Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[Mae von H]

Ok. But I have seen nothing from you but faithclaims. Fair enough. So I accept (unlike many Bible critics) that a case has to be made to NOT credit the Bible as reliable, believable or true. Not Inerrant. Let me try your - wall patience with a quote from my soon not to be published memoirs "The wonderful story of my fantastic life" When the religion debate first hit the Internet, Bible contradictions were just lists of what hats Samuel was wearing and the apologists just shrugged it off 'Inerrant doesn't mean no errors. God maybe didn't write the Bible, but he inspired the writers with the truth. All errors are mans' fault, not God's". Thus Bible contradictions had to go a step further.

I have seen nothing from you but doubtclaims. Why do you not measure yourself with the same standard you measure others?

Regarding debating religion on the net, I have read and heard thousands of debates and never one about what hat Samuel was wearing. Not one. Maybe the debates you read are not the best ones to look at. Try John Lennox vs. Dawkins.

But I assume you mean that tongue in cheek. I will give you some insight into many believers. They DON'T like to talk about passages that point to their own moral behaviour (or lack of it.) It is much more pleasant for them to debate the age of the earth (as though they have a way to measure that) than talk about forgiving others and doing right by them, stranger or close friend. I cannot even consider taking an unbeliever to church with me anymore. The songs and sermons are so narcissistic that they are no example of what Jesus taught. But anyone can see they all prefer to hear support for their already narcissistic tendencies. The focus is on making them feel better and except for the annual tithe series, no sermons challenge their morality pretty much. So its preferable argue these matters as one feels morally superior AND one's one real behaviour is left untouched.

I will have to repeat myself a lot it seems. No Bible writer claimed their work was infallible or inerrant. Not one. You need to move off of that point. I know the uneducated or highly religously steeped educated insist this is so but that is because the real claim the Bible writers make of the book is not very pleasant. Surely you can see why anyone would prefer to spend hours and days and years on defending the claim that the book is without error instead of it is there to teach THEM about how to behave? Say that one sentence and a thousand thoughts of how one's behaviour does not measure up come to mind. Speak at length about its inerrancy and those sleeping errors of behavior remain undesturbed.

Thus the Bible has to be shewn more wrong than can be excused as human errors - it is wrong information. OT of course, but also new as we already know that if the OT is debunked the Christians simply say Jesus made it all a new covenant. Cobblers because if Eden is false, whence sin? God had to impose sin -death or there is no need for Jesus to release us. 'Sin' is just haw we were made, (by evolution thank you very much) and not some fault of ours.

You have best not propose the theory of evolution as to the genesis of man because scientifically you are on very thin ground and there is many a biologist who had to honestly admit that theory does not match real life seen in the laboratory or elsewhere. Genesis explains man with the best possible fit of what we really see.

So for starters, OT Order of creation.

What is the problem? The universe is older than the earth. The earth is older than the life on it. The plants and animals are older than man. Fits perfectly. You believe a different order?

Ark feasibility,

What is the problem? Engineers looked at the description and said it fits perfectly to the shape and size of a super tanker today. How did they know to build a ship like a tanker?

The sun standing still, all wrong.

I hate to break it to you but the sun does stand still in relation to the earth. The earth moves around it. (You left yourself open to that one. Hope you have a sense of humor.)

The absurdity of Babel and origins of language,

You got a better proposition?

Prophecy of Tyre false, Daniel not a prophet (dateable to around 160 BC, not 500 BC) and more recently increasing reason to think Exodus was an invented origin story (like Genesis) written in Babylon 600 BC (on epigraphic grounds) using Babylonian records (e.g Sargon in the bulrushes) and I am now halfway sure the Exodus was based on equating the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose with the leading the Jews out of the delta by Moses.

Well, you want to believe these things although archeology does not back you up. Evidence for the Exodus is there.

NT? Nativity, touchstone test case contradiction. One account has to be wrong and on evidence, both. From Matthew's silly star and the contrived plot of Herod looking for a Royal pretender in scripture (only a Christian writer would get that idea) to Luke's daft idea that signing on for a tax (which didn't apply to Galilee anyway) required someone to go back to their ancestral city, and how many people even know what that is?

Again, this probably comforts you. But the last needs to be addressed. Just because people today do not know much, does not follow that the Israelies then did not know much. They knew which of the sons of Jacob was their great....grandfather. I bet no one today learned from childhood their ancestry going back centuries.

Of course, Joseph would sign on in Capernaum or Sepphoris, not trek to Judea taking his wife just so Jesus could fulfil scripture by being born there. Matthew and Luke knew that scripture required that the Messiah should be born in Bethlehem (in fact John states this 7.41 but doesn't claim Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem) and invented contradictory stories to "Correct" this omitted information.

Again, this comforts you although your education in these matters assumes modern thinking that would have been foreign to them. Fact is, thousands read and kept those works and knew that this was how it was done at that time.

So the case for gospel contradiction made, where is the next worst example? In the crux and pillar of Christianity, the resurrection. Not the Crucifixion; I believe that allright, but the resurrection stories are almost as bad as the nativities, and the contradictions much more extensive.

Except that people alive today have seen the risen Christ....thousands of them. They did not know who he was until he told them. But if you do not want to believe, there are many reasons you can tell yourself.

After that, under 'clean hands' legal procedure, the other contradictions do not merit benefit of doubt. Attempted killing at Nazareth that nobody else heard of. Miraculous draft of fish at the calling of disciples...but after the resurrection in John, Lord's prayer taught at Matthew's sermon...but also for the first time when they start for Jerusalem in Luke (1) No Transfiguration in John, No raising of Lazarus in the synoptics (that's a Biggie), Temple bust up removed from John and anointing at Bethany removed in Luke, No penitent thief but in Luke (causing theology problems, too ) and thus far, why should we entertain the attempts to patch over the contradictory deaths of Judas or credit the tomb guard which nobody but Matthew mentions?

You know, if police are interviewing a group of people about events they witnessed, if they all have exactly the same story, it is thought to be collusion. That is the indication of none of it being truth, not the varieties that happened when different people experience the same event.

This is just the beginning. The Bible, NT and Old are shot through with fallacies, nonsense and contradictions. You wanted some'Evidence'. You got it. What do you have other than (I would expect) faithbased dismissal.

I prayed for a lame women and she got up and walked. I have seen other less wild miracles. Thousands of them. I have seen the power of following Jesus change lives for the better as well and the power of those believers change the world for the better. You should look into the amenities you enjoy because of the Christians. IT was the Christians who fought slavery, built schools and hospitals and homes for orphans and the elderly. No atheists would give their lives to doing this. No Hindus nor Muslims nor Buddists either. You see, christians see each man as valuable being made in the image of God. For the atheist, they are just creatures that crawled out of a slimy pool evolving by time and chance and only those who have personal meaning for you (rather narcisstic) are valuable.

(1) fingerprint and identifier of imported material by Matthew and Luke (*not found in Mark) used in contradictory ways. This I call "Q" document.

Yes, I learned about the supposed Q document decades ago in university. If you think you are going to spring something new on me that will shake me, you have another "think" coming. It is rare for an atheist to propose some thought that is new to me. I recall it happened once on these sorts of sites. Otherwise is always rehashing the same doubt supporting "factoids."

That the book is an ancient one written by people of very different culture and background than we have does not occur to them. That the Hebrews used a lot of metaphor does not occur to Christians even and they take every time "horse" is written it means an equine creature. But maybe it is easier for me as I am educated in Shakespeare and for pleasure read books of a different culture although just the English ones which limits the time period, I admit. A modern man reads the Bible and thinks it was written last year.

The final point is why do atheists hold the Bible to such a high standard when no other written work is held to that standard? I used to read biographies as a kid and today would not have thought that because it was found out that the facts in the book do not match what was elsewhere reported that the person described therefore never even lived or did anything written in the biography. Why do you hold the Bible to that standard? No scientific book ever put in the forward that the information therein is inerrant and yet we read and believe what is written. Science is now riddled with peer reviewed papers that are pretty much outright lies. This is known. And yet no one suggests we ought to end all scientific publications. What is the difference?

We look at the information contained therein and test it in real life. The scientific experiments need to be able to be repeated with similiar enough results. And so I tested the Bible, I DID the instructions contained therein and found that my life is better than I ever thought possible when I was 16. My atheist brother asked me about one truth contained in the Bible. I answered, "it is more enjoyable to give than to receive." He loved to give presents and could not deny that this statement from Jesus was true. There are a lot more like it. But one has to DO the things Jesus recommended, not parse out the bits one does not understand BEFORE one will summon up the courage to actually do what he said. And no mistake, following the teachings of Jesus takes real courage, especially in our culture today.

Yes. Tongue in cheek. I mean arguable errors like numbers of troops. We need real biggies. You saw that yourself. Order of creation? Given Palaeontology as an evidence - based alternative, Daylight made apparently before the sun. Vegetation before the sun, never mind it ought to be sun before the earth. Vegetation before fish though the fossil record shows fish before plants appeared on land. Creation is a best guess theory but isn't supported by the evidence.

How does Paleontology show daylight was before the sun and what was the source of that daylight? How did vegetation survive before the sun? THe Fossil "record" is mostly sea creatures in any case. Plants are harder to fossilize as they are more delicate and simply decompose. Sealife has bones or cartilage. I think the creation account is best supported by the evidence.

The problem with the Ark is not that it is a box that would float (provided the waters were fairly still) but you can't keep all the 'kinds' of animals housed and fed for a year or more without losing a few and the species with it. And nothing to eat after it's all over. Never mind genetic instability (not found in DNA) from trying to repopulate the earth and in just about a 1,000 years, too. It really is unfeasible.

Folks have made smaller in size arks to size and the float beautifully even in heavy storms. Regarding the animals, first they were the young and so slept a lot. There was food taken along of course. Water was plentiful, of course. I do not see a problem. And the earth is still not completely repopulated so I do not see that as an issue nor a goal.

As to the genetics, our DNA has been slowly degrading over time. We are getting more fragile and less robust over time so what their DNA was is not know but certainly better than ours.

I remind you of the Biblical claim that the sun 'stood still'.Apart from the Bible not knowing (as you know) that the earth rotates around the sun, there is no feasible way that the sun can be made to apparently stop moving. This works if you suppose the Bible - writers thought the sun was an afterthought trundling around inside the sky dome and could be put into idle mode when needed. The Bible does not understand how things really were and are.

I would not be so sure. We still say "the sun rises" when it does not. Does not mean we do not know that it stands still and we move. Now if you are asking for a scientific explanation for a miracle there is none. That is why it is a miracle. They wanted extra light and they got it. The particulars are not a part of what we need to know. As I said, a lame woman got up and ran around. The particulars of how her bones suddenly were made strong we do not need to know (and cannot know.)

Of course the separate development of different languages just as art, culture and indeed mythology developed differently. That apart from what looks like a misunderstanding of the Babylon ziggurat which was one of the later ones. And the earliest we know of appear just as the first writing in different languages appears. Some global common language that suddenly happened because a building project was stopped makes no sense. In a debate about this with otseng, it seemed we needed a socking great tower before any Ziggurat let alone Babylon was built. There is not a scrap of evidence that this happened or even could happen, let alone the connection to the far later Babylon.

The building stopped because they no longer could communicate with each other. Makes perfect sense. Of course that building is gone although it is mentioned in early writings. I guess I just have no problem with humans building something large. They do it today. And the technics used in ancient time are lost to us and we cannot even reproduce what they did.

Exodus is being more doubted than it was. The debate is ongoing. But the 'evidence' for the Exodus may not be as good as you think. I do hope you will not be appealing to Wyatt's nonsense.

There are various ancient writings that speak of these people. I have seen films of researches finding curious pieces in the waters there. There are also curious drawings on stones that would have been along the way.

Is it really feasible to claim that all the inhabitants of Judea and Galilee knew their ancestral line, never mind that David's had an ancestral line. What was their ancestral city before David? This makes no sense and even if it did, it makes no sense to have a tax census signed on there. It was in fact done in their 'own city' - where they lived and worked (see that celebrated Egyptian census note and what it actually says). This is just one problem. Your answer to the others is appeal to my supposed bias and vague appeal to meticulous Jewish record keeping. If so how do you explain why Matthew's 'Nazarene' prophecy doesn't appear anywhere in the OT?

Why do you think they did not know this? I see no reason why this is incredible. It was important to them. And your question about an ancestral city before David makes no sense. How can you have a city of your ancestors before your ancestors? And if each had to return to a particular city, then tax evasion would have been more difficult. Otherwise, you just move from city to city avoiding the tax each time. (What the Egyptians did had no bearing on what the Romans did.)

So you try to validate imaginary visions with more imaginary visions.

Not at all. I simply know that ancient peoples functioned differently and knowing something about them, makes is easier to understand. I think you use imaginary arguments like they couldn't possible know their ancestry because we today do not. That is imaginary arguments.

Well you may 'comfort yourself' as you say with 'what you want to believe', but that not only does not make for valid evidence but does not explain why the resurrection list in Paul does not match the Resurrection appearances in the gospels (though Luke tries to wangle it so it does). You appeal to the collusion excuse or evasion. We are not so dumb as to be unable to tell a story that looks broadly the same from one that is so word for word that collusion is suspected. As well as stories that are so different that they are without credibility. This is what we find in the Gospels. Which is why I think we can credit the crucifixion, differences and additions aside, but much of the synoptic text does look like - not collusion, but copying. And of course scholarship assumes that 'Mark' was the one the others copied. Until we get to the resurrections, where not only did they not copy but they told different stories. Accounts that would not (I argue) stand up in a court of law.

I think we disagree as to what normal people remember from seeing the same events.

As you try to buy the debate with miracles and awarding Christianity the credit for what humans have achieved, I argue that it was people of conscience who fought slavery. They were often Christians or used it to back their views up, but only the slave owners could quote the Bible for their case. Abolitionists rather appealed to species: 'Am I not a man and a brother?'

What? It was the christians and only the Christians who fought against slavery. You want to change that to "people of conscience" because you do not like the REASON they did so, it seems. Those who owned slaves never wanted to do so for selfish reasons. But I challenge you to bring writings of the era where slave owners appealed to Jesus' teaching to support their labor practices. So let us see if this is a straw man argument. You see, Jesus taught us to love others as we love ourselves. So that goes against slavery clear and unmistakeable. Did you know that evolutionists used the theory of evolution to insist some people of non-causian races were inferior? It is true. They claimed they evolved differently and were not really human and not therefore, deserving of civil rights. Atheists, mind you.

"Q" is apparently used in 2 ways one being the urtext of the Christian document. The other is material common to Matthew and Luke only and represents a document they used and the others didn't. That's what I mean and the evidence is they used it differently. You know that the Lord'sprayer' appears in contradictory contexts? I have never heard that one myself, but have you? How do you explain it? How do you explain that most important prayer in Christianity isn't even in Mark?

One, the Q document is imaginary. Theologians made up how they things these things were written. But I must admit that you do not like it when the texts match and you do not like it when they do not. As to your question, people remember things differently. It is commonly known. Ask ten people to quote verbatim something they heard and you will get different responses. No one thinks that this mean none of them heard anything at all.

The excuse that it was written by people with a different mindset will not answer. Historians can still make judgements about what seems reliable history and what not. And really if nobody can really understand the old writings, or they are metaphor (and not actually true) then we can't trust anything in the Bible, which is my whole argument.

But it is a fact. Anyone with experience in reading the writings of other cultures knows this. Do you discredit the importance of different cultures? Do you know that different cultures still exist and these differences are very real? I live in a different culture and see easily how those who never left their culture do not at all understand the differences that means.

It is not that Bible critics hold it to a higher standard - it is Bible apologists who want it excused in a way they would never excuse other religious books, nor for that matter the findings of science which undermines the creation, Ark, Exodus, dubious miracles, failed prophecies and contradictory events. The bias is on the Christian side; skeptics just want to treat it like any other book.

Well, the skeptics do not treat the Bible like any other book. Not by a long shot. You see, there is no other that when accepted, calls for a radical change in one's life. Accept that Bacon sponsored the works of Shakespeare and nothing changes in your life. Accept that the claims of Christ are real, and no longer can one live as one chooses. There is a lot at stake.

Now I am not under any delusion that you will be convicted to consider the claims of Christ from anything I say. Not a chance. The price is just too high for you and the reason insufficient for that cost. Logical argument is only effective in a certain kind of person. For CS Lewis, for example, the intellectual road was effectual as he deeply intellectually honest. He saw through the holes in his own arguments. In Sturgeon's day, there was an atheist, a skeptic, who decided he would read the Bible through to ensure that it is all bunk. When he got to the ten commandments, he knew it was not merely the ideas of man. No man would come up with such just and merciful laws. He became a believer. He thought only a God could have inspired such laws. Not all skeptics are alike.

But I always find it fascinating how people think and your thinking is no exception so I am grateful you will exchange thoughts with me, you need to know.

[Data]

Ok Fair enough. In listing problems I don't go into detail,so I'm happy to explain. There were two prophetic attacks on Tyre, under Nebuchadnezzar and under Alexander. Without checking back the prophecy is that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt. Well it was rebuilt to be a powerful and thriving Phoenecian port in Alexander's time . He took it in a siege and it may have looked like it would never be rebuilt, but it was up and running in a decade and still exists today under the name 'Sur'. Attempts have been made to argue that it is not the same city, but it is. Old Tyre is still being found in the archaeology of present Tyre. The prophecy failed.

As a peer reviewing your claim, I reject it. Even if there was something to it I would reject it because it's only a misinformed opinion. I could tell you why that is, but then you would only dismiss it offhand. You've heard this somewhere and assumed it was correct? You assume others will do the same. Rightly so, for the reasons I stated periviously in the thread. Skepticism isn't really interested in facts, truth, data, evidence, science, God, the Bible or religion. Only in socio-politically motivated propaganda.

You need to be specific regarding scriptural support for your criticism. What does it say, where does it say it? To say the Bible says Tyre would be destroyed and is still there doesn't work. Jerusalem was destroyed twice. The world was destroyed. They're still here. The Bible is specific. Your claim needs to be specific as well.

[Tcg]

In Jeremiah’s day God was angry they had refused to release their slaves. hmmmm

This is not true. He reportedly was angry they hadn't released their Hebrew slaves.

Jeremiah 34:9

Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage.

Nothing earthshattering there. Owning slaves as property was no problem as long as they came from the "nations."

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

I'm sure those from the antebellum South would have been upset if some started holding white Southerners as slaves too. Congrats, when it comes to slavery, God is as moral as Southern slave owners. hmmmm indeed.


Tcg

[Mae von H]

In Jeremiah’s day God was angry they had refused to release their slaves. hmmmm

This is not true. He reportedly was angry they hadn't released their Hebrew slaves.

Where’s the record that says they had any others? And it’s true nevertheless. The adjective or not, He was angry that they hadn’t released some slaves which shows what He thinks of slavery. That’s the point.

Jeremiah 34:9

Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage.

So a slave of your nationality should be set free…hmmmm. Every person born inthe US was American. Therefore they were like the Hebrew slaves to the Hebrews.

Nothing earthshattering there. Owning slaves as property was no problem as long as they came from the "nations."

What other slaves were actually mentioned? Just curious. Not the law which they didn’t do, but reality.

Leviticus 25:44-46

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Slaves from other nations had rights and weren’t to be ruled over ruthlessly either. What translation is that? But it is true that a fellow Hebrew was tobe give more respect.

I'm sure those from the antebellum South would have been upset if some started holding white Southerners as slaves too. Congrats, when it comes to slavery, God is as moral as Southern slave owners. hmmmm indeed.

Just shows they didn’t really rely on the Bible for their position.They couldn’t as it doesn’t support their position. The claim that it does is untrue.

What is more, if slave became a christian, they were a brother and ought to be released, if those Southern gentlemen were actually applying Leviticus.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #71]


There is no point in quoting the overlong response as there is no case and no argument, just denial. Denial that the Bible - if it is critiqued (which it isn't by Believers) - IS being treated like any other book, and yes I can equally say I am not going to buy your refusal to accept that abolition was a moral (humanist) decision and not a Christian one, just because pretty much everyone was a Christian then and would wave the Bible flag as validation for whatever they were doing (including slavery), even grabbing Mexican or Native American lands. Morals and politics are nothing to do with Christianity even if those doing them played the Religion card.

Q document imaginary? So is the Synoptic original. Where is it? It doesn't exist. We can reconstruct it based on what was copied (and no, Mark is NOT the original and cannot be). So I not only say that Matthew/Luke material can be used to recreate a separate document ("Q") but Mark/Matthew material can be used to recreate a synoptic gospel that Luke did not use. That it doesn't exist no more matters than we don't have the original written text of Genesis or Daniel.

I have given my case for why the Bible is not to be trusted and I still await a proper response, not just faithjbased dismissal and pot - kettle accusations of bias.

Over to you

Ok Fair enough. In listing problems I don't go into detail,so I'm happy to explain. There were two prophetic attacks on Tyre, under Nebuchadnezzar and under Alexander. Without checking back the prophecy is that Tyre would be destroyed and never rebuilt. Well it was rebuilt to be a powerful and thriving Phoenecian port in Alexander's time . He took it in a siege and it may have looked like it would never be rebuilt, but it was up and running in a decade and still exists today under the name 'Sur'. Attempts have been made to argue that it is not the same city, but it is. Old Tyre is still being found in the archaeology of present Tyre. The prophecy failed.

As a peer reviewing your claim, I reject it. Even if there was something to it I would reject it because it's only a misinformed opinion. I could tell you why that is, but then you would only dismiss it offhand. You've heard this somewhere and assumed it was correct? You assume others will do the same. Rightly so, for the reasons I stated periviously in the thread. Skepticism isn't really interested in facts, truth, data, evidence, science, God, the Bible or religion. Only in socio-politically motivated propaganda.

You need to be specific regarding scriptural support for your criticism. What does it say, where does it say it? To say the Bible says Tyre would be destroyed and is still there doesn't work. Jerusalem was destroyed twice. The world was destroyed. They're still here. The Bible is specific. Your claim needs to be specific as well.

Peer review? You? Thanks for the best laugh of the month. For the rest is just personal faitbased rejection without can, discussion or evidence and never mind peer review. Accusations of bias and 'skeptics would not listen' is just more of the tatty old Bible apologist excuse for why they have no case, argument or evidence. I don't care I never care. It isn't about how much the Christian apologist can ignore, deny or dismiss, but about the readers, browsers and lurkers. The ones who look in to see both sides debate and they only see the God -believers running away shouting 'I win'.

As to your footling excuse. You may wave away the Tyre prophecy. Fine, good, perfect. It means there really was no prophecy. Great. I agree. But there are those Bible apologists who DO claim that the eternal destruction of Tyre was prophesied and it never was rebuilt, and (I quote from memory) "Skeptics can prove me wrong. Let them go and rebuild Tyre. That will disprove the prophecy. But they cannot do it'.

No, we can't, as it still exists today. The columns in the sea or the necropolis built outside the city (both of which I think are later than Alexander) do not alter the fact that Tyre was rebuilt and the present city stands on top of it.

So we can look at the text if you want but if you are right and there is no prophecy of never being rebuilt, then you did the Atheist work for them by debunking a prophecy.

[Data]

Peer review? You? Thanks for the best laugh of the month. For the rest is just personal faitbased rejection without can, discussion or evidence . . . .

In the guise of political diplomacy, let me rephrase my original vulgar retort.

Ahem.

Your criticism is unsubstantiated.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #71]


There is no point in quoting the overlong response as there is no case and no argument, just denial. Denial that the Bible - if it is critiqued (which it isn't by Believers) - IS being treated like any other book, and yes I can equally say I am not going to buy your refusal to accept that abolition was a moral (humanist) decision and not a Christian one, just because pretty much everyone was a Christian then and would wave the Bible flag as validation for whatever they were doing (including slavery), even grabbing Mexican or Native American lands. Morals and politics are nothing to do with Christianity even if those doing them played the Religion card.

Q document imaginary? So is the Synoptic original. Where is it? It doesn't exist. We can reconstruct it based on what was copied (and no, Mark is NOT the original and cannot be). So I not only say that Matthew/Luke material can be used to recreate a separate document ("Q") but Mark/Matthew material can be used to recreate a synoptic gospel that Luke did not use. That it doesn't exist no more matters than we don't have the original written text of Genesis or Daniel.

I have given my case for why the Bible is not to be trusted and I still await a proper response, not just faithjbased dismissal and pot - kettle accusations of bias.

Over to you

Calling my response "overlong" is rich coming from the poster who writes reams of answer much longer than what I ever wrote. I was thinking of asking you if you think you can reduce your lengthy posts.

The Bible is definatly critiqued as no other book is. Instead of reading the astounding truths that shed light on understanding man and how to live a life that benefits you and the world, you focus in prophesies about Tyre. No other book is looked at with the sole purporse of FINDING passages that do not match what one thinks. It is like reading the words of Shakespeare and because some words are spelled differently, none of those characters in any of those pieces ever lived and all of those words are bunk. No one looks at Shakespeare that way and yet the Bible is dissected in exactly this way. You see, the goal of the atheist is to prove that they need not believe ANY of it. That is never the goal of those critically reading other works. They might find parts that are inaccurate, but the whole of the piece is not therefore rejected as you reject the Bible.

One begins to see the wisdom of Jesus in saying that if a man wants to know the truth, he needs to make decisions in his life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and he will come to know the truth. How right that is. Those who refuse to do any of it will never come to see the truth therein. In short, if an atheist wants to know if the Bible is true, he needs to forgive those who have wronged him, for starters. He needs to practice mercy towards them. He needs to practice justice towards others not putting himself and his desire ahead of everyone else. He needs to make the truth a priority in everything he says. I know it is a tall order but that is the way to find out if the Bible is true, not whether Tyre was rebuilt or not. (It was not standing in Jesus' day and a city of ruins today, not rebuilt.)

[TRANSPONDER]

Peer review? You? Thanks for the best laugh of the month. For the rest is just personal faitbased rejection without can, discussion or evidence . . . .

In the guise of political diplomacy, let me rephrase my original vulgar retort.

Ahem.

Your criticism is unsubstantiated.

I don'tcare about your vulgarity. I case about your case in your above post. You make none.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #71]


There is no point in quoting the overlong response as there is no case and no argument, just denial. Denial that the Bible - if it is critiqued (which it isn't by Believers) - IS being treated like any other book, and yes I can equally say I am not going to buy your refusal to accept that abolition was a moral (humanist) decision and not a Christian one, just because pretty much everyone was a Christian then and would wave the Bible flag as validation for whatever they were doing (including slavery), even grabbing Mexican or Native American lands. Morals and politics are nothing to do with Christianity even if those doing them played the Religion card.

Q document imaginary? So is the Synoptic original. Where is it? It doesn't exist. We can reconstruct it based on what was copied (and no, Mark is NOT the original and cannot be). So I not only say that Matthew/Luke material can be used to recreate a separate document ("Q") but Mark/Matthew material can be used to recreate a synoptic gospel that Luke did not use. That it doesn't exist no more matters than we don't have the original written text of Genesis or Daniel.

I have given my case for why the Bible is not to be trusted and I still await a proper response, not just faithjbased dismissal and pot - kettle accusations of bias.

Over to you

Calling my response "overlong" is rich coming from the poster who writes reams of answer much longer than what I ever wrote. I was thinking of asking you if you think you can reduce your lengthy posts.

The Bible is definatly critiqued as no other book is. Instead of reading the astounding truths that shed light on understanding man and how to live a life that benefits you and the world, you focus in prophesies about Tyre. No other book is looked at with the sole purporse of FINDING passages that do not match what one thinks. It is like reading the words of Shakespeare and because some words are spelled differently, none of those characters in any of those pieces ever lived and all of those words are bunk. No one looks at Shakespeare that way and yet the Bible is dissected in exactly this way. You see, the goal of the atheist is to prove that they need not believe ANY of it. That is never the goal of those critically reading other works. They might find parts that are inaccurate, but the whole of the piece is not therefore rejected as you reject the Bible.

One begins to see the wisdom of Jesus in saying that if a man wants to know the truth, he needs to make decisions in his life in accordance with the teachings of Jesus and he will come to know the truth. How right that is. Those who refuse to do any of it will never come to see the truth therein. In short, if an atheist wants to know if the Bible is true, he needs to forgive those who have wronged him, for starters. He needs to practice mercy towards them. He needs to practice justice towards others not putting himself and his desire ahead of everyone else. He needs to make the truth a priority in everything he says. I know it is a tall order but that is the way to find out if the Bible is true, not whether Tyre was rebuilt or not. (It was not standing in Jesus' day and a city of ruins today, not rebuilt.)

You may be right in accusing me of overlong posts. That may be why your responses bit by bit are also often long.

Sorry. I do try to give a full and detailed explanation. My problem is that I find it ocasions disinclination syndrome when there are a score of bit by bit responses to my long post. I accept your critique.

That said I do accept your response. The Bible is gone over in detail because it is the basis of the Christian religion and why we are supposed to believe it - because the Bible says so. Or rather says why we should believe it.

I try to confine myself to the Biggies - the reasons why it is not to be trusted. Order of creation wrong, sun does not stand still (earth ceases rotation, that is, rebutting your evasion) Tyre showing prophecy wrong, Nativities demonstrably unsound, Resurrection nearly as bad.

That's why I tend to repeat the same Biggies in Bible debunk; in the interests of keeping the posts short.

[Data]

I don'tcare about your vulgarity. I case about your case in your above post. You make none.

No you don't. You don't case about my case at all. Because I make none. The case was yours to make, not mine. Tell me what the Bible says and where it says it that makes you think there was a failed prophecy regarding Tyre. Remember?