You Can't Disprove Christianity ( Don't Even Try )

[Yozavan]

Premise Of Debate: Can you disprove Christianity or the Bible?

Open Challenge: I know a King James Bible, Charismatic Christian. His name is Jethro. Present your best arguments against Christianity or the Bible. I will post Jethro's response to your argument. We work at a warehouse. He doesn't believe in the Internet, but he does believe in defending the Bible.

An Example Of Jethro's Apologetics: I presented Jethro with the following contradiction: How many horsemen did David capture? 700 ( 2 Samuel 8:4 ) or 7000 ( 1 Chronicles 18:4 ) ? Jethro's response: The authors employed different styles of arithmetic!


Jethro: Bring it on. I will smash your arguments!

[TRANSPONDER]

That is what is says. What I think you mean is that I don't interpret it in the way you do, by changing the meaning, making stuff up and denying what it actually says.

But that doesn't matter, because your denial isn't what counts, but the Case, and your denial, invention and fiddling of what the Bible actually says is just an example to those whose minds are still open, of how Bible apologetics misleads them.

Ok, so, maybe you should show the scripture and tell what is really means?

Yet again? Genesis says the daylight was made before the sun. You had a few attempts to explain this away with a cosmic light that of course had to imitate day and night, before the sun was made. As Purple Knight says above, it is not about 100% proof but probabilities, and assuming science isn't denied, the sun was made about the same time as the earth and other planets. Genesis is wrong.

The probability is that it is wrong because the Bible - writers had the same cosmic view as those of the time. The earth was a flat circle (the Hebrew word implies a flat circle drawn by God's compasses) with a sky dome over it. And that makes sense of the sky view if not the world - view of the Bible.

The prophecy of Tyre is wrong - it was rebuilt. You of course referred to the Apologist excuses about ruins outside the town and especially those on the seashore, some of which have fallen into the sea. Either they are ignorant or they know better and are lying. These ruins were later and some were Roman, outside of the city which rebuilt and expanded over the old city, causeway and island. Thus the excuse (ignorance or lying) that the Mainland part was not rebuilt fails - it was ALL rebuilt, and quickly, too (1). Last ditch excuse - that a new city was built on top and given the old name, but the old city was never rebuilt is Interpretation that is a dastardly attempt to bamboozle people, and I trust they won't buy ii. That is not how it works. If a city is bombed to the foundations, it is rebuilt, it does not have a new city built on top and just given the same name.

This is excuses that is called "Interpretation" and just the sort of fiddling and attempted bamboozlement that is called "Understanding". It is not, it is denial that the Bible is wrong and does not balk at trying to fool the people just to avoid admitting it is wrong. It is why the people should not trust a Bible apologist any further than they could kick them; as faithbased apologetics means they have to fiddle, misrepresent and lie, for their faith.

Do we need to do the Resurrection contradictions again? Rather, I'll point out that the provables (like the cetan sequence) validates the rest. Things wrong in the Bible means that in probability, the ones that Look wrong, probably are, even if some excuse can be made up.

Like the penitent thief; others heard the thieves reviling Jesus, but nobody but Luke got to hear about the repentant one? No, No; it is a story he made up, probably, rather than someone else made it up, because Luke does this sort of thing all the time.

The Bible is full of clunks like this and denying it and making up excuses is s disrespect to the people, even if they are so brainwashed as to want to believe it.

(1) The date of the siege of Tyre (by Alexander) probably tells us the date, and situation, that the OT was compiled, because of course it had to be at the time it was knocked over but not yet rebuilt. It is Just possible it only refers to Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre, but I think it needs to take in the Alexandrine causeway, which would be a perfect place for fishermen to use to spread out nets.

[The Tanager]

You can't disprove that magical things happen, you can just say they probably don't. Maybe Jesus did walk on water or raise the dead. For all we know, we'll someday be able to raise the dead and walk on water too. Yesterday's magic is tomorrow's science, if we're making progress. If we're regressing, yesterday's science will be tomorrow's magic. Curtains come down, versus more curtains go up. Maybe when all the curtains come down, there's still magic.

This would be true if there is no natural/supernatural split in reality. Do you have any good support for that conclusion?

To me this is a distractive issue and it doesn't matter whether God or Jesus existed, or whether they had or have magic powers. Though frankly the magic powers thing is a red flag and indicates to me that in the case this is all true, whatever being is at the top, actually believes in might-makes-right - and that's not morality. That's tyranny. Though you could say that because the people at the time were primitive, it might have been necessary toperform supernatural feats for them, because there's a legitimate question of what to do if the people believe in might-makes-right, because there might not be a way to break them out of that except prove you are the mightiest god, and then teach them actual right from wrong.

Why would the existence of the supernatural mean that God believes in might makes right? Could you explain the moves you are making there more?

[1213]

Yet again? Genesis says the daylight was made before the sun. You had a few attempts to explain this away with a cosmic light that of course had to imitate day and night, before the sun was made.

Thank you again for showing how amazing Bible is, because you can't show any real error in it. All you offer is strawman arguments and bad interpretations.

Bible tells light was created before sun. I believe that is possible, because sun is not the only source of light. And the other light could cause day and night, for example if earth rotates and the light stays in the same place. But, maybe you don't believe earth rotates.

The probability is that it is wrong because the Bible - writers had the same cosmic view as those of the time. The earth was a flat circle (the Hebrew word implies a flat circle drawn by God's compasses) with a sky dome over it. And that makes sense of the sky view if not the world - view of the Bible.

You are speaking of how some people understand things, not about what is actually said in the Bible. And I don't think that really tells about what the ancient people understood, but rather about how poorly more modern people understand things.

The prophecy of Tyre is wrong - it was rebuilt.

That new things were built on top of it, is not the same as it was rebuilt.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yet again? Genesis says the daylight was made before the sun. You had a few attempts to explain this away with a cosmic light that of course had to imitate day and night, before the sun was made.

Thank you again for showing how amazing Bible is, because you can't show any real error in it. All you offer is strawman arguments and bad interpretations.

Bible tells light was created before sun. I believe that is possible, because sun is not the only source of light. And the other light could cause day and night, for example if earth rotates and the light stays in the same place. But, maybe you don't believe earth rotates.

The probability is that it is wrong because the Bible - writers had the same cosmic view as those of the time. The earth was a flat circle (the Hebrew word implies a flat circle drawn by God's compasses) with a sky dome over it. And that makes sense of the sky view if not the world - view of the Bible.

You are speaking of how some people understand things, not about what is actually said in the Bible. And I don't think that really tells about what the ancient people understood, but rather about how poorly more modern people understand things.

The prophecy of Tyre is wrong - it was rebuilt.

That new things were built on top of it, is not the same as it was rebuilt.

It absolutely is, and is the way rebuilding the same city works. Your attempt to reinvent the way we do things, as well as what the Bible says, is only going to discredit any other claims you make, because blatant denial discredits plausible denial, too.

And again you do yourself no good by not only ignoring that the Bible doesn't just say it was Light, (before the sun) but day and night, light and dark, morning and evening, even after I'd posted it myself.

So I'll say again, you think it is about your Faith and how much you can deny - what science says, what I say and even what the Bible says, preferring what you, personally, prefer to believe.

But it really isn't. It is about the case being made, as you are at the stage where you have no case, but are just denying everything.

You carry on, and I'll carry on showing what Bible apologetics denial looks like, to any who have open minds. You can do it time and again as you only hurt your argument, not mine.

Oh well, let's pick up your latest ad hoc (madeup as one goes along as I recall some apologists trying to argue that it meant something else) that the Light is not now a Cosmic light which you tried to link to cosmic radiation (which is universal and not in one place as a preliminary sun) but now you argue it was there as a light source, but not the sun itself. Just because the Bible gets the order of creation wrong.

Nobody but a genesis -literalist denialist is going to buy that even if they were't aware of c you contradictory excuses made up out of nowhere. As if that wasn't bad enough, you tried to pull a disgraceful trick of insinuating that I might deny earth's rotation when you weren't arguing for that but a ball of light imitating the sun before the Bible says the actual sun was made. You may not be aware that photos have been taken of stars and planets evolving out of gas clouds, so we know how it works.

To be quite clear, a cosmic size light would have to switch on and off as it was universal and earth's rotation would make no difference. Of course a fake sun before the sun was made, but in the same place, would not have to turn on and off, no more than the sun does.