Bible apologetics

Posted By: jcl

Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 10:30

When reading the bible, we're finding a set of stories by more than a hundred different authors that were written over a time of more than 1000 years. As can be naturally expected from a collection of this size, the stories contain thousands of historical and logical mistakes and self-contradictions.

Bible apologetics is a challenging game with the goal to a) re-interpret the text in a way that the mistakes and contradictions between the stories disappear, and b) interpret a literal meaning into the text (regardless of how it was really meant). However the attempts at bible apologetics on the internet only cover a small part of the bible mistakes. Even in the very first parts of the bible, Genesis 1 and 2, most of the blunders were not yet addressed by apologists or at least I haven't found them online.

I'm interested in a complete apologetics of Genesis 1 and 2. For instance, at the very beginning of the bible we can read:

"So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it." (in the Hebrew original it's not "expanse" but "vault" as in architecture).

This passage was written in 500 BC in the Babylonian exile, and obviously refers to the Babylonian creation myth where the God Marduk did the same thing (creating a vault and separating the waters below from the waters above). The Babylonians assumed that there must be water above the sky because of it's blue color, and because sometimes it falls down. The vault is needed to keep it up.

So the sentence is true in its historical context. However, today astronomy claims that there is no vault and there is no water above the sky. Astronomy even claims that the earth is a sphere, so there is not even a "below" and "above". So when taken literally, either astronomy is wrong or almost everything in this sentence is wrong today... or am I wrong here? Apologists, to the rescue!
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 12:38

Note that I really dont apologize for anything written in the Bible, so I dont indulge in 'apologetics'.

Quote:

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.




The firmament is the lower atmosphere. In the creation story God brought water up above to the clouds where the clouds hold the water. Thus he seperated the waters from the waters.

Quote:

Astronomy even claims that the earth is a sphere, so there is not even a "below" and "above

In that case there is no 'below' or 'above' anywhere because all space throughout the universe is relative. I dont think too much about it though or else I would have trouble walking up the stairs. ...is the universe falling down or up?

Quote:

This passage was written in 500 BC in the Babylonian exile

Perhaps a copy, but the original story was passed down verbaly untill Moses finally documented it(mark 12:26,luke 24:27, John 1:45, Romans 10:5,2 Cor 3:15)There is no reason to doubt the Bible tradition untill there is evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Babylonian creation myth where the God Marduk did the same thing (creating a vault and separating the waters below from the waters above).

A lot of these stories are similar because they actually happened, rather than one civilization copying from another.
Posted By: capanno

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 12:46

I find it ironic that when religion flaming begins, its always christianity in the spotlight. Why in movies do they keep on say "Jesus Christ", or "for Christs sake"? They will never say "for buddhas sake", or "for the love of allah."

It seems as if satan continuously attacks christians. Why is this? Why does he leave the other religions alone? Well, maybe it is the fact that they are on their way to hell, and he wouldnt risk allowing them to see the truth. Think about this. Satan will never let an athiest experience supernatural stuff. That will mean that there is a spiritual realm. I hope everyone will realize this! There is a saying: the biggest trick the devil pulled was making people believe he doesnt exist. Dear athiest, dont fool yourself. Satan has you exactly where he wants you. If you search for the truth you will find it. I hope that God will open your eyes before its too late.

Matthew 7

7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 12:50

Quote:

"So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it." (in the Hebrew original it's not "expanse" but "vault" as in architecture).


--One more point here ,I used Strongs Concordance , the Hebrew word used here for firmament is raqiya, pronounced raw-kee-yah, it does indeed mean 'expanse' or more literally 'the visible arch of the sky'

I think your source might be interpreting an arch to exclusively be used in architecture.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 13:57

Thanks for the explanation!

However, it is not yet fully satisfying. Your concordance translates "raqiya" with:

Quote:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above


which is obviously its usual meaning taken from the bible; so the concordance sounds a little like circular reasoning. More interesting would be the meaning of that word outside the bible.

Anyway: I don't fully understand your explanation "God brought water up above to the clouds where the clouds hold the water". I suppose you mean that God evaporated water into clouds. But this is hardly a creation act, nor is it written in the bible. It even contradicts it: the Hebrews certainly knew that clouds are below the sky, not above it; whatever "raqiya" means, all meanings in your concordance agree that it is solid and supporting, so it's not air or clouds; and if it were the "lower atmosphere", then where is the water above it, and why has God made only the lower and not the upper atmosphere?
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 15:02

Quote:


I find it ironic that when religion flaming begins, its always christianity in the spotlight. Why in movies do they keep on say "Jesus Christ", or "for Christs sake"? They will never say "for buddhas sake", or "for the love of allah."



Basically because they are western movies. Asian and middle-eastern people will curse in a dramatically different way, it's a pure difference of culture. They won't say '[censored]' as a swearword either, they will get very mad though if you say that someone's mother is ugly.

Quote:

Dear athiest, dont fool yourself. Satan has you exactly where he wants you. If you search for the truth you will find it. I hope that God will open your eyes before its too late.



Aah, there's the good 'ol 'better believe or burn in hell'-argument. Well to be honest with you, I'd rather burn in hell for something I have reason to believe in, than believe in something for which there is really no evidence whatsoever and maybe go to heaven. I think it's completely reasonable to demand at least a fair bit of evidence and allknowing as he supposedly is, he would understand this too. Arrogant point of view? Perhaps, but at least it's more reasonable than having blind faith in lies for all we know,

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 15:32

Quote:

I suppose you mean that God evaporated water into clouds

Yes thats what I mean.

Quote:

But this is hardly a creation act,

It would not need to be a creation act, because water was already created, it was an act of dividing or seperating. Not everything God did at that period had to be creative.

Quote:

nor is it written in the bible

Because the Bible is not a scientific manual. However, I believe that it does align itself with science.


Quote:

However, it is not yet fully satisfying. Your concordance translates "raqiya" with:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


which is obviously its usual meaning taken from the bible; so the concordance sounds a little like circular reasoning. More interesting would be the meaning of that word outside the bible.



The word is definitely NOT referring to a solid formed vault or peice of architecture. The word firmament, as I previously defined it means an "expanse" and that is all. A little more contextual reading reveals this. Notice in the below verse that God put birds in the 'open firmament'. The last time I checked, birds cannot fly through solid vaults The word 'firmament' below is the same exact Hebrew word.

Quote:

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.



Posted By: jcl

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 16:25

'Firmament' stems from the Latin word 'firmamentum' and is derived from 'firmus', solid. This confirms your concordance, so I don't know where you got the idea from that the bible's sky is not solid. Also last time I checked, birds had no problems to fly in vaults, although bats are more likely to do that.

And what about the other objections - where is the water above the firmament, and why do you assume that God created only half an atmosphere?

- You're certainly right that the bible is no scientific manual. This is just the reason for the difficulties you're already getting in the attempt to bend that single sentence so that it can be taken literally. And there are many, many more such sentences in Genesis and the rest of the bible that you'd have to distort even worse. How about "He separated the light from the darkness and called the light day and the darkness night"? How would you literally explain that?
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 17:25

Quote:

How about "He separated the light from the darkness and called the light day and the darkness night"? How would you literally explain that?

explain what? That HE seperated light from darkness, or that He named the light and darkness? Are you referring to the fact that the sun and moon might have been created after light was created? Or what?

edit--BTW.
Quote:

'Firmament' stems from the Latin word 'firmamentum' and is derived from 'firmus', solid.

The Latin etymology would be a pointless diversion in finding the meaning of the word. 'firmament' itself is only the word chosen by king james interpreters for the Hebrew word 'raqiya'. The Latin etymology and the derivation therof would have absolutely nothing to do with its Hebrew counterpart.

I think that the term 'firmament' is very similar to 'firm' in English and it is not uncommon for first time Bible readers to get confused. The first time I read it as a child I thought that perhaps the firmament was a land mass or something. So I can understand why you might initially believe that it is referring to a solid.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 17:58

Quote:

And what about the other objections - where is the water above the firmament, and why do you assume that God created only half an atmosphere?

No I didnt assume that, anything beyond the firmament is irrelevant to this discussion therefore I am only focusing on the firmament and the 'waters above the firmament'. I didnt see the relevance...maybe you can tell me how the upper atmosphere is relevant to your point? ...oh well, I tried to explain my side the best I could.
Posted By: broozar

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 18:26

sorry for interrupting it, i always wondered why genesis is the preferred subject for a discrediting of christian belief. noone but extremists believe in a literal interpreting (interpretierung) of this very beginning of the bible. christian belief does not base on the 5 books that mose wrote, it is based on love, forgiving, self-abandonment, charity, such things. the bible, especially the new testament, is a guideline, only for extremists it's an unalterable doctrine. arguing about words, meanings and translation errors won't make you a better man.
Posted By: JibbSmart

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 19:51

Quote:

I don't fully understand your explanation "God brought water up above to the clouds where the clouds hold the water"

i'm no scientist, theologian, and i'm not very well versed in OT Bible stories, so i was going to leave this thread to those who are but i just thought i'd say that i used to go to a Christian school, and one of their textbooks described a supposedly popular Christian theory that God had suspended a layer of water around the Earth's atmosphere, suspended by this "firmament". this layer acted a little like a greenhouse, increasing the Earth's temperature, and evening it out around the world as well. this meant no icecaps, but no global flooding because so much water was above the sky. the world was a lot more humid and vegetation flourished globally.

this also makes the Great Flood story a little more literal where it says something along the lines of "And God opened the doors of heaven" or something like that, when he started the rain. this could be taken to mean he opened the firmament, allowing the waters above it to rain down on the world below it, hence our lack of "firmament" or "sky waters" today.

or at least that's what i read

julz
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 20:21

Quote:

this could be taken to mean he opened the firmament

You cant 'open' the firmament, and you will notice that the Bible never states that the firmament was opened during the flood.

The firmament itself holds the clouds up because it is the air resistance which keeps the clouds in the sky, turbulence and air currents keep the clouds up though they can be filled literally with hundreds of tons of water.

The theory you learned was most likely the 'water vapor canopy theory' which has been a popular belief among creationists. I would agree with that theory to a point.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 23:05

Quote:

it is based on love, forgiving, self-abandonment, charity, such things. the bible, especially the new testament, is a guideline



There's more to the bible then just being a 'guideline' according to a lot of christians. Hence the threats of ending up in hell and such for disbelieving.
Even if just a guideline, when it's based upon wrong socalled 'facts', errors, pure speculation and fantasy, when it has contradictions and when people interpret it differently than it was actually written down, especially when they assume it's all meant literal, then it's very legit to debate for example the genesis chapters. You can't ignore the problem of translation from Hebrew to other languages, as doing this could change the meaning/form of certain events. As certain arguments have shown, the whole translating thing matters a lot.

The moral guidelines inside the bible is great, but you don't really need a bible nor do you need to be a christian to understand or think off those moral guidelines yourself. Infact, parts of the bible are not so nice when it comes to moral teachings and then I mostly would refer to the old testament.

Quote:

Namely, the bible is a book written by an ancient culture long ago. We're now living in a 'modern' culture, and generally people don't give a fig about 'primitive' cultures, because such progressive societies view themselves as superior to any such ancient society.



It would be a severe mistake to consider any modern society highly superior to older ones on beforehand. You can't look into the minds of those people back then, but even the technically not so advanced cultures can have had an extremely rich and advanced (ex. mostly oral) culture.

Quote:

However, 99% of the time, the problem isn't the text, but the skeptic coming to the text, reading it with a modern mindset as if its a newspaper written yesterday with them in mind.



If only it was this simple, but it's not. By the way, I think often religious people consider themself to be the superior ones, claiming to have knowledge about something they couldn't possibly know, let alone the total lack of evidence in the first place. We're usually not the ones trying to bend translations to fit our interpretations.

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 23:14

The canopy theory has possibly been discredited. I haven't seen a thorough examination of the theory by either side, so I won't jump to conclusions, but most mainstream creationists are quick to say that the canopy theory is good to avoid. AiG for instance.

Kent Hovind still believes it as far as I know, but he also believes that flouride in the water is (very vaguely) something the government puts into the water with a hidden agenda. Though he doesn't go on to explain this in detail.

I was a big fan of his presentations until I heard that, and then I actually found sources from whom the issue was taken seriously. As this point, I'm convinced that Hovind was a plant by evolutionists to discredit creationists.

I'm really rambling here, on to the point.

Quote:

When reading the bible, we're finding a set of stories by more than a hundred different authors that were written over a time of more than 1000 years. As can be naturally expected from a collection of this size, the stories contain thousands of historical and logical mistakes and self-contradictions.



This belief is fine and dandy, but what strikes me about so-called skepticism is its ability to make mountains out of molehills.

Quote:

Bible apologetics is a challenging game



I will agree, but for different reasons. Namely, the bible is a book written by an ancient culture long ago. We're now living in a 'modern' culture, and generally people don't give a fig about 'primitive' cultures, because such progressive societies view themselves as superior to any such ancient society. The challenge isn't reinterpreting the bible, but teaching others to interpret it properly. There are grey areas, where any explanation can be difficult or perhaps just plain not good enough with our current knowledge. However, 99% of the time, the problem isn't the text, but the skeptic coming to the text, reading it with a modern mindset as if its a newspaper written yesterday with them in mind.

Quote:

a) re-interpret the text in a way that the mistakes and contradictions between the stories disappear, and



Reinterpretations are intellectually dishonest. I would be embarrassed to admit that I felt forced to do this from time to time, because I didn't realize that I could just admit that I didn't have an answer, except skeptics make a living out of misinterpreting the bible so no big deal.

Quote:

interpret a literal meaning into the text (regardless of how it was really meant)



Well, when I participate in apologetics, I usually go through the trouble of explaining it from both angles. There's nothing wrong with entertaining differing interpretations, because even then the different interpretations don't cause any "problems."

Quote:

This passage was written in 500 BC in the Babylonian exile, and obviously refers to the Babylonian creation myth where the God Marduk did the same thing (creating a vault and separating the waters below from the waters above). The Babylonians assumed that there must be water above the sky because of it's blue color, and because sometimes it falls down. The vault is needed to keep it up.



I was under the impression that the "babylonian" influence idea had been left for dead.

My initial objection is that throughout history, the Hebrews had strong national pride and went through great pains to avoid any influence from outside cultures.

For instance, in the book of Ruth you won't find the name of God anywhere. But if you take the first letter (in Hebrew obviously) of many of the sentences, His name is spelled out. It was a way of encoding their beliefs to avoid pagan influences.

Beyond that, their entire ritual system was meant to stress their unique nature as God's people.

The differences between the Hebrew and Babylonian accounts are quite extensive.

-Right from the beginning (in fact, the phrase, "in the beginning" is that which I speak of), the accounts diverge. The Babylonian creation account(s) start with "on that day" or "when". Unspecified moments in a (somewhat implied) already created time.

-The Babylonian account records generations of gods and goddesses, whereas the Hebrews (with some objections by a handful of skeptics) tells the story of one God.

-Most of the story is devoted to explaining how Marduk became a "cheif god of babylon." By the time all is said and done, only about 1/3 of the story is about the actual act of creation.

And much more.

Quote:

So the sentence is true in its historical context. However, today astronomy claims that there is no vault and there is no water above the sky. Astronomy even claims that the earth is a sphere, so there is not even a "below" and "above". So when taken literally, either astronomy is wrong or almost everything in this sentence is wrong today... or am I wrong here? Apologists, to the rescue!



I'm not going to try and reconcile a modern scientific understanding with the bible. Mostly because I'm not qualified.

It would be helpful to see what the Hebrews actually thought about that firmament and all of that, but I don't think its possible.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 23:33

Quote:

There's more to the bible then just being a 'guideline' according to a lot of christians. Hence the threats of ending up in hell and such for disbelieving.

Quite correct I would say, way beyond 'guidelines' as far as IM concerned. While I dont take every word of the Bible literally, I take the content literally and sometimes the content boils down to the meanings of certain words.

Quote:

The moral guidelines inside the bible is great, but you don't really need a bible nor do you need to be a christian to understand or think off those moral guidelines yourself.

Right. I know many non-Christians who arent just 'good' people, but they are great people, people I respect. Smart great people.

But being good and nice and following moral guidelines is only a very small part of Christianity. The core basis of Christianity is faith in the supernatural. All Christians must believe in their hearts that there was a man named Jesus who was in the flesh 2000 years ago and He was God. We all also must believe that that same man died for our sins and rose from the dead. That belief is no 'guideline' it is a faith.

I would personally rather that someone either believe or doubt, there do not seem to me to be any varying levels in between. I have a lot more respect for someone who simply admits to atheism rather than someone who goes to church and claims the Bible as a guideline, yet doesnt really believe it. At least an open atheist is honest with himself and honest with others, while a churchgoer who doesnt believe is merely a hypocrite in my opinion.

If you believe in the 'literal' ressurection of Christ you are already branded a 'fanatic', so what difference is someone who also believes in a literal creation? or the flood? I see no reason to believe just the parts of the Bible that I choose. Either I accept all of it, or I accept none of it.

Quote:

The moral guidelines inside the bible is great, but you don't really need a bible nor do you need to be a christian to understand or think off those moral guidelines yourself


I dont need the Bible to tell me about 'good moral behavior', I already knew the golden rule before I came to beleif in Jesus. So I agree with this also.

Quote:

Infact, parts of the bible are not so nice when it comes to moral teachings and then I mostly would refer to the old testament.


True. And even in the New Testament there is a warning of impending hell & the apocalypse. So there is an element of Christianity which will always be anti-social. I cannot apologize for that, for if I accept that Jesus is Lord, I also must accept His teachings.
Posted By: LarryLaffer

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 23:38

I think I have the perfect link for this thread...

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

This guy, or guys, are christians who took the time and browsed through ALL (or so they claim) Bible contradictions, and gave an explanation for each and every one of them.

I think if you take the time and look at any 5-10 contradictions from there, you'll form your own opinion about this.. You might think that the guy is right, or that he may be somewhat oversweating it... Personally, I think he's trying a bit too hard in some cases.. like this one...


Quote:


a) Judas committed suicide by hanging [Matt 27:5]

b) Judas did not hang himself, but died another way [Acts 1:18]

Matt 27:5 states that Judas "threw the pieces of silver....and he went away and hanged himself."

Acts 1:18 states, "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."

It's rather easy to reconcile these:

1. First, Judas tried to kill himself by hanging himself. And this is not always a successful way. Maybe he tried, and failed (as have many others who have tried to commit suicide by hanging). Then after some time, he threw himself off a cliff and fell upon some jagged rocks. Keep in mind that it is not uncommon for people who commit suicide to have tried it before.

2. Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.





Anyhow, I think the whole page proves that trying to nitpick every word from the bible can look as dumb as trying to defend it. If someone really wants to convert or mock a Christian, i'm sure there are better and more mature ways than this. But why would you want to convert a Christian anyway?


I'm kinda on-topic i hope, cause my link is about Bible apologetics..

Cheers,
Aris
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/14/07 23:47

Quote:

If you believe in the 'literal' ressurection of Christ you are already branded a 'fanatic', so what difference is someone who also believes in a literal creation? or the flood? I see no reason to believe just the parts of the Bible that I choose. Either I accept all of it, or I accept none of it.



I don't really like the 'fanatics' stamp either, especially because it quickly get's sort of hostile, but also because these definitions are used for 'atheists' actively trying to get their arguments out too. (look at the recent youtube wave of atheistic movies, or the whole 'christ & creation in schools' debate in several states in the US and the claims about atheists being discriminating).

I definately agree that it would be strange to believe in only parts of it indeed, on the other hand as we know the bible consists of writings of many different authors, so there is some space here.

Quote:

The core basis of Christianity is faith in the supernatural.



I think most non-believers have problems with this, not because it's about the supernatural, but moreso the fact that it's entirely based upon simply accepting something as being true. (-> faith) When you ignore the bible for a moment and simply look at christianity without it, it's that same faith that causes problems for people wanting some evidence before believing anything. (evidence in favor of any 'side' and then decide what they believe upon that).

Quote:

But why would you want to convert a Christian anyway?



I don't want to convert anyone, everyone should believe in whatever they like, I'll respect them anyways. The only thing that sometimes bothers me, is how easily people simply believe eventhough there are good arguments not to. Perhaps 'bother' isn't exactly the right word for it, because it sounds quite negative, as if it actively disturbs me.

Edit: A slightly off topic question perhaps, but something that interests me: Do you consider God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be one and the same, equal (in hierarchy) to eachother and/or all 'three' to be Gods? Just out of curiosity,

Cheers
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 01:32

@Nitro I am sending you my tithes. ;-)

I think the Bible is altered, yet the story of Heaven and Hell is very true. There is a God and Jesus did in fact live and die as recorded in the Bible. There are several other documents that mention Jesus if you need "non-christian" reading material.

The Bible, Absolute or Faulty?

Thats a duh situation. Maybe inspired by God but written by man. Men have faults and thus the Bible has faults. IMO Many things have been altered from the original scrolls. Theres actually proof of that. How do you know that the KJV your reading is EXACTLY like it was written back in the day? You know its not. I look at the Bible as a guide and I keep in mind this scripture..

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works" (2 Cor 11:13-15 NKJ)

MEN have re-written and translated the Bible for thousands of years. Error is gonna be there. I believe that people are so caught up trying to focus on the mistakes that they forget God or convince themselves that he does not exist.Start looking at the simple things.. peace, love, meekness and so on. If you do not believe in God and you still guide your life according to the Bible then you will be remembered as a better man. Not saying salvation is yours.. just saying that there is nothing wrong with living up to Bible standards as best as possible.

Sorry, strayed from subject.

@JCL

The Bible was written by man. The devil would love nothing more than to rearrange and twist the words in it. Chances are, he already has... thus the contradictions. If he is smart enough to transform into a angel of light.. he can surely play "text_twist" with the Bible if allowed to do so.

My advice.. start in Matthew and use the RED words as a guide. Forget history, forget what Paul wrote if you need to. Jesus can teach you the way.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 03:36

Don't have much to add, except that my main gripe is with people who make rather egregious mistakes because they're so wound up about proving the bible is errant, that they can't just admit that not everything they think is an error, actually is an error. But what are you gonna do?
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 04:10

Quote:

There are several other documents that mention Jesus if you need "non-christian" reading material.



Well, you'd need to check your sources and do some more research, because all that those mention is the surname 'jesus', which was very common back then. According to biblical scholars (!) phrases like '..of nazareth' in certain scriptures about 'sources' were added at a later time(!).

It's a bit like saying you've found a diary of someone called John in the United States and claim it thus must have been John F. Kennedy's. Eventhough even in the very same town where you've actually found it there could have lived many many other Johns...

Quote:

If you do not believe in God and you still guide your life according to the Bible then you will be remembered as a better man.



I think everyone who's sane and relatively normal knows how to live a good life and be a good person and understands all those moral values and ultimately doesn't quite need the bible for all that.

Quote:

Not saying salvation is yours.. just saying that there is nothing wrong with living up to Bible standards as best as possible.



Is it wrong not to believe at all in your opinion? Salvation by the way, is just another uncertain uncertainty of this big list of promises religions in general tend to provide.

Quote:

except that my main gripe is with people who make rather egregious mistakes because they're so wound up about proving the bible is errant, that they can't just admit that not everything they think is an error, actually is an error. But what are you gonna do?



It's tempting to ask for an example, but in your view there probably must be many cases, so I guess this would result in a futile attempt of trying to understand and probably make the entire discussion go right back to square one. Comments like yours are a bit too easy to make without backing them up though,

Cheers
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 04:37

All I have to say about this subject is at the link below:

http://www.noahsadventures.com/downloads/godany3.wav


Posted By: jcl

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 09:02

Quote:

Don't have much to add, except that my main gripe is with people who make rather egregious mistakes because they're so wound up about proving the bible is errant, that they can't just admit that not everything they think is an error, actually is an error. But what are you gonna do?


I do not intend to prove that the bible is errant. The bible is not more errant than Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'. It only becomes errant when you misunderstand it as a historic, geographic, or scientific record. The error is in the interpretation, not in the bible.

Quote:

I was under the impression that the "babylonian" influence idea had been left for dead.
My initial objection is that throughout history, the Hebrews had strong national pride and went through great pains to avoid any influence from outside cultures.


Your impression is wrong, but national pride was just the reason for the writing of Genesis 1. Its author, identified by historians as "P" because he was probably a priest, wanted a Hebrew creation story to stand out against the all-known Babylonian myth, which told that Marduk separated the waters. So the sentence:

"So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it."

probably just means: 'it wasn't Marduk; it was our Hebrew god'.

Now you see the problem of apologetics: when attempting to adapt bible sentences to today's science, you must utterly change their meaning. Originally the sentence just told that the world was full of water and God - or Marduk - split the water for creating a dry place inside. All the apologetic "explanations" - clouds, lower atmosphere, a canopy - are not contained in this sentence, and must be artificially interpreted into it.

It's a little ironic that just the apologists who claim to take the bible literally wildly re-interpret it in contradiction to its literal meaning. If they are right that a hell exists, they'll probably end up there for this .
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 09:53

"Well, you'd need to check your sources and do some more research, because all that those mention is the surname 'jesus', which was very common back then."

Its hard not to know who these talk about. Here is a few.. C+P

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."

Note: There is dispute as to the reliability of the Josephus accounts. However, there is no textual/manuscript reason for doubting them since the extant Greek manuscripts all agree with the texts in question; namely, the quotes shown on this page. However, the reason the quotes are in doubt is because of the text in italics in the various quotes; they seem a little too favorable regarding Christ. Also, it appears that the writings of Josephus were transmitted to us through the Christian community.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For an examination of this please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2

Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."

Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt

Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."

Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."

The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.

Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante–Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

The Talmud

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."

Luke 22:1, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."

This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11–13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

___________________
Sources

McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino, CA, Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1979.
Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Encarta on the Web at http://encarta.msn.com .


My conclusion: Jesus lived and died as explained in the Bible. What happened after his death is left up to faith. :-)
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 10:43

Quote:

I think everyone who's sane and relatively normal knows how to live a good life and be a good person and understands all those moral values and ultimately doesn't quite need the bible for all that.




Only saying that if you take a "good" man and watch as he applies the principles in the Bible.. he will be a better man. Much better.

Quote:

Is it wrong not to believe at all in your opinion?



There are so many choices in life.. we make them every day. The Bible is one of those things that is limited to a simple set of answers.

1) Believe
2) Do not believe

I can't say whether your right or wrong for not believeing because my personal belief is based on faith. I can however tell you what what it says will happen to those that do not believe.

If you need proof, do this: Find a way in your heart to believe. Devote your life and when in need, call on him. Watch as things take place in your life that you cannot explain and there is your proof. Ill share a few instances that I find hard to explain.

When I was younger.. about 16-17 years ago I was at the church praying on a week night. At the time I had no vehicle and my plans was to save the world. In my mind I shouldnt have been thinking of material things but I couldnt help it. I really needed a car. Drive to work at McDonalds, drive to church.. and so on. I starting asking for a car. Before the prayer meeting was over someone interupted me aqnd said I had a phone call. My mother wanted to inform me that she had found me a car and it was at the house waiting on me. You would have to know my mother to know how odd that is. I gave thanks and counted this as a blessing.

A couple of days passed and I was thinking of hoow great that car would look with a paint job. Again pressing my luck I told the Lord "a paint job would be nice". Going back to the drive-thru from the privacy of the self made public bathroom/prayer room.. I watch as a jeep drives off the road, goes down a small hill and collides with my "new" car. My eyes looked a little like this O_O.
I felt bad and was very sorry for asking for material things. I figured this was my punishment. Within a few days the car was fixed with a NEW paint job courtesy of the other guys insurance company. Great thanks and a blessing in disguise.

Another example happened not to long ago. I was at work and had been going through a trial concerning my faith. I got the bright idea that I needed to see Jesus. Far fetched but that was what I wanted. I would take breaks at random time during the day and goto the bathroom... humble myself in the dirtiest place I could think of.. the bathroom floor. My nose to the ground I wanted to see Jesus, I was convinced. Nothing happened. I get home (I live in the country) and my wife and I sat on the front porch to drink coffee. A snow white dove lands at our feet.. I have never even seen a dove before. Staying for a while, we fed the bird... unable to touch it. Again everyday for a week the bird came back in the evenings to visit and then would leave again. You could explain that or you could just smile and say "Now whats the odds of that happening." :-)

I own a bussiness. I do well for myself and couldnt ask for more in life than what I have. Not to long ago, things got tough and I desperately needed to hire at least 2 more people. After searching for the right ones, I came up with nothing. Getting frustrated I took this need to the church. That night I made a prayer request for 2 people to come to me looking for a job. To keep it simple.. the next day, out of the blue here comes two skilled people searching for a job. The request was answered and the situation couldnt be more perfect.
You could either make excuses and try to work it out in your head or you can thank Gd for the blessing.

These are of course examples and the list could go on and on. I am greatful for the blessings in my life.
Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 13:20

Seriously what is the point of these discussions? There is no way to convince poeple that their deeply held beliefs are nonsense.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 15:10

Nonsense?

I know, I'm trying to convince you atheist in a God.

But, I do not consider your views "nonsense".
I used to be a non-believer and making fun of christians.

Your views are not "non-sense", but are just only in error.
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 15:15

Just conversations is all. :-) I like discussing spiritual things and so do atheist obviously.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 15:37


Quote:

Seriously what is the point of these discussions? There is no way to convince poeple that their deeply held beliefs are nonsense.



I always like my beleifs challenged because it helps me re-establish what I know. I might not be 'converted' and learn anything from an opposing viewpoint, but I learn a lot about my own viewpoint through the process of defending it(if that makes sense)

I think the danger comes when you take things personally and get angry which is also somthing that happens to everyone I think. But if you can keep civilized and intelligent, I think you can indeed benefit from having your beliefs tested.

I was actually hoping jcl would follow up on his "light objections" but he has seemed to lost ambition and thats ok. We are all also busy doing other things.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 15:55

Quote:

Seriously what is the point of these discussions? There is no way to convince poeple that their deeply held beliefs are nonsense.



True, infact I really doubt Kinji has actually looked inside Antiquities, but instead probably pasted from a christian site. It would be quite useless to explain why Flavius Josephus most probably didn't meant the christian jesus but someone else... "and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," -> according to biblical scholars this probably was added lateron.

Apart from that you've got to understand that for something like this to be of any real historical value it should be made during the life of Jesus, not close to 100 years later. You will probably disagree, but with this in mind there's really no solid evidence for the person Jesus as mentioned in the bible. Infact, isn't it suprising that if the Jesus of the bible really did exist that he doesn't get mentioned way more often???

Cheers
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 16:40

That would go back to "judge not". :-)

Quote:


True, infact I really doubt Kinji has actually looked inside Antiquities




I have studied them and still do today using a free tool called "e-sword". You should dl it if your interested. For the record... I did in fact copy and paste the information from a webpage I have saved on my pc. I made that very clear in the beginning of that post.. go back and look for "C+P" at the top of the post. lol
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 17:01

Okey, that makes sense, well I didn't quite understand what you meant with C+P, but now I know. Trust, me though, open that particular issue of Antiquities and check it, you'd be suprised...

You can't check Antiquities with e-sword by the way, nor with BibleWorks for that matter.

edit: you obviously missed my point, just go read the Antiquities issues. Don't worry I know about the 'topic notes' thing in e-Swords.

Quote:

but I dont understand why you say they cant be accessed through e-sword



I used different words, "different words have different meanings", to quote your president.

Cheers
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 17:20

Quote:

You can't check Antiquities with e-sword by the way, nor with BibleWorks for that matter.



I do study Antiquities with e-sword. Would you like a link to the dl that lets you add it? ;-)

click here

Thats the second time you dispute me for no reason. Need a hug? lol

Just a thought.. we should focus on the original post and/or strayed topics. k? :-) What I have done and havent done are really unimportant.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 17:32

Quote:

Okey, that makes sense, well I didn't quite understand what you meant with C+P, but now I know. Trust, me though, open that particular issue of Antiquities and check it, you'd be suprised...

You can't check Antiquities with e-sword by the way, nor with BibleWorks for that matter

why not? it seems to be available here i have never read any of them personally but I dont understand why you say they cant be accessed through e-sword You are talking about "antiquities of the Jews" by Flavius Josephus?
Posted By: Doug

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 19:03

Quote:

...if you take a "good" man and watch as he applies the principles in the Bible.. he will be a better man. Much better.



So a better man would kill the Starbucks employee that made me coffee last Sunday? (Exodus 35:2).
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/15/07 19:06

Depends on how the coffee tasted. O_O

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Joh 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Unless you are interested in a history lesson... why are you way back in exodus? Following every word that Jesus spoke is hard enough considering the weak-minded people we are today. Why go back to the OT when you KNOW you cant live by those rules. lol Sorry, the weak-minded part will surly catch negative attention. I compare our present generation to people like Jesus, Paul, John and so on.
Posted By: FoxHound

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 02:28

So it's ok to be gay then?
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 04:03

Quote:

I do not intend to prove that the bible is errant. The bible is not more errant than Shakespeare's 'Hamlet'. It only becomes errant when you misunderstand it as a historic, geographic, or scientific record. The error is in the interpretation, not in the bible.



What's interesting to me is that its incredibly reliable when it comes to historical, geographical facts. With the exception of scientific facts on the age of the earth, and the origin of humanity.

Quote:

Your impression is wrong, but national pride was just the reason for the writing of Genesis 1.



So we're hearkening back to the "old school" of biblioskepticism? Along with the JEDP hypothesis I see.

Quote:

Now you see the problem of apologetics: when attempting to adapt bible sentences to today's science, you must utterly change their meaning.



The fact that there are some, rather shallow, similarities between the Hebrew and Babylonian myths is little more than ambiguous evidence that tells us just about nothing. For all we know they both descended from a common source, and that's why they're so similar, and its the Babylonians that turned the myth to fit their culture better, while the Hebrews retained a myth that stayed closer to its source. Careful with that sort of idea, though: its dangerous thinking.

Quote:

It's tempting to ask for an example, but in your view there probably must be many cases, so I guess this would result in a futile attempt of trying to understand and probably make the entire discussion go right back to square one. Comments like yours are a bit too easy to make without backing them up though,



I can see what you're saying, since you're still entertaining that Jesus Myth tripe. The only "scholars" that reject a minimalist description of Jesus Christ in the antiquities, are the same who claim Jesus never existed. Otherwise scholars of all stripes concede that (with as much certainty as one can hope for), Josephus is making a pretty unambiguous reference to Jesus.

But why not an example? I've run into plenty of them, so I'll try and scrape one up.

Oh, I totally ripped this guy a new one on the issue of slavery just a little while ago. I mean, this guy is a fundy atheist to the core. You can shove all the evidence you want in this guy's face, and he will refuse to budge.

But I finally piled on so much of an argument that he didn't have so much as an argument from emotionalism for me. That may not sound amazing to you, but I was proud. Especially on such a touchy issue.

There are better examples, and when I think of one I'll let you know.
Posted By: jcl

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 06:19

Quote:

For all we know they both descended from a common source, and that's why they're so similar, and its the Babylonians that turned the myth to fit their culture better, while the Hebrews retained a myth that stayed closer to its source.


The Enuma Elish was written on tables in 1200 BC in Babylon, and is therefore the oldest written creation myth we know. Back then, the Hebrews were still nomadic tribes and had yet to invent writing. Their version (Genesis 1) was written 700 years later in the Babylonian Exile. Sure, both versions obviously have a common source, but which version was derived from which one?

Quote:

What's interesting to me is that its incredibly reliable when it comes to historical, geographical facts. With the exception of scientific facts on the age of the earth, and the origin of humanity.


Some geographical and historical facts in the bible are correct, some are wrong.

Genesis 2: "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there. The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."

If you look this up in a map, you'll find that the Tigris indeed runs along the east side of Assur - correct so far. But the Tigris and Euphrates don't spring from a common river - which would have been be a geographical curiosity anyway, as rivers normally only separate in a river delta. And the land of Cush (Sudan) lies on an entirely different continent.

3 facts, 2 of them plain wrong - hardly "incredibly reliable", won't you agree?

For all we know, Genesis 2 was written between 900 - 1000 BC by an author dubbed "Jahwist" by historians. The location of Tigris, Euphrates and Cush were known at that time. So we can assume that either Jahwist was not very educated, or he intentionally mixed up geography to describe Eden as a mythological place that could have been anywhere. In that case the text does not contain mistakes. It only becomes wrong when misunderstood as a geography book - and then causes the typical funny apologetic explanations that I've read, such as "the land Cush was washed from Asia to Africa by Noah's flood..."
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 06:29

Quote:

For all we know they both descended from a common source, and that's why they're so similar, and its the Babylonians that turned the myth to fit their culture better, while the Hebrews retained a myth that stayed closer to its source. Careful with that sort of idea, though: its dangerous thinking.



Some asian countries have (had) myths that are similar to some western or middle-eastern myths, things like that still don't prove much nor which one was first, the others could simply have been the last to write it down...

Quote:

What's interesting to me is that its incredibly reliable when it comes to historical, geographical facts.



With the exception of the exodus, the massive field battles, the global flood, shape of the earth, and and and.. sorry, but there are really a lot of things that are questionable at least, so I wouldn't call the bible very reliable as a historical source. I understand why you wish to defend that point of view anyway though.

Quote:

The only "scholars" that reject a minimalist description of Jesus Christ in the antiquities, are the same who claim Jesus never existed. Otherwise scholars of all stripes concede that (with as much certainty as one can hope for), Josephus is making a pretty unambiguous reference to Jesus.



This is probably something you've picked up at one of those christian sites, because there's convincing evidence to be found inside some of the original writings about this source, which not only strongly suggest that some parts of that particular text were added as interpretations, not as translations, but also that it was added on a later date. I don't think I can convince you, but you should look it up.

Cheers
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 10:07

@ FoxHound

My friend, do you even own a Bible? ;-)

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


@ PHeMoX

Quote:

You can't check Antiquities with e-sword by the way, nor with BibleWorks for that matter.

edit: you obviously missed my point, just go read the Antiquities issues. Don't worry I know about the 'topic notes' thing in e-Swords.




You can read Antiquities in e-sword. Each book and each chapter. There is a sweet little search feature also.. makes it easier.



For those who want to know what Antiquities says about Jesus...

18:3:3, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

20:9:1, "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done;"

I would personally appreciate a little "tit for tat". If I present you with one small shred of evidence that the Bible or Jesus is real.. give me a little something that says they are not. I am guilty of this also but 90% of this thread is based on mere opinions so far. Quitoe some scripture, tell about history or tell me something science proves. ;-) Just my 2 cents.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 11:24

You still haven't read the parts in Antiquities of the jews, but still rely on another source talking about another source talking about another. Don't blame me for scratching the back of my head, religious people often use those christian sites to back things up, or christian programs for that matter. Like I said before though, check antiquities for yourself and read what it says... It'll instantly clearify the problem and my point,

Quote:

You both have failed to provide any information based on facts.



Where exactly did I not provide information based on facts? It's basically all I do, if not prove me otherwise.

Quote:

Last but not least.. you simply cannot even come close to dis-proving God. I can come a lot closer to proving him. So in short.. in a nice way: Try.



Big words, no facts, no evidence. I'd say try me, what's your 'evidence' that 'nearly (lol) proves' the existence of God?

Quote:

Show me. Have you actually read it?



Yes, I have, but I did so in a library.

Quote:

Any of you start using 3dgs and try to write script without tutorials and without the manual?



Mmm, let me rephrase; Perhaps your manual is faulthy and thus your games are faulthy. Just as a small analogy.

Cheers
Posted By: FoxHound

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 14:03

@Kinji_2007

I'm not your friend and don't claim otherwise. I also see nothing about homosexuality there, you can say sex, but nothing pin pointing homosexuality exctually, or even remotley. You can claim since gay-sex can not produce children then it is "lust of the flesh" but so would any sex, even between husban and wife, that is not intended to bring a child into the world.
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 14:40

@PHeMoX

Show me. Have you actually read it?

What I wanted to know was about Jesus.. thus I look him up. Other jews are not in question. You are very good at down-grading others and making assumptions. You have yet to bring anything to this topic useful. We all get our information from various sites and books.. the source doesnt matter much.

Quote:

You still haven't read the parts in Antiquities of the jews,


Any certain keywords? People? Anything at all to guide me. Or just the "whole" book.

Quote:

Don't blame me for scratching the back of my head, religious people often use those christian sites to back things up, or christian programs for that matter.


Of course. :-) We need all the help we can get. At the moment I'll try to answer any question you have based on the Bible and Antiquities. Any of you start using 3dgs and try to write script without tutorials and without the manual? Doesnt make sense does it? Use all the resources available and be respectful by telling when you have C+P something. lol


Quote:

check antiquities for yourself and read what it says... It'll instantly clearify the problem and my point,




I am. But to point out a keyword or specific topic would save some time.

If I can insert my opinion/opinions for a moment.

1) There is a God. You may have come from a monkey... not I.
2) Jesus walked on this earth and live/died just as recorded in the Bible.
3) Hell is hot and many of us will find that out soon enough.
4) Last but not least.. you simply cannot even come close to dis-proving God. I can come a lot closer to proving him. So in short.. in a nice way: Try.





@FoxHound

Your right.. we are not friends. I was just trying to answer in a nice way to a very stupid question. lol You got a little defensive. Are you a homosexual? (legit question)

In a marriage, sex is ok. See..

Quote:

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.



I would say this covers gay...

Quote:

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:



You both have failed to provide any information based on facts. Copy and paste something.. anything. Science, scripture, history. Surly you can hold a decent conversation without all the slander.
Posted By: Doug

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 17:24

Quote:

... why are you way back in exodus?... Why go back to the OT when you KNOW you cant live by those rules.



So which parts of the Bible should we follow? By picking and choosing parts of the Bible I could be the kindest man in the world or a total psycho.

I'm not saying that the Bible is bad, but I can't see how you can follow it 100% because, going back to the original statement, "the stories contain thousands of historical and logical mistakes and self-contradictions".
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 17:36

By the way, Kinji_2007 isn't it extremely strange that the historians that lived at the same time as Jesus do not mention Jesus nor his miracles at all?

quote:
"No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus."

Cheers
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 17:50

Quote:

This is probably something you've picked up at one of those christian sites, because there's convincing evidence to be found inside some of the original writings about this source, which not only strongly suggest that some parts of that particular text were added as interpretations, not as translations, but also that it was added on a later date. I don't think I can convince you, but you should look it up.



That's why I referred to a "minimalist" version. I thought we already had this discussion where I even pointed out what the minimalist version was likely to be (sans additions).

Quote:

With the exception of the exodus,



How is it inaccurate?

Quote:

the massive field battles



Ditto.

Quote:

the global flood,



Well, that gets into the creation-evolution debate, so I'll let this one go.

Quote:

shape of the earth



We've already had this discussion here. Multiple times in fact.

Quote:

Some asian countries have (had) myths that are similar to some western or middle-eastern myths, things like that still don't prove much nor which one was first, the others could simply have been the last to write it down...



Actually, the striking similarities across such vast differences, is something Christians take great pride in. What's interesting to me is that the Hebrew story remains the most culturally neutral, whereas other cultures (ie the babylonians) add in a million little bits of their cultural nonsense.

Quote:

Some geographical and historical facts in the bible are correct, some are wrong.

Genesis 2: "A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there. The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."

If you look this up in a map, you'll find that the Tigris indeed runs along the east side of Assur - correct so far. But the Tigris and Euphrates don't spring from a common river - which would have been be a geographical curiosity anyway, as rivers normally only separate in a river delta. And the land of Cush (Sudan) lies on an entirely different continent.

3 facts, 2 of them plain wrong - hardly "incredibly reliable", won't you agree?

For all we know, Genesis 2 was written between 900 - 1000 BC by an author dubbed "Jahwist" by historians. The location of Tigris, Euphrates and Cush were known at that time. So we can assume that either Jahwist was not very educated, or he intentionally mixed up geography to describe Eden as a mythological place that could have been anywhere. In that case the text does not contain mistakes. It only becomes wrong when misunderstood as a geography book - and then causes the typical funny apologetic explanations that I've read, such as "the land Cush was washed from Asia to Africa by Noah's flood...



Although there are several possible explanations, they rely on the absence of proof. That said, I can't provide an answer, without possibly speaking too soon. I don't know much.

Quote:

The Enuma Elish was written on tables in 1200 BC in Babylon, and is therefore the oldest written creation myth we know. Back then, the Hebrews were still nomadic tribes and had yet to invent writing. Their version (Genesis 1) was written 700 years later in the Babylonian Exile. Sure, both versions obviously have a common source, but which version was derived from which one?



I don't know for sure, do you?

Let's have a look, see. (Bab = babylonian; Heb = Hebrew)

1). Bab has multiple gods with human physical attributes (they desire sex and so forth). Heb has one God with no human physical constraints.

Before I make more points, let's look at a summary of the Enuma Elish:

Quote:

The title, an incipit, means "When on high." The epic names three primeval gods: Apsu, the fresh water, Tiamat, the salt water, and their son Mummu, apparently the mist. Several other gods are created, and raise such a clamor of noise that Apsu is provoked (with Mummu's connivance) to destroy them. Ea (Nudimmud), at the time the most powerful of the gods, intercepts the plan, puts Apsu to sleep and kills him, and shuts Mummu out. Ea then begets a son, Marduk, greater still than himself.

Tiamat is then persuaded to take revenge for the death of her husband. Her power grows, and some of the gods join her. She elevates Kingu as her new husband and gives him "supreme dominion." A lengthy description of the other gods' inability to deal with the threat follows. Ultimately, Marduk is selected as their champion against Tiamat, and becomes very powerful. He defeats and kills Tiamat, and forms the world from her corpse. The subsequent hundred lines or so constitute the lost section of Tablet V.

The gods who sided with Tiamat are initially forced to labor in the service of the other gods. They are freed from their servitude when Marduk decides to slay Kingu and create mankind from his blood. Babylon is established as the residence of the chief gods. Finally, the gods confer kingship on Marduk, hailing him with fifty names. Most noteworthy is Marduk's symbolic elevation over Enlil, who was seen by earlier Mesopotamian civilizations as the king of the gods.



If the Hebrews had really just copy catted their origins myth, then we're missing a lot of information that should have actually been copycatted.

At best, the only position (after actually reading a good portion of the Enuma Elish), one might take is to say that a few details were added or perhaps changed from the Hebrew myth to parallel the EE.

2). The Bab myth, is cultic in its function. The Heb myth is devoid of this, as I stated above.
3). That the Heb myth starts with "In the beginning," finds no parallel in the Bab myth.
4). Light, in both accounts is around before the celestial bodies are to power it, but in the Bab it has its origin in diety, whereas in the Heb account it is created by God.
5). The seperation of things is not just found in the Heb and Bab, but in various other cultures as well, and so could just as well support the "common source" hypothesis for all cultures, if you please.
6). The Heb has the creation of plants and animals that the Bab curiously is missing.
7). Celestial bodies are created in reverse, according to the Heb myth and it lacks the astrological quality of the Bab myth as well. Though both say that celestial bodies are to be used for time keeping, many cultures used it for time keeping...so....
8). The Bab myth talks about gates at the east and west of the (supposedly) flat earth, which they likely believed in. If the Jews also believed in a flat earth, and were just copy catting, then where did this little detail go?
9). The creation of man, although similar (divine "spark", and dust or dirt), is oddly (for a copy cat myth) more 'sophisticated' in the Heb version.
10). In the Bab account, man is created to perform menial tasks. However, in the Heb account man is given the image of God, and "image" language in other cultures is used to denote a ruler. So either the Hebrews expanded this ruler attribute to all men, or "power hungry" Bab rules took this away. It seems likely to me (in agreement with my source) that, in the case of copy catting, its less likely that the Heb would add this attribute to all men.
11). In the Bab account, the supposed parallel to God resting is the throwing of a party by all the other gods.

Its interesting to me to see skeptics that hold to this babylonian parallel, while others discard it because they see parallels from other cultures, like the Egyptians instead.

I would say that I agree with the Christian position that (concerning the cultural data from ALL cultures), the likely answer is that there was a common source for pretty much every creation myth. The similarities between the Bab and Heb accounts are hardly what one would expect from a copy cat myth, and if that's the case then it fits well with the "common source" pattern.
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 20:48

@ Doug

Quote:

I'm not saying that the Bible is bad, but I can't see how you can follow it 100% because



We cant follow it 100%. We can only try our best and hope mercy covers the rest. :-) Keep in mind that the Bible was written by man. Inpired by God of course but man is bound to make errors. Another factor could be the fact that the original scrolls were copied so many different times.. theres no way for it to be perfect unless Gods own hand reached down and made it that way. I am well aware of so many mistakes and contradictions yet I accept that over the years a few things got twisted just a little.


@ PHeMoX

Consider the names you quoted are considered as "pagan" sources. Of course they wouldnt write about miracles. A example is this quote..

Quote:

It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius



These pagan writers most likely didnt believe that Jesus did anything out of the normal. He may even be dubbed a trouble maker. They in fact prove he existed though. Tell me the name of one person in the world that hates you the most. I'll ask them to describe you and see what they say. Surly not good. And then again, maybe you dont have any enemies at all.

You'll have to elaborate on this one..

Quote:

Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus.



We are talking about Flavius Josephus right?

18:3:3, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

20:9:1, "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done;"


I appreciate the decent conversation. ;-)
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 21:37

Those are not 'pagan' sources, that's backpeddling what you're doing now, thóse are infact thé sources that could really have proven wether or not Jesus existed, but nope they do not even mention his name, nothing. Even a trouble maker as 'big' as jesus would have been mentioned, especially in the negative sense, but nope not even that.

Quote:

We are talking about Flavius Josephus right?



And again I say check your source, because thát's not what's inside Antiquities of the Jews, and that's not what good old Flavius has said. You can go on believe in what you wish, I don't really care, but don't quote e-sword or BibleWorks unless you've looked inside the sources they 'quote' yourself please. Thank you.

Quote:

I appreciate the decent conversation. ;-)



Yeah, I had a great laugh too, I like the peaceful way of it too. It did remind me a bit of that one fellow here a long time ago trying to prove something was true by saying 'hey, but I found it on the internet, so it múst be true', but still.

Quote:

How is it inaccurate?



There's no physical evidence that it ever happened, unless you consider 1 chariot (infact they've found only 2 or 3 chariot wheels, but enough to assume there was 1 chariot) to be a whole army. It has definately not happened on the scale the bible describes, this is even more true for the 'massive battles'.

Quote:

Well, that gets into the creation-evolution debate, so I'll let this one go.



Well, no not really, there should be evidence in geological contexts if a global flood had ever occured. There is no such evidence, thus there is no reason to assume it has ever happened. Apart from that, a lot of species have survived for millions of years and the earth is a couple of billion years old, although the 100% exact age is still unknown the rough figure of something around 4.5 billion years is very very accurate. Those are facts too which makes parts of the bible impossible. And again the 'no the fossils are a test of God for mankind' is just yet another backpeddling argument. It's not hard to understand why you're actually skipping some of these points,

Cheers
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/16/07 22:32

lol Now this conversation is getting funny. That is not a quote from Antiquities?

Book 18 Chapter 3



And yes these fellas are considered pagan:

Suetonius (did mention Christ)
Pliny the Younger
Tacitus

Your info is slightly wrong.
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 01:43

@ Foxhound

Please read Romans 1 below:

Romans 1:26-28
Quote:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.



In conclusion,
God gave men a POINTER and he also gave women a HOLE for a reason. It is easy to understand, no?
Posted By: PissedOffGuy

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 03:45

Do you know why I hate you guys most? a few hundred years ago, you'd kill innocent women, with the accusation of witchcraft. That's right.. you'd kill them. Just because it says so in the bible. Thousands of women, dude... killed.. burned alive.. And that's no 'bible myth' that really happened.. and you know why.. Because it says so in the bible. Now, we don't believe in witchcraft anymore, so you guys just let that one go.... Every other day, someone will accuse christians for witch hunt, and the crusades, and whatever.. but it's all good in the hood right? it was long time ago.. forget and forgive... No a$$holes, i'm not going to forget, until you admit murdering those people for no good reason. And you know what, you're now doing the same exact thing to other people, why? because it says so in the fuking bible. Gays are bad, so let's pass laws that would make their lives living hells. Abortions are bad too, why? it says so in the bible.. that's right, that's your only reason. so let's fukc up some more lives because of that fuking book and all those idiots that still have wits as much as a carrot. Well I hope you sleep better at night, knowing that You that vote for crippling rights from Gays, and not allowing people to abort their own fuking babies and vote to wage war on those pagan islam non-believer a$$holes... just as it says.. on the fuking bible... Well.. You would be the same ones that would be holding a torch in the mob, burning innocent people accused of witchcraft a few hundred years ago.... You know it as well as I do.. So what do you have to say for yourselves? Are you still going to trust this great book, just so you don't have to shake your faith and.. oh my gosh i don't know.. Go to hell for it? Is it worth the risk for you christians? is it worth the risk that you may be right about heaven and hell, and assist on murdering innocent people and fuking up with 'non-believer's' lives? Because that's what you're doing. Don't be any mistaken.. No christian has ever helped anyone. Even your book doesn't really preach anywhere that you should love your gay fellow despite his 'lust for men'. No.. it says, God would fukc him up real good when he's dead, and you just can't wait for this day to arrive now can you? The day you'd see all those non-believer a$$holes get burned in a lake of fire.. Pathetic son of a bitches... I woudn't care less about your sh1t, but the minute all you puss1es gather together and pass laws against everyone else... Watch out, cause if you're wrong, and in the afterlife we all end up in the same place.. I'm coming for your a$$!
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 04:38

Quote:

Do you know why I hate you guys most? a few hundred years ago, you'd kill innocent women, with the accusation of witchcraft. That's right.. you'd kill them. Just because it says so in the bible. Thousands of women, dude... killed.. burned alive.. And that's no 'bible myth' that really happened.. and you know why.. Because it says so in the bible. Now, we don't believe in witchcraft anymore, so you guys just let that one go.... Every other day, someone will accuse christians for witch hunt, and the crusades, and whatever.. but it's all good in the hood right? it was long time ago.. forget and forgive... No a$$holes, i'm not going to forget, until you admit murdering those people for no good reason. And you know what, you're now doing the same exact thing to other people, why? because it says so in the fuking bible. Gays are bad, so let's pass laws that would make their lives living hells. Abortions are bad too, why? it says so in the bible.. that's right, that's your only reason. so let's fukc up some more lives because of that fuking book and all those idiots that still have wits as much as a carrot. Well I hope you sleep better at night, knowing that You that vote for crippling rights from Gays, and not allowing people to abort their own fuking babies and vote to wage war on those pagan islam non-believer a$$holes... just as it says.. on the fuking bible... Well.. You would be the same ones that would be holding a torch in the mob, burning innocent people accused of witchcraft a few hundred years ago.... You know it as well as I do.. So what do you have to say for yourselves? Are you still going to trust this great book, just so you don't have to shake your faith and.. oh my gosh i don't know.. Go to hell for it? Is it worth the risk for you christians? is it worth the risk that you may be right about heaven and hell, and assist on murdering innocent people and fuking up with 'non-believer's' lives? Because that's what you're doing. Don't be any mistaken.. No christian has ever helped anyone. Even your book doesn't really preach anywhere that you should love your gay fellow despite his 'lust for men'. No.. it says, God would fukc him up real good when he's dead, and you just can't wait for this day to arrive now can you? The day you'd see all those non-believer a$$holes get burned in a lake of fire.. Pathetic son of a bitches... I woudn't care less about your sh1t, but the minute all you puss1es gather together and pass laws against everyone else... Watch out, cause if you're wrong, and in the afterlife we all end up in the same place.. I'm coming for your a$$!



Yep. Fundy atheists: it doesn't get any better.

I noticed a lot of rank hypocrisy. Namely your post actually sounds pretty intolerant and violent, which is exactly what you accuse us (Christians) of being, based on the acts of people who aren't even us!

It appears that in the name of peace and tolerance, humanity should become intolerant and violent.

Quote:

There's no physical evidence that it ever happened, unless you consider 1 chariot (infact they've found only 2 or 3 chariot wheels, but enough to assume there was 1 chariot) to be a whole army. It has definately not happened on the scale the bible describes, this is even more true for the 'massive battles'.




Which means what exactly? How many massive battles do we find a lot of evidence for, that took place so long ago? How do you know we would find chariot wheels for each and every chariot that was submerged, exactly? I'm actually surprised that we even have as much as we do, and though I wouldn't rush to assume its origin, I'd love to hear you explain what a chariot wheel a handful of chariot wheels are doing in the middle of the sea.
Posted By: PissedOffGuy

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 05:32

Quote:

It appears that in the name of peace and tolerance, humanity should become intolerant and violent.



That's really funny, coming from a Christian! Uhm, let's seeee now.. Jesus tells us to love each other.. but then again, it's our duty to convert and help those lost souls, by killing them, most likely... Isn't that you Irish_farmer? Are you people not the ones that are fuking up my life?

ok, admit that you're pro-choice then.. Go ahead. Post it right here for everyone to see. You're tolerant, so you leave everyone to make up their own decisions, right? Say it then, don't be scared..

You won't.. You were in favour of the war, and pass laws against abortions, and god help me, i'm sure if this was a few hundred years back, you'd be the first one to burn those 'witches' at the stake.. Why don't you admit it? Are you suggesting that a few years back you'd be somehow more enlighened than all those other Christians that based their decisions on the same damn book that you do right now? What would make you different back then, please tell me, cause i'm really stamped on that one.

You know what... it's all fun and games, until someone gets hurt, isn't it? And you know what? I don't believe in fair justice, so it's twice as hard for me to get hurt, cause I know that you fukcs that take a crap on my life for no good reason, may actually get away with it, in this or any other life.

I ain't no atheist, so don't you label me, Christian. I'm just a guy trying to mind his own business, but aparently, that's not as easy as you may think. I wanna see you being the minority you fukc, and have others force their religion beliefs on your life and see how that feels
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 05:53

Quote:

Do you know why I hate you guys most?



Hmmnnn, sounds like "hate speech" at its finest hour!

Kinji, Nitro, Farmer, don't you guys agree that this guy would be the first to throw us into the lions?

Okay, PO Guy, let it go...
But do you have to go back hundreds of years ago about the witches? They didn't even have TV back then, and I want to see the film clips of it...
Posted By: PissedOffGuy

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 06:17

Are you trying to be funny or something? Cause i'm not laughing. What, i don't deserve a justified answer to my questions, just because i come off angry about it? Well you know what, i have every right to be angry. And you know what, i wouldn't throw you to the lions if I had a chance, no, i'd kill you myself... let me tell you about it.. no way i'm giving the lions this pleasure..

So stop being a cocky bastard and try giving me a real answer instead. It's not the attitude that matters, haven't jesus taught you that in your book? Be a man, RanMan, answer me this.. Who was that murdered all those people on the Witch Hunt? Give me your answer.. What, you think it's a so irrelevant and distant event? Every time I go to work, i have to walk on a street, that I Know, that below it, there are Thousands of witch bodies buried within.. I've read passages from real witch tombs that would make your christian kids cry. I've cried. It's one of the many many stories that you read about the so much unnessecery violence that you can't help but. But you can't relate to that now can you? you'll need a tv film to set the mood for you first, right? Well you know what, this world is full of stinky christians, so there's not gonna be any such film. People like to watch films like the passion, where they see drama alright, but christians are always the victims... Like that's how the case really is...

Oh and you post one more green cocky smiley, i'll stick it where the sun don't shine. I didn't asked you to judge me, i may be even worse than you guys sometimes, but you know what, i've earned the right to be mad about it. Now prove me i'm wrong and tell me who burned all these people alive a few hundred years ago... come one then..
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 06:22

Why are you so angry? Was your grandma one of the witches that got burnt?
Posted By: PissedOffGuy

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 06:51

I know it doesn't help, but i can't stand posts like those pricks above... And to tell you the truth, it makes me feel better. My wife has been crying all day today, you know why? Because where we live, some decisions that stricly affect our family, is unacceptable behavior.. According to the bible of course. Unfortunately, she's not as thick skinned as i am, and she lets them get to her. How would you feel if you were in my place? Don't just answer, try really putting yourself in my situation first, i'm sure it ain't that hard to visualise... People calling you names behind your back in your own neightbour.... Feeling unwanted everywhere you go...

After our second child, i had a vecectomy. Apparently, it didn't work, and my wife is pregnant now. If she keeps the baby, she'll have to quit her job, and my salary alone is not enough for all of us, let alone another baby in the family. Now if you or RanMan know what to do better than me and my wife do, please let us know. I'm sure your advices will pay our hospital bills and everything

The only reason i'm sharing this great story with the rest of you, is so you can all see how it really is when things get personal. I don't want to Hear about another discussion, about the pros and cons of iraq war, and abortions and whatever you call it. Here i am.. The person that has to deal with all this sh1t. Come and tell me in my face ranman or whoever else, that saying no to abortions is the way to jesus... give it to me... straight to my face
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 08:56

Quote:



don't you guys agree that this guy would be the first to throw us into the lions?





This is one of the false mith of Christianity
A pure invention of the middle age Christian writers , there is no historical evidence of persecution of Christian under the Roman Empire, not at least on extensive basis
Obviuosly people were more cruel at the time but nothing to do with religion
If you visit Pompei you can see everywere sentences such as " You are welcome in my home the name of Jesus " or " here Caius lives, son of Jesus "
A lot of people assume that the "Catacombs" in Rome wewre refugee for the Christians
False , A roman Emperor authorized the christians to use that place for their cult
It is clearly written in fron of the entry
The truth is tha Christians have been persecuted mainly by other Christians
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 10:24

A conversation face-to-face is so much better, I agree. Sounds like you need a hug. :O

Quote:

Unfortunately, she's not as thick skinned as i am, and she lets them get to her. How would you feel if you were in my place? Don't just answer, try really putting yourself in my situation first, i'm sure it ain't that hard to visualise... People calling you names behind your back in your own neightbour.... Feeling unwanted everywhere you go...




So turn the attitude you showed here around and defend your current situation. Your throwing around threats on here yet when faced with a problem in "real-life" you cant handle it. I feel sorry for your wife. No one should have to live like that. My sympathy will not fix the situation though.

Quote:

Do you know why I hate you guys most? a few hundred years ago, you'd kill innocent women, with the accusation of witchcraft.



I'm only 30 years old. Born 170 years to late I guess. Lets get a little satisfaction by spanking all Christians and just to make things really right, kill whitey to make up for slavery in the past also. lol

Quote:

Gays are bad, so let's pass laws that would make their lives living hells



You said it. Even beyond the Bible.. it is wrong morally.

Quote:

Abortions are bad too, why?



You would be forced to change your mind if your mother agreed about the same time you were in her belly. I can hear her now.. "Oh this is uncomfortable, lemme just get rid of this POed baby." lol

Quote:

vote to wage war on those pagan islam non-believer



I must have missed the "Christian" memo. I didnt vote for any war at any time and I know a lot of Muslims that are good people. Just because some are bad doesnt make them all bad.

Quote:

No christian has ever helped anyone.



6th sense of some kind?

Quote:

I'm coming for your a$$!




Poke your chest out and handle your current life situation without all the whining.. then come back and make vain threats. First off, whats the odds of you ever meeting ANYONE from this forum? Slim. And if you had the money and the time to actually goto meet someone, I would be first in line giving you my address. The Bible teaches great things like Love, Peace, Joy and so on... but you sound like you need to be put over a knee and given a fairly rough spanking. Maybe wash your mouth out with a lil soap.. if your style of dressing is as bad as your attitude then of course I would take you to get a few sets of clothes also. In short, if your anywhere close to south Mississippi, come see me and I can assure you it'll change your life. lol

Quote:

What, i don't deserve a justified answer to my questions, just because i come off angry about it?



I'll give you answers.

1) Killing is wrong. War and Abortion
2) Gay marriage/sex is wrong and immoral.
3) I dont know anyone who burned a witch. Better than that, I dont know a witch at all.

To find the source of your problems in life follow these steps...

-Hold your arm out in front of you.
-Point with your index finger.
-Slowly begin bending your arm until your finger touches your forehead.

POOF! You have found the source. Some of us have been dealt a better hand in life.. I can agree. It cant be that bad for you because your butt is sitting in front of a computer screen typing your thoughts on this forum. Get up and go fix it.

Quote:

RanMan, answer me this.. Who was that murdered all those people on the Witch Hunt?



Lay off RanMan and ask me. ;-) Ill turn this around.. YOU tell me the names of the Christians and the witches involved in these burnings. I'd like to see if I know any of them.

Quote:

Every time I go to work, i have to walk on a street, that I Know, that below it, there are Thousands of witch bodies buried within..



Unless they died within the last 30 years, I doubt any of us had anything to do with it. I know this... if the Indians read your post they are gonna get a little upset and want this land back. The people of the U.S. are gonna be kicked out because we slaughtered most of them and took this land. On the boat that is gonna carry us back over-seas the black guys will riot remembering slavery and kill all the whiteys. All because of your post, the U.S. has no working government.. it is indian land once again.. the white people are dead and the black people are heading back to Africa where they will live in less than desirable conditions. lol j/king For the record I am not a racist at all, I have friends from many ethnic backgrounds.

Quote:

but christians are always the victims... Like that's how the case really is...



Thats not how it is at all. Keep in mind that all who claim to be Christians are not actually so. What about the catholic priest that was found having sex with the young boy? Is he a Christian? Not at all. The man should have his privates cut off and beat with a 12' bull whip.

The scripture in the OT that you are talking about is probably..

Exo 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

At that time they were living under the OT law. And that was far more than 200 years ago. After Jesus set a example for us we are not bound by the old law.

What we have now concerning witches is that they will be judged accordingly...

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

To any of you that may be a witch I give you 2 thumbs up. !o o!
Peace be to you and I hope you have a long life. I do suggest you pray for eye_salve concerning those evil little incantations of yours.

Last thought to you POed:

If you want respect, be respectful. Thats something you havent done here. Want help, need advice, need to talk.. just ask without telling us how many people we burned. My sympathy goes out to you AND your wife. Let me tell you how bad you have it..

You are able to walk. You have two legs obviously. You have a job, so your not starving to death and you have money. Your typing on your computer so you have 2 hands or you are a really good typer with only one. lol You have internet access so you must not really have it as bad as you say. Count your blessings and stop whining.


@ AlbertoT
Check out keyword "Tacitus". Nero tortured Christians after the fire.
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 11:08

Well, PissedOffGuy, why don't you stop complaining about where you live and your neighbors and go back to Iraq? It sounds like you could try to be a better neighbour yourself.

To try to get back on topic. People who take a literal view of the Bible, the Koran or any other mythology are peasants, pure and simple. Technology changes much more quickly than people, and peasants are still very much a part of society. The muselmen who crap and pee all over toilets to face Mecca, the christians who advocate persecuting or even killing abortion doctors and black people. The brain-dead who send television evangelists their money. They are all modern day peasants, just as superstitious and easily lead as in the dark ages.

The bible is very interesting if you look past the superstitious nonsense and try to decipher the history, law and social structure of the ancient civilisation that it came from. This is some of the world's earliest writing, and it gives some insight as to how these people lived.

One story that I particularly like is the Tower of Babel. It is squeezed in between the story of Noah and The Call of Abraham as an explanation of how suddenly everyone, all decendents of one man, speaks different languages.

The tower itself was most likely based on a real building, a seven tier ziggurat in Babylon with a temple to Marduk at the top. It was called Etemenanki, "House of the Foundation of Heaven on Earth." The temple was considered the axis of heaven and earth, the steps were the proverbial stairway to heaven.

The Hebrews didn't like the Babylonians, hence they were the bad guys in their stories, though their mythology is obviously derived from them. In this story, the mathematicians in Babylon were so conceated as to think they could surpas God's authority and build their own tower to heaven. God came down, and saw they really could do it, and therefore no longer need him, muddled up their language.

The building was in existence before writing and survived until the time of Alexander the Great. Today it is a big square hole in the ground without even a road for tourists to go and see it.

To think that this story is true is just silly, but I would be entertained to hear the christians' on the forum give a literal explanation. Please tell me how, with enough people speaking the same language, I can build a tower to heaven in my carpark (I don't have a garden, I live in an apartment, so the carpark will have to do).
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 11:27

Quote:

To think that this story is true is just silly, but I would be entertained to hear the christians' on the forum give a literal explanation. Please tell me how, with enough people speaking the same language, I can build a tower to heaven in my carpark (I don't have a garden, I live in an apartment, so the carpark will have to do).



Thats a easy one. I'll give you the answer just as soon as I figure out the technique used to speak and make light. lol :-) Some things we cannot explain. Keep in mind the Bible was written by man.

To humor you.. here is the way I would do it. Lets get some legos. Not the little ones.. lets get the over sized ones. For the scructure to actually hold up we need to use a secret formula called "krazy_glue". I can see why they had so many problems on the tower. Baked bricks erode.. our legos are water proof and erosion free. We also have a advantage over them.. our legos are light-weight and much funner to handle. Ok, nevermind.. this idea MAY not work so well. ;-)


EDIT

Now thats a good hearted fella. NITRO is setting a example. gj
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 12:29

Quote:

To think that this story is true is just silly, but I would be entertained to hear the christians' on the forum give a literal explanation. Please tell me how, with enough people speaking the same language, I can build a tower to heaven in my carpark (I don't have a garden, I live in an apartment, so the carpark will have to do).

They cant build a tower to heaven, you are absolutely correct. However, the Bible never says that they could, it only says that they thought they could. There is a big difference.

Quote:

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
Gen 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men built.
Gen 11:6 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.
Gen 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.




Quote:

God came down, and saw they really could do it, and therefore no longer need him, muddled up their language.


No, God did not say that he saw they could really do it. He said that 'nothing would be restrained from them'

If the whole world right now was united in language and purpose it would be correct to say that 'nothing could be restrained from us'

God did not scatter them because of the tower, he scattered them because of their unity. And it is the precise reason why mankind has never been united since.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 12:43

The existence of the remains of the tower is further proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible.

@PissedOffGuy
Glad to meet you man, welcome to the forum! I mean that, absolutely.
Posted By: shorty_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 13:55

Well PO'ed guy, sounds like you have major issues. Why do you hate everyone for something that happened a few hundred years ago? And why should anyone have to admit to anything so that you will forgive and forget? And just for the record I am speaking for myself and NOONE else on this forum. Frankly I think your just in a bad mood and have no idea what it is you really want to vent about. You have jumped and skipped to everything under the sun, you have made threats to people on here that you wont follow through with. If this conversation pisses you off that bad then why are you posting on it? Your only making yourself look like an idiot.

And at your little comment about walking on a street that you KNOW dead witches are buried under..,have you seen the dead witches with your own eyes? Or is that a rumor that got started where you live. If we believed everything thing that was told to us we would be idiots. No actually in that case I would be rich for the simple fact of finding that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. How corney does that sound?

As far as the laws, I dont think anyone posting on this site makes any laws as far as what this country does. We only vote for people who make the laws. Some things in life just suck and that happens to be one of them. We all disagree to some extent about what laws are right and wrong. Oh well. Sometimes you just have to get over it.

I think you should come off at these guys with a totally different attitude. They have done nothing wrong to you. And if you dont like something that they have said, maybe you should turn right back aournd and read your OWN post. Stop telling people you are gonna shove the smilies up their a$$. I am not sure what you claim to be in life, but I can assure you by the way you talk and go on, its not right. Whatever your problem is stop taking it out on these guys because they are not your problem.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 14:44

Quote:

Which means what exactly? How many massive battles do we find a lot of evidence for, that took place so long ago?



Plenty, just search the web instead of asking me that question. You will however notice that a lot of battles are overexagerated in scriptures talking about them.

Quote:

How do you know we would find chariot wheels for each and every chariot that was submerged, exactly? I'm actually surprised that we even have as much as we do, and though I wouldn't rush to assume its origin, I'd love to hear you explain what a chariot wheel a handful of chariot wheels are doing in the middle of the sea.



Okey, firstly considered the state of what has been found and the environment there's absolutely no doubt that íf there would have been more chariot wheels that we would have found more, it's a matter of conservation. Secondly, some wheels in the middle of the ocean doesn't necessarily mean anything, they could have been washed away from the shore during a storm or whatever more original ways there can be to end up somewhere else. Nor where they found in the exact middle there by the way. One thing people always have assumed is that the waterlevels where much lower and thus parts of what's water now was dry back then, there's geological evidence to support this. And nope, no evidence for water crashing down and washing away soil with huge forces.
In the end I don't really understand your question since we also find fishfossils practically on top of mountains, no matter how strange or funny there's always a logical explanation.

Quote:


Well PO'ed guy, sounds like you have major issues. Why do you hate everyone for something that happened a few hundred years ago? And why should anyone have to admit to anything so that you will forgive and forget? And just for the record I am speaking for myself and NOONE else on this forum. Frankly I think your just in a bad mood and have no idea what it is you really want to vent about.



Didn't he just explain why he's so frustrated????? He simply point to the source of his current problems of being part of a minority among religious people. Seems like a fair thing to talk about, although yes he's frustrated alright, but who wouldn't if you freedom is limited??

Quote:

Thats a easy one. I'll give you the answer just as soon as I figure out the technique used to speak and make light. lol :-) Some things we cannot explain.



The way we talk is actually easy, we use sound for that and produce this by using our vocal cords. We use our muscles to tension our vocal cords and because air flows by we are able to produce a lot of different sounds. Specific sounds in specific sequences have specific meanings and after all this has evolved into more complex language, it has become vital to be able to talk.

We can make light by burning a fire, switching on a lightbulb, or hey, if it's light oustide just by opening a curtain , all perfectly explainable.

Quote:

Keep in mind the Bible was written by man.



Yes, better think about that deeply, since there's no way a God could have been involved even íf he existed.

Cheers
Posted By: shorty_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 15:08

There is a difference in being frustrated and getting on here and cursing ALL Christians. If you had a daughter would you want a potty mouth punk like that marring her? I think not. The guy needs to get real, hes whining over a bunch of dead witches.
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 15:15

Quote:

The way we talk is actually easy, we use sound for that and produce this by using our vocal cords. We use our muscles to tension our vocal cords and because air flows by we are able to produce a lot of different sounds. Specific sounds in specific sequences have specific meanings and after all this has evolved into more complex language, it has become vital to be able to talk.

We can make light by burning a fire, switching on a lightbulb, or hey, if it's light oustide just by opening a curtain , all perfectly explainable.




lol Cute.. now explain how God spoke and things appeared. BTW, did you go back to Antiquities yet? I know, I know.. I'll say it for you... "Yes Kinji, your right. Jesus is mentioned in Aniquities." lol


Quote:

Yes, better think about that deeply, since there's no way a God could have been involved even íf he existed.



With God all things are possible.


For the record: Its almost impossible to stick to the story in this hotel. O_O
Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 16:11

Quote:



@ AlbertoT
Check out keyword "Tacitus". Nero tortured Christians after the fire.



That's why I said ..not on extensive basis
Students at school are taught that the first Christians were a bunch of heros who risked their life for their faith
This is simply not true
In the ancient Rome all religions were authorized
Fanatism came later
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 16:18

Quote:

Students at school are taught that the first Christians were a bunch of heros who risked their life for their faith
This is simply not true

The first Christians were mainly oppressed by the Jews. Paul himself being one of the cheif persecutors before his conversion...then of course kinji is right, the Romans persecuted us through various Ceasars, Nero and Caligula being some of the worst. CALIGULA's reign was 37-41 AD, NERO's reign was 54-68.

However, just to set the record straight, some of the "first Christians" were martyred by these regimes so people like Peter and John were part of that suffering. Im interested in this subject if anyone wants to explore it further.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 16:48

Quote:

lol Cute.. now explain how God spoke and things appeared. BTW, did you go back to Antiquities yet? I know, I know.. I'll say it for you... "Yes Kinji, your right. Jesus is mentioned in Aniquities." lol

Not only is "the antiquities of the Jews faithfully rendered in e-sword, but it is also the same in every other rendition I have found both Christian and secular. Here is a direct link to a secular book where anyone can look for themselves...
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Jews/00000046.htm#3 The passage occurs in paragraph 3
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 16:51

Quote:

I know, I know.. I'll say it for you... "Yes Kinji, your right. Jesus is mentioned in Aniquities." lol



It's obvious that yóu didn't look in Antiquities, but I'm not going to beg you to look for yourself, you probably would say they've edited the real document or something crazy. e-sword or BibleWorks != Antiquities, Nitro.

Quote:

With God all things are possible.



And thát my dear friend is an assumption based on a idealised and wishful image. You define your God as if its almighty, omnipotent and what more, but defining something as being something doesn't mean he actually has all these properties in practise, even íf he would exist after all! It's 100% silly to say that anything is possible because he is God. Because why? What makes you think so? I'll say it for you; you believe so, that doesn't make it true though. Infact, if God would have wanted us to believe in him, he would have made damn sure we would.

Cheers
Posted By: Ran Man

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 16:57

@ PO Guy
Let me give you some advice.

Anyone who crys about the injustices commited generations ago are wrong! So, stop being so negative against people!

I never killed any witches.
and I didn't make your wife cry neither.

You cannot go around condemning whole groups of people for something that happened generations ago!

The "hate white people" crowd have their BW film clips from the 50's and 60's.

The "hate japanese people" of yesteryear have their film clips of pearl harbor getting bombed.

If anyone wants to hate germans, I'm sure film clips can be found of thousands of soldiers "goose step" marching in front of hitler.

You cannot provide even one film clip.

So, stop slamming people for something that may have happened so long ago. It is IMMORAL to do so.

It took my father 50 years to buy a japanese car. The reason was "pearl harbor". He died in that toyota in an accident later.

Summary:
You're supposed to help people down here!
When you dig up stuff that happened generations ago, you are not helping anyone.

Stop being a picky "nitwit" and start being happy and positive.

Remember to HELP somebody. If you go around tearing people down, then you just make a hell down here.
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 17:42

Quote:

It's obvious that yóu didn't look in Antiquities, but I'm not going to beg you to look for yourself

huh? At first I thought it was some misunderstanding or miscommunication, but now I am beginning to understand that you just cant get it. Thats too bad, I feel bad for you, but I'd like to help you if I could, so I will be around if you need me.

Quote:

Infact, if God would have wanted us to believe in him, he would have made damn sure we would.


Well at this point I dont expect you to understand the simple logic, but I will try to explain it anyway: God cannot force anyone to believe, God could force you to know, and one day He will, but He cannot force you to believe. It is a fundamental difference between the word 'believe' and 'know', but at this point, I dont think your capable of seeing the difference. However I explain it to you because I like you

So therefore God cannot make sure we would believe in Him--it is contrary to the definition of 'believe'.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 19:40

Quote:

but now I am beginning to understand that you just cant get it.



This is starting to get ridiculous and nope I'm not offended. I've done some comparing of sources (in a library), I even quoted a text stating the exact same, I came to a conclusion and suddenly I don't know what I'm talking about or I don't 'get' it? Funny people, seriously.

Quote:

Well at this point I dont expect you to understand the simple logic



To be honest, I don't expect to understand anything based upon pure faith, irrationalism and untruths.

"God can not..." , okey .., that's part of a problem with this. Did you have a conversation with him and ásk what his limitations were or what rules he is bound to? Nope. If it's in the bible, than it must be true? No, as stated many times, the bible's intergrity is questionable at least and even íf the bible is accurate, how could we know it is? So it's legit to question it and demand for evidence.

Okey, so now you say I do not understand something because I do not 'believe', right? Well, that's something I seriously do not comprehend indeed. The difference between believing something and knowing something is something I do understand. When you have faith, you believe something to be true without evidence. Infact, 'believing' something is very close to 'wishing something to be true' on the emotional level.

'Knowing' something on the other hand is a tad more serious (you can actually prove it) and there's a lot about what you 'believe' (but in reality kind of imply to 'know' because you 'believe' ( -> that's essentially what you've blamed me from not to and thus I 'wouldn't understand') ) that's simply not known.

I hope you'll understand my problem with your logic.

Quote:

So therefore God cannot make sure we would believe in Him--it is contrary to the definition of 'believe'.



Okey, so God according to you wants us to believe, but he obviously doesn't wants us to know, eventhough he could. Well then, please consider the following:

If someone tells you something and you have no reason to trust that person because you don't know anything about that person, would you still 'believe' in what they are saying as being the truth ?? Infact, you hear something about another person fróm another person who has written something in a book, two persons you don't know and also two persons for whom you have no reason to believe in that what they are saying in true and not made up. Infact, you've got some evidence and knowledge that sheds some serious doubts onto what they are saying. It's really no option to 'believe in them anyway', at least not without some superserious doubts, remarks ánd questions that need answers before believing anything.

Moral of the story? In my opinion religious people base their beliefs on something they call 'knowledge' which is not based upon evidence so technically it's no knowledge at all, but still claim it to be exactly that. Ultimately if you want to convince someone, you have to come up with rather good reasons for them to 'believe' in you. First and foremost you have to gain their trust, second you've got to provide evidence and third you'll have to proof others are wrong. None of this is provide by God, so God doesn't want us to know, nor believe in him.

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 21:22

Quote:

that's essentially what you've blamed me from not to and thus I 'wouldn't understand')

No, I didnt blame you for something you didnt or wouldnt understand. We showed you a total of 3 different Antiquities manuscripts which contained references to Jesus and you rejected all of them with no counter evidence at all except for some vague statements about some scholar who refuted them.

What scholar?
Where are YOUR sources?
What research did you do?
What is your counter evidence?

You have provided nothing, nada, zippo, zero sources showing that the Antiquities passages are faulty.

This was the only problem I have with your logic. If you cannot show proof of a disagreement then you really should not dispute it all.

You keep saying "check the antiquities" yet you refuse to show us a version of the antiquities which you are looking at.

This is dissappointing because you usually seem to be pretty rational.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 21:49

Quote:

You keep saying "check the antiquities" yet you refuse to show us a version of the antiquities which you are looking at.



I'm not in the library at the moment, so I can't provide the author of my source (the scholar) even if I wanted to. What I'm basically saying is that the Antiquities in e-swords is indeed faulthy, I came across this by simple cross-referencing of what my particular source stated and what's actually inside e-swords. There are at least 12 points where things are added inside e-swords which belong to the extra interpretation and which are not part of the exact translation. It's a bit tough providing proof now the library is closed, apart from that I would rather see you having found this out by your self.

I'm actually surprised that not more of this can be found on the internet, but I do recall that the particular book was quite new though. (it's book 7 of some sort of 'biblical encyclopedia' thing with quite a lot of scholars sharing their thoughts, infact both in favor and against usually. In case of Jesus as historical person, they all question if the socalled evidence may be linked and some evidence seems to be faulthy, like I wrote earlier on.)

Quote:

I thought for a moment you had gone to the jcl school of debate. Or worse, it seemed as if you had also gone to the dreaded Aufderheide school of debate I am glad you have not drifted too far into the dark side.



Lol, no don't worry hehehe,

Cheers
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 22:14

Thank you. At least thats something. Thats the only reason why I said "you wont get it" because I didnt understand why you kept saying to check the antiquities when I thought I had already done so objectively.

It also doesnt help that when you explain something to jcl which he does not like, he simply ignores it. He asks for explanations, then when he gets one he claims that birds can fly through solid vaults while at the same time condemning us for being irrational.

I thought for a moment you had gone to the jcl school of debate. Or worse, it seemed as if you had also gone to the dreaded Aufderheide school of debate I am glad you have not drifted too far into the dark side.


Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 22:49

I thought I would share this for anyone who doesnt know. Antiquities mentioned Jesus without a doubt two times.. not one.

Book 20 Chapter 9 close to the top reads like so..

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done"


Other sources that say he existed. C+P


Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Annals


Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."


The Talmud

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"


Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."


At least admit the evidence is there to prove he existed. Thats a start. :-)
I didnt ask you to admit that he was the Son of God... just that maybe he did actually exist.
Posted By: A.Russell

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 23:03

Yes, I bet watching a good stoning could prove to be a little distastefull for those of weaker disposition. Good old Jesus, or Christ or James or whatever he was called for dobbing those scally-wags in!

I am going to see if I can get some of those larger lego blocks and get some mates around to start on my tower a bit later today. No doubt this will piss God off, so watch out for some fire and brimestone hitting Okayama, Japan in the near future.

Ran Man, if the story about your father wasn't true it would be very funny. It reminds me of a veteran in NZ, whose friends were beheaded by the Japanese in WWII. Later, he had the oportunity to photograph some Japanese tourists, and he purposely aimed the camera low to chop their heads off in the picture.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 23:03

"who was called Christ," -> this is actually interpretational and not part of the actual translation.

Quote:

Its a known, accepted fact without debate.



Indeed and there are at least 12 of those, at least as far as I've read through. However many many people do not accept it as a fact.

Cheers
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 23:11

Quote:

Ran Man, if the story about your father wasn't true it would be very funny.



I am sorry for your loss. The part about him waiting so long to get one is a bit funny. :-)

Quote:

I am going to see if I can get some of those larger lego blocks and get some mates around to start on my tower a bit later today



You know if the right people see you trying this one of two things will happen. You'll be on TV if you get it high enough or you'll be in a straight jacket. lol Don't forget the krazy_glue. :-D
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/17/07 23:54

Quote:

"who was called Christ," -> this is actually interpretational and not part of the actual translation.

OK. Yes I can accept that if you are familiar with the document you would know. Like the King James Bible, for example, any words in italics were added by the translation. Its a known, accepted fact without debate.
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 01:55

@ NITRO

Just curious to your thoughts on the "unknown" tongue. I know what Paul said.. in greek and of course translated. (NT KJV) But what is your opinion on modern day unknown tonque speakers?

Also if you could give your opinion on this.. "When that which is perfect is come, that which is part shall... etc" Sorry, just off the top of my head. Many people say that the "Bible" is the perfect thing and it has come.. thus we no longer work miracles and speak in the unknown tongue. IMO The Bible has slight errors due to human error thus it is not perfect and the scripture is talking about the 2nd coming of Christ. What is your opinion?

("We work miracles".. you know what I mean. :-) To God be the glory, we cannot do anything without Him as well as Paul and those who were before us.)

I grew up pentecostal. No TV, unknown tongue is evidence of the Holy_Ghost.. you know what I mean. One God and He was manifest in the flesh.. the name was Jesus. After getting a bit older I started to question every religion and every so called church that claimed Christianity. Some things I find interesting:

Catholic

duh. You can compare them to the Word and know where I am coming from.


Baptist

Still cant figure out the "once saved always saved bit"


Pentecostal

The unknown tongue is evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Without it you are lost.

Trinity

3 triune Gods.. is that the way to put it? To this I say of course BLAH

Oneness

Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost

What are your views?
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 02:48

Quote:

Just curious to your thoughts on the "unknown" tongue. I know what Paul said.. in greek and of course translated. (NT) But what is your opinion on modern day unknown tonque speakers?



I am an unknown tongue speaker so I have a pretty high opinion of them. I also believe in miracles and healings through faith in the wounds of Jesus. I usually try to pray in toungues at least once a day. I'll show you some scriptural background for that another day.(pretty tired right now)

I have seen miracle after miracle occur in my life and I walk and talk with God on a regular basis, and so have millions of other people all over the world, but the majority of scientist still think we are crazy even though we all are telling them our experiences first hand.

So I would definitely agree that the "perfect" has not yet come


Here is an interesting wikipedia entry I read recently as linked to my reading in the (Feb or MArch 2007) issue of Discover magazine about Glossolalia actually slowing down the linguistic functioning in the brain, I believe that that is the extent of what they have done for scientific studies of the phenomena. Glossolalia (speaking in tongues) This is just in case anyone is interested in scientific side of it.

I pray in tongues for a variety of reasons.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 04:24

Quote:

I have seen miracle after miracle occur in my life and I walk and talk with God on a regular basis, and so have millions of other people all over the world, but the majority of scientist still think we are crazy even though we all are telling them our experiences first hand.



Miracles by what definition? I've seen some absolute amazing things of life and thought those to be miracles. But those events were not close to impossible to happen or something like that.

By the way, the problem of experiences is that it's a way of seeing things, if we don't experience the same, we don't 'see'. Basically it's somewhere between 'believing' and 'knowing', because you can't prove you've had a certain experience, yet for yourself it might very well be 100% convincing. I would probably consider such experiences to be evidence myself, if I would have had one ... Scientists naturally consider those kind of things to be crazy simply because a.) you can't provide proof and b.) it could very well be 'just' inside your head indeed. There are plenty of crazy people already.

Having said that, I prefer looking at the evidence, but just like people claiming to be talking to God, I can't tell if they are crazy or if they are actually telling the truth. I would even go so far as to state that they are telling the truth from their perspective, however are those 'truths' part of our reality or their illusion? I may never know the answer to that question, like many others.

Quote:

This is just in case anyone is interested in scientific side of it.



Thanks, this is interesting indeed.

Cheers
Posted By: JibbSmart

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 07:25

Quote:

Baptist

Still cant figure out the "once saved always saved bit"

i'm baptist. i haven't been baptised. baptism isn't believed to be necessary to be saved, but more a symbol of the cleansing of the soul, and a public display of one's faith. to be put quite simply, baptists in general agree with the idea of one being baptized, but it isn't compulsory, and it should only be done with their permission (as opposed to catholics and anglicans baptizing at birth). i'm afraid i don't understand what you mean by the "still cant figure out" bit. once you are saved, you are...
always...
...saved! yes, that's it! what don't you/we get?

check wikipedia if you have any questions.

anyway, that thread was an interesting read i found A.Russell's posts the most entertaining

julz
Posted By: jcl

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 08:17

Quote:

After our second child, i had a vecectomy. Apparently, it didn't work, and my wife is pregnant now. If she keeps the baby, she'll have to quit her job, and my salary alone is not enough for all of us, let alone another baby in the family. Now if you or RanMan know what to do better than me and my wife do, please let us know. I'm sure your advices will pay our hospital bills and everything

The only reason i'm sharing this great story with the rest of you, is so you can all see how it really is when things get personal. I don't want to Hear about another discussion, about the pros and cons of iraq war, and abortions and whatever you call it. Here i am.. The person that has to deal with all this sh1t. Come and tell me in my face ranman or whoever else, that saying no to abortions is the way to jesus... give it to me... straight to my face


Pissedoff: You are not the only nor the first one in such a situation. You're probably aware that no God will come to your rescue. But this also means that no God nor any Christians are to blame for your situation. Rambling won't gain you anything.

When considering whether or not to do an abortion, listen to your conscience. The bible won't help - Christianity is not fit to give you moral advice in such a matter. Nor will the law help you. The society decided that early abortion is not murder, and leaves the decision up to you.

You need to make yourself clear that it's _you_ to decide what you want to do, not malignant neighbors and your financial situation. You can decide as long as you have a chance, even if it's small. If your salary is not sufficient, think about ways to earn more. There is no God or miracle to help you, but you can at least try to help yourself. You decide and then accept the consequences.

If you want advices, ask people who have done an abortion some years before. Just ask: "In the same situation, would you do it again?" Maybe you'll be surprised by the answers.
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 10:50

@ NITRO

Here is where I attended in my younger years. If you are home one wed or sun check out the live feed.

FPC

They document medical records for proof of miracles. Some of you should watch.


As for tongues.. I have studied them all my life. I thought I would get a outsiders view on them.. your not a outsider. lol :-)



@ JulzMighty

I have a couple of guys that work for me and both try to explain the baptist faith but usually it turns into a debate. They think that if you accept the Lord as you personal Savior then you are saved. I dont exactly disagree yet. From that point on they cannot lose that salvation based on their actions. When speaking of the Baptist faith in south Mississippi the first thing that people think is "Once saved always saved". That is the part that I cannot grasp. How in the world do they talk themselves into believeing that? :-)

Another thing I would like to ask the Christians is this: When you pray do you use the name of Jesus or do you pray to the Father? Regardless of Trinity or oneness... what verbal words do you use? All my life I have thought that by using the name Jesus.. I have been praying to the Father because Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Rational thinking kicks in as I go back to where the diciples wanted to learn to pray. He tought them. I have been directly disobeying His teaching because He did not want us using His name in prayer. You get my point or am I rambling? lol
Posted By: NITRO777

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 10:50

Quote:

Miracles by what definition? I've seen some absolute amazing things of life and thought those to be miracles. But those events were not close to impossible to happen or something like that.



Well, I have read a book about chaos theory and its attempts to study apparently random phenomena such as swirling smoke, butterfly effects upon global weather, air turbulence and prediction of moving water molecules, yet there havent been any conclusive, satisfying theories made to model these types of phenomena. So how can you claim to know what is impossible or possible? Even physics cannot pinpoint the reasons for a large group of things which happen.

Yet I have seen things happen which are well beyond the musings of chaos theory. Things which are statistically impossible. Things like people showing up at precise times in precise locations, plants growing where they never could, people being healed with medical confirmations, and perhaps the most miraculous: people much more stubborn than you becoming born again Christians and becoming the new driver of the church bus.

Quote:

because you can't prove you've had a certain experience, yet for yourself it might very well be 100% convincing. I would probably consider such experiences to be evidence myself, if I would have had one

It doesnt matter that we cant 'prove' such experiences, you already have millions of people saying they have had them. That in itself is proof enough.
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 11:19

Wow.. just think: If I keep talking about religion I wont have any stars left. lol To funny.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 12:18

Quote:

It doesnt matter that we cant 'prove' such experiences, you already have millions of people saying they have had them. That in itself is proof enough.



Nope, that's not evidence, those are mere statistics. I agree that it makes some sense to assume that not millions of people make things up. But that's about the only thing that can be said about it.

Quote:

So how can you claim to know what is impossible or possible?



I meant not necesarrily impossible, merely something that is/was/I thought to be 'nearly impossible'. It's a word thing anyways, since if something impossible happens, then it wasn't impossible, but possible instead.

Quote:

people much more stubborn than you becoming born again Christians and becoming the new driver of the church bus.



I guess I'm not lost yet then hehehe.

Quote:


Wow.. just think: If I keep talking about religion I wont have any stars left. lol To funny.



I'm going to rate you 5 stars, because I like these debates. But I do wonder who really cares about the stars anyways? In a way it's discriminating to give people less stars purely based upon some opinions, not quite fair.

Cheers
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 12:31

Quote:

I'm going to rate you 5 stars, because I like these debates. But I do wonder who really cares about the stars anyways? In a way it's discriminating to give people less stars purely based upon some opinions, not quite fair



I agree. lol The rating system is far to over-rated. :-) Maybe in Hilberts Hotel we can just start considering less stars better? If this is the case then NITRO is ahead of me right now and I need to find some toes to step on to advance to the next level. heh j/king It is fairly shallow minded to rate someone based on their opinions though.

Since I am here reading.. give me your thoughts on the other instances that mention Jesus. Like Tacitus.

Do you think that the list (page 8 of this topic) is enough to prove that Jesus did exist? Not proving that He was the Son of God.. just that he existed?
Posted By: jcl

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 12:56

Quote:

Do you think that the list (page 8 of this topic) is enough to prove that Jesus did exist? Not proving that He was the Son of God.. just that he existed?


For proving that he really existed you'd need to find pre-Christian sources that mention him - sources from the time before Paulus founded Christianity about 50 AC. All later sources obviously refer to the Jesus image that Paulus based his religion upon. So we have no hard evidence for Jesus' existence.

However, it is very likely that he existed. The circumstances of his life, the miracles he did etc. were quite common in Palestina at that time. Many rabbis walked that country with small groups of followers, doing miracles. Therefore Paulus had no motive to make up such a person. Jesus really existed and most of his teachings were probably authentic. Only being the Messiah or the son of God was likely not claimed by himself, but invented by Paulus.
Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 13:02

Quote:

I agree. lol The rating system is far to over-rated. :-) Maybe in Hilberts Hotel we can just start considering less stars better? If this is the case then NITRO is ahead of me right now and I need to find some toes to step on to advance to the next level.



Lol, for a few minutes you had 4 stars again though, seems you are back on 3 again. Well, at least I tried.

Quote:

Do you think that the list (page 8 of this topic) is enough to prove that Jesus did exist? Not proving that He was the Son of God.. just that he existed?



Would it be enough to prove it? No. It may indeed indicate that á person called Jesus lived, because his name was mentioned, unfortunately all sources are not from the same date as when the biblical Jesus lived. The name Jesus was far to common back then to simply base his existence upon just a name, you'd need more contextual information and you'd need a source from when he was still alive.

"Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time." There's no real clear link to the 'biblical jesus', so unfortunately it's not proving much.

Considered what the biblical Jesus supposedly did, historians wouldn't have ignored him for sure...

Quote:

Only being the Messiah or the son of God was likely not claimed by himself, but invented by Paulus.



I'm not going to claim this is infact what has happened, but there are people who claim there has been a voting at some point and they simply decided Jesus should be called 'Son of God' from then on... this according to those happened quite a long time after Jesus died.

Cheers
Posted By: JibbSmart

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 20:27

in reply to Kinji_2007, i'm afraid i cannot explain anything differently or better we simply believe (in regards to being saved) that once you have been saved, you are... uhm... saved. maybe your friends believe something a bit different to i -- i have seen a friend of mine fall away from Christianity, which i guess means you aren't saved forever if you are saved once, but she grew up in a Christian family and maybe never made that conscious decision to be a Christian before.

i misunderstood you and thought you meant that after giving our lives to God, us Baptists believed you had to get baptized, and you were saying that we don't get the part where once you get saved you're always saved (which i took to mean once you are saved, you don't have to do any other formal actions to make sure you are saved).

sorry mate i dont know anything that would clear anything up about Baptist Christians for you.

julz
Posted By: Kinji_2007

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/18/07 23:23

@JulzMighty

I appreciate the reply. These two guys are convinced that because they lived for God at one point in their lives.. they will never lose that salvation. (even if they turn to a life of complete and nasty lil evil things) In their minds they think that punishment will come in this life and not the afterlife.

I know one church is not like another. They being Baptist may be tought something totally different than you. :-) I just dont know what scripture they base the theory on. (they dont know either lol) Anyway, again.. thanks for the reply.
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/19/07 03:33

This discussion has exploded beyond my desire to contribute to it. I didn't have anything worthwhile to add anyway.

Quote:

The circumstances of his life, the miracles he did etc. were quite common in Palestina at that time. Many rabbis walked that country with small groups of followers, doing miracles.



But I am curious about this. Do you, by chance, have any sources on this because this is an interesting topic for me. I always hear vague references to other folks who claimed to be the messiah, and now this. I'm curious as to the details, myself. It would be info to know. Thanks.
Posted By: JibbSmart

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/19/07 07:14

@Kinji_2007: i haven't heard claims like that before . from my own beliefs and my recent research into Baptists (which simply confirmed my own thoughts) the "specifications" of Baptist Christianity are that baptism at birth is frowned upon because it lacks free-will, baptism itself is practiced once in someone's life whenever they choose as long as they understand the decision, but as a symbol for their faith and not as a requirement for salvation, and the Lord's Supper is also practiced but as a symbol.

wikipedia has quite a good explanation, i think. this "once saved always saved thing" is new to me and isn't a Baptist-specific thing -- you'll probably find people who believe that in any denomination.

julz

PS: have some stars
Posted By: jcl

Re: Bible apologetics - 03/19/07 10:59

Quote:

Do you, by chance, have any sources on this because this is an interesting topic for me. I always hear vague references to other folks who claimed to be the messiah, and now this. I'm curious as to the details, myself. It would be info to know. Thanks.


I don't think that any of them claimed to be the messiah. That would have been a blasphemy.

There were about 40 major jewish sects in palestine at that time, plus a lot more small groups lead by charismatic rabbis. The three most popular were Theudas the magician, John the baptist, and Stephen of Jerusalem, every one with hundreds of followers. As to my knowledge all met the same violent death as Jesus. Jesus himself was probably a follower of John before he gathered his own small group. But he never reached the popularity of his more famous colleagues, and without Paulus he would have long been forgotten. I don't have an online source at the moment, but I think if you search for those three names you'll find more information. I got most of the info from a book about the Qumran scrolls that also covers the situation in first century palestine.
Posted By: Spark3D

Re: Bible apologetics - 04/18/07 21:19

I'm hardly ever online (long story), but since I happen to be today, I just wanted to drop in my 2 cents --

A. Explain why the Bible repeatedly says "Dew which falleth [or falls] from heaven [the sky]" when it is a fact that dew forms in place upon the grass, by condensation.

B. Explain why, in both narratives of the building of the temple (1 Kings, and 2 Chronicles), Solomon builds a basin, round as a compass, with a radius of 10 cubits, and a circumference of 30. PI = 3.1415926535, therefore it should be 31.

Others exist too, but there's a couple of glaring ones.
Posted By: JetpackMonkey

Re: Bible apologetics - 04/18/07 22:08

Quote:

i always wondered why genesis is the preferred subject for a discrediting of christian belief.




Unavailable for comment
Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: Bible apologetics - 04/19/07 01:38

All of these questions, and more, have been answered for years on various apologetics sites. If you spend two seconds looking, I'm sure you can dig up something.

Quote:

I got most of the info from a book about the Qumran scrolls that also covers the situation in first century palestine.



JCL, you don't mind if I ask the name of the book and the author of the book, do you?
Posted By: jcl

Re: Bible apologetics - 04/20/07 07:59

"Dead sea scrolls deception" by Michael Baigent.

- It is true that apologetic sites contain a list of "fixes" for many bible errors; it's also true that most of those fixes just replace one nonsense by another one. You already have to believe strongly in bible "inerrancy" for believing in those fixes. For this reason it's better to give a direct answer, instead of mentioning apologetic sites.

Dew comes from the atmosphere, so "falling from the sky" is a wrong expression, but not an outright error. As the bible was written, no one knew the cause of dew - so you can't blame them for a wrong formulation.

This is different with the wrong PI value. The Egyptians, Greeks and many other people at that time knew the correct approximation of Pi. So maybe the author of that text was not very educated. Apologetic sites offer the "explanation" that the circumference of Salomon's basin was measured on its inside, not on the outside - unfortunately this is nonsense, as no one would use the inside of a vessel for measuring its circumference. Besides, the bible text explicitly states that the outside is meant.
© 2024 lite-C Forums