . established forever. (Psalms 89:31–38)1

    While this promise seems to be made about all of David’s offspring, we find that G‑d singles out King Solomon (I Chronicles 22:9–10):

    Behold, a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace, and I shall give him peace (shalom) from all his enemies around about, for Solomon (Shlomo) will be his name, and I shall give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house in My name, and he shall be to Me as a son, and I to him as a father, and I shall prepare the throne of his kingdom forever.

    And later on, David states:

    And of all my sons—for the L‑rd gave me many sons—He chose my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the L‑rd over Israel . . . (Ibid. 28:5)

    When King David reaffirms that Solomon will reign after him, he is saluted with the expression, “Let my lord King David live forever” (I Kings 1:31),2 indicating that the eternal monarchy continues through Solomon.

    Liked by 1 person

  143. “It is as plain as the nose on your face if anyone takes the time to read the entire “Virgin Birth” chapter in Isaiah that the prophecy was to occur at that time, not three hundred years later during Jesus’ time AND the Hebrew word “alma” simply means “young woman”, not virgin.”

    The Hebrew word is used most often to denote a virgin for the simple reason that young unmarried women were expected to be virgins. so the argument that has been thrashed about needlessly is inconsequential because

    A) an unmarried alma would be a virgin culturally at that time
    b) a woman giving birth after being with a man is hardly a heavenly sign as Isaiah indicated.
    C) The king turned down the offer of a miracle for the time and the promise was made to the house of david bit the king himself

    Matthew is on the money on those points. sorry. There are some issues with who is being referred to as to the then current situation but those are better answered by the presence of a young child that God requires to be present for the prophecy.

    “And the “Suffering Servant” chapter in Isaiah can easily be shown to be the Hebrew god’s servant, “Israel”, a term used throughout the OT to refer collectively to the Jewish people. One only has to read the chapters preceding this chapter to see who exactly the “suffering servant” is.”

    The word servant is used of different people at different times in Isaiah. You would know that if you actually read it. Its actually quite impossible for Jews to be the servant in Isaiah 53

    A) the suffering the servant experiences heals the nations while the OT clearly teaches that suffering of Israel is the cause for judgement against the nations not healing of it

    B) Isiah 53 takes issue with the servant suffering for his own sins but rather says he bore the sins of others. Again the OT and Isaiah himself teaches that Jews did suffer for their own sins not the sins of others. So jews are disqualified

    C)the servant in isaiah 53 is said to have done no violence and had no guile but isaiah himself and other prophets indicts israel for their violence and sin

    those are just three things of like seven in Isaiah 53 that totally disqualify Israel from being the servant spoken of.

    Matthew is on the money again.

    “dead people roaming the streets of Jerusalem the day of Jesus’ resurrection.”

    Matthew has no such passage because dead people do not roam even in Matthew. You have watched too much “walking Dead” episodes ;). what Matthew has is people who would be almost entirely unnoticed except by loved ones because they were very much alive and of course clothed although they had been dead. No zombie nonsense like you claim. These would be people who looked like anyone else on the street. lay off the TV watching. Your only issue is you don;t believe the resurrection story but seeing as how All the gospels have at least one person raising from the dead Matthews account is no zombie experience

    Like

  144. Both Titus and Timothy are widely accepted as forgeries, not written by the anonymous author, “Luke.”

    Like

  145. “Mike, your assertion about paganism just isn’t supported here. ”

    Sorry nate thats a weak retort. Its entirely supported since that was the predominant association of high places both in the culture and in the Bible. You wish to leave out the historical and biblical context for your own purposes is all and it just doesn’t work. Whats entirely unsupported is that God was against their developing technologies but had given them the mind to crate them

    “Furthermore, as William pointed out, this certainly didn’t stop paganism.”

    And as I have pointed out multiple times the passage nowhere states it was just to stop any present action that had taken place but to curtail the success of future attempts at unification without God. different languages and cultures has succeeded so far in curtailing what a united world without God might do.

    Whatever you might claim a divided world religion without him as the focus is a much better scenario for God than a united one. It makes complete sense.

    Like

  146. “A) an unmarried alma would be a virgin culturally at that time” – ABlacksmangain

    so all unmarried pregnant young women were virgins back then?

    I’m guessing that a pregnant lady, whether young or old, married or unwed, was always understood to mean “not virgin.” I think the context would dictate what meaning you could ascribe to “young woman,” and in the context of pregnancy, it never means “virgin.” which also sheds light on why Isaiah didnt use the term that only meant “virgin.” nor does it help the case that a young woman gave birth in the chapter following this “prediction” which was a sign to the king at that time – a sign that wouldnt be readable for hundreds of years later, isnt a good sign for people who lived hundreds of years prior.

    “b) a woman giving birth after being with a man is hardly a heavenly sign as Isaiah indicated.” – ABslackmanagain

    yeah, kind of takes the “WOW” out of it. but in the context of Isaiah chapters 7 & 8, he wasnt so much saying “hay, it’s really neat that a lady is having a baby,” but rather saying, “hay, I can predict when your enemies with be thwarted and it will be within a relatively short span of time, right around the time it takes for this chick to have a her baby and he does this or that…” a safer prediction to make as it’s a little vague and doesnt really take divine intervention to come true.

    “C) The king turned down the offer of a miracle for the time and the promise was made to the house of david bit the king himself.” – ABlacksmanagain

    Isaiah 7:

    12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”

    13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign:

    yep, the sign was given to ahaz. now read the rest of chapter 7 and continue into chapter 8.

    Like

  147. Sorry nate thats a weak retort. Its entirely supported since that was the predominant association of high places both in the culture and in the Bible. You wish to leave out the historical and biblical context for your own purposes is all and it just doesn’t work. Whats entirely unsupported is that God was against their developing technologies but had given them the mind to crate them” – ABlacksmanagain

    Easy to fix, where in the passage does it say that god feared the tower would become a place of pagan worship?

    And as I have pointed out multiple times the passage nowhere states it was just to stop any present action that had taken place but to curtail the success of future attempts at unification without God. different languages and cultures has succeeded so far in curtailing what a united world without God might do.” – ABlacksmanagain

    Where in the passage does it state the purpose was to stop them from pagan worship in the tower?

    “Whatever you might claim a divided world religion without him as the focus is a much better scenario for God than a united one. It makes complete sense.” – ABLacksmanagain
    Okay. I don’t know what you’re saying, but If we’re making stuff up, why not.

    Like

  148. “Matthew has no such passage because dead people do not roam even in Matthew. You have watched too much “walking Dead” episodes ;). what Matthew has is people who would be almost entirely unnoticed except by loved ones because they were very much alive and of course clothed although they had been dead. No zombie nonsense like you claim. These would be people who looked like anyone else on the street. lay off the TV watching. Your only issue is you don;t believe the resurrection story but seeing as how All the gospels have at least one person raising from the dead Matthews account is no zombie experience” – ABlacksmanagain

    I agree, they’d probably not look dead or like zombies… but they’d look rather odd coming out of their tombs in droves. And their loved ones whom they returned to… not a one decided it was noteworthy. not a one told it to someone convincingly enough to have them record it.

    only matthew. thankfully he recorded it, otherwise, it would have been missed entirely by the world. such a splendid miracle… no even noticed.

    Like

  149. “Dear Rabbi,

    I read that the Messiah will not only be a descendant of King David, but also of his son Solomon. What is the source for this?

    Answer:”

    As suspected your scholarship is of the lazy kind. All you are doing is copying and pasting from a jewish site – and umm leaving off I might add the part where Nathan IS said to be part of the Messianic line from your own source.

    Of course when you copy and paste and you don’t know what the passages actually says you ended up missing entirely that though David’s promise of being in the line of messiah is unconditional but Solomon’s prosperity of having a kingdom forever is predicted on his life before God

    2 Chronicles 7:17

    17 “As for you, IF YOU WALK before me faithfully as David your father did, and do all I command, and observe my decrees and laws, 18 I will establish your royal throne, as I covenanted with David your father when I said, ‘You shall never fail to have a successor to rule over Israel.’

    19 “But if you[a] turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you[b] and go off to serve other gods and worship them, 20 then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples.

    Did Solomon? NO he didn’t so his throne is not promised to be established and this

    “Let my lord King David live forever” (I Kings 1:31),2 indicating that the eternal monarchy continues through Solomon.”

    is just false as it was not spoken by God but by Bathsheeba.

    What you have cited as I suspected is tradition not an actual passage that states Messiah is to come through Solomon. God established the throne of David given to Solomon by handing it to messiah because Solomon did not follow after god and meet the condition so his throne was not established as promised.

    In fact if you actually read more of what it is you claim to know you would know that In Jeconiah God promised to and did cut off that line because of their disobedience

    Like

  150. Even when I scroll past williams posts I see nonsense even in brief glimpses

    Now he has alma being a word meaning pregnant woman…..lol

    You guys have fun its been amusing. I’ll be back …at some point I suppose

    Try and get better at debates. kind of sad you all have gotten no better with age.

    Like

  151. However, it is interesting to note that while it is clear from all of the above sources that the Messiah will be a descendant of King Solomon, the Zohar (not the Bible) seems to state that Moshiach will actually be a descendant of Nathan, a different son of David. Expounding on the verse (Isaiah 40:9), “Upon a lofty mountain ascend, you who brings good tidings to Zion,” the Zohar states:

    “You who bring good tidings to Zion” is Hephzibah, the wife of Nathan son of David, who is the mother of Messiah, Menachem son of Amiel. She shall go out and bring the tidings . . .”4

    The famed 20th-century Jewish scholar and kabbalist Rabbi Reuven Margolies explains that the Zohar is careful to describe the Moshiach as being a descendant of Nathan’s wife, rather than of Nathan himself. Nathan had passed away childless, and Solomon his brother married his widow, according to the laws of yibum, levirate marriage.5

    In a levirate marriage, the firstborn son of the widow and the brother of the deceased is considered to be a continuation of the dead husband’s line. Therefore, Moshiach is referred to here as “offspring” of Nathan, even though he is a descendant of King Solomon.6

    Like

  152. “Now he has alma being a word meaning pregnant woman…..lol” – ABlacksmanagain

    of course that’s not what i said, but i suppose you’re forced to make things up about certain comments that you cannot deal with, just like you make stuff up in support of the bible.

    It’s sad really, that your god needs so much help from you.

    but despite your efforts, it’s still pretty clear that you were saying that “young woman” always meant virgin back in Isaiah’s time. My rhetorical question was illustrating the stupidity in saying that when isaiah was obviously not speaking about a virgin young woman, as the young woman was pregnant – which always, always means “NOT A VIRGIN.”

    it illustrated how poor of a point you made.

    LOL, indeed.

    Instead of trying to score imaginary points in a debate, why not just discuss the facts? instead, you seem bent on demanding people stay withing the scripture and point to specific passages for their assertions, and then you turn right around and say that god confused the languages at babel because of pagan worship in the high places (no scriptural support for your claim)…

    I will try to get better with debate techniques, and i hope you work on your logic skills and honesty.

    i dont care bout points. i’m fine saying you won a debate. Now, would you care to discuss the topic at hand like an educated and civilized adult, or are you only interested in making things up for the sake of “debate?”

    Like

  153. “but despite your efforts, it’s still pretty clear that you were saying that “young woman” always meant virgin back in Isaiah’s time. My rhetorical question was illustrating the stupidity in saying that when isaiah was obviously not speaking about a virgin young woman, as the young woman was pregnant – which always, always means “NOT A VIRGIN.”

    it illustrated how poor of a point you made.”

    I guess I should read you every now and again for entertainment sake. That was pretty hilarious. You are completely lost but think you have a point….rofl

    Isaiah was not at all talking about a pregnant woman but a woman that was GOING to CONCEIVE William. Check your basic biology teacher. Women are pregnant when they conceive not before .

    so when Isaiah says an alma WILL conceive the pregnancy and conception is yet future and the word alma is not referring to a woman then pregnant

    You only illustrate how bad you are at reading a text and understanding it – as you say LOL indeed!!!

    Like

  154. when was the tower of babel supposed to have happened in the bible?

    In gen 10:5 it has Noah’s great-grandsons dispersing by their own nation and language – so was that before or immediately after the Tower of Babel?

    I would assume after, if we’re going by the bible.

    or if before, I guess they were the ones whom the people in babel wanted to make a name for themselves for?

    what a story. it’s so obviously a story. I’ve even heard young children (elementary aged) who grew up in conservative churches express their reluctance to believe this story is credible. but the bible says so, so it must be true.

    if there’s another reason for believing this silly story, I’d like to hear it so that i can consider it.

    – God kills all the people, except for 8, in a global flood.

    – the 8 people begin to repopulate

    – The descendants of those 8 decide to build a tower and make a name for themselves.

    – god sees the tower and confuses their languages so that they scatter.

    – That’s how we have different nations and languages

    i mean, it makes the most sense out of any other possibility.

    Like

  155. Dear readers of this blog: Support higher education funding in your state!

    More people than ever before are going to college in the United States, and studies have found that people who attend college tend to be more liberal, less intolerant, and less religious. Why? College students come into contact with people outside their own ethnic, social, political, and religious communities. Exposure to the views of others makes people less dogmatic and more tolerant of diversity.

    Increasing levels of college education and easy access to divergent views on the Internet will one day doom religious fundamentalism. Let’s help speed that process along!

    Liked by 2 people

  156. “Increasing levels of college education and easy access to divergent views on the Internet will one day doom religious fundamentalism. Let’s help speed that process along”

    Seeing as how people such as myself have been going to college, earning degrees and have been doings so for decades you might want to come up with a back up plan there sparky

    The percentage of theists still relegates atheists to less than double digits

    Like

  157. “Isaiah was not at all talking about a pregnant woman but a woman that was GOING to CONCEIVE William. Check your basic biology teacher. Women are pregnant when they conceive not before.” – ABlacksmanagain

    wrangling? are you a cowboy now? very true. my point still remains, and it is still stupid to say that “young woman” means “virgin” for a woman who has conceived. you’re not saying that she was only a virgin until she conceived are you? as in, mary was a virgin before she had sex and got pregnant with jesus out of wedlock?

    besides, isaiah was clearly talking about the boy born in Isaiah Chapter 8 and the young woman that gave birth to him. she wasnt a virgin, by the way. As a student of biology, you’d know that when a woman conceives, it means she’s the opposite of a virgin.

    “so when Isaiah says an alma WILL conceive the pregnancy and conception is yet future and the word alma is not referring to a woman then pregnant” – ABlackmanagain

    I am still laughing, really. brilliant work, detective! LOL. you got me. but the passage still clearly talks about the woman and boy in the very next chapter of isaiah, a woman who was NOT A VIRGIN when she conceived. at some point, all women are virgins before they conceive – but they are no longer virgins once they conceive.

    is this what you meant all along?

    you know, i still dont think Isaiah was talking about mary or jesus, and anyone with a rudimentary reading efficiency can see he was talking about the woman and boy in Isaiah chapter 8, but if your position is that mary was only a virgin “before she conceived” then that certain makes much more sense than “Virgin giving birth.” is this what your position is?

    “You only illustrate how bad you are at reading a text and understanding it – as you say LOL indeed!!!” – ABlackmansagain

    LOL. you’re too much. I guess you’ve been given enough rope…

    Like

  158. “Seeing as how people such as myself have been going to college, earning degrees and have been doings so for decades you might want to come up with a back up plan there sparky” – ABlacksmanagain

    wasnt your degree in seminary? I think the references was in real college degrees.

    Like

  159. “The percentage of theists still relegates atheists to less than double digits” – ABlacksmanagian

    and “few there be that find it.”

    I’m not really an atheist though. and if you were to divide all the christians into their denominations and sects, you’d no longer have majority.

    Like

  160. A recent Pew poll shows that 23% of Americans now classify themselves as “no religious affiliation”. This does not mean that all these people consider themselves to be atheists, but it does mean that the number of Americans who identify as “Christian” has dramatically declined. Only 70% of Americans in 2015 refer to themselves as Christian.

    And the news gets worse for Christianity in America. The younger generations are leaving the Church in droves. A recent study in the Southern Baptist Convention revealed that 80% of SBC churches had two or less baptisms of someone under the age of 30 for the entire year. Membership and baptisms in all major denominations in the United States continue their year after year decline. Will America become like Europe where the majority of churches are empty and many are now used as museums or even restaurants?

    We can only hope!

    Liked by 1 person

  161. You would be correct, William.

    Spending four years learning how virgins can have babies, humans can walk on water, and decomposing, bloated corpses can walk out of their mausoleums is NOT a form of “higher” education.

    Liked by 1 person

  162. William I can’t correct your stupidity on the use of Hebrew language. I mean if someone could hold you down and administer sense to you I would assist in the intervention (or at least make a paypal contribution) but no matter how you thrash about in desperation Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy regarding a future pregnancy so your point is devastated no matter how hard you try to save yourself from the embarrassment. the almah is not pregnant until the prophecy is fulfilled.

    therefore citing her later pregnancy as proof of how almah is used is just stupid. Almah is overwhelmingly used as unmarried maiden and even culturally most of those were virgins and its also the only thing that fits as a sign from God

    Duh dud and ……..duh.

    Like

  163. “wasnt your degree in seminary? I think the references was in real college degrees.”

    NO it wasn’t. Going for another record on how often you can be wrong within an hour. Since you already are the present record holder I admire your commitment to excel at what you are good at.

    Like

  164. “A recent Pew poll shows that 23% of Americans now classify themselves as “no religious affiliation”. This does not mean that all these people consider themselves to be atheists, but it does mean that the number of Americans who identify as “Christian” has dramatically declined. Only 70% of Americans in 2015 refer to themselves as Christian.”

    I am totally devastated at that 70% majority status. Should we switch with atheists? Is it like Limbo? the better the lower you go?

    Only?…..ROFL.

    stop it……. the laughter is hurting my sides.

    Like

  165. “William I can’t correct your stupidity on the use of Hebrew language. I mean if someone could hold you down and administer sense to you I would assist in the intervention (or at least make a paypal contribution) but no matter how you thrash about in desperation Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy regarding a future pregnancy so your point is devastated no matter how hard you try to save yourself from the embarrassment. the almah is not pregnant until the prophecy is fulfilled.

    therefore citing her later pregnancy as proof of how almah is used is just stupid. Almah is overwhelmingly used as unmarried maiden and even culturally most of those were virgins and its also the only thing that fits as a sign from God

    Duh dud and ……..duh.” – ABlacksmanagain

    so it’s not your belief at all that mary was a virgin when she conceived jesus?

    and while I am not a hebrew scholar, I do agree that the text in isaiah is pretty clear, that a young woman will conceive and have a son. the young woman gave birth to her son in isaiah chapter 8.

    look, it’s matthew who thought mary was a virgin. take it up with him. he knows even less about the hebrew language than i.

    I can accept a woman was a virgin before she had sex, of course. And now that you’re conceding that was only what isaiah was getting at, then I guess I can see that too. I still think you’re twisting the passage, but it certainly makes more sense than “a virgin will give birth to a baby.”

    Like

  166. ABlacksmanagain, arent you mike, of the famed “letters to Kathy” era?

    I had thought you said you had been to seminary. honest mistake if I was wrong. I’ll go back to check when i get time.

    what’s your degree in?

    Like

  167. ABlacksmanagain, how old are you?

    and i am truly interested in what your degree was in.

    I really thought you had once said “seminary.” but it’s not? liberal arts? certainly not law, not with your handle of the socratic method…

    Like

  168. How can we naturalists have a coherent conversation with people whose worldview is based on the whims of invisible ghosts and ghouls? It is becoming more and more clear to me that such conversations are a waste of time…but I still enjoy the food fights for some reason.

    Liked by 1 person

  169. “and while I am not a hebrew scholar, I do agree that the text in isaiah is pretty clear, that a young woman will conceive and have a son. the young woman gave birth to her son in isaiah chapter 8.”

    Unfortunately for you the child born to Isaiah is not named emmanuel. If that child was who was meant then his name would have been Immanuel as the prophecy indicated…yet there is not indication he is ever called that name but a completely other one……epic fail.

    Like

  170. “I think he has a B.S. in BS.”

    the only one that thinks there is such a thing is the sole graduate of the imaginary program. Its somwhat of a misnomer though – when you say “I think”

    Like

  171. I have debated the issue with Rabbis and they were unable to answer several points I raise in such debates” – Doubtless with a great deal of eye-rolling and walking away shaking their heads.

    Like

  172. Imagine your reaction if some one in your small town started claiming that he had been born of a virgin. It would be the talk of the town! He would soon become the laughing stock of the county! Every place he went people would ask him to explain…again…how his mother had been impregnated by an invisible ghost.

    But we see none of this in the Gospel of Mark, the first gospel written, and the gospel from which Matthew, then Luke, and probably then John used as a template for their stories about Jesus. If there is any kernel of truth in the gospels regarding the life of Jesus, it is most likely in Mark.

    But no one asks about Jesus’ virgin birth in Mark’s gospel. No one ridicules Jesus for being the son of a virgin and a ghost. In fact, there is no mention whatsoever in the Gospel of Mark of a virgin birth!

    Isn’t that a problem, Christians?

    Like

  173. “Doubtless with a great deal of eye-rolling and walking away shaking their heads.”

    Not at all. I never mentioned your name once.

    Liked by 1 person

  174. “Imagine your reaction if some one in your small town started claiming that he had been born of a virgin.”

    We have no indication Jesus went around saying

    “My name is Jesus I was born of a virgin”

    “But no one asks about Jesus’ virgin birth in Mark’s gospel. No one ridicules Jesus for being the son of a virgin and a ghost. In fact, there is no mention whatsoever in the Gospel of Mark of a virgin birth!

    Isn’t that a problem, Christians?”

    Nope….not even vaguely All gospels have something another doesn’t have.

    do your points ever get better?

    almost all of your argument (and William’s) rests on personal incredulity arising ultimately out of your worldview. Not only have hundreds of millions found the gospels to be viable but you run away like scared puppies anytime anyone asks you to justify an anti supernatural stance in light of reality being ultimately unexplainable on purely materialistic terms.

    Its your priori that the mere mention of anything that cannot be materialistically explained is absurd. most of the population rejects that and believe not only does God exist but he can act.

    This is why I have called on multiple occasions for parties here to deal with the issue of ultimate causation in an infinite reality. Some have got a taste for where it logically ends and run like said scared puppies. Like a domino chain you cannot claim to have dealt with what is natural and what is supernatural until you deal with the problem of the first domino falling over and what caused it..

    Will that seem like gobblygook to you? Sure because you are a light thinker and a great deal of what i just referenced goes right over your head.

    Like

  175. “If the cyclic universe or multiverse theories are being considered then they are said to be eternal. Since they are eternal (without beginning) they do not have a cause, similar to the eternal conscious mind theory. In all of these theories we have an infinite chain of events (mindless processes or conscious thoughts) which may seem impossible, but could still be true. I have yet to see a good argument for dismissing the idea of infinity existing within reality.”

    Sorry Dave I almost missed responding to this. the problem with an infinite chain of events is that it violates completely materialistic claims that everything has a rational naturalistic explanation. When you invoke infinite in the past it is no different from saying no cause and no complete start middle and end process therefore no explanation whatsoever..

    A process that does not have a beginning is begging bread to be considered a natural process and yet really that is the argument a materialist is really making – reality is a natural process that does not have a beginning.

    So the problem is not so much with infinities its with infinite processes/chain of events – they have no rational naturalistic explanation. it is because it is , the process of cycles is because it is and every single force in present operation comes from no ultimate origin.the whole universe and everything in ends up with an unexplainable supernatural quality

    Now that applies to laws and rules of how the cyclical universe operates as well. They too have no reason or complete process. They are part of reality, mathematical ordered in nature and apparently (since we exist and are part of the cycle) possess the potential at intelligence.

    The Bible has a definition of God that is close to this = I am that I am

    so the huge divide between where the atheistic reality ends up and the theistic reality ends up is almost a singular disagreement on nothing but – is the I am that I am intelligent or non intelligent?

    To dig deeper since nothing at all has an explanation or is bound to a rule of having one we have no idea whatsoever what is impossible or impossible. Even QM phycists claim that given the right Odds a dragon could appear out of a collider or as Krauss does say in one of his youtube videos a human could appear out of thin air, SO then what is the proper definition of supernatural and why if the universe allows for this is a miracle to use WIllaim’s claim “absurd”?

    IF you live in a universe that does not have rational ultimate explanations it completely changes the claims of what is natural and what is supernatural and it renders the bias against anything that does not have a naturalistic explanation as somewhat silly –

    after all – all of reality in that case has no naturalistic explanation.

    Thank you by the way. i am grateful that at least one person here is willing to think on the subject whether agreeing or disagreeing.

    Like

  176. “We see you Europe and raise you china. Might as well fold laddie. You are losing.”

    Mike, I especially liked her closing remarks in the link you provided !

    “If everyone in China believed in Jesus then we would have no more need for police stations. There would be no more bad people and therefore no more crime,” she added.”

    Another pipe dream by a naive Christian. Let’s see how that’s working for them in 20 years.

    Like

  177. Christians like to use the “ultimate causation in an infinite reality” as proof of God. The problem is that most skeptics, including myself, don’t contest the assertion of the existence of a Creator. For most us, the issue is not “is there a Creator God” but is the Creator God, whoever he, she, or it is, Yahweh/Jesus?

    THAT is what Christians need to prove.

    Like

  178. “Another pipe dream by a naive Christian. Let’s see how that’s working for them in 20 years.

    and where does she say that everyone will believe in Jesus in the next 20 years?

    Just another pipe strawman by an atheist. 😉

    and yes if you define believe in Jesus as obeying his word s then you would have almost no crime. the hypothetical holds mostly valid but your strawman is that the condition is expected to be a reality in 20 years

    Like

  179. Sorry, trying to prepare dinner – meant to say, “…not written by Paul.”

    Like

  180. “but your strawman is that the condition is expected to be a reality in 20 years”

    That’s not what I said Mike. You can’t read very well. I was merely using 20 years as an observation point as to their progress.

    “Just another pipe strawman by an atheist. ;)”

    I am a Deist. You have made a wrong assumption again but it is what you wanted to believe. Something you have accused others here of doing. Naughty Naughty !

    Like

  181. “Matthew has no such passage because dead people do not roam even in Matthew. You have watched too much “walking Dead” episodes ;). what Matthew has is people who would be almost entirely unnoticed except by loved ones because they were very much alive and of course clothed although they had been dead. No zombie nonsense like you claim. These would be people who looked like anyone else on the street.”

    Mike , this is the dumbest statement you have made to date. You need to go read about Jewish Burial Rites BC and AD.

    They would most assuredly stick out from the crowd. Do you really believe what you write ? 🙂

    Like

  182. “Christians like to use the “ultimate causation in an infinite reality” as proof of God. The problem is that most skeptics, including myself, don’t contest the assertion of the existence of a Creator. For most us, the issue is not “is there a Creator God” but is the Creator God, whoever he, she, or it is, Yahweh/Jesus?

    THAT is what Christians need to prove.”

    Au contraire. You are on a blog populated by a number of atheists and there are many atheists who contend that we need to offer proof of a creator’s existence. NO need to accomodate ourselves only for you. Besides rationally the options for The creator are not very diverse. Unless you believe God would hide himself in some cult ineffectively reaching the world then you really have only three options of which Christianity is the most logical conclusion (at least for non Jews).

    Yes I have read some of your banter against the NT but it only holds up well for the likes of Nate and bitter alleged ex Christians. Most of the Christian world is not too troubled by it. i’ve taken apart several of Nate’s sure contradictions in my previous excursions here. ho hum

    Like

  183. “Unless you believe God would hide himself in some cult ineffectively reaching the world then you really have only three options of which Christianity is the most logical conclusion”

    OK, I was wrong. This statement is your absolute dumbest !

    Like

  184. Mike, before you give any more answers, you might want use one of your lifelines , to call a friend. Kathy comes to mind. 🙂

    Like

  185. “That’s not what I said Mike. You can’t read very well. I was merely using 20 years as an observation point as to their progress”

    you stated you would see how it goes 20 years from now but the woman stated a hypothetical not a reality so it was a nonsense observation on your part. Sorry i call them like they are stated.

    “I am a Deist. You have made a wrong assumption again but it is what you wanted to believe”

    Yawn in several respects many deists have no practical difference from atheists. You would have to declare what kind of deist you are for me to withdraw the association

    “Mike , this is the dumbest statement you have made to date. You need to go read about Jewish Burial Rites BC and AD.”

    i am not even tempted to say that is the silliest blurt you have ever made because my memory serves me well and i realize you have such a rich well of dumb statements you have made I could draw from

    Jewish burial rites have no bearing on resurrected non dead people. Jewish burial rites are laws that govern how to handle dead bodies not live people. what none of you geniuses can figure out is that a resurrected person is an ALIVE Person that looks like any other alive person. You cannot walk very far in traditional burial “garb” (apparently kk needs to go read up on burial practices but there no surprise on that ).

    Nothing in Matthew has zombies or mummies walking in the streets. You all watch too much TV …excuse me a moment ….ROFL. Thats not Matthew’s fault. Matthew says some of them at some point after the resuurection (how long after is not stated) came into the city and showed themselves – apparently to people who could identify they were formerly dead (there would be no other way unless you expected them to consult the morgue for DNA samples).

    Like

  186. “Mike, before you give any more answers, you might want use one of your lifelines , to call a friend. Kathy comes to mind. ”

    Given the lame 8 year old quality of that retort you mind is in need of a lifeline.

    Like

  187. I give it another hundred years, Gary, before Yahweh takes his rightful place in the graveyard of dead gods.

    Like

  188. “OK, I was wrong. This statement is your absolute dumbest !

    🙂 you always remind me of a kid that is told for the first time where babies come from.

    “No way. Thats just stupid that would make the mom throw up. Everyone knows its storks . ”

    lol..ah sweet memories of your inanity

    Like

  189. “what none of you geniuses can figure out is that a resurrected person is an ALIVE Person that looks like any other alive person”

    “Matthew says some of them at some point after the resuurection (how long after is not stated) came into the city and showed themselves – apparently to people who could identify they were formerly dead (there would be no other way unless you expected them to consult the morgue for DNA samples).”

    Nice job Mike, now you’re rewriting the Bible. You’re making a lot of insinuations here .

    Like

  190. How can we naturalists have a coherent conversation with people whose worldview is based on the whims of invisible ghosts and ghouls?

    That amazes me too, Gary – Mike doesn’t strike me as a totally unintelligent person, regardless of how caustic and abrasive he may be, and so I’m astonished that he can buy into a bunch of Bronze and Iron Age superstitions. Whatever his mental issues might be, I find trying to discuss anything with him to be a grand waste of time. Whatever anyone says, he finds ways to twist it to his advantage. I have more to do in my life than play his word games.

    Like

  191. “Nice job Mike, now you’re rewriting the Bible. You’re making a lot of insinuations here .”

    Poor baby another one of his key claims evaporates under the revelation of his own faulty assumptions so he goes for the refrain that the christian is rewriting scripture. Go ahead knock yourself out and show where anything is said about what manner of dress they wore into Jerusalem or how fast they entered the city

    Young’s Literal Translation
    “and having come forth out of the tombs after his rising, they went into the holy city, and appeared to many.”

    King James Bible
    And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

    See anything about them bouncing like bunnies in burial garments (let e guess You still haven;t looked up burial practices) or looking like zombies or extras from the “Walking Dead”? Nope just that they had risen after the resurrection of Christ and had gone into the city. not a single mention of how fast or what they wore. Passage doesn’t even say they appeared to all in the city

    another epic fail on your part.

    Like

  192. ” I have more to do in my life than play his word games.”

    unfortunately your copious amount of posts even in my abscence day in and day out betrays you lack for no free time

    Like

  193. “Young’s Literal Translation
    “and having come forth out of the tombs after his rising, they went into the holy city, and appeared to many.”

    “King James Bible
    And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”

    Oh Wow ! This settles it ! NOT !

    I’m done conversing with a Putts.

    Like

  194. “I’m done conversing with a Putts.”

    LOL has not grown up a day in my absence. still stomps his feet like a little kid and is off in a puff with a pout when he can’t back his points up.

    Like

  195. Mature adults should be able to debate, disagree…even vigorously, and yet still maintain a degree of civility. Trying to have a conversation with someone who repeatedly challenges his opponents’ intelligence is tiresome and childish.

    I suggest we discourage this behavior by ceasing to respond to the provocations.

    Like

  196. “Mature adults should be able to debate, disagree…even vigorously, and yet still maintain a degree of civility. Trying to have a conversation with someone who repeatedly challenges his opponents’ intelligence is tiresome and childish.

    I agree you should stop that practice. I’ve read your posts . You do a great deal of slamming of people’s intelligence who believe in Christ. You like a number of people here are only outraged when you get better than you can give.

    Like

  197. There is a big difference between calling a belief silly and calling a person silly or stupid. Most Christians on the internet with whom I engage in debate are very intelligent people, for example UnkleE. What baffles me is how such intelligent people can believe such silly superstitions.

    The only person whose intelligence I have questioned on this blog is yours and that is only because you were being such a prick. Unless you can be a little more civil, I too am done conversing with you.

    Liked by 1 person

  198. @ABlacksmanagain

    Sorry Dave I almost missed responding to this.

    Not a problem. I usually don’t have the chance to comment very often anyway.

    So the problem is not so much with infinities its with infinite processes/chain of events – they have no rational naturalistic explanation. it is because it is , the process of cycles is because it is and every single force in present operation comes from no ultimate origin.the whole universe and everything in ends up with an unexplainable supernatural quality

    This may come down to how we define naturalism (materialism). Since both an eternal mind or an eternal universe have no beginning I don’t think they require an explanation. They would just be “necessary” as philosophers would say. If we define naturalism as “everything that requires an explanation has a natural explanation” then there is no problem.

    If we define supernatural as “the involvement of an invisible, intelligent entity” and we tried to say that an eternal universe required a supernatural explanation then I think we would have to apply this criteria to the eternal mind as well.

    Like

  199. “The only person whose intelligence I have questioned on this blog is yours and that is only because you were being such a prick. Unless you can be a little more civil, I too am done conversing with you.”

    Gary, people like Mike resort to these tactics when they don’t have a defense of their beliefs. He’s also an Internet Troll who gets off on doing fly by’s . He respects no one and receives respect from no one.

    I’m a little surprised he surfaced here again after he had been asked to leave / banned last time. Of course he has to keep changing his name because being banned must be commonplace with him.

    Liked by 1 person

  200. “There is a big difference between calling a belief silly and calling a person silly or stupid.”

    Fell free to lie to yourself and those who support you but I have seen you insult the intelligence of people not just beliefs so thats pretty much a straight up lie

    ” What baffles me is how such intelligent people can believe such silly superstitions.”

    Thats not engaging or debating thats just resorting to rhetoric. in the absence of answering any counter point to your argument its pretty much the “tell” of a person that hasn’t got a very good thought out one

    “The only person whose intelligence I have questioned on this blog is yours and that is only because you were being such a prick.”

    Your word for anyone who effectively takes apart your arguments, I take it as a compliment and a sure sign of a hypocrite since anyone that resort to derogative name calling instantly loses the right to be heard on the issue of civility.

    ” I too am done conversing with you.”

    tears are flowing down my cheeek. My entire life hangs the balance. You are that important

    Like

  201. “Unfortunately for you the child born to Isaiah is not named emmanuel. If that child was who was meant then his name would have been Immanuel as the prophecy indicated…yet there is not indication he is ever called that name but a completely other one……epic fail.” – ABlacksmanagain

    interesting. if this is how you see, if you see the name being a literal part of the “prophecy” then jesus is also an epic fail. brilliant work, genius.

    i disagree, however. Immanuel, “god with us” was intended be an indication of god’s providence. “By the time the child did this or that, god would have provided for his people…”

    It’s just a simple reading of the text. What makes much less sense, if we’re using our context clues and letting ISaiah speak for itself, it is clearly not talking about a baby born 700 years later. it makes zero sense.

    Why trust matthew anyways? he cant count (his genealogy), he credits Jeremiah with a quote of Zechariah, and he says that jesus rode on two donkeys at the same time during his triumphal entry. oh yes, and the dead coming back to life – that no one else recorded because, you know, no big big deal.

    I was under the impression you were a christian, but you only think mary was a virgin prior to her conceiving and you think the messiah must be literally named “immanuel.” are you jewish or what?

    Like

  202. “I know you are, but what am I?”

    That’s what most of this dialogue has become. It would be nice to see more substantive conversation from all sides. I imagine most people on the sidelines have stopped reading by now.

    Like

  203. “This may come down to how we define naturalism (materialism). Since both an eternal mind or an eternal universe have no beginning I don’t think they require an explanation.”

    Ah but not so fast. Naturalism/materialism depends on the idea that one thing leads to another – that reality works by process. Once you take that away you no longer have naturalism. I mean you can still try and use the word but its no longer naturalism as we know it. Science meets an immovable road block and there’s no figuring it out. The candidate for ultimate reality therefore does not obey naturalism

    “They would just be “necessary” as philosophers would say. If we define naturalism as “everything that requires an explanation has a natural explanation” then there is no problem.”

    You are looking at naturalism from an explanation standpoint whereas for it to be real it has to practically operative so its more about – does this work? and it doesn’t at the point where there are no more causes or processes

    “If we define supernatural as “the involvement of an invisible, intelligent entity” and we tried to say that an eternal universe required a supernatural explanation then I think we would have to apply this criteria to the eternal mind as well.”

    You’d have to get more into what you mean by the eternal mind but at this point my argument does not necessitate any particular supernatural entity it s just argues for a supernatural entity or more succinctly that the universe is ultimately dependent on a super (beyond) natural cause

    Like

  204. “Its your priori that the mere mention of anything that cannot be materialistically explained is absurd. most of the population rejects that and believe not only does God exist but he can act.” – ABlacksman

    not at all, just unlikely, as everything i’ve experienced has a natural, not a supernatural, cause. Just like if someone told me that they saw big foot. They may have seen something, they may have seen something they thought was a big foot, but without seeing myself, i doubt their claim. Now, if they told me they saw a deer, sure, i can buy that. This really makes perfect sense. and i would assume that you’d act the same for any other religion’s claims, or any claims where the fish seem just too big… or, maybe you’re a gullible fool and believe anything, i really dont know – I can only tell you with certainty how i view such tall tales.

    “This is why I have called on multiple occasions for parties here to deal with the issue of ultimate causation in an infinite reality. Some have got a taste for where it logically ends and run like said scared puppies. Like a domino chain you cannot claim to have dealt with what is natural and what is supernatural until you deal with the problem of the first domino falling over and what caused it..” _ ABlacksmanagain

    we’ve spoken about it, if you recall. i know that since you claim to not read all of the comments it would have been easy to miss, but it was discussed. For me, maybe the universe or multi-verse are eternal. maybe there were god(s) who created, maybe they were all knowing and all powerful, and maybe they werent. maybe something created our creators, and on and on. maybe there’s a first cause scenario that I havent even considered… neat.

    But dont let yourself off the hook, I recall you being asked numerous times, and recall you failing to answer numerous times, how if we were all to concede that there was a creator, how that must then mean that it was your creator. How? take us from “god of the first cause” to the god of the bible.

    and can you show how reality is infinite?

    I am more than happy to discuss this with you.

    Like

  205. “interesting. if this is how you see, if you see the name being a literal part of the “prophecy” then jesus is also an epic fail. brilliant work, genius.”

    the great thing for a person that cannot think very well is that he always thinks he’s up on the argument no matter how badly the facts show he is flopping . Fact: Jesus is called by many people Immanuel. There are even multiple songs he is called such. Now go ahead and wow us with how many times the child born to Isaiah is called immanuel?

    In short you have no point you almost never do but you always think you do

    “i disagree, however. Immanuel, “god with us” was intended”

    Now whose rewriting the Bible to suit himself? Who cares what you disagree with? the prophecy clearly states “and he shall be called”

    its not even worth my time engaging you further when you can’t even process the obvious words in the prophecy

    Like

  206. “Science meets an immovable road block and there’s no figuring it out.” -ABlacksmanagain

    I can see where you’d think this, but we dont know that’s correct at all. Newton thought there was no explaining how the celestial bodies stayed in their orbits, but now physicists explain quite well how gravity does it naturally.

    this doesnt prove or disprove god, it just shows that science has a track record of figuring things out that were once thought, by very very bright minds, to be impossible to understand.

    there may come a point where science will simply have no other place to go, but so far that hasnt been the case, and we all see the effects of it. tangible effects. in religion we see the effects of people’s belief – there is a difference.

    Like

  207. “the great thing for a person that cannot think very well is that he always thinks he’s up on the argument no matter how badly the facts show he is flopping.” _ ABlacksmanagain

    agreed. we all maintain hope that you’ll grow out of it.

    . “Fact: Jesus is called by many people Immanuel. There are even multiple songs he is called such. Now go ahead and wow us with how many times the child born to Isaiah is called immanuel?” – ABlacksmanagain

    another FACT is that those people call jesus that, and wrote songs about “Immanuel” is because they stopped reading Isaiah at chapter 7 and readily swallowed what matthew was peddling without investigating it for themselves. They read the translated word “virgin” and saw where matthew said jesus was born of a “virgin” and they were brought up in a society that contained a lot of well meaning, but ultimately ignorant people who believed and taught that jesus was born of a virgin just like Isaiah said.

    are we going off of tradition or what the bible says? where in the bible does it say jesus was ever called Immanuel? the verse in matthew just recites what isaiah said about the kid born in isaiah chapter 8.

    Like

  208. “are we going off of tradition or what the bible says?”

    it says he will be called Immanuel and he is called Immanuel by millions over the years. The end. You can twist and gyrate and try and claim its because of the square root of whatever number you chose. he IS called Immanuel.

    that horse is dead. You don’t believe in resurrections 😉 …so move on

    “I can see where you’d think this, but we dont know that’s correct at all. Newton thought there was no explaining how the celestial bodies stayed in their orbits, but now physicists explain quite well how gravity does it naturally.”

    Son, leave the big thinking to the big kids. Dave and i were talking about infinite past and you are talking about Newton a few hundred years ago. If you think Science will one day find an explanation for an uncaused cause you are hopelessly lost.

    but……..have a great day!

    Like

  209. ABlacksmanagain,

    I’m just reading Isaiah, and not stopping at Chapter 7, then leaping to matthew. just read Isaiah in his full context. You’ll see that it’s not my problem, it’s just what isaiah was talking about. take it with him, if you like.

    and if we say it must be a literal name, then how about the philosopher immanuel kent? everyone who knew him, called him immanuel. we can call anyone immanuel, but if a person’s actual name is immanuel, then everyone calls him that.

    the “being called immanuel” is a very weak reason to say that isaiah was talking about jesus, because a few conditioned people began calling him immanuel a hundred or so years after his death.

    Like

  210. “Son, leave the big thinking to the big kids. Dave and i were talking about infinite past and you are talking about Newton a few hundred years ago. If you think Science will one day find an explanation for an uncaused cause you are hopelessly lost.” – ABlacksmanagain

    correct. newton was one example. you may not have read my entire comment – I allowed that there may one day be a point where science will hit its limit, it’s just that we arent there yet, and that there have been naysayers like yourself who have been shown to be wrong.

    it really doesnt matter, as it has nothing to do with the bible. Maybe there was a first cause, science currently shows it wasnt as the bible paints it. Maybe there was a creator, by something doesnt need to be created (as you seem to maintain), but that still doesnt validate the bible. this is a simple concept. if you’re here to show the bible is indeed from god, speaking on theoretical physics does nothing to support the bible. you may as well be saying that “4+4 does not equal 6, therefor the bible is from god.” it doesnt follow, not matter how interesting it is.

    maybe you should show how deflating a first cause or no-cause theory does anything to support the bible? then show how a creator god means that the bible is from that god, even if such a creator god could be proven.

    if not, maybe we can discuss what passages within the bible say, and how that measures up with itself and with what is known ion science, history and archaeology.

    and people today who misunderstand isaiah’s “prophecy” do call jesus “immanuel.” you’re right. that does not prove that isaiah was talking about jesus. it makes zero sense in isaiah’s context. I wish i had crayons to draw it out for you, i just do not not. jesus was not names immanuel, and since some of us call Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, “immanuel”, it still works just as well for him as it does jesus.

    Like

  211. “Whatever you might claim a divided world religion without him as the focus is a much better scenario for God than a united one. It makes complete sense.” – ABLacksmanagain

    Like

  212. “Unfortunately for you the child born to Isaiah is not named emmanuel. If that child was who was meant then his name would have been Immanuel as the prophecy indicated…” – ABlacksmanagain

    “it says he will be called Immanuel and he is called Immanuel by millions over the years. The end. You can twist and gyrate and try and claim its because of the square root of whatever number you chose. he IS called Immanuel.” – ABlacksmanagain

    I dont mind watching goal posts move. It’s okay. neither were names immanuel, although some people were named immanuel (immanuel kent the philosopher being one of them) but both, as well anyone I guess, can be and have been called immanuel.

    Isaiah 7 still says what it says, and chapter 8 still says what it does. it doesnt have to be an argument, it’s written there for anyone to read.

    Like

  213. “Au contraire. You are on a blog populated by a number of atheists and there are many atheists who contend that we need to offer proof of a creator’s existence. NO need to accomodate ourselves only for you. Besides rationally the options for The creator are not very diverse. Unless you believe God would hide himself in some cult ineffectively reaching the world then you really have only three options of which Christianity is the most logical conclusion (at least for non Jews).” _ ABlacksmanagain

    it seems like you’re using some form of reason. If you take that further you may ask that if god doesnt want to hide himself, then why “display” himself in a book that is widely contested, written by men so that it is only the claims of men?

    and I guess you’re agreeing that there is no proof of you god other than the bible, and well, we only have so many available options, so why no the bible?

    I guess we’re discussing why the bible isnt it. “NO!”, “NUH-UH!” and “yOU’RE STUPID!” or “YOU DONT KNOW ANCIENT HEBREW!” arent as good of defenses as you may think. so proof of your god and proof that the men who wrote the bible should be trusted at their word is still a reasonable request… especially when the book you believe in make bold claims, has contradictions, failed prophecies, and scientifically retarded statements. Like hares chew a cud.

    “BUT THAT WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE SCIENTIFIC TERM ‘CUD’ WAS MADE!” “HARES EAT THEIR POOP, SO THAT’s WHAT IT MEANT!”

    barbecue poop is so much more like the stuff the other cud chewers eat than the poop the pigs (bible says dont chew cud) eat…. (this only one example)

    muslims would say the same thing in defense of their god, religion and koran, and have just as much supporting evidence. They can even claim to be the fastest growing religion. it doesnt mean anything, but that usually doesnt stop a believer from using something to argue for their cause.

    “Yes I have read some of your banter against the NT but it only holds up well for the likes of Nate and bitter alleged ex Christians. Most of the Christian world is not too troubled by it. i’ve taken apart several of Nate’s sure contradictions in my previous excursions here. ho hum” _ ABlacksmanagain

    except you havent.

    Like

  214. @ABlacksmanagain

    Ah but not so fast. Naturalism/materialism depends on the idea that one thing leads to another – that reality works by process. Once you take that away you no longer have naturalism.

    I’m not taking that away. I’m saying it could go on forever. There would be infinite causation in both the “past” and the “future”. I cannot prove or disprove this, but just because our brains don’t handle infinity very well does not make it impossible.

    You are looking at naturalism from an explanation standpoint whereas for it to be real it has to practically operative so its more about – does this work? and it doesn’t at the point where there are no more causes or processes

    The point where there are no more causes or processes is never reached in an eternal multiverse or oscillating universe.

    From the way I see it there are at least 4 options available:

    (1) An eternal mind exists which created our local universe
    (2) An eternal universe exists which spawned our local universe
    (3) A mind exists which had a beginning which created our universe
    (4) A universe exists which had a beginning (could be ours or one that led to ours)

    I don’t like (3) or (4) because anything with a beginning begs the question “what caused it to begin?”.

    With (1) we have a conscious mind that never ceases to think and with (2) we have unconscious particles and forces that never cease to fluctuate. There is no “ultimate cause” for the infinite fluctuations or infinite thoughts, they are just brute facts in these two theories of reality.

    Liked by 2 people

  215. Here was Ark’s well-phrased response to him:

    @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.

    The Arkster gets it right once in a while.

    Liked by 1 person

  216. it’s the same as the argument for god. there must have been a beginning, so god was that beginning and god needs no cause.

    it could be correct, but it’s just words. Mike says science will never be able to confirm or deny this. fine, then it’s just words. some people want to act as if the inability to know is some victory for their religion, but it’s nothing. it’s moot. cant prove it, touch it, taste it, smell it, see it, test it, count it – then it begins to look a lot like the imaginary, as all you can do is imagine it.

    “but something had to be the first cause” okay, maybe, but so what? how does that come close to proving or even being evidence for the bible? Just because the bible is an available option?

    I very much enjoy reading about it and talking about it all. either way that discussion ends up, though, it lends no validity to the bible’s claims.

    Like

  217. “it makes zero sense in isaiah’s context.”

    it makes lots of sense because isaiah’s context flows onto chapter 9 where a light/person comes out of Gallilee that is to be called mighty God, everlasting father and a slew of other names that coould and would only be logically heaped on God himself.

    “and people today who misunderstand isaiah’s “prophecy” do call jesus “immanuel.” you’re right. that does not prove that isaiah was talking about jesus.”

    and did I claim simply because jesus is called Immanuel that proves that he is the one?

    this is exhibit A on how malformed your logic is and why I will officially now be totally ignoring you. You cannot follow basic flows of logic and its just too torturous to have to teach you to think logically as an added burden of discussing things with you

    You proposed the child born in Isaiah 8 as the child in question
    I negate it because he is never called immanuel (one of the conditions in the prophecy)
    you then claim because your proposition is negated that I am claiming that the mere naming of someone as Immanuel makes the them the subject of the prophecy

    Too utterly silly

    NO it negates your proposition. its a single but required condition. It does not claim that that is the sole basis but as usual such a simple understanning of logic will fly right over your head

    Officially being totally ignored at least for the next few days

    Like

  218. Science differs from theology in that it builds its case one puzzle-piece of facts at a time until a picture forms, instead of leaping straight to “goddidit.” When the picture finally emerges, if it ever does, it will be an entirely naturalist one – no gods need apply. Just look at how far we’ve come in the last century alone.

    Like

  219. Has anyone seen how Christians harmonize the 15 generation difference in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke? If every generation is 20 years, that would mean that Joseph was 300 years older than Mary. How can that be explained away?

    Like

  220. “You cannot follow basic flows of logic” – ABlacksmanagain

    one of us cannot.

    “its a single but required condition.” – ABlacksmanagain

    right. and there are other conditions, like being a sign to Ahaz the king, which jesus was not. and a few other conditions that isaiah’s kid fulfills in that regard, as pointed out in chapter 8.

    and reading chapter 8, while isiaiah doesnt call the kid “immanuael” (is there a passage that calls jesus “immanuel”?) he does allude to it several verses. you’d just have to read it on the tail of chapter 7. but you were invited to mensa, you should know this.

    I think one of your problems is that instead of looking at the bible as several books compiled over a long period of time, you’re taking it as one book, along with the presupposition that it’s god’s book, that there is a god and that his son is jesus. why do you think that?

    when looking at isaiah, what he wrote and his audience, jesus makes no sense. no one even thought that it may allude to some distant future savior until Matthew made the claim. and matthew, dont forget, is this THE idiot of the gospel writers, making several errors. I can list a few again, if need be.

    Like

  221. newton was one example.” – Newton noticed certain perturbations, William, in the orbits of the planets, that if extrapolated, indicated that over time, the planets would ultimately fly out of their orbits. Today, we know that these are self-correcting, but Newton decided that comets were actually angels, swooping down from heaven, to correct those orbits. Since Newton was the Einstein/Hawking of his era, his conclusion could well have held. Fortunately, reasonable minds are not so easily satisfied, and rather than accept such nonsense as fact, science moved on until, finally, the actual mechanisms were determined, and they didn’t involve angels. So it will ultimately be with every explanation for naturalist events currently attributed to supernatural processes.

    The wise man says “We don’t know the answer, so we’ll have to look harder for evidence.” The theist says, “We don’t know the answer, so an obscure little desert storm-god, YHWH, first known to be worshiped by the nomadic, goat-herding Middianites/Kenites in the south of the Levant in the 13th century BC, must have done it.

    Like

  222. Isaiah 7 still says what it says, and chapter 8 still says what it does.” – The apologist’s most oft-used phrase: “But what the Bible REALLY means is….

    “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.”
    -– George Bernard Shaw —

    Like

  223. “I’m not taking that away. I’m saying it could go on forever. There would be infinite causation in both the “past” and the “future”.”

    You are missing that that doesn’t matter at all. Infinite has no end so when you say infinite causations you are still saying there is no ultimate cause. You can go on forever and ever but if a process has no beginning and reason for itself is just not what people refer to as natural. if today something happens and it actually has zero reason for happening that would be considered by any reasonable practical definition to be miraculous. it certainly would not be considered a natural event. Now I guess we could try to redefine natural as anything that happens in our universe even if it has no cause but then we might as well go right ahead and redefine miracles as possibly being a part of our universe for the same said reason

    ” just because our brains don’t handle infinity very well does not make it impossible.”

    Well we have been talking as if infinity past is even something the human mind has to try and grasp when infinite past is not even a given or even has the slightest evidence for its existence. I’ve been reasoning within that proposition to examine it but not necessarily buying it because it really has nothing to suggest its real. If you are thinking that theism requires infinite past you would be wrong. Christianity and Judaism propose a god outside of time not one within an infinitely old universe, Christianity requires him creating time not being subject to it.

    “The point where there are no more causes or processes is never reached in an eternal multiverse or oscillating universe.”

    well You are trying to envision getting there or attempting to get there but failing. An infinitely old universe has no beginning its not merely a problem with getting there. the start point does not and cannot exist. So still there is no cause and naturalism is defeated

    “From the way I see it there are at least 4 options available:

    (1) An eternal mind exists which created our local universe
    (2) An eternal universe exists which spawned our local universe
    (3) A mind exists which had a beginning which created our universe
    (4) A universe exists which had a beginning (could be ours or one that led to ours)

    I don’t like (3) or (4) because anything with a beginning begs the question “what caused it to begin?”.”

    With (1) we have a conscious mind that never ceases to think and with (2) we have unconscious particles and forces that never cease to fluctuate. There is no “ultimate cause” for the infinite fluctuations or infinite thoughts, they are just brute facts in thes””

    Unfortunately 2 is kind of sneaking back in process into universe that has no ultimate beginning. Essentially the “fluctuations are dependent on processes but the processes not only does not have a start point but given infinity has an infinite chain of of uncaused causes (such are the vagaries of infinities – we cannot isolate single points. we can try to pick a point but there is always an infinite more points behind it).

    Again the problem I am addressing is that of natural processes within an infinitely old universe . Unless you or some one can come up with a way to claim that a process can be natural but have no reason or cause the whole idea of naturalism is defeated and even if you do come up with such a stance it does nothing but redefine reality to allow for events that have no ultimate explanation so the idea of miracles become rather blase.

    P.S, whats even more paradoxical to your brute force fact of a universe that operates by the process of fluctuations is that though such a universe would have the property of process as it “fluctuates” it does not ultimately operate because of processes

    Like

  224. from nates post “Prophecy Part 6: Tyre”

    Mike Anthony
    May 7, 2014 at 3:34 pm
    “do you? what are your credentials?

    Seminary training.

    ABlacksmanagain
    May 18, 2015 at 4:17 pm
    “wasnt your degree in seminary? I think the references was in real college degrees.”

    NO it wasn’t

    well, i stand corrected. he never said he had a degree in seminary, just “training.” my memory isnt perfect, but i knew something about seminary had been mentioned by mike.

    trained in seminary, what’s your degree in? it doesnt matter, I guess.

    Like

  225. “Has anyone seen how Christians harmonize the 15 generation difference in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke?”

    This Christian as well as many others I have read do not consider genealogies to be necessarily exhaustive. They often skipped generation or several generations particularly ones just for showing the line of ancestry.

    ” If every generation is 20 years, that would mean that Joseph was 300 years older than Mary. How can that be explained away?”

    simple. My answer above and the fact that you are off the deep end if you think generations are always each 20 years long. Generations are dependent on how long people live and die and when they have children.

    Where are you drawing this 20 year thing from?

    Like

  226. Has anyone seen how Christians harmonize the 15 generation difference in the genealogies of Matthew and Luke? If every generation is 20 years, that would mean that Joseph was 300 years older than Mary. How can that be explained away?

    There’s a wide range of ages in which people can have children. The problem to me isn’t so much the differences in the number of generations — it’s that they have completely different genealogies altogether, yet both claim to go through Joseph.

    Liked by 2 people

  227. “it’s that they have completely different genealogies altogether, yet both claim to go through Joseph.” – nate

    right they are different, then the same, then different again…

    they simply do not match, and both simply cannot be accurate. any efforts to rectify this, is pure conjecture of the sort that “rectify” any contradiction.

    Like

  228. “They often skipped generation or several generations particularly ones just for showing the line of ancestry.” – ABlacksmanagain

    this is true, but it doesnt hold for matthew or luke. When you say :jesus, the son of David, and the son of Abraham” then yes, but when you’re listing everyone as direct linje proof, but omit just a few, that’s different – for obvious reasons.

    And with matthew, he’s making a case for the perfect numbers in between, but he only reaches his perfect number by skipping a few people and counting David twice…

    if we can count certain people more than once if we like, and toss out a few others, then we make any number, in any linage appear and call it “special.” it’s just not.

    Like

  229. It is mind-boggling the number of twisted, convoluted harmonizations that Christians have concocted to maintain the compatibility of these two genealogies. Check out this Wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

    Christians start out with the assumption that their god exists and that the Bible is inerrant, and then attempt, by any means, to fit the evidence into that a priori bias. Yet the evidence that their god (not just any Creator god) exists is so pathetically poor. For some unexplainable reason, they cannot see it or at least admit it.

    Liked by 1 person

  230. @ABlacksmanagain

    You are missing that that doesn’t matter at all. Infinite has no end so when you say infinite causations you are still saying there is no ultimate cause.

    Yes. I’m saying there would be no ultimate cause.

    You can go on forever and ever but if a process has no beginning and reason for itself is just not what people refer to as natural.

    It is what we call eternal. No beginning and no end. It does not have a reason because it does not have a beginning.

    if today something happens and it actually has zero reason for happening that would be considered by any reasonable practical definition to be miraculous.

    But this would be something “happening”, whereas an eternal universe or eternal mind would never “happen”, it would just exist.

    Well we have been talking as if infinity past is even something the human mind has to try and grasp when infinite past is not even a given or even has the slightest evidence for its existence. I’ve been reasoning within that proposition to examine it but not necessarily buying it because it really has nothing to suggest its real.

    This is fair. Thank you for reasoning along with the proposition.

    Christianity and Judaism propose a god outside of time not one within an infinitely old universe, Christianity requires him creating time not being subject to it.

    Well, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that to be outside of time is to be within a reality where nothing ever happens. If you can create time then you are performing an event. But events can only “happen” if you have time within which to do so.

    well You are trying to envision getting there or attempting to get there but failing. An infinitely old universe has no beginning its not merely a problem with getting there. the start point does not and cannot exist. So still there is no cause and naturalism is defeated

    If there is no cause then there is no reason to wonder whether it is a natural (non-intelligent) or supernatural (intelligent) cause. The cause just does not exist.

    I don’t think naturalism claims that “everything has a cause”, it just claims that “every cause that exists is basically natural (no invisible entities controlling it)”.

    even if you do come up with such a stance it does nothing but redefine reality to allow for events that have no ultimate explanation

    It’s not an event that has no ultimate explanation it’s existence itself which has no ultimate explanation. The real question for this would be “Why do things even exist?” I don’t think this question can be answered by naturalism or supernaturalism.

    Liked by 3 people

  231. even if you do come up with such a stance it does nothing but redefine reality to allow for events that have no ultimate explanation

    It’s not an event that has no ultimate explanation it’s existence itself which has no ultimate explanation. The real question for this would be “Why do things even exist?” I don’t think this question can be answered by naturalism or supernaturalism.

    Yes, I think you’re exactly right here, Dave. The other question is “what is nothing?” Or maybe a better would be “what is the ‘default state’?”

    Typically, we assume that the default state of things is absolutely nothing: no invisible gases, no force fields, no elements — nothing. But that kind of ‘nothing’ has never been demonstrated to even exist. So how do we know that’s the default state? I think this is what Krauss’s book was driving at — or at least, that’s how I understood part of it.

    Liked by 2 people

  232. I think one of the problems is that naturalism exists in rules, where supernaturalism doesnt. Anyone inclined to the supernatural side has no boundaries – they can claim that their supernatural force is all powerful, all knowing and eternal. It needs no cause, can use natural laws but inst bound by them and can do anything, even the absurd, even it appears counter to reason, their supernatural force can do it and knows best.

    But unlike naturalism, this supernatural entity can not be tested, cannot be verified in anyway. and the most they know of this thing, are from claims written down by people who claimed to have special insights regarding this supernatural thing.

    the natural is observable, repeatable and testable and knowable.

    the debate on supernaturalism only survives because you cant point to something and say, “look, there it isnt,” and it goes and on and on, not because of evidence or reason, but because the nature of the supernatural is only limited to one’s imagination. since anything is possible with it, they actually think it’s a viable possibility.

    it’s an utter waste outside of entertainment value.

    but again, if we assume god did it, how do we get from there, to the god of the bible is that god?

    So far, the explanations of that is: “the bible exists, so it’s an option.”

    good. let’s examine the bible to see if we can find it trustworthy. other than that, what is there?

    Liked by 2 people

  233. The discussion above is why I do not refer to myself as an atheist, rather an agnostic naturalist. By doing so, I avoid having to debate Christians on the “overwhelming evidence” for a Creator. I get to skip that endless debate and jump right to the weak link in the Christian belief system:

    “Prove to me that Yahweh-Jesus is the Creator.”

    The Christian usually then responds with: “The Resurrection of Jesus proves that he is the Creator.”

    I then ask for the evidence for the historicity of the Resurrection…and what do I get:

    1. The story as told by four anonymous, first century authors, writing decades after the event, in a foreign language, in far away locations, three of which plagiarize much of the first, with the last part of the story chock full of discrepancies.

    2. The eye-witness testimony of a manic-depressive Jewish Pharisee named Saul-Paul regarding his “heavenly vision” of seeing a talking light on a lonely desert highway.

    3. Plus a lot of assumptions and second century hearsay.

    And that’s it.

    And they expect me to believe that some first century Jewish prophet is the Creator of the Universe??? They are delusional.

    Liked by 1 person

  234. “But this would be something “happening”, whereas an eternal universe or eternal mind would never “happen”, it would just exist.”

    things Happen all the time in this universe. Do you see everything just existing in eternal states now? In your fluctuating universe fluctuations happen. That’s the point. A process having no cause is not a natural event not without special pleading. You’ve yet to make even half a case for that.

    “Well, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that to be outside of time is to be within a reality where nothing ever happens. If you can create time then you are performing an event. But events can only “happen” if you have time within which to do so.”

    actually no. If you have no action taking place then you have no time. Practically the action is what creates the passage of time. if you froze the action of everything in the universe time for all practical purposes has stopped. You are merely assuming the naturalistic construct that an action cannot be instantaneous but happens by a process but you are at the same time paradoxically admitting that the “fluctuations” or what causes them has no process by which they are derived.

    As some cosmologists have tried to explain in discussions of this universe (in discussions of the big bang) you technically can have time beginning and you would be incorrect at talking about what was before time. A clock at 12 am can start to move (but not by any natural process) but if its the first tick of the clock it would not be appropriate to talk about what preceded that 12 am

    the “moment” (for lack of a better term) of now does not need a passage of time. its instantaneous. Theist believe God is in a perpetual state of now. From his perspective he is in the now. It is not a “world” that relies on natural processes in part because natural processes are not logically maintanable in any construct including an infinite old reality, Turtles all the way down doesn’t work for natural processes without them gaining supernatural quality. We might as well just live with it. An “I am because I am” in some form is inevitable. The irrationality the trying to pinhole natural processes into such a mix is illustrated by An infinite chain of dominoes. Not only isn’t there a first domino that starts to fall you end up having momentum that comes from nothing…..zip.

    “If there is no cause then there is no reason to wonder whether it is a natural (non-intelligent) or supernatural (intelligent) cause. The cause just does not exist.”

    and as I have tried to explain to you a few times that’s besides the point. The question is that of natural processes. You have still yet to explain how a process is natural if it has no beginning when all natural processes we see have beginnings. You actually have infinite levels to explain naturally

    “I don’t think naturalism claims that “everything has a cause”, it just claims that “every cause that exists is basically natural (no invisible entities controlling it)”

    and a cause that does not exist is visible? perhaps you need to think about it a bit more because all events in an infitinitely old universe ultimately have no cause so there is nothing that meets your exclusion and nada is visible since the cause does not exist.

    “It’s not an event that has no ultimate explanation it’s existence itself which has no ultimate explanation.”

    Sorry but that distinction has no merit (to be honest its just verbage) especially for any materialist ( not claiming you are one) that maintains all existence is based on events. It pretty much a duck and run. You live in a universe that is filled with natural process events making up our and the universe’s existence so the issue is events having no ultimate explanation. You can’t just throw that out the window when those chain of events point logically to non natural process conclusion. We are here by a serious of events. As logical beings we can explore the necessary conclusion of a reality based on events and like it or not that logical conclusion is that events are not all caused by other natural events.

    ” The real question for this would be “Why do things even exist?” I don’t think this question can be answered by naturalism or supernaturalism.”

    You are free to explore any question you wish but to me its somewhat meaningless. things exist. I am more interested in the how not the why. MY point is not a philosophical issue but a practical one of what infinitely old realities means for natural processes. They make them totally untenable and irrational as the basis for reality.

    Like

  235. “Yes, I think you’re exactly right here, Dave. The other question is “what is nothing?” ”

    Sorry Nate thats just a shell con game. We already know what nothing is. Its a word defined in dictionaries. Its that which does not exist. to claim nothing has abilities properties or even laws is just nonsense. Skeptics and even some scientists don’t get to change the meaning of words to try and con the public

    Now if you want to say (second half of your post) that there has always been something then that’s fine but the word nothing is not in question and if were a bible passage that tried that hueey you’d be all over it

    Like

  236. I disagree, Mike. You can call it semantics, but I’m just trying to illustrate that saying “nothing” (the strict definition) is the default state of things is an assumption. That’s why this argument is a bit meaningless — none of us knows what the ultimate explanation of our existence is. Some people believe it’s a supernatural explanation, and others don’t. Some of us, like me, don’t actually care a whole lot one way or the other. But as William has repeatedly said, none of that really matters when it comes to Christianity. You still have to demonstrate how you get from supernatural first cause to a specific deity.

    Like

  237. “As logical beings we can explore the necessary conclusion of a reality based on events and like it or not that logical conclusion is that events are not all caused by other natural events.” – ABlacksmanagain

    now logically take us from here to the bible being from god.

    because like it or not, it’s just a collection of claims that men made a long time ago. the fact that it exists is not proof that it is accurate. the fact that people believe it, is not proof that it’s accurate.

    supernatural started it all. okay. how does that get us to god of the bible?

    Like

  238. “The Christian usually then responds with: “The Resurrection of Jesus proves that he is the Creator.”

    Finally we agree on something. (I know. the moment will be fleeting) If resurrection by itself proved a party was God then everyone that was raised in the BIble would be God

    Perhaps start asking other Christians?

    (not me since you have already stated I am to be ignored and having read enough of you you would not be able to con me that you would have any intention of having a balanced conversation or give a flying leap about “finding truth”)

    either that or you could stop disingenuously pretending that the Internet is not available to you to find Christians that do not give that as their sole answer

    Like

  239. “I disagree, Mike. You can call it semantics, but I’m just trying to illustrate that saying “nothing” (the strict definition) is the default state of things is an assumption.”

    Nothing is nothing Nate spin on pin all you wish. Its crapola to consider the definition for a word up to questioning to suit your or Krauss argument. if the Bible argued that nothing was in fact something elsewhere you would be jumping joyously to claim its a sure contradiction (and egads! you might actually finally have one 😉 )and we both know it. Not mind reading. history of your blog reading.

    ” But as William has repeatedly said, none of that really matters when it comes to Christianity. ”

    Of course it does because a central tenet of yours and your small band is that miracles as priori are absurd. Its all over your blog though I see you trying to deny it (and other realities)World views have everything to do with that . If you cannot logically maintain naturalism as a basis for reality then it takes way from your assumed Priori.

    “You still have to demonstrate how you get from supernatural first cause to a specific deity.”

    and you have to justify your obvious priori and stop begging that you can wave your hand saying that doesn’t matter to escape engaging on the issue of worldview. I give Dave props for at least trying to address a substantial issue. Something you have never even tried to do.

    In debates and discussion that has any integrity to them you don’t get to just wave your hand and say that issue doesn’t matter because I say so. Suck it up and deal with the issue because it has clear and obvious application. A great deal of the incredulity that people believe the Gospels is based very much on the idea that Miracles are on the face of them to skeptics absurd. Fromm that alleged priori your and your merry small band then gets to claim a higher level of proof is needed because of the miraculous nature of some Biblical accounts.

    so its not just an important issue its foundational to determine logical not assumed levels required for proof.

    Like

  240. Sometimes believers will say anything to maintain that the bible is of god and that jesus is his son/him. and as evidenced above, when asked direct questions that they either do not like, cannot answer or always fail to see, they’ll avoid answering altogether and juke about while simultaneously blaming the questioning non-believer for being “unobjective”, “disingenuous” or or “stupid” or “arrogant” or whatever else they can think of – anything except a rational answer.

    why, ABlacksmanagain, do you believe in jesus, if you do, and how do you get from a guessed supernatural first cause to jesus, lord and savior?

    Like

  241. Mike, please demonstrate with testable evidence that before the Big Bang, there was absolutely nothing. Also, please demonstrate with testable evidence that the cause of the Big Bang was supernatural.

    If, as I suspect, you can’t demonstrate it, then your points are conjecture. This is exactly what I was trying to say with my recent comments about “nothing.” We don’t know enough to reasonably discuss it, much less argue about it, so why not move on to something more substantial?

    As to miracles, I don’t have an a priori objection to them. If I did, I never would have been a Christian at all.

    Like

  242. – is nothingness the default state? how do you illustrate this? and when this is the question, why argue about the definition of “nothing?”

    – I dont discount miracle outright, as i have said before. I just question them since I have never seen one. that being the case, and since I am not typically a gullible person, i’d like to see some evidence instead of claims in an old book that contains its share of problems. is this really difficult to comprehend?

    – could it be a presupposition that miracles are real?

    – if we do allow for there being a first cause and that it must be supernatural, please take us to how you are arrive at the bible is from god and his son is the man jesus.

    dont wave your hand and ignore these. this blog has always been a discussion on the bible. you want to make it about first cause and supernatural beginnings. cool, we can discuss it with you. it only will boil down to “i think this and you think that” as there’s nothing you can point to. and regarding special pleading, that is all that supports your god. why not gods? why all powerful? it’s pointless to discuss, and it only holds merit when illustrating that there are so many possibilities… so, back the to the bible… I know you really dont want to discuss this, because this where even you realize there’s nothing of substance – it’s just a huge leap, with eyes squeezed shut, hoping it’s correct, while shouting that you know it is, you know it is.

    Like

  243. Incidentally Nate. While you are instructing others on what they have to demonstrate. Any idea when you are going to get around to demonstrating from the actual text where the verses in question in your post mention anything about technological advances? Or were you assuming making bricks and constructing buildings was a technological advance even though the text indicates they already knew how to do that?

    Just figured we would clear up what this post is about since its been all over the place with sans any supporting text as to its central premise from you.

    Like

  244. Are you kidding? It was in my initial post, and in a comment I posted yesterday. But here it is again:

    And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.
    Gen 11:5-6

    If it’s not talking about their technological advances, what’s it talking about?

    Like

  245. “Just figured we would clear up what this post is about since its been all over the place with sans any supporting text as to its central premise from you.” -ABlacksmanagain

    says the guy who claims god confused the languages because he was afraid they’d use the tower for pagan worship… and that’s in verse?

    what a douche.

    Like

  246. ABlacksmanagain, really doing all you can to keep from answering the obvious questions like,

    – if there was a supernatural first cause how do you get from there to the god of the bible?

    – how do you know that nothingness is the default state, or that there was ever a time of nothing?

    Like

  247. “Mike, please demonstrate with testable evidence that before the Big Bang, there was absolutely nothing”

    I don’t believe there ever was nothing Nate. So why would i? Do Christians believe that once there was no God and therefore nothing? try and make some sense. That however does NOT mean that there is any question about what nothing is which is the point I spelled out to you and the very center of what Krauss who you referenced tries to pull of.

    “Also, please demonstrate with testable evidence that the cause of the Big Bang was supernatural. ”

    Super natural mean beyond natural Nate – if you actually look the word up. The universe is strictly speaking within what we call nature. IF you want to claim that natural extends beyond our universe then its you that need to present some evidence that even going beyond, before and outside of our universe “natural” still applies

    If as I suspect you can’t demonstrate that beyond our universe is actually still a natural explanation then your points are TOTAL conjecture.

    Like

  248. You’re just playing word games. You and I both know that when you talk about supernatural, you’re referring to something that’s basically magic. Gods, etc. Please demonstrate that it/they exist.

    Like

  249. “Super natural mean beyond natural Nate – if you actually look the word up. The universe is strictly speaking within what we call nature. IF you want to claim that natural extends beyond our universe then its you that need to present some evidence that even going beyond, before and outside of our universe “natural” still applies

    If as I suspect you can’t demonstrate that beyond our universe is actually still a natural explanation then your points are TOTAL conjecture.” – ABlacksmanagain

    any speculation about the beginning of the universe is speculation, ABlacksmanagain.

    but okay, let’s say there is a supernatural beginning to the universe.

    1. how does that mean 1 god?

    2. how does that one god mean god of the bible?

    Like

  250. what’s not conjecture, is that the bible was written by men, compiled by men, translated by men, and distributed by men and defended by men.

    It’s also not conjecture that those men try to defend it because of the errors it contains.

    the origins of the universe… conjecture. ironically, speculating on it is just a fruitful as basing one’s faith in the bible.

    Like

  251. “Are you kidding? It was in my initial post, and in a comment I posted yesterday. But here it is again:”

    Not kidding whatsoever Nate. Either I am as blind as a bat or you are (fair enough you know where my vote goes). Go ahead show me in your quote where it mentions technological advances. should be easy to bold it for me since its right there

    ” And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.
    Gen 11:5-6

    Let me cut to the chase and state the obvious. Its NOT THERE. theres ZERO Mention of technology or even acquiring knowledge in the text. Your full of nonsense. You accuse Christians of reading things into passages but don’t blink to do the same if it gets you to a conclusion you wish to get to.

    “this is the beginning of what they will do” in no way shape or form tells us what actions God was looking to avoid them doing. You made it up clear out of your head. You assumed it against all context. Since God is every were concerned with sin there is no reason whatsoever to think he would be anti technology for anti technology sake and not have in focus actions of sin (and NOWHERE in the text is it said he scattered them just for building but for what they might do next).

    Daniel studied all kinds of things In Babylon with God’s approval and blessing, Luke was a physician, practically every field of science was initiated by a Jew, Christian or Muslim. NADA none of them saw studying technologies or advancing human knowledge within the construct of their religion as violating god’s directives and a great deal of them would have known the story of Babel

    furthermore the action of building the tower shows no technological advance. they already knew how to make bricks. You’ve done some hack jobs in the past but this right up there with them

    You want to direct people on what they need to show and demonstrate within comments? Try doing the same in your posts first.

    Like

  252. Mike, are you accusing God of a non sequitur? Are you suggesting that when he sees mankind building a huge tower and makes the statement “this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” it has nothing to do with his decision to confuse their language and scatter them? Is that really the argument you want to make?

    Like

  253. “furthermore the action of building the tower shows no technological advance. they already knew how to make bricks. You’ve done some hack jobs in the past but this right up there with them” – ABlacksmanagain

    actually, making a tower is quite different from making a brick. making a multi-story structure is very different from making a single story structure.

    the tower shows advancement is engineering and construction. it’s technical.

    you weren’t a lawyer, a mathematician or an engineer…. did you really get a degree? political science?

    but again, if that absence of a specific term bothers you so, why then do you argue that god confused the languages because of potential pagan worship? nate’s position at least has something going for it, yours has even less. it is literally at absolute zero.

    really though,

    1. how does that mean 1 god?

    2. how does that one god mean god of the bible?

    Like

  254. I mean, mike, you’re right, it’s a pretty dumb thing to get upset about, which is part of the reason we’re skeptical over it.

    but clumping up in one place isnt wrong either, but the text seems to show god didnt want that. making a name for yourself, okay, maybe they were prideful. confusing their languages didnt stop pride or gathering, or tower building… really anyway you look at this text, it just doesnt make sense for a perfect all knowing god to do this when it creates other problems and does nothing to really curb the issues beyond immediate short term.

    but whatever.

    the biggest thing mentioned in this thread that has the least support in the text is the argument that god did this because of pagan worship at the top of their tower. where’s that in the text?

    You want to correct people on what they need to show and demonstrate from the biblical text? Try doing the same yourself first.

    Like

  255. a natural first cause is no more conjecture than a supernatural first cause. even so, let’s say supernatural.

    1. why does that mean just 1 god?

    2. why does that 1 god have to be all powerful and all knowing?

    3. why would he want to have people write us a book for him?

    4. assuming any of the above, how do you get from any of that to the god of the bible?

    without answering this, you not only appear to be cowering away, you render the whole discussion about first cause moot, in a blog devoted the bible. but let’s discuss it if you like.’

    I think the bible is man made. And I have stated why on a blog that does so more than i. if you think it’s from god, please show why?

    Like

  256. Dear Nate, William, Dave, and Arch:

    Here is your problem: You have been blinded to the truth by an evil spirit. In order to break this evil spirit’s spell over your brains, you must get down on your knees, right now, and pledge total submission to an ancient middle-eastern deity named Yahweh-Jesus. Until you do this, you will never see the wonderful and completely accurate insights that “Mike” is trying to share with you as he attempts to explain the Gospel with you of his loving Savior Jesus.

    Like

  257. “Mike, are you accusing God of a non sequitur?”

    NO Nate I am accusing you of doing a clear and obvious hack job on the text (and at this point of having no clue what a non sequitur is)

    “Are you suggesting that when he sees mankind building a huge tower and makes the statement “this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” it has nothing to do with his decision to confuse their language and scatter them? Is that really the argument you want to make?”

    Can you read Nate? Its as clear as day that the action is being taken to stop what they might do next not merely what they had done. ITS RIGHT THERE STARING AT YOU IN THE TEXT. Why it has something to do with the building of the tower is that it demonstrates they will be capable of doing other united things too but the passage whether you spin, whine ,beg or plead does NOT say that its to stop technological advances and given the clear context of the Bible would have more to do with sin than advancement. You are embarrassing yourself and making it clear how much you will defend the twisting of text to suit yourself.

    Nothing about the text indicates a technological advance. We have no knowledge that this was even the first time a multi story building that had been built (unlikely) . though its reasonable to think they might have been wanting to build the tallest building a taller building does not necessitate a technological advance and certainly none of the total garbage you wrote about finding cures for diseases or faster than light travel.

    Why won’t you address yourself to showing where in the text it states it was to stop men from having technological advances? Obvious…because you know you can’t so instead youtry and run away into asking me silly rhetorical questions.

    Better to just fess up and admit you are adding your assumptions to the text. Its a far more honest approach.

    Like

  258. Good News nate.

    If you were trying to find a picture that describes how your in laws will look at you when you tell them your quoted text proves its talking about technological advances

    YOU NAILED IT Bro!!

    rofl.

    Like

  259. Christians start out with the assumption that their god exists and that the Bible is inerrant, and then attempt, by any means, to fit the evidence into that a priori bias.” – Exactly!

    Like

  260. The Christian usually then responds with: ‘The Resurrection of Jesus proves that he is the Creator.’” – By that logic, wouldn’t the resurrection of Matthew’s zombies prove that they were the creators?

    Like

  261. “By that logic, wouldn’t the resurrection of Matthew’s zombies prove that they were the creators?”

    Arch, there are 10 resurrection stories in the OT & NT. Doesn’t that put Christianity into Polytheism if they were all creators ? 🙂

    Of course many Jews already think Christianity is Polytheistic because of the Trinity.

    Like

  262. I wondered how long it would take him to get around to the phrase, “hand waving” – it used to be his stock in trade, that, and twisting scripture into pretzels to get it to mean what he wants it to mean.

    Liked by 1 person

  263. @ABlacksmanagain

    things Happen all the time in this universe. Do you see everything just existing in eternal states now? In your fluctuating universe fluctuations happen.

    We could say there are fundamental conditions or properties that would keep quantum particles in a constant state of flux. We can call them constants or laws or forces or “I Ams”. I wouldn’t claim these are based on natural processes, but are brute facts or “necessary” conditions that could not have been any other way. Perhaps this is not naturalism based on your definition, but it does not include any intelligent beings operating in the background which is my understanding of naturalism.

    A process having no cause is not a natural event not without special pleading.

    It’s not an event.

    I don’t consider this special pleading because the alternative scenarios are just as theoretical and include “necessary” conditions. Alternatives: An eternal mind exists necessarily or a mind outside of time exists necessarily or the universe just popped out of nowhere necessarily. So either way we are faced with assuming some kind of brute fact about reality. I think you may agree with this when you said “We might as well just live with it. An ‘I am because I am’ in some form is inevitable.”

    the “moment” (for lack of a better term) of now does not need a passage of time. its instantaneous. Theist believe God is in a perpetual state of now. From his perspective he is in the now.

    The problem I see with God being stuck in a moment is that everything he does is done simultaneously. I don’t see how conscious thoughts can exist in this state.

    Liked by 1 person

  264. A process having no cause is not a natural event not without special pleading.” – It sounds like he’s saying that the existence of his god involves special pleading.

    Like

  265. “The most constant threat to a Worldview carefully constructed of “revealed” truths is reason. In a reasoned world, the idea of truth is dynamic. It hasn’t been revealed once and for all, and so opening the doors to new ideas and concepts is part of every day life. Reason distrusts revelation in the same measure as it is distrusted by revelation. It “relies on observation, reflection, critical thinking, and testing by experimentation, and it builds on what is learned in this way from generation to generation to expand knowledge and understanding.” Ideas based in reason don’t shy away from the demand for proof; either they have it or they find it. And if ideas can’t be proven, they are set aside without threat of destabilizing the whole worldview.

    (Gretta Vosper , Amen)

    Liked by 2 people

  266. “We could say there are fundamental conditions or properties that would keep quantum particles in a constant state of flux. ”

    I am not getting the progression in your explanation thats just changing the word fluctuations to flux. Those are still events for which you are claiming a constant process of change

    “We can call them constants or laws or forces or “I Ams”. I wouldn’t claim these are based on natural processes, but are brute facts”

    The laws yes the fluctuations no. They are not brute facts. They follow from a process that has no beginning in your argument. Whatever causes this change or flux is non existent. Further they are not merely brute force laws they are following on from a previous state to the present state and yet in your framework of an infinitely old universe no state can ultimately be set for the laws to determine the outcome that follows it. Its a beast of dilemma but its a necessary consideration again due to the vagaries of this undertermined as real infinite status you are invoking.

    its like a swinging pendulum. Sure you can claim that laws govern the way it swings but the laws operate upon the state of the pendulum – its position, speed and effects of gravity. IN a infinite turtle-all-the-way-down infinite universe the law has no set point of position or speed to start with.

    How do we know its going to be swinging to its full height to the right in a second? well because of its position presently to the left and so forth and so on but in your infinite universe scenarios there is no set location to plot from.

    So saying the laws are eternal doesn’t even get you out of having to answer the still remaining issue of the natural process that the laws are acting on.

    ” or “necessary” conditions that could not have been any other way. Perhaps this is not naturalism based on your definition, but it does not include any intelligent beings operating in the background which is my understanding of naturalism. ”

    well like I said you can always TRY to redefine the term naturalism but no naturalism is and has not been defined merely on the basis of of “no intelligent beings operating in the background”. To illustrate that point there have been a few scientists that have claimed life may have been seeded on our planet by an intelligent civilization. Now that is is no way main stream and is presently on the kook fringe but would that mean they are invoking a supernatural theory? Nope not if the civilization was within our universe and thus a part of our universe. Nevertheless it would still be an “intelligent beings operating in the background” so your definition does not even work.

    Naturalism relates to nature and by nature we mean our universe and what and how it operates based on laws and cause and effect. Science is entirely based on cause and effect which is a process. if we can;t repeat something then its not good science. Our ability to repeat is heavily dependent on cause and effect. To be honest The situation beyond the issues of infinite universes is actually worse for you as i alluded to when Nate tried to beg I should prove what i don’t believe.

    The best science presently indicates you don’t live in an eternal universe. the best science still says this universe has a beginning and will have a death so the only hope of a materialist is to invoke multiple universes but in that case he is shooting right outside of nature (our universe) to explain our existence and yet almost hilariously continues claiming in the next breath that anyone else (such as religious people ) who point outside the universe/nature for explanation is illogical.

    “The problem I see with God being stuck in a moment is that everything he does is done simultaneously. I don’t see how conscious thoughts can exist in this state.”

    There are no issue with that you are just circularly envisioning that God must think like you do in step by step process. Further Special relativity has indicated time may flow faster or slower or even come to a stop for someone approaching the speed of light while the rest or the world flies by in regular time. we don;t know very much about such circumstances but we do know how times flows in natural processes and you have still yet to show how a natural process makes any sense without a beginning.

    It doesn’t matter how it is spinned . Ask the guy on the street or in a lab if a ball floating in the air appears to him that has no explanation but “that it is how it must be” and he is unlikely to agree that its a natural event just because theres no intelligent being operating in the background. Claiming a process can still be natural without having a beginning is nothing more than special pleading. There is not a single drop of evidence of such a process anywhere in science. Even QM is dependent on initial states. The fact that materialists can claim it for themselves puts religious and even people who believe in miracles on absolutely equal footing.

    Like

  267. “.” – It sounds like he’s saying that the existence of his god involves special pleading.”

    It would to you arch but try and keep up. Christians don’t believe God is a process much less a natural process. Caught up on the recent findings of a Davidic monarchy yet? better to just play Ostrich after your blunder of relying wholeheartedly on what he told you eh?

    Like

  268. @Mike

    Ask the guy on the street or in a lab if a ball floating in the air appears to him that has no explanation but “that it is how it must be” and he is unlikely to agree that its a natural event just because theres no intelligent being operating in the background.

    To be fair I think if you ask someone 2000 years ago about lightning they’ll say lightning is not a natural event. Same thing for volcanic eruption etc.

    I do agree about the special pleading about universe without cause, but can’t we say the same for God that is by definition uncaused? However, the reason for this special pleading is just that we don’t really have perfect understanding of how the universe began, just like how someone will argue with me till cow comes home that it is Thor that is angry hence lightning happened.

    Like

  269. ” A process having no cause is not a natural event not without special pleading.

    It’s not an event.”

    You are right its not an event a process is a whole set of events so i see no point to your claim that its not an event beyond objecting to the singular

    “I don’t consider this special pleading because the alternative scenarios are just as theoretical and include “necessary” conditions.”

    Thats not the basis of it being special pleading. the basis for it being an obvious special pleading scenario is that you are still trying to sell a natural process as being one without a cause and natural processes are sequence based. One thing leads to another and proceeds from another. that is not the case in an infinite old universe scenario.

    The HUGE difference with alternative scenarios is they are not begging they are nevertheless “natural”. The special pleading on your part is insisting against logic that such events/processes would be natural. It presents a quality to visible testable nature that is not shown to be a quality of nature anywhere. IF that is not special pleading then nothing is. Even theist do not claim that an uncaused God is nevertheless natural. logical yes natural to this universe no.

    ” Alternatives: An eternal mind exists necessarily or a mind outside of time exists necessarily or the universe just popped out of nowhere necessarily. So either way we are faced with assuming some kind of brute fact about reality. I think you may agree with this when you said “We might as well just live with it. An ‘I am because I am’ in some form is inevitable.”

    Of course those are not equivalent. With the eternal mind or even laws of nature you have a basis for reality. Claiming that the universe pops out of nothing or nowhere ascribes an illogical imaginary power to nowhere or nothing. In case you are wondering laws of nature proceeding from nothing natural and not flowing from something else physical but existing and even being mathematically logical is so close to What the church teaches about the nature of how God created the universe as to be indistinguishable.

    SO what do you have? a reality that is uncaused not matching how the universe presently works, a reality that is logical in structure even to the point of being mathematically deduced and a reality that is capable of intelligent thought in various forms – and to boot since the best science says this is not an eternal universe we live in you end up having to go outside the universe for answers anyway

    So All viable options have logical structure, all viable options are capable of or potentially capable of intelligent thought, all viable options are eternal and have I am that I am qualities and all roads lead to a reality outside of our present universe

    So close to the concept of theism in all cases materialist should hush themselves about calling religious idea or people idiots. However most of them including parties here cannot think worth a lick to see it.

    Like

  270. “To be fair I think if you ask someone 2000 years ago about lightning they’ll say lightning is not a natural event. Same thing for volcanic eruption etc.”

    Sorry Powell but first of all thats kind of irrelevant. the discussion I am having with Dave has to do with infinite past not present phenomenons we don’t have explanations for. IF you are claiming science will one day figure out that everything has a cause forever into infinity then you are just not getting the discussion.

    Secondly the idea that every time a lightningbolt fell people thought a miracle had happened is just not supported by the facts but it makes for great sound bytes for atheists to claim. people believed as many still do today that the laws governing such thing are under the domain of God but the idea they all thought every time rain fell and a thunderstorm was moving through that it was a supernatural event that was taking place is just balderdash. Most founders of today’s science fields were theists who went looking and found how things like lightning worked. they expected to find reasons and rationals beyond just – ooh thats a miracle or supernatural.

    “do agree about the special pleading about universe without cause, but can’t we say the same for God that is by definition uncaused?”

    See my responses to David above. My claim for special pleading is not that Dave invokes an uncaused cause its that he is begging that uncaused causes are nevertheless natural. Uncaused causes are inevitable logically but claiming they are natural is something that Even theists do not claim

    ” However, the reason for this special pleading is just that we don’t really have perfect understanding of how the universe began, just like how someone will argue with me till cow comes home that it is Thor that is angry hence lightning happened.”

    Seriously how many people within the last two thousand years claimed that. I fear You’ve bit into legend and materialist sound bytes not reality

    Like

  271. @mike

    hmm… I think I see what you’re saying and perhaps you’re right about the sound bytes and legends. You have any readings about this that I can look into? My understanding is that indeed people of old do think that every single lightning strike is deity related – Asian mythology (of which I’m from) actually state that there is indeed a thunder god that is patrolling the skies killing those who are immoral, and lightning is there so that the thunder god can see in the dark.

    Like

  272. Ideas based in reason don’t shy away from the demand for proof; either they have it or they find it.

    Liked by 2 people

  273. ABlacksmanagain,

    I never took the tower of babel story to mean that god wanted to stop technological advances. In fact, reading from the KJV I always took it as god almost looking at rascally children with a bit of pride, “whatever they imagine, I will not keep from them” or however it’s exactly written.

    But with nate’s write up, i think he did quite well. I saw it as addressing all the possible ways someone might say, “but well, it really means this, god actually did it for that…” and indeed, with the wording the way it is, if someone thought god didnt want them to reach heaven, then it’s not hard to see why others might think it was because god didn’t want them getting too far ahead technologically.

    sure, it didnt end technological advances, but neither did the tower end pride, or building high, or whatever. there was even still pagan worship in high places… so confusing the languages at the tower didnt do anything long term except make people move have a reason to despise one another – but people likely would have moved on when they needed more space or food, and could have found other reasons to hate each other, so it still makes one ask, “what?”

    there are so many interpretations of the bible, that nate’s write up seemed to be addressing as many as he could think of at the moment. And if he missed any or anyone disagreed, that’s what the comment section is for.

    dont think god wanted to stop them from making technological advances (which a tall tower would have been) because the text doesnt support it? okay. I can even agree with that. But getting on a high horse over it, when offering a theory about pagan worship on top of the tower is just unfair and a fine example of hypocrisy – as there is even less in the text to support tower top pagan worship. the text at least speaks on technological advances, but i havent seen any hint to pagan worship on the tower of babel.

    and guess what, everyone here agrees that god halting tower construction over technological advances is a silly thing to do. so why belabor it?

    maybe you can elaborate where you read “tower top pagan worship” in gen 11.

    as far the beginning. it’s all a guess. so, It could literally be anything. If one says it has to have been an intelligent mind that created it all, that exists outside of natural laws, then what stops anyone from saying that it was an unconscious, unintelligent eternal force that exists outside of many of the natural laws, or exists withing the natural laws, some of which just have yet to be identified? at some point, any conclusion involves special pleading. It is only limited by imagination.

    so again, why only one god?

    why the god of the bible?

    I suspect though, that you prefer to discuss theoretical origins because there;s no way to verify or refute what you guess. having to actually answer the bible means delving into things that can be checked, verified and refuted.

    It’s easier to be obnoxious, I guess.

    Like

  274. the best science still says this universe has a beginning and will have a death so the only hope of a materialist is to invoke multiple universes but in that case he is shooting right outside of nature (our universe) to explain our existence and yet almost hilariously continues claiming in the next breath that anyone else (such as religious people ) who point outside the universe/nature for explanation is illogical.

    Maybe this is where some of the breakdown is occurring. Mike, when people talk about naturalism, they’re not just talking about this specific universe that we find ourselves in. They’re talking about natural processes as opposed to intelligently-driven processes. No magic, in other words. This is why a multi-verse theory is still a more “natural” explanation than a god-based theory. Now, you’re free to complain that it may not answer the “first cause” problem, but you can’t really say that it’s supernatural.

    The other main problem is that you’re dogmatically limiting the field of possibilities when it comes to whatever preceded the Big Bang, when you have no way of knowing anything about it. The rest of us are talking in terms of “maybes,” but you’re not. That’s why I think this discussion is rather pointless: we just don’t know enough about the subject to argue about it. Neither do you — I’m just not sure that you realize that…

    Not trying to be inflammatory or insulting, by the way. Just trying to explain why the points you’re making haven’t been compelling to the rest of us.

    Like

  275. I never took the tower of babel story to mean that god wanted to stop technological advances. In fact, reading from the KJV I always took it as god almost looking at rascally children with a bit of pride, “whatever they imagine, I will not keep from them” or however it’s exactly written.

    I don’t know, William… even in the KJV, God seems to be saying that he’s concerned about what mankind will be able to accomplish if he doesn’t put a stop to it:

    5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

    6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

    7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

    8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

    I think i see where you got that impression — in verse 6 where he says “and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” But I don’t think he’s saying this approvingly; instead, I think he’s giving it as the reason why he should act. In other words, “if I don’t put a stop to it, they’ll be able to accomplish anything they put their minds to.”

    Liked by 1 person

  276. i certainly get it. you may be right. but even if not, the text certainly supports that much, much more than pagan worship at the top of babel’s tower.

    that just came way out of nowhere.

    i mean, pagan worship in that tower is just as a fabrication as saying, “god didnt the people of babel playing dice while base jumping from the tower, with parachutes provided by the extra terrestrials. yes, there is just as much textual support for that and for the tower becoming a haven for pterodactyls, as there is for pagan worship up there.

    just not a single verse, or any hint regarding it. total fantasy. a fabrication of a sick mind, that was likely scarred from an early childhood experience with pornography. I weep for such men at night, wishing their god was real so that i could pray to it on their behalf.

    Like

  277. nate,

    and at the time I formed that opinion, I was a christian, trying to make sense of the passage. you could be correct looking at it more closely now. in some ways i dont care as much as to what the specific reason was, as so far none of them make sense.

    least of all, the idea that god stopped them because of pagan worship – absolutely nowhere in that text. whoever dreamed that up was really grasping in a desperate sort of way.

    Like

  278. “Maybe this is where some of the breakdown is occurring. Mike, when people talk about naturalism, they’re not just talking about this specific universe that we find ourselves in. They’re talking about natural processes as opposed to intelligently-driven processes. ”

    🙂 Like I said to Dave you can try to desperately to redefine naturalism but its to no avail and a futile exercise. Naturalism refers to nature and with all certainty nature denotes that which we experience around us in this universe not in some reality that we can never breach or study and run tests. Any other dancing around because you don’t like the implications is just poppycock. and I might add pretty obvious poppycock too that even a child can see through. You know people are in trouble logically when they have to try and redefine words such as nature against all common sense and usage.

    “Now, you’re free to complain that it may not answer the “first cause” problem, but you can’t really say that it’s supernatural.”

    I not only can say its supernatural its what the word means. you really are having a problem with understanding terms aren’t you Nate? Super means beyond nature.Nature despite your spinning on the head redefinition refers to nature and yes that would be this one (sigh so obviously). Invoking universes outside of our own to explain origins in this universe is no different whatsoever from Theism

    “The other main problem is that you’re dogmatically limiting the field of possibilities when it comes to whatever preceded the Big Bang”

    I am not . You are. You not only have not visited this pre physical reality or mutiverses you dare to claim you know but also what and who is not in them – and/or that they operate naturally. I have made no other point but that the materialism you so love and cherish and makes you warm at night doesn’t hold up logically and that going outside this universe is going beyond any nature we know to invoke a supernatural. Thats not dogma and evidenced by your twisting what the word nature means to get out of it – its just common sense

    “The rest of us are talking in terms of “maybes,” but you’re not.”

    The only thing that I am talking about at this time in absolutes is that all roads lead for reality to have a supernatural cause. WHY ? because thats where the logic undeniable leads. Please also desist from being an hypocrite. You and yours claim often in absolutes that there is no evidence for theism/Christianity when what you really mean is you will accept no evidence that leads 90%+ of the world to believe in God

    ” That’s why I think this discussion is rather pointless…….I’m just not sure that you realize that”

    I don’t think you realize that I don;t really care what you consider pointless so you can wave it aside and not have to deal with it. Its immaterial to me. Thats always been your MO as an avoidance tactic. The only thing you have now added to it is a gymnastic pretzel move to redefine what nature is because . Seh la vie

    So lets get a couple things straight. I am posting on your blog again because you couldn’t live up to a simple gentleman’s agreement not to have mention or conversations about me in my absence NOT because I feel you have any authority or gravitus (or frankly even a wide readership- what is it 10-15 regular posters??) to determine what is or is not compelling. I’ve pointed you no arbiter of truth. Sorry but I must say you’ve proven pretty conclusively your belligerence and ignorance by continuing to claim that a passage that never mentions knowledge, learning, wisdom or ideas at all is a proof text for it being about knowledge. SO its really two options

    A) you can allow me to post and have conversations with people willing to engage not only subjects you approve of without butting in because you refuse to deal with them by any other means but fanciful redefinitions and handwaving (sorry Arch requested the phrase) or

    B) You can ban as you usually do when you have your points dismantled. Only this time since you could not live up to a simple gentleman’s agreement you will have to change the way you moderate your blog to get compliance. I lived up to my part and you didn’t so I feel no obligation to comply a second time.

    I prefer B by the way if you are taking my vote. More free time and i sensed no lost not posting to your small clan over the last few months

    But regardless don’t even dream of getting my respect when you post such nonsense about this passage having any evidence of technology in it and then follow it up by redefining nature to be other realities outside of our own. Good night even theists you claim contort and spin admit that when they refer to other realities they refer to the supernatural. Your last few posts show you have no shame.

    Like

  279. “i certainly get it. you may be right. but even if not, the text certainly supports that much, much more than pagan worship at the top of babel’s tower.

    that just came way out of nowhere.”

    I saw this as I was posting to Nate SO I wll respond.

    FIrst of all if you are ignorant about a subject just ask (in the future when I may oblige to read you more).

    Pagan worship using tall buildings is not out of nowhere.

    1) its a reocurring theme in the Bible referred to as high places
    2) it is well known and established that such towers were used for religious/astrological worship in that area and in that time
    3) It was the chief reason to build tall towers in sparsely occupied areas. You might have noticed William that sparsely occupied areas do not build upwards because ahem…they have no need for additional space like In New York. they go horizontal instead of vertical
    4) babylon later became a place for such local worship using towers (but the fact that they were dispersed was effective in it not overtaking the whole planet’s population)

    I realize you cannot help yourself as a rubber stamper to try and bail Nate out of his obvious ad blatant twisting of the text but logically (which is all I care about not your opinion) claiming that what is supported by historical, biblical and logical context is out of nowhere is pure nonsense.

    BUt please do carry on

    Like

  280. The definition of naturalism is pretty vague, merely explaining that it is devoid of the supernatural, meaning it is controlled by natural processes, not a supernatural intelligent mind.

    if you want to demand that a first cause must be supernatural, then fine. what now?

    you prefer being banned, so that you can avoid having to answer the next logical question after origins, which is, “if there was a supernatural origin, how does that lead us to the god of the bible?”

    all of your posts show you’re scared to really talk about the actual subject, lack the honesty and intellectual acuity to actually discuss the facts, but instead resort to name calling, whining, and juking.

    dont get me wrong, i dont mind it. it’s quite a show, watching you tie nooses around your own neck, but i am not sure if you really know this or if you’re actually oblivious to it.

    again, like like in the letters to kathy posts, let’s say there is a supernatural origin. How does that mean:

    1. 1 perfect all powerful god?

    2. the god of the bible?

    Like

  281. The rest of us are talking in terms of “maybes,” but you’re not.” – It takes a special kind of insecurity to not be able to take, “I don’t know” for an answer.

    Like

  282. “I think i see where you got that impression — in verse 6 where he says “and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” But I don’t think he’s saying this approvingly; instead, I think he’s giving it as the reason why he should act. In other words, “if I don’t put a stop to it, they’ll be able to accomplish anything they put their minds to.”

    WHich leads to another problem with your post that adds even more problems for you to actually back up with even a semblance of evidence

    Ummmmm where is this great anger from God in this text as you claim?

    I see an assessment of the situation, a passage that has no emotions clues or words such as “anger” “the Lord was wroth” but instead has a cool assessment of what may take place in the future and a rather mild solution to make sure it doesn’t. The people go to other parts of the world where they have more space to themselves and can develop freely their own countries

    The earth does not open and swallow them
    No pestilence is unleashed
    Its all rather lame and tame.

    The only emotion I see oozing out is yours and your great hatred of the concept of god contrived and read into a text that doesn’t have any rage at all

    I am telling you this is probably the finest example of what I have stated is in almost all your writings. Pure hackery of the text to get to where you want to go

    Like

  283. I never thought I would be defending Mike, but I am defending why his theory is plausible. And yet when you continue to read below , you could also make a case for technology.

    The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies. They were believed to be dwelling places for the gods and each city had its own patron god. Only priests were permitted on the ziggurat or in the rooms at its base, and it was their responsibility to care for the gods and attend to their needs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat)

    Regardless, the Babylonians were the first to fire clay. There is other evidence of the use of clay for daily living. Axe heads of clay have been found, as has weaponry in the form of sling bolts and bullets, also found were nail-shaped objects made of clay, thought to be used as pestles or as a tool for tanning (http://janestreetclayworks.com/2011/02/16/the-history-of-bricks-mesopotamia/)

    Such ziggurats may have been the inspiration for the Biblical Tower of Babel.

    Not sure why this became such a huge issue as there is nothing definitive either way.

    Like

  284. “The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies. They were believed to be dwelling places for the gods and each city had its own patron god.”

    In this case the ziggurats in particular were not Towers of Worship as Mike is claiming about tall buildings but dwelling places for their Gods as there were many of them.

    Like

  285. “Pagan worship using tall buildings is not out of nowhere.” _ ABlacksmanagain

    in the story of the tower of babel it is… unless you want to povide the verse…

    “1) its a reocurring theme in the Bible referred to as high places” – ABlackamanagain

    in much later places. hay, having sex with Bathsheba is also mentioned as wrong later in the bible. maybe god didnt want those in babel having sex with bathsheba on the tower. or he didnt want a rock pushed off it onto abemalec’s head yet.

    “2) it is well known and established that such towers were used for religious/astrological worship in that area and in that time” – ABlacksmanagain

    how do you know this? It’s not in the bible. if you’re getting it from secular history, that is interesting, because secular history shows that other nations already had other languages before that time, kind of undermining the whole biblical story of language origins.

    “3) It was the chief reason to build tall towers in sparsely occupied areas. You might have noticed William that sparsely occupied areas do not build upwards because ahem…they have no need for additional space like In New York. they go horizontal instead of vertical” – ABlacksmanagain

    according to gen 11, the tower of babel was built because the inhabitants wanted to make a name for themselves. nowhere does it say because they wanted to worship pagan gods.

    and if we just think a little bit, we’ll see that towers can only be built so high by brick, and especially ancient brick. And even if they could build towers as high as those in New York – where do they get their food? from people who live outside the cities who grow and raise it… which means people have to spread out. it’s a natural process. as populations grows, people move to have the amount of land they need to use the restroom, grow crops and raise livestock. this is a basic concept.

    “4) babylon later became a place for such local worship using towers (but the fact that they were dispersed was effective in it not overtaking the whole planet’s population)” – ABslackmansagain

    later. the key word is “later.” where in gen 11 is it? Gen 10:5 shows there were other languages 2 or 3 generations after the flood. maybe they resorted to pagan worship that soon after such wrath from god, the text just doesnt bear it out. it’s literally nowhere in the context of the tower of babel. literally, completely absent.

    “I realize you cannot help yourself as a rubber stamper to try and bail Nate out of his obvious ad blatant twisting of the text but logically (which is all I care about not your opinion) claiming that what is supported by historical, biblical and logical context is out of nowhere is pure nonsense.” – ABlacksmanagain

    you’re insane – is that your problem?

    pagan worship in the tower of babel is literally and completely nowhere in the context of the tower of babel. have you even read gen 11? I think your understanding of “logical” is not natural – and it’s certainly not “super.”

    Like

  286. “I see an assessment of the situation, a passage that has no emotions clues or words such as “anger” “the Lord was wroth” but instead has a cool assessment of what may take place in the future and a rather mild solution to make sure it doesn’t. The people go to other parts of the world where they have more space to themselves and can develop freely their own countries” – ABlacksmanagain

    you know what else isnt there?

    any reference to pagan worship.

    Like

  287. “In this case the ziggurats in particular were not Towers of Worship as Mike is claiming about tall buildings but dwelling places for their Gods as there were many of them.”

    ziggurats were temples and shrines. claiming that they are not towers associated with the worship of God’s is just assinine. Anywhere where a God was to dwell and priest were to attend was a place of worship. I would say the inner temple of The Jewish temple was a place of worship even though few were allowed access to it. Why? because it was if even to the priests that attended it.

    Like

  288. Such ziggurats may have been the inspiration for the Biblical Tower of Babel.” – Seems like someone may have mentioned that earlier —

    Like

  289. ” Now we’re back to jealousy”

    I know. Every man that doesn’t want his wife sleeping with another man should be totally ashamed of himself.

    rofl

    Like

  290. right?

    I mean, god wasnt angry at all, was he? so either pagan worship is no big deal to god…

    oh right, it’s not mentioned anywhere in the context of gen 11, so it makes zero sense to even discuss it as possibility.

    so strange… to make an assertion, stick by that basely assertion, then provide points that shows what a baseless assertion it was, and then continue to stick by it…

    stupid and stubborn. how do you keep it up for so long? what’s your secret?

    Like

  291. Unfortunately with no proper ignore functions i do get to see bits of blurbs from Williams posts (oh joy).

    By Genesis 11 the sinfulness of man is firmly established. Its an ever present reality on the planet that is the norm. The idea that God gets all upset and angry over every sin or attempted sin men commit is just more babbling nonsense from this “finding truth” crew. LOL its like some of you can’t help but show you really had no biblical knowledge at all much less were ever true christians.

    Theres nothing in the text that indicates anger. Prove me wrong. Show it in the text because all we have is this

    “5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

    Can Nate and the Rubber Stampers (catchy band name eh?) point out this angry tirade Nate tries to paint God being a prick for (The entire actions is clear as day predicated on stopping future action)?

    Yeah I know…You can’t. Just like Nate can’t find a single word referring to knowledge there either.

    Stamp that rubber…rubber that stamp 😉

    Like

  292. “For some reason, I keep thinking about:”

    I can help you decipher your thought processes there Nate. Its subliminal self analysis seeping out to your conscious mind . Its you getting your points slashed to bits but nevertheless pretending like you are presenting any evidence the word (or any related word) for knowledge is anywhere in the text)

    😉

    Like

  293. Once again, you don’t have to prove that nothing can come from nothing to disprove the conservative/traditional Christian tall tale.

    Bottom line: There is no good evidence that a dead first century apocalyptic Jewish prophet bodily walked out of his tomb to eat a broiled fish lunch with his former fishing buddies and later levitated into outer space! Period.

    The majority of the world’s population doesn’t believe this tall tale is historical fact.
    The majority of historians don’t believe that this tall tale is historical fact.
    The overwhelming majority of Jewish Bible scholars don’t believe this tall tale is historical fact.
    And 1/3 of Christian clergy in the United States and in Britain do not believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is historical fact.

    Christians such as “Mike” can blabber on about the origin of the universe, but if they can’t prove their resurrected first century zombie story, they are accomplishing absolutely nothing.

    Liked by 1 person

  294. “Yeah, I’m sure that’s it ”

    and for the first time in years he’s finally made a tiny step toward….finding truth.

    Now you should really try telling the in laws that you are fine with realities existing outside of the present universe because those would be totally natural. You already know how they will respond too from your previous link

    Like

  295. “By Genesis 11 the sinfulness of man is firmly established. Its an ever present reality on the planet that is the norm. The idea that God gets all upset and angry over every sin or attempted sin men commit is just more babbling nonsense from this “finding truth” crew. LOL its like some of you can’t help but show you really had no biblical knowledge at all much less were ever true christians.” – ABlackmansagain

    and you know what isnt firmly established in gen 11? pagan worship. not in the tower of babel, nor anywhere else. no reference at all for having any part in the motives for building the tower, or in god’s motives for stopping them. none.

    no biblical knowledge? says the guy who adamantly asserts that pagan worship was why god confused the languages at the tower of babel and who says that god isnt angry at pagan worship.

    is this a real conversation?

    is Ashton Kutcher about to jump out? you’re punking us, right?

    Like

  296. “ziggurats were temples and shrines. claiming that they are not towers associated with the worship of God’s is just assinine.”

    Again, “The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies. They were believed to be dwelling places for the gods and each city had its own patron god. Only priests were permitted on the ziggurat or in the rooms at its base, and it was their responsibility to care for the gods and attend to their needs. “(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat)

    The mountains to the east of Mesopotamia were thought to be where some gods lived (especially celestial deities which appeared to rise up from them). The ziggurat may therefore have been thought of as bringing the home of the gods to the flat plains of Mesopotamia. (http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/staff/resources/background/bg22/home.html)

    Like

  297. “Christians such as “Mike” can blabber on about the origin of the universe, but if they can’t prove their resurrected first century zombie story, they are accomplishing absolutely nothing.”

    If only “Mike” hadn’t indicated that he doesn’t believe Jesus is the creator (or even Messiah) because he rose from the dead this poor rubber stamper would have a point but alas though he has been told before he is just too dense to realize that his point that all believers believe in Jesus because of the resurrection has already been contradicted.

    You’ve raised points about Jesus not being the Messiah before that have been shot down and you had no answer. Your not much good beyond the first volley and then you run away. cowardly way to debate or discuss things and I don’t countenance cowards.

    Like

  298. “Again, “The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies.”

    You can say again as many times as you wish. Your wikipedia limited understanding of worship does not phase me . Worship is any form of service, respect or practice of service to a God

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worship

    Saying a priest attending to a house where god is believed to resides is not serving, respecting or practicing service his God is AGAIN…….assinine.

    Like

  299. supernatural start.

    what now?

    it’s all supernatural.

    so how do we get to just 1 god?

    and then how do you know that 1 god is the god of the bible and that his son is jesus, who then rose from the dead?

    I know you wish to ignore this, but backing away cowardly does nothing to help your position. If you dont know, just say you dont know. If it’s a baseless leap base don your hope, then just say so.

    it’s okay.

    Like

  300. “Saying a priest attending to a house where god is believed to resides is not serving, respecting or practicing service his God is AGAIN…….assinine.” ABlackmansagain

    you know what else is asinine? asserting that gen 11 has anything to do at all with pagan worship.

    Like

  301. “Naturalism refers to nature …” — Mike

    Interestingly, one of the definitions for nature is: A causal agent creating and controlling things in the universe. (emphasis mine)

    Based on this def (and Christian belief), wouldn’t this “causal agent” be “God?” Thus, God is nature … not “super-nature.”

    NOTE TO MIKE: No need to defend your POV on this. I’m just offering some food for thought.

    Like

  302. Dude Seriously.. I see glimpses of your posts from time to time but like I told you days ago. You are on my ignore because you can’t process logic. Your claiming I stated Jesus was the messiah just because he was named Immanuel was a thing of sheer inanity that I need a few days to recover from. Sorry.

    I’ll see if you can come out of time out in a few days but not now.

    Like

  303. “Based on this def (and Christian belief), wouldn’t this “causal agent” be “God?” Thus, God is nature … not “super-nature.”

    Nan as you correctly pointed out nature is defined as being within this universe. Though God works within this universe theism does no maintain he is limited to it

    Thats why theism is right to consider God supernatural while Nate and company trying to claim realities outside of our universe are natural are just dead wrong and obviously dead wrong.

    Like

  304. you’re doing just as a fabulous job of ignoring me as you are making rational sense.

    I never said that and jesus was never named immanuel. he was named, “jesus.”

    but why keep sidestepping?

    show us the verse in Gen 11 where pagan worship was anywhere in the context of the tower of babel. if you’d like to recant, that’s fine too.

    And then let’s say the origin was supernatural.

    show how that means 1 all powerful god.

    then show how that 1 powerful is the god of the bible and that jesus was his son.

    Like

  305. “The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies. ” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat)

    Mike, “ziggurats were temples and shrines. claiming that they are not towers associated with the worship of God’s is just assinine.”

    Okay Mikey, take your blinders off and read what it says again. It says they were not places for PUBLIC worship

    wiki goes on to say, “Only priests were permitted on the ziggurat or in the rooms at its base, and it was their responsibility to care for the gods and attend to their needs. ”

    Mike, “Saying a priest attending to a house where god is believed to resides is not serving, respecting or practicing service his God is AGAIN…….assinine. Your wikipedia limited understanding of worship does not phase me”

    No where does my wiki reference I have pasted say that a Priest did not worship there.

    Now go ahead and continue to reveal the ass you are and keep arguing about something that doesn’t exist.

    Like

  306. Christians can babble on about Jesus having fulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament, but telling us that seminary graduates from Christian Bible colleges in Texas and Virginia understand the ancient Hebrew Bible better than every Jewish rabbi and scholar on the planet today, and every Jewish rabbi and scholar who has ever lived, is like the flat-earthers telling us that they know more about the shape of our little planet than every scientist.

    It is stupid ignorance, plain and simple.

    It is the behavior of a cult. It is the behavior of someone who places faith (baseless superstition) above reason and science. That is why a reasonable person can never win a discussion with these people. They are cultists. They are brainwashed to believe that an ancient middle-eastern deity has given that special insight into the real truth of the universe; a truth that only they and fellow believers can see. This is not the thinking of rational people with whom you can have a rational discussion. This is the thinking of Branch Davidians, of fundamentalist “Jefferies” Mormons, of Heaven’s Gate, of Jim Jones.

    Their belief system is madness. And you cannot reason with a mad man.

    This is why at some point you have to stop reasoning with these people and just keep telling them over and over: You are mad. You are delusional. You need psychiatric help.

    Liked by 1 person

  307. @ABlacksmanagain

    The laws yes the fluctuations no. They are not brute facts. They follow from a process that has no beginning in your argument. Whatever causes this change or flux is non existent.

    I think you’re saying that the fluctuations are dependent on each other, but I’m saying that the fluctuations are dependent on the necessary laws or conditions. At some point in an explanation for a process we frequently reach a stopping point and end up using a word such as gravity or magnetism to explain why something is happening. Like when scientists describe an electron and say that it’s “spin” is an intrinsic property of the electron. This is what I have in mind when I envision an eternal Multiverse. It’s not empty, it contains particles (perhaps vibrating strings or quarks/antiquarks) and energy. It also has certain intrinsic properties that keeps things dynamic rather than static. It’s not the interaction of these particles that causes the basic dynamics, rather it’s the fundamental properties of the universe that do so. One could say in this scenario that rather than a single first cause, there are an infinite number of “first” causes, all the while still having no “ultimate” initial cause.

    well like I said you can always TRY to redefine the term naturalism but no naturalism is and has not been defined merely on the basis of of “no intelligent beings operating in the background”.

    I see we are in need of a clear definition of what naturalism is. I don’t want to argue over it. If anything outside of our present universe is “supernatural” then I have no problem with stating that the multiverse theory is a supernatural theory. Perhaps what we need a word for is the absence of deities, non-deism?

    In case you are wondering laws of nature proceeding from nothing natural and not flowing from something else physical but existing and even being mathematically logical is so close to What the church teaches about the nature of how God created the universe as to be indistinguishable.

    The difference being that one says a deity is necessary and the other says the laws are necessary. In both cases we have to assume that something exists and could not have been any other way. As an aside, I don’t think either of these theories can be subjected to odds or probabilities because if either of them are true it could not have been otherwise.

    Sorry, I’m pressed for time today, but should be back tomorrow. I am fully aware that I need to justify my reasons for thinking that an infinite past is possible.

    Liked by 1 person

  308. and you know what else? Gen 11 doesnt reference Pagan Worship or Pagan Gods at all. not once. no hint of it anywhere in the context.

    is does say why the people built the tower.

    and it says why god confused their languages.

    nothing had anything to do with pagan worship. literally nothing.

    why are we still talking about it?

    ah yes, mike keeps it going because he wants to talk about anything except how even if we agree on a supernatural origin, that there is nothing, literally nothing, that then shows there is only one supreme supernatural force that is a god, nor how that god would be the god of the bible.

    Liked by 1 person

  309. “Okay Mikey, take your blinders off and read what it says again. It says they were not places for PUBLIC worship”

    and why don’t you take your own big floppy blinders off and read what you previously wrote

    “In this case the ziggurats in particular were not Towers of Worship as Mike is claiming about tall buildings but dwelling places for their Gods as there were many of them.”

    Do you see anywhere there the word “public” towers of worship? no so if priests worship in the service of their god in ziggurats then Mike is right. They were places of worship. Now go ahead and continue to reveal what an ass you are because you tried and to use WIkipedia to back up your claim that I was wrong in stating they were places of worship.

    Like

  310. My initial post really just dealt with some of the internal issues with the Babel story. But trying to tie it to ziggurats raises other issues. And I’m not saying it wasn’t a ziggurat — it just brings up a whole bunch of other issues.

    For instance, Mike keeps saying the Tower of Babel was built for pagan worship, though the Bible doesn’t say that at all. Nor do we have any historical or archaeological evidence for the Tower of Babel — it only comes from the Bible; therefore, what the Bible says about it should probably take precedence.

    This story appears in Genesis 11, and in the chapters that precede it, God destroys the world with a flood, because man was wicked. It does not say that they were idolaters or pagans — just that they were evil. Regardless, he wiped those people out and started over with Noah.

    Chapter 10 gives the descendants of Noah and talks about the various languages that his descendants spoke. Now maybe chapter 11 is just meant to give a fuller account of how they got those languages, or maybe this is another example of how the later editors put different stories together that weren’t necessarily related. Either way, if we try to take the flood and the tower as literal history, then Noah’s descendants hadn’t yet moved away from their central location. Since they only would have been familiar with Noah’s god, there’s not a great reason to assume that their tower would have been for pagan worship, unless the Bible told us so. But it doesn’t. Instead, chapter 11 indicates that they built their tower to help them all stay in one location.

    So now Mike wants to say that the tower must have been for pagan worship, because that’s what ziggurats were used for. Well maybe so. But the Bible doesn’t say it’s a ziggurat… Even if it is, we’re making that connection based on what we know about history. But you know what else history tells us? That people had long been speaking different languages and living in different cultures way before ziggurats were being built for pagan worship. Most creationists place Noah’s flood around 2348 BCE, and the tower of Babel would have been many generations after that. But history and archaeology tell us that many other things happened during that time — not a global flood. Just check out Wiki’s entry on the 24th century BCE, if you’re interested. And why not keep clicking back through the centuries to see what we’ve discovered about civilizations that shouldn’t have been there, according to the Bible?

    This story is simply legend, as most people would be able to see if it weren’t stuck in the religious book they happen to adhere to. Not only does the story not make much sense internally, but history and archaeology completely contradict it. And it’s easy to see why people would have had incentive to create such a story, considering the limited amount of information they had available at the time.

    I don’t write any of this to convince Mike, or even to discuss it with him. Honestly, that’s just a waste of time. He’ll probably respond to it, but it won’t change anything I’ve just said, so I doubt I’ll bother replying to him. But for any unfortunate individuals who have wandered this far down in the thread, it might be helpful to see this perspective.

    Liked by 3 people

  311. I agree, Gary. You just can’t reason with unreasonable people.

    and I am not convinced by the firm and relentless assertions of a moron that his idiotic and ignorant ideas are the most rational – especially when he tries to sidestep the actual issue at every opportunity.

    it is madness.

    Like

  312. Wrong again Mikey

    Look at my entire comment instead of using half of it.

    kcchief1
    May 20, 2015 at 10:49 am
    “The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies. They were believed to be dwelling places for the gods and each city had its own patron god.”

    In this case the ziggurats in particular were not Towers of Worship as Mike is claiming about tall buildings but dwelling places for their Gods as there were many of them.

    Like

  313. “I agree, Gary. You just can’t reason with unreasonable people.”

    Agreed William and Gary. Why do we give these drive by trolls any time at all ?

    Like

  314. because it’s entertaining and because mike does far more to hurt his own position than we ever could. if an honest person stops by, they’ll see what this is.

    Like

  315. and one other point on the origin of everything:

    if the origin must be supernatural, because all the natural processes we’ve ever experienced before cant start themselves, then supernatural origin cant be right because we’ve never seen a supernatural process, but only natural ones.

    It’s futile to argue about it. Whether it’s natural or supernatural. neither can be proven. on one hand, we have an infinite number of natural events we witness and zero supernatural events. All the viewable events had some catalyst. That catalyst that we view has always been natural as well.

    supernatural could still be the answer, but any way you go, it’s a guess. A pure guess.

    but again, even if we all agree it was supernatural, that does nothing to lend any validity to the bible. none. much like there is nothing in gen 11 that alludes to pagan worship. none.

    Like

  316. Being an observer of Mike’s crappola, it never ceases to amaze me how believers will say whatever it takes to “prove” their point. No matter how you approach the discussion, it’s twisted, turned around, then shaken for good measure in an attempt to discredit any facts, opinions, or remarks by those who disagree.

    It’s a merry-go-round, that’s for sure. But one good thing about it, you can get off whenever you want. 😉

    Like

  317. I think you’re saying that the fluctuations are dependent on each other, but I’m saying that the fluctuations are dependent on the necessary laws or conditions.”

    Its both not either or to me. we already know this at a macro level (and even QM is dependent on mathematically calculated probabilities). A pendulum is swinging to the right because its coming from the left. Its present “swing” is dependent on where it is and the laws determine how it swings.

    “At some point in an explanation for a process we frequently reach a stopping point and end up using a word such as gravity or magnetism to explain why something is happening.”

    NO problem I get you but gravity and magnetism are going to have effect based on position and time and position and time is going to be relative to previous position and time

    “rather it’s the fundamental properties of the universe that do so. ”

    and the fundamental properties act within spacetime creating processes we see today. Once you drop that into infinite past age you have the very issues I rose in my previous posts

    “One could say in this scenario that rather than a single first cause, there are an infinite number of “first” causes, all the while still having no “ultimate” initial cause.”

    I am not crystal clear what you are referring to but are you alluding to quantum fluctuations? If you are that raises other issues so please do clarify as I don’t want to go off into that if thats not what you meant. Suffice to say that once we start invoking QM laws as explanations for the physical world we are invoking laws preceding (or existing without reference to) physical reality and once again come perilously close to theism

    “I see we are in need of a clear definition of what naturalism is. I don’t want to argue over it. If anything outside of our present universe is “supernatural” then I have no problem with stating that the multiverse theory is a supernatural theory. Perhaps what we need a word for is the absence of deities, non-deism?”

    That would be fine and I do appreciate the honesty on that just as long as we don’t drift back into non-deism or non-theism being a definition of natural

    “The difference being that one says a deity is necessary and the other says the laws are necessary.”

    Actually there is no practical difference. Not with Juadaism or christianity neither of which expect God’s influence to have any effect on the universe except through law. Now if I am understanding you right a natural consequence of you arguing that it all comes down to law raises a few questions. IF law stands eternal from any physical process – what is law?
    Many materialist try to side step that question by claiming that law is just a description of how natural processes work but if you make them eternal that won’t work (in reality it doesn’t for them either)

    “In both cases we have to assume that something exists and could not have been any other way. As an aside, I don’t think either of these theories can be subjected to odds or probabilities because if either of them are true it could not have been otherwise.”

    Agreed completely on that which makes the whole idea of accident nothing but a human construct. In an infinitely old universe not only is intelligent life not an accident but its occurred an infinite amount of times

    “Sorry, I’m pressed for time today, but should be back tomorrow.”

    No problem. totally understand.

    Like

  318. and that “merry-go-round” is obvious to everyone. no one is fooled into thinking it’s a ride on an escalator.

    sure, i could step off. But this train wreck is too fascinating to turn away from.

    Liked by 1 person

  319. “Actually there is no practical difference. Not with Juadaism or christianity neither of which expect God’s influence to have any effect on the universe except through law.” – ABlackmansagain

    really? I am mulling this over. what natural laws allowed jesus to walk on water or raise from the dead or ascend into heaven?

    what natural laws allowed the bush to be on fire but not burn up?

    these appear to happen contrary to natural law, not because of it.

    Like

  320. The Five Minimal Facts proving that a Ghost shot President Kennedy

    Have you heard of Christian apologist Gary Habermas’ Five Minimal Facts that Prove the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was a Historical Fact? Well, here is my Five Minimal Facts regarding the Kennedy Assassination using the same logic:

    Number 1: John F. Kennedy Died By Gun Shot to the Head.

    Number 2: Video Evidence shows Gun Smoke coming from the Grassy Knoll.

    Number 3 : Twelve Eyewitnesses say they saw something like a Ghost rapidly moving away from the Grassy Knoll after the Shots were Fired.

    Number 4: A Forensics expert and life-long, Kennedy-hating Republican Senator Converted to the Second Gunmen Theory based on an appearance to him by a ghost on a deserted highway to Mexico City three years after the assassination who said that he/it was the second gunman.

    Number 5: Teddy Kennedy, brother of John Kennedy, and originally a skeptic of the Second Gunman Theory, converted to the Second Gunmen Theory based On What He Believed Was An Appearance to him of the same Ghost.

    Conclusion: The most reasonable explanation for the five minimal facts above is that a ghost was the second gunmen in the Kennedy Assassination!

    Like

  321. and then what natural laws let the sun stand still, and then later move backward?

    or turned water into wine?

    I dont see natural laws in work here. can you explain?

    Like

  322. nate, maybe a new thread on origins and how god only operates in laws is in order?

    we’ve come way off topic from the tower of babel, talking about absolute origins, naturalism and pagan worship. pagan worship not being mentioned or even hinted at in the biblical context of the tower of babel story.

    Like

  323. “For instance, Mike keeps saying the Tower of Babel was built for pagan worship, though the Bible doesn’t say that at all. Nor do we have any historical or archaeological evidence for the Tower of Babel — it only comes from the Bible; therefore, what the Bible says about it should probably take precedence.”

    Well its an extremely likely scenario. I wouldn’t swear on a Bible 🙂 that it had to be but it beats the socks of what you tried to float because it has all kinds of context. and sorry we don’t need a tower of Babel to know historically that towers were built for just that purpose. Your own rubberstampers have pretty much inadvertently shown that

    ” it just brings up a whole bunch of other issues.”

    Nate’s code words for a whole lot of conjecture and garbage he is about to try and float in order to save face that he can’t find a single word in the text that shows its about technological advances (but still obstinately,ignorantly and dishonestly as the day is old claims its proven by the text itself) 🙂

    “This story appears in Genesis 11, and in the chapters that precede it, God destroys the world with a flood, because man was wicked. It does not say that they were idolaters or pagans — just that they were evil. ”

    lol….Classic nate . here he tries for the setup. As if Evil precludes or leaves out the concept of Idolatry so he can make his next erroneous step seem reasonable . Problem (for him) is there is no such exclusion. the text he leaves out says that all sin was in view which would include idolatry

    “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.”

    whats that? every inclination of thought is evil all of the time. That would include thoughts about God and who he is and who they should worship. It fully includes idolatry and paganism. Is Nate’s exclusion therefore supported? Of course not. SInce its every inclination it would be ALL manner of sin including paganism and idolatry

    Set up….with an EPIC fail

    “Since they only would have been familiar with Noah’s god, there’s not a great reason to assume that their tower would have been for pagan worship, unless the Bible told us so. But it doesn’t.”

    HIs setup failed to include the verse that shows that idolatry could not be excluded and was part and parcel so his conclusion flops. Since there is no record anywhere that worship to the true god needs a tall building Nate can be dismissed for yet more rank foolishness and intellectual dishonesty

    this is classicly what Nate claims are serious issues he is raising and his rubber stampers will bet the house support him on it (thats what the blog is really all about anyway. Church rejects (self or otherwise) finding each other in the cold environs of the net and trying to pretend they enjoy majority status in the populace.)

    “So now Mike wants to say that the tower must have been for pagan worship, because that’s what ziggurats were used for. Well maybe so. But the Bible doesn’t say it’s a ziggurat”

    Actually Mike didn’t bring up the term ziggurats his stamper KK did. Mike talks about high places and worship which is a found throughout the entire OT and such high places being used

    “… Even if it is, we’re making that connection based on what we know about history. But you know what else history tells us?”

    Curiousity is peaked .Surely this will clarify why Nate can’t answer where knowledge in his proof text is found? Will history tell us that the people were dispersed because God wanted to stop them from technological advances? Nope. Will history tells us that God was an angry PRick on that day? Nope

    Appealing to history will not answer any of those issues he refuses to admit to being wrong on but instead this dishonest soul is not only not going to address that issue he is now going to try and handwave off to another issue to save face and his tremendous ego that always finds himself right and his inlaws wrong. Now rather than him being honest that he has found nothing that his piece stated about technological advances he will try and make it all about the long winded debate about creationist dating which I have no need to have allegiance to being no Ussher follower

    Sigh such an intellectual dishonest ploy…….More to come….

    Like

  324. “Well its an extremely likely scenario. I wouldn’t swear on a Bible 🙂 that it had to be” – ABlacksmanagain

    it takes a big man to admit he’s wrong. I forgive you. I guess you could say it’s likely, just like anything else someone makes up about it is just as likely.

    ” but it beats the socks of what you tried to float because it has all kinds of context.” – ABlackmansagain

    except you’re wrong. what you suggest is nowhere in the context, while what nate said was. What you say is taken from secular history which shows the tower of babel story to be a myth, and you get it from worshiping on high places elsewhere in the bible, except those high places were mountains and hills and happened much later than the tower of babel.

    pagan worship in the tower of babel just isnt there. I strongly encourage you to actually read the tower of babel story in Genesis 11. it’s a silly story, and nowhere will you find any reference to pagan worship. none. not any. not even some. “less than zero” is a more accurate summation that saying “some.”

    it is literaly, nowhere in the text. yet you insist it is implied. at least you’ve back-peddled some, finally, by reducing your previous certainty to “likely”. It’s a glimpse at good character. see nan, maybe we’re finally rubbing off on him.

    Like

  325. “Nate’s code words for a whole lot of conjecture and garbage he is about to try and float in order to save face that he can’t find a single word in the text that shows its about technological advances (but still obstinately,ignorantly and dishonestly as the day is old claims its proven by the text itself) :)” – ABlacksmanagain

    you know what else is pure conjecture and not found anywhere in the context of the tower of babel story? pagan worship.

    Like

  326. .”Most creationists place Noah’s flood around 2348 BCE, and the tower of Babel would have been many generations after that. ”

    Most ussher Creationists. Stop pretending that Usher is some universal accepted to Christianity and judaism issue and therefore “raises issues”. There no date in the text (MIke sits with widened eyes…given its Nate he just might claim that’s in there too…rofl )

    “But history and archaeology tell us that many other things happened during that time — not a global flood.”

    Poor Nate. He forgot my position. I find the BIBLICAL evidence weak for saying earth is the whole planet

    ” Just check out Wiki’s entry on the 24th century BCE, if you’re interested. And why not keep clicking back through the centuries to see what we’ve discovered about civilizations that shouldn’t have been there, according to the Bible?”

    Do tell so other places in the Bible have dates? But before we get tohose passages with dates

    Any hope i can get you to point out where technology or even knowledge appears in your proof teXt?

    And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.
    Gen 11:5-6

    You are dishonest to the bone. To claim context that its in there would be one thing but to actually present a text as proof that its about technological advancement when there is not a single thing in the entire text is just blatant dishonesty.

    Like

  327. “whats that? every inclination of thought is evil all of the time. That would include thoughts about God and who he is and who they should worship. It fully includes idolatry and paganism. Is Nate’s exclusion therefore supported? Of course not. SInce its every inclination it would be ALL manner of sin including paganism and idolatry

    Set up….with an EPIC fail” – ABlacksmanagain

    except you’re talking about before the flood and the tower of babel takes place after that, after all the wicked were destroyed in the flood…

    but what is a failure is trying to maintain that god confused the languages in the tower of babel story due to pagan worship in the tower. it is quite literally, not there at all, while other reasons are.

    all this arguing over an imaginary issue you’re trying to insist has something to do in a made up story. it’s just not there. no matter how many times you say it, it’s still not there. just isnt.

    Like

  328. I’ve already made my points, Mike. And I can’t see that you’ve addressed any of them. If anyone more objective feels like he’s made a point that I should respond to (even if you’re reading this at some future date), let me know and I’ll be happy to address it.

    Oh, wait… there is one thing I wanted to address just for clarity:

    As if Evil precludes or leaves out the concept of Idolatry so he can make his next erroneous step seem reasonable . Problem (for him) is there is no such exclusion. the text he leaves out says that all sin was in view which would include idolatry
    — ABlacksman

    After talking about the evil in Noah’s day, I then made this statement:

    Regardless, he wiped those people out and started over with Noah.

    In other words, whether idolatry and paganism were things that were being done in Noah’s time or not, God wiped those people out and started over. So it’s rather moot.

    Like

  329. Oops, just saw Mike’s latest comment.

    Mike, if you don’t accept the 2348 BCE dating of the flood (which is taken by counting up the various ages given in genealogies, for those of you playing at home), then feel free to give whatever timeline you happen to hold to, as well as how you come by it. Or perhaps you’d like to explain why you don’t accept timelines by Ussher and guys like him?

    Like

  330. I just thought of something …

    If sin was sent into the world via A&E, but then God sent the flood to wipe out the wickedness/sin in the world, why do we still have sin?

    Liked by 1 person

  331. “Most ussher Creationists. Stop pretending that Usher is some universal accepted to Christianity and judaism issue and therefore “raises issues”. There no date in the text” – ABlacksmanagain

    well, there is the genealogies. I agree it’s all bogus, but this is where many fundamental creationist get their timeline. though i’m sure you know that, you just must refute it now because it doesnt suit your needs, because you’re not interested in honest dialogue, but only in scoring imaginary points on an imaginary scoreboard, so that you can reassure yourself of some sorrt of personal victories in an otherwise dismal existence.

    you should know you’re not worthless. we care about you. you’re always welcome here.

    Like

  332. “You are dishonest to the bone. To claim context that its in there would be one thing but to actually present a text as proof that its about technological advancement when there is not a single thing in the entire text is just blatant dishonesty.” – ABlacksmanagain

    you know what else is dishonest? saying that pagan worship had anything to do with the tower of babel story when there is not a single thing in the entire text to validate that claim.

    Like

  333. all this arguing over an imaginary issue you’re trying to insist has something to do in a made up story. it’s just not there. no matter how many times you say it, it’s still not there. just isnt.
    — William

    And this is how it goes with Mike. The less substantial his point, the louder he gets about everyone else being dishonest. It’s so ironic, because to continue with some of his claims, it’s actually him that’s being dishonest… or he’s just stupid. I don’t know which it is, but it’s definitely one of them. That’s why so much of this becomes pointless.

    The only conversation he’s currently engaged in that isn’t dripping with vitriol is the one with Dave. It’s almost like it’s an entirely different person… So maybe dishonest and stupid aren’t the only explanations? Maybe he has a personality disorder?

    we care about you. you’re always welcome here.
    — William

    Well, don’t go too far… 🙂

    Like

  334. @Nan,

    I guess ’cause Noah got drunk and screwed everything up. Or Ham did.

    As soon as it happened, I’m sure God said “Me-damn it!”

    Liked by 1 person

  335. SO its really two options

    A) you can allow me to post and have conversations with people willing to engage not only subjects you approve of without butting in because you refuse to deal with them by any other means but fanciful redefinitions and handwaving (sorry Arch requested the phrase) or

    B) You can ban as you usually do when you have your points dismantled. Only this time since you could not live up to a simple gentleman’s agreement you will have to change the way you moderate your blog to get compliance. I lived up to my part and you didn’t so I feel no obligation to comply a second time.

    Sounds like Blacksman-mail to me.

    I am posting on your blog again because you couldn’t live up to a simple gentleman’s agreement not to have mention or conversations about me in my absence” – I have no idea why anyone would make such an agreement with him in the first place, or why he should have the audacity to think he can make demands of ANYone!

    Liked by 1 person

  336. Same here, arch. And I really don’t even know what “breach of contract” he’s talking about. It’s funny to me that he thinks he gets to make the rules here.

    Like

  337. “I’ve already made my points, Mike. And I can’t see that you’ve addressed any of them. ”

    You are lying Nate . Its apparently what you do. Its you that have yet to show me upon repeated requests where technological advances are in the text you provided as proof

    ” Regardless, he wiped those people out and started over with Noah.”

    You apparently as an alleged past sunday school teacher never did your homework. The flood did not wipe out humanities sin nature. The human heart is described as desperately wicked. Unless you think this was Noah and his sons men always tended toward evil and chiefly idolatery

    You as usual have absolutely no support whatsoever to claim that the people were now all righteous or even that they would not have been engaging in idolatry

    and yes you made a point as your hacking setup to claim the Bible did not include idolatry when it called men wicked in the text. its just a flop on your part all the way round

    Like

  338. :And this is how it goes with Mike. The less substantial his point, the louder he gets about everyone else being dishonest. It’s so ironic, :

    LOL it really is Ironic you saying that Nate. You have been posting a lot for you recently (mostly to me) so I guess you get louder the more you can’t answer where the idea of knowledge is anywhere in your proof text that was supposed to show its there

    these people are so much entertainment 🙂

    “Same here, arch. And I really don’t even know what “breach of contract” he’s talking about. It’s funny to me that he thinks he gets to make the rules here.’

    Delusional to the bitter end my man. I said nothing about making rules for anyone else but for myself. My terms.Sure you can ban me but you sure are going to have to moderate more than you have because I will decide if I wish to abide by it.

    Like

  339. Sure you can ban me but you sure are going to have to moderate more than you have because I will decide if I wish to abide by it.

    Oh no! You mean I might have to add new email and IP addresses to the blacklist whenever you decide to irritate us? Or that I might have to *gasp* even delete some comments!?

    :shudder:

    Like

  340. “You are lying Nate . Its apparently what you do. Its you that have yet to show me upon repeated requests where technological advances are in the text you provided as proof” – ABlacksmanagain

    you know what else is apparent? That pagan worship is nowhere in the tower of babel story.

    you know who else has yet to show proof of their claims regarding what’s in gen 11? ABlackamanagain, in regard to pagan worship.

    Like

  341. “You as usual have absolutely no support whatsoever to claim that the people were now all righteous or even that they would not have been engaging in idolatry” – ABlacksmanagain

    there is even less support to claim that god confused the languages due to idolatry or pagan worship.

    Like

  342. nan, mike is obviously a douche. Entirely visible to any passerby. it doesnt expose nate as a liar, it exposes mike as a dishonest and argumentative douche. it’s sad, but he’s driving the point home far better any opponent of his…

    why get upset or be bothered by the criticisms of a guy like this?

    Like

  343. snippet seen again (see now if I thought I made the rules I would demand a good ignore feature here…snap to it! 🙂

    “you know what else is dishonest? saying that pagan worship had anything to do with the tower of babel story when there is not a single thing in the entire text to validate that claim.”

    the claim is supported by four points that I gave you earlier. Its a solid answer to nate’s no historical , biblical or textual context claim (but meh I conceded not the only easy rebuttal to Nate’s foolishness). As a rubber stamper I have no doubt you will wish to disregard the solid points based on those contexts . I mean what would be the point for this blog if you didn’t back each other’s totally illogical an unfounded claims against all things religious eh? IF not that there would be places with more than 6-7 people (seems recently) to post with than here.

    But by the way where is Nate’s historical biblical or cultural context or what about the proof text he shot over that was supposed to support his claim that Babel was about stopping technological advances????? Where it at??

    Could you get him to bold or cap the part that says that? lol….cause brotha it ain’t in there and watching a number of you jumping on that lying boat to defend him is like getting 5 of you down for lying at the price of one sinking.

    its like what they say at Walmart – “prices are falling” 🙂

    Like

  344. he’s hoping to be banned. that way he can retreat, avoid answering the hard questions he knows he has no intelligent response to, while claiming the only reason he didnt “win” was because he was kicked out.

    he’s even asking to be banned. literally. much like pagan worship is literally nowhere in genesis 11. literally. much like assuming a supernatural; origin literally does nothing to lend any credence to the bible. literally.

    Like

  345. Mike, you continue to harp on Nate’s reference to technological advances, claiming there is no historical, biblical, or cultural context to support this. Yet you do the same (example: the tower and pagan worship), but it’s all OK and true and honest when you do it. Interesting.

    Like

  346. Further, KC, in Mesopotamia, where the Tower of Babel fable is alleged to have taken place – assuming that “pagan” is defined as any religion other than Judaism – there would have been no religion other than that which is considered pagan. Judaism – more accurately described as “Yahwehism” – didn’t exist as such until the Jews united for a time with the Midianites in the southern Levant, when the god of the pre-Yahweh Jews was Amurru, and he was merged with the obscure desert storm god YHWH during the symbolic marriage of the literary character of Moses, with the literary character of Zipporah, daughter of the High Priest (Jethro, and three other names, depending on who is telling the story – one apologist tried convincing me that those weren’t contradictions, that Jethro actually had four names!) of that obscure little god, YHWH.

    I found this interesting, from britannica.com [emphasis, mine]:

    According to the Book of Genesis, the Midianites were descended from Midian, who was the son of the Hebrew patriarch Abraham by the latter’s second wife, Keturah. Jethro, priest-leader of the Midianite subtribe known as the Kenites, and his daughter Zipporah, a wife of Moses, influenced early Hebrew thought: it was Yahweh, the lord of the Midianites, who was revealed to Moses as the God of the Hebrews. Circumcision was practiced by the Midianites before it was adopted by the Israelites.

    What? But Genesis tells us that Jacob and his boys were circumcised – in fact, they told young prince Shechem that he wouldn’t be allowed to marry Jake’s daughter, Diana, unless he and all of the men of his city were circumcised. I find that a bit contradictory.

    But then in Exodus 6:3, the Bible’s god informs Moses, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai, but by my name, JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” Yet in Gen 22:14, Abe named the place where he intended to slit his son’s throat, “Jehovah-jireh” – “Yahweh will provide.” Clearly another contradiction, but let’s don’t get started on the myriad of contradictions in that inerrant book, or we’ll be here all week.

    Like

  347. Thanks Nan and Gary.

    Honestly, it’s kind of like William said. I trust the readers of this blog (including any future ones) to see what’s really going on here. I’ve gotten a little nastier today than I typically do, and I don’t really like doing that… but I’m a man of limited patience.

    In the end, I try to just focus on content and ignore the insults. I don’t feel like he’s said anything substantial about the Tower of Babel story, so there’s not much else for me to say, I guess! But if any of you feel like I need to address something he’s said, definitely let me know. Otherwise, I would just be reiterating the same points over and over, and he’s not going to shut up either way. So what’s the point? 🙂

    Like

  348. Nate, you really should just ban this guy. Maybe he’ll make it hard, but as you mentioned you can just go through and delete comments and do other things to make sure he’s not causing problems.

    Anyone who is asked to leave a group and then threatens to not honor that simply because the group talks about him after he leaves should be banned just for that. If I were asked to leave a group, even if I was the most perfect person in the world and did no wrong, I would immediately leave knowing for sure that I would be talked about afterward. If I did otherwise it would feel like a major social faux pas to me.

    The truth is I’ve really enjoyed reading his discussion with Dave, and I agree with Arch that he’s very intelligent, and many times I think he has good points, but it’s clear that his presence creates a certain social dynamic that I think some of your readers wouldn’t appreciate (yes, I’m included in that).

    Like

  349. ignoring points doesnt make them disappear. they;re still there whether you ignore them or not.

    “the claim is supported by four points that I gave you earlier.” – ABlacksmanagain

    your 4 points had nothing to do with gen 11. I responded to each of them. they were all severely lacking. I can copy and paste it again for you if you missed it.

    “Its a solid answer to nate’s no historical , biblical or textual context claim (but meh I conceded not the only easy rebuttal to Nate’s foolishness). As a rubber stamper I have no doubt you will wish to disregard the solid points based on those contexts . I mean what would be the point for this blog if you didn’t back each other’s totally illogical an unfounded claims against all things religious eh? IF not that there would be places with more than 6-7 people (seems recently) to post with than here.” – ABlacksmanagain

    one things is, the number of those who participate on a blog isnt good evidence for the blogs contents, only its popularity. it literally has nothing to do with the subject at hand, much like pagan worship has literally nothing to do with the tower of babel.

    you know what else has no claim to the tower of babel? pagan worship.

    “But by the way where is Nate’s historical biblical or cultural context or what about the proof text he shot over that was supposed to support his claim that Babel was about stopping technological advances????? Where it at??” – ABlacksmanagain

    it’s interesting that you keep criticizing nate about a point you say has no footing in the tower of babel story, when you keep pushing for pagan worship, which has even less of a footing.

    it’s also interesting that you bring history into this, when that history is counter to the tower of babel legend altogether.

    “Could you get him to bold or cap the part that says that? lol….cause brotha it ain’t in there and watching a number of you jumping on that lying boat to defend him is like getting 5 of you down for lying at the price of one sinking.” – ABlacksmanagain

    you know what else isnt there? yeah, pagan worship.

    Like

  350. Thanks Howie. That’s likely what’s going to happen. But like you said, his conversation with Dave has been relatively interesting and cordial. Plus, I feel like he’s actually illustrating how weak a conservative Christian view of this story is. So hopefully it will be useful to someone at some point.

    Like

  351. Also, does anyone else see this as referring to a concern over man’s technological prowess?

    Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

    I see it that way, but am I alone in that? If so, what am I missing? I’d especially like to hear from Nan and Howie (and Dave, if he’s still reading)… and don’t spare my feelings or anything. If you don’t see it, please let me know. If I’m mistaken, I want to know it.

    Thanks 🙂

    Like

  352. I think it would be helpful if ABlacksmanagain would actually take the next step with his conversation with dave, and show how he goes from a supernatural first cause to 1 god, then to that being the god of the bible.

    that would interesting and helpful.

    I cannot help but see the rest of this as smokescreen to keep from going to that logical next step, out of trepidation or fear of failing to have anything of substance.

    Like

  353. nate, when one reads that verse 6, right there in between verse 5 and verse 7, in context, yes, i can definitely see it.

    but you know what’s definitely not there? pagan worship. neither for the people’s motivation to build the tower, nor for god’s to confuse their language.

    Like

  354. “Anyone who is rude and insulting to such a kind, nice guy like Nate has to be one obnoxious prick.”

    anyone who is rude and insulting to nice people like Christians some of who I see come by here and get blasted are a small group of obnoxious pricks themselves (with BIIIIIIIG chips on their shoulder against religious people)

    But serious question because I think it illustrates how bad you rubber stampers are for people like Nate. Do you realize that in the thread where Nate confesses that he stands in front of his church and bare faced and premeditatedly lies to them that a number of said rubber stampers like yourself lined up bemoaning with him on how bad it is what THEY did to him (but he was the one perpetrating a triple whammy)?

    One of the thing good friends should do is hold each other to accountability. You guys suck assuch friends to Nate. You rubber stamp him and put halos over his head he is nowhere near logically deserving of and it does him no goood. Judging by recent posts he has become more dishonest and arrogant. To be honest I don’t know If the last time I was here he would have maintained belligerently the crapola on technological advances in that text that are not there and other universes are natural gymnastics he tried to pull. You have just been enablers to his decline. Hate me , consider me rude and harsh (because I know you) but the only one who gives Nate any room to grow and be better on this blog is your beloved MIke.

    Little proverbs passage …Iron sharpeneth Iron

    I mean don’t get me wrong i knew you would back him up in any foolishness . Its not like I thought for a minute then or now you were an honest bunch but just thought i would be remiss not pointing out – as real friends to Nate you pretty much suck since all you really do is rubber stamp.

    Like

  355. “Anyone who is asked to leave a group and then threatens to not honor that simply because the group talks about him after he leaves should be banned just for that.”

    Please who cares? Ban away (to the extent that any open comment thread on a wordpress blog can even do so). The facts are however We did discuss and have an arrangement that I not be talked about on this blog. I really don’t care if Nate has amnesia. You make agreements you should live by them. I won’t lower my views on the morality of that to suit you.

    Like

  356. “Mike, you continue to harp on Nate’s reference to technological advances, claiming there is no historical, biblical, or cultural context to support this. Yet you do the same (example: the tower and pagan worship), but it’s all OK and true and honest when you do it. Interesting.”

    Nan I remember you know . Sorry I can’t ever remember you having a good point or doing anything else but rubber stamping “me too…what he said”. Heres the recap – I asked your guy nate for proof that technological advances are spoken about in the text. He sent me a text as proof that states nothing of the kind. Its straight up not in there

    Had he admitted that he was drawing from assumptions and even drawing from some historical or cultural context then he would not been a liar and we could have got into that honestly. NO what he did was send me the text and said there it is its there when it is clearly not. instead of coming clean subsequently he has just skirted and dodged and refused to admit that the text has no such proof, Furthermore no matter what any rubber stamper says here there is ZERO …NADA biblical or historical context that demonstrates that God ever had anything against advancement in technology. its complete dry rot

    Like it or not thats what makes him undeniably and totally dishonest. The longer he persists in it is the longer he is lying

    Like

  357. If you don’t see it, please let me know.

    Nate, if technological prowess means electronics then I don’t see it, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what you mean by “technology”.

    I don’t feel like I even have to say anything because this verse seems to say it all:

    And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.

    Liked by 1 person

  358. Most creationists place Noah’s flood around 2348 BCE” – Two of the Judaic sources I use place the imaginary flood at 2600 BCE, as opposed to the actual, historical Mesopotamian flood that occurred in 2900 BCE and covered the equivalent of 3 counties near the city-state of Shurrupak, in what is now modern Iraq.

    Like

  359. Thanks Howie (and William). And you’re right — I did not mean electronics and whatnot; I really just meant creative ability, architectural ability, ingenuity, etc. So technology in the sense of advancement, not in modern cybernetics, electronics, etc. If that’s what Mike thought I meant, then fine. I can see where he would be confused.

    Liked by 2 people

  360. “Plus, I feel like he’s actually illustrating how weak a conservative Christian view of this story is. So hopefully it will be useful to someone at some point.”

    The church waits with open arms any of your converts (although I don’t know of any. Last time you declared your goal and tried to convert Kathy it was a failure) that try and make the claim from your non existent reference to technologies that God is against the advancement of technologies. it wont be useful to anyone but those wanting to buy the yarn

    “Also, does anyone else see this as referring to a concern over man’s technological prowess?”

    Feel free to ask your faithful but you were asked to show it in the text not in the opinion of rubber stampers. When are you even going to move your buried honesty to deal with the text?

    IN regard to deleting comments be my guest . How you end up spending your free time is up to you. i have no qualms about that at all.

    Like

  361. Why do we give these drive by trolls any time at all?” – I tried last time to suggest that everyone ignore Mike and Kathy, but that didn’t work out so well.

    Like

  362. Do you realize that in the thread where Nate confesses that he stands in front of his church and bare faced and premeditatedly lies to them that a number of said rubber stampers like yourself lined up bemoaning with him on how bad it is what THEY did to him (but he was the one perpetrating a triple whammy)?

    Yes, I lied (though not for long) to try to save my family ties. And yes, a few readers of this blog felt that I had not been treated well, though that’s not how I see things at all. And many of those readers were actually Christians, not “rubber-stampers.”

    But no Mike, the real issue is not that you’re just being brutally honest and “telling like it is.” You’re just a jerk. Are you alone in that? No. There are atheist jerks too — sometimes they comment on this blog. I often ask them to be more cordial. But if you’re trying to race to the lowest common denominator, then congratulations — you made it. If you were honestly concerned with trying to lead people to “salvation,” then you would follow the advice of guys like James, who said:

    But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.
    — James 3:17

    But instead, you prefer to align yourself with the dogmatic pieces of crap that are driving people away from churches in droves for their lack of love and humility. You’d be a much more pleasant person if you could squeeze a little humanity in there next to your warped Christianity.

    Like

  363. “Thanks Howie (and William). And you’re right — I did not mean electronics and whatnot; I really just meant creative ability, architectural ability, ingenuity, etc. So technology in the sense of advancement, not in modern cybernetics, electronics, etc. If that’s what Mike thought I meant, then fine. I can see where he would be confused.”

    I am not confused Nate, frankly I don;t see how technological advancement would only apply to electronics . I don’ t know how Howie makes that exclusive view of technological advancement. It kind of odd ball to me

    ” I did not mean electronics and whatnot; I really just meant creative ability, architectural ability, ingenuity,”

    if you meant just creative ability then your point gets even weaker. The temple artisans are said to be inspired by God to be creative and Daniel and other Hebrew teens (I believe – youths ) are said under the hand of god to excel at all their studies at Babylon. Ive mentioned Daniel before in pointing out your total lack of any Biblical context to claim God was ever anti technology.

    I can only think you were inspired to write that nonsense (or figured it would fit in well) because of Athiest claims in our culture that Christians are antiscience

    Like

  364. Wouldn’t Mikey make a crackerjack poster boy for Christianity? Christian wannabes could learn to be just like him – and the Pew people projected that Christianity in the US would dwindle – not with Mikey around as a shining example!

    Like

  365. And I really don’t even know what “breach of contract” he’s talking about.” – Well, I do recall that for a time, you were advising us not to mention his name for some reason.

    Like

  366. Mike, you are correct that the words “technological advances” is not in the scripture. By the same token, the scripture dealing with the tower does not include the words “idol or pagan worship.”

    I’m only guessing, but I would imagine Nate was postulating that “this is only the beginning of what the