Bible Contradictions

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
641

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/[/quote]
What’s fallible about contradiction?[/quote]

Do you not understand? A book wrecked with contradictions is the calling card of several human authors alone. If God is involved, don’t you think he would at least guide the authors of HIS holy book to be consistent? How can God expect us to believe in him if he won’t show himself (as he said he would - exodus 34:23) AND he won’t allow his Bible, the very book we are supposed to base our ENTIRE lives around, to have continuity?

I mean, have you read the story of Noah’s ark? Does this God sound plausible to you?

[/quote]

Do you really think you can present a cartoon from “Atheist Comedy” and think it may have any effect?
You weakly address one issue which is ‘biblical literalism’ which accounts for a very small percentage of Christian and religious folk in general.

What you present is a classic problem. God doesn’t behave the way you think he should. By George, I learn in school how shit works, I learn a great deal about myself, therefore excerpts from 7000 year old texts sound absurd. So it must all be bullshit!

If you want to be atheist. If you want to not believe in God, go nuts. You have the right and the option to believe what ever the fuck you want.
Just don’t come around thinking you are presenting some brand new information nobody ever thought of before.
You make a common error that many athiests make. You whole philosophy is based around the concept that God doesn’t behave the way you think he should, therefore he does not exist.

It would be better and easier if you would try to prove what you think is right, rather than try to prove what you think others believe is wrong. Be lazy, don’t choose the hard way.

[/quote]

I remember a great apologist once commentated that he misses the times when heretics and atheist were well educated in doctrines of Christianity.[/quote]

Well, who needs a challenge when you have, well, ^ that?! LOL…[/quote]

I watched a single episode of Robot Chicken…I think there were better arguments on that episode than I have seen so far.

642

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Both? I don’t think so.
First why would does John use Roman time and not Jewish time?
[/quote]

I never said anything about Roman time or Jewish time. What are you talking about?

I said read Matthew 20:1-16 to understand the difference between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM, and I pointed out tradition says the Jesus died on the Crucifix at 3:00 PM. Nothing about Roman and Jewish time. But, time is essentially a non sequitur in this argument as appropriate recording of details such as time (especially when they didn’t even clocks) did not require it to be exact.

However, the crucifix was on the same day in all three Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel. As well, you’re forgetting a large portion of arguing against a Catholic. We have Sacred Tradition. We have viable explanations of our Bible as we wrote it. [/quote]

The time difference was given by someone else. Both John and Mark give different times for the crucifixion. Sure, time wasn’t 100% accurate, but they sure as hell could tell the difference between noon and mid-morning! Thay had sundials for just that purpose. It’s not as though they differ by about an hour (though, even then why would God allow such a silly mistake in his book?), this is a 3-6 hour difference and that’s assuming they were even talking about the same day (Roman time would have to be 28 hours behind Jewish time for that to be true)!
[/quote]

I am not going to argue over time, Jesus died at 1500 hours on Calvary on Friday. Now, let’s get back to what you were saying about if it was before, on, or after passover.

I am not sure what you are reading, but St. John says Jesus died on the day of Preparation (19:31), which is Friday as the sabbath started at sundown on Friday.

[quote]
Unless the sun sets at noon in Isreal, there’s no chance it was evening.[/quote]

Maybe not, but St. Mark does tell us, “there was darkness over the whole land.”

[quote]
Even if the Greek version is true and the day of preperation for the passover was on Friday (meaning both the passover and the sabbath were going to happen the next day) then you have yet another problem as Mark 15:42-47 clearly states that Jesus was dead by the eve of the sabbath and in fact Pilate had already given jesus’ body over to Joseph, which would make Jesus already dead before the sacrifice of the lamb described in Mark 14:12, meaning that conversation couldn’t of happened.[/quote]

The day of Preparation is not for Passover, it is for the sabbath. Mark 15:42-47 is talking about the day of Preparation, which is Friday before sundown, as the sabbath is on Saturday (Saturday starts at (or after, I am not quite sure) sundown on Friday). The Passover or the Last supper (14:12) happened Thursday (Thursday is from Wednesday sundown to Thursday Sundown), the same ceremonies happen on Friday, and is also called the pasch, (Friday is from Thursday sundown to Friday sundown) as on Thursday (why Jesus is referred to the Passover lamb).

No, it doesn’t need to be a week, Jesus and his disciples had the Passover meal or Last Supper (as talked about in Mark 14:12) on Thursday, was crucified on Friday, and before Saturday was taken down. This is how it is in every Gospel including John.

I am guessing you do not understand the order, the day of Preparation is not the day before Passover, “it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,” which is Friday. Mark 14:12, is talking about Passover, on Thursday, the day before Jesus was crucified.

[quote]
No matter how you look at it, this argument fails. There are massive contradictions in your bible and this is just one of them. I ask you, why has your God allowed there to be so many flaws in the very book he wants us to base our lives on?[/quote]

I don’t understand how it fails. St. John says Jesus died on the day of Preparation (19:31) and St. Mark says Jesus died on the day of Preparation (15:42). They both say that the day of Preparation is the day before the sabbath, which is Friday.

The day of Preparation is not the day before the Passover.[/quote]

Ah, but you’re forgetting that John specifically states that the day Jesus was crucified was both the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14) AND the preparation for the Sabbath (john 19:31). So it looks like Jesus missed the Passover entirely as Mark states Jesus died after seven-eight hours (Mark 15:25-33). This would place Jesus’ death at 7 pm Friday according to John. This is an especially big problem because Mark 14:12-15:25 clearly has Jesus alive and well (well, until 15:25 that is), even though By John’s account he should have been long dead since John states that the Sabbath and Passover were to be held on the same day.

643

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?
[/quote]

Educated? You can’t even tell the difference between the first day of Unleavened Bread, and the day of Preparation. I’ll give you a clue, one is on the 14th of Nisan and one is the day before the sabbath.[/quote]

Well, apparently John couldn’t either :wink:

644

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/[/quote]
What’s fallible about contradiction?[/quote]

Do you not understand? A book wrecked with contradictions is the calling card of several human authors alone. If God is involved, don’t you think he would at least guide the authors of HIS holy book to be consistent? How can God expect us to believe in him if he won’t show himself (as he said he would - exodus 34:23) AND he won’t allow his Bible, the very book we are supposed to base our ENTIRE lives around, to have continuity?

I mean, have you read the story of Noah’s ark? Does this God sound plausible to you?

[/quote]

Do you really think you can present a cartoon from “Atheist Comedy” and think it may have any effect?
You weakly address one issue which is ‘biblical literalism’ which accounts for a very small percentage of Christian and religious folk in general.

What you present is a classic problem. God doesn’t behave the way you think he should. By George, I learn in school how shit works, I learn a great deal about myself, therefore excerpts from 7000 year old texts sound absurd. So it must all be bullshit!

If you want to be atheist. If you want to not believe in God, go nuts. You have the right and the option to believe what ever the fuck you want.
Just don’t come around thinking you are presenting some brand new information nobody ever thought of before.
You make a common error that many athiests make. You whole philosophy is based around the concept that God doesn’t behave the way you think he should, therefore he does not exist.

It would be better and easier if you would try to prove what you think is right, rather than try to prove what you think others believe is wrong. Be lazy, don’t choose the hard way.

[/quote]

So you’re going to totally ignore the argument presented in the video because it’s also entertaining?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that out of all the dates given in the bible, only the ones that make sense are literal and the rest are… metaphorical. =/ “Jesus only METAPHORICALLY died on the third hour, the day after Passover, guys” ~ Mark

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that God can be both illogical and infallible at the same time?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me it makes more sense to show how your religion is wrong without proving your religion wrong than it does to prove your religion is wrong by showing how your religion is wrong?

Just formulating these into questions should be enough to show their absurdity. I give up, you clearly don’t value logic or continuity. Christianity is perfect for you.[/quote]

No. I didn’t sit and tell you any of that made up shit in your head. I said, nor insutuated any of that garbage you just wrote.

Quite frankly, you are to immature and stupid to have any such conversations with. The worst part, and hysterical at the same time, is that you think you have all the answers to imaginary questions nobody asked.
It’s amusing to me when people who do not know what the fuck they are talking about are suddenly experts about what they don’t know about. You’re out of your league.

If you can make a singular argument about something that actually exists, then I will respond with a respectful answer. But if you want to act like a punk, pussy teenager, you’ll get treated like one.[/quote]

What are you talking about? You brushed aside the points in the video because it was a comedy, you brushed aside bilical literalism, you brushed aside God’s illogical acts simply because he’s God and “doesn’t have to think like us”, you directly mocked the idea of denying Christianity because contemperary education points towards the bible being false, then you somehow figure it’s easier to prove I’m right by not showing how Christianity is wrong (which is impossible becuase that is exactly my premise). All I did was paraphrase things YOU said.

If this isn’t what you meant, then exactly what were you trying to get at, hmm? You tend to complain a lot without ever actually ellaborating, so here’s your chance. Exactly what did you mean by all those things if not in the way I see it?

645

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Ah, but you’re forgetting that John specifically states that the day Jesus was crucified was both the day of preparation for the Passover (John 19:14) AND the preparation for the Sabbath (john 19:31).
[/quote]

St. John in 19:14 is talking about the “day of Preparation of the Passover” and in 19:31 St. John is talking about “the day of Preparation [sans ‘of the Passover’].” In the former St. John is talking about when Jesus was convicted by Pilate, it is understood to mean that Jesus was sentenced to die on “the eve” of the Jewish Passover, which would begin at Sundown. The latter is talking about when Jesus was actually crucified. The latter verse is talking about the day of Preparation, that is the day before the sabbath, the former verse says nothing it being the day before the Sabbath.

I have no clue what you’re talking about, St. Mark says Jesus was put on the Cross at 0900 hours, and died at 1500 hours. St. John says Jesus was sentenced to death by Pilate at 1200 hours. St. John says nothing of what time Jesus was put on the Cross or what time he died.

[quote]
This is an especially big problem because Mark 14:12-15:25 clearly has Jesus alive and well (well, until 15:25 that is), even though By John’s account he should have been long dead since John states that the Sabbath and Passover were to be held on the same day. [/quote]

You do realise that 14:12 and 15:25 are on two different days? Mark 14:12, is talking about the Passover or Last Supper, Jesus came to the table “were they were eating” (14:18). St. Mark at 15:25 is talking about when Jesus was crucified later the next day.

646

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?
[/quote]

Educated? You can’t even tell the difference between the first day of Unleavened Bread, and the day of Preparation. I’ll give you a clue, one is on the 14th of Nisan and one is the day before the sabbath.[/quote]

Well, apparently John couldn’t either ;)[/quote]

I don’t think you have even read St. John’s Gospel.

647

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?
[/quote]

Educated? You can’t even tell the difference between the first day of Unleavened Bread, and the day of Preparation. I’ll give you a clue, one is on the 14th of Nisan and one is the day before the sabbath.[/quote]

Well, apparently John couldn’t either ;)[/quote]

I don’t think you have even read St. John’s Gospel.[/quote]YEAH!!! Tell em Chris.

648

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,

"I am a little confused by your post. Let me get to my bottom line. Do you think that man has choice or not? You seem to kind of say both things. That man has choice and that man does not.

Let me be clear on my stance. I believe we are presented with many circumstances where we have no choice, where we are given the life we have and that’s it. But I also believe, with all my heart, soul and being, that what we do with what we are given is where we have choice. And what we do with each circumstance is what counts ultimately.

Do you agree or disagree?"

I agree in that God calls all (“whosoever” Jn. 3:16) and that mankind must choose (“believeth” Jn. 3:16). God calls all by drawing them to His Son through the Holy Spirit. His work of “drawing” (Jn. 6:44) covers all people, as Jesus says, I … will draw all men" (Jn. 12:32). But this drawing is not irresistible, since it can be rejected, “and ye would not” (Mat. 23:37).

[/quote]

Bingo.

649

There’s no point even discussing doctrinal matters with Tiribulus, when he rejects logic as a criterion for determining truth. Any time his beliefs are indisputably proven to be logically contradictory, he pulls out his “sinful, fallen man” card which trumps everything else. There’s literally no argument you can make which he won’t dismiss out of hand, if it contradicts what he believes to be true.

I consider that to be damnation, in the truest sense of the word. He cannot move forward, because he believes he already has all the answers, and refuses to consider anything that contradicts his world view.

650

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/[/quote]
What’s fallible about contradiction?[/quote]

Do you not understand? A book wrecked with contradictions is the calling card of several human authors alone. If God is involved, don’t you think he would at least guide the authors of HIS holy book to be consistent? How can God expect us to believe in him if he won’t show himself (as he said he would - exodus 34:23) AND he won’t allow his Bible, the very book we are supposed to base our ENTIRE lives around, to have continuity?

I mean, have you read the story of Noah’s ark? Does this God sound plausible to you?

[/quote]

Do you really think you can present a cartoon from “Atheist Comedy” and think it may have any effect?
You weakly address one issue which is ‘biblical literalism’ which accounts for a very small percentage of Christian and religious folk in general.

What you present is a classic problem. God doesn’t behave the way you think he should. By George, I learn in school how shit works, I learn a great deal about myself, therefore excerpts from 7000 year old texts sound absurd. So it must all be bullshit!

If you want to be atheist. If you want to not believe in God, go nuts. You have the right and the option to believe what ever the fuck you want.
Just don’t come around thinking you are presenting some brand new information nobody ever thought of before.
You make a common error that many athiests make. You whole philosophy is based around the concept that God doesn’t behave the way you think he should, therefore he does not exist.

It would be better and easier if you would try to prove what you think is right, rather than try to prove what you think others believe is wrong. Be lazy, don’t choose the hard way.

[/quote]

So you’re going to totally ignore the argument presented in the video because it’s also entertaining?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that out of all the dates given in the bible, only the ones that make sense are literal and the rest are… metaphorical. =/ “Jesus only METAPHORICALLY died on the third hour, the day after Passover, guys” ~ Mark

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that God can be both illogical and infallible at the same time?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me it makes more sense to show how your religion is wrong without proving your religion wrong than it does to prove your religion is wrong by showing how your religion is wrong?

Just formulating these into questions should be enough to show their absurdity. I give up, you clearly don’t value logic or continuity. Christianity is perfect for you.[/quote]

No. I didn’t sit and tell you any of that made up shit in your head. I said, nor insutuated any of that garbage you just wrote.

Quite frankly, you are to immature and stupid to have any such conversations with. The worst part, and hysterical at the same time, is that you think you have all the answers to imaginary questions nobody asked.
It’s amusing to me when people who do not know what the fuck they are talking about are suddenly experts about what they don’t know about. You’re out of your league.

If you can make a singular argument about something that actually exists, then I will respond with a respectful answer. But if you want to act like a punk, pussy teenager, you’ll get treated like one.[/quote]

What are you talking about? You brushed aside the points in the video because it was a comedy, you brushed aside bilical literalism, you brushed aside God’s illogical acts simply because he’s God and “doesn’t have to think like us”, you directly mocked the idea of denying Christianity because contemperary education points towards the bible being false, then you somehow figure it’s easier to prove I’m right by not showing how Christianity is wrong (which is impossible becuase that is exactly my premise). All I did was paraphrase things YOU said.

If this isn’t what you meant, then exactly what were you trying to get at, hmm? You tend to complain a lot without ever actually ellaborating, so here’s your chance. Exactly what did you mean by all those things if not in the way I see it?[/quote]

I did not brush over the points in the video because I did not and will not watch it. I have seen enough atheist propaganda in my life I know how you lot think. I am just waiting for you to use the terms “sky fairy” and ‘flying spaghetti monster’ to complete the stereotype.

I didn’t make any of those points, hat’s the problem. I simply stated that the bible is a collection of books. I further said that they aren’t books of history or science, so the point is moot. There are facts in the bible, but it is not a book of facts. It’s a book of truth. You can mock the stories all you want, it won’t change what they are. The bible uses many methods by which to get it’s points across and some are even literal.

The newest parts of the Bible are about 1900 years old. So, how many ancient texts do you poor over and study of the same age? How does their temporal accuracy stack up to the bible’s?

651

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?
[/quote]

Educated? You can’t even tell the difference between the first day of Unleavened Bread, and the day of Preparation. I’ll give you a clue, one is on the 14th of Nisan and one is the day before the sabbath.[/quote]

Well, apparently John couldn’t either ;)[/quote]

I don’t think you have even read St. John’s Gospel.[/quote]

Clearly.
One should read a book before calling it folly. This clearly wasn’t done. A bunch of hearsay communications only.
It’s like trying to write a book report based only on the reviews of a book.

652

[quote]pat wrote:

I did not brush over the points in the video because I did not and will not watch it. I have seen enough atheist propaganda in my life I know how you lot think. I am just waiting for you to use the terms “sky fairy” and ‘flying spaghetti monster’ to complete the stereotype.

I didn’t make any of those points, hat’s the problem. I simply stated that the bible is a collection of books. I further said that they aren’t books of history or science, so the point is moot. There are facts in the bible, but it is not a book of facts. It’s a book of truth. You can mock the stories all you want, it won’t change what they are. The bible uses many methods by which to get it’s points across and some are even literal.

The newest parts of the Bible are about 1900 years old. So, how many ancient texts do you poor over and study of the same age? How does their temporal accuracy stack up to the bible’s?[/quote]

The problem, Pat, is that so many christians claim the bible to be 100% literal, factual, and historically and scientifically accurate.

When it’s proven (time and time and time again) to be factually impossible, illogical, or historically inaccurate, the christians throw up more nonsense bullshit.

If christians would admit the bible to be parables, metaphores, allegories, etc, there would be much less conflict. But, alas, they do not.

Want to pick fights? Start with the christians who claim every word of the bible is 100% literal truth. Then, maybe us mean ol’ atheists will stop calling your God “Sky Wizard” (even though he’s a man with supernatural powers who lives up in the sky).

653

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?
[/quote]

Educated? You can’t even tell the difference between the first day of Unleavened Bread, and the day of Preparation. I’ll give you a clue, one is on the 14th of Nisan and one is the day before the sabbath.[/quote]

Well, apparently John couldn’t either ;)[/quote]

I don’t think you have even read St. John’s Gospel.[/quote]

Clearly.
One should read a book before calling it folly. This clearly wasn’t done. A bunch of hearsay communications only.
It’s like trying to write a book report based only on the reviews of a book.
[/quote]

I used to do that when I was a child. I think I got A’s doing that, but I think that was after “A for effort” became educational doctrine.

654

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I did not brush over the points in the video because I did not and will not watch it. I have seen enough atheist propaganda in my life I know how you lot think. I am just waiting for you to use the terms “sky fairy” and ‘flying spaghetti monster’ to complete the stereotype.

I didn’t make any of those points, hat’s the problem. I simply stated that the bible is a collection of books. I further said that they aren’t books of history or science, so the point is moot. There are facts in the bible, but it is not a book of facts. It’s a book of truth. You can mock the stories all you want, it won’t change what they are. The bible uses many methods by which to get it’s points across and some are even literal.

The newest parts of the Bible are about 1900 years old. So, how many ancient texts do you poor over and study of the same age? How does their temporal accuracy stack up to the bible’s?[/quote]

The problem, Pat, is that so many christians claim the bible to be 100% literal, factual, and historically and scientifically accurate.

When it’s proven (time and time and time again) to be factually impossible, illogical, or historically inaccurate, the christians throw up more nonsense bullshit.

If christians would admit the bible to be parables, metaphores, allegories, etc, there would be much less conflict. But, alas, they do not.

Want to pick fights? Start with the christians who claim every word of the bible is 100% literal truth. Then, maybe us mean ol’ atheists will stop calling your God “Sky Wizard” (even though he’s a man with supernatural powers who lives up in the sky).[/quote]

God is a man? I need to read the Bible more…

655

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I did not brush over the points in the video because I did not and will not watch it. I have seen enough atheist propaganda in my life I know how you lot think. I am just waiting for you to use the terms “sky fairy” and ‘flying spaghetti monster’ to complete the stereotype.

I didn’t make any of those points, hat’s the problem. I simply stated that the bible is a collection of books. I further said that they aren’t books of history or science, so the point is moot. There are facts in the bible, but it is not a book of facts. It’s a book of truth. You can mock the stories all you want, it won’t change what they are. The bible uses many methods by which to get it’s points across and some are even literal.

The newest parts of the Bible are about 1900 years old. So, how many ancient texts do you poor over and study of the same age? How does their temporal accuracy stack up to the bible’s?[/quote]

The problem, Pat, is that so many christians claim the bible to be 100% literal, factual, and historically and scientifically accurate.

When it’s proven (time and time and time again) to be factually impossible, illogical, or historically inaccurate, the christians throw up more nonsense bullshit.

If christians would admit the bible to be parables, metaphores, allegories, etc, there would be much less conflict. But, alas, they do not.

Want to pick fights? Start with the christians who claim every word of the bible is 100% literal truth. Then, maybe us mean ol’ atheists will stop calling your God “Sky Wizard” (even though he’s a man with supernatural powers who lives up in the sky).[/quote]

The truth of the matter is that nobody is a biblical literalist because it’s impossible. The closest thing to a biblical literalist would be an orthodox Jew, but to my knowledge they don’t even do burnt offerings anymore. Most self proclaimed biblical literalists cherry pick the shit they take literally. You can’t do that, you either you take it literally or you don’t. For instance, BL’s will take it all literally until you get to the Catholic stuff about the Eucharist and suddenly it’s a metaphor. So people cherry pick their literalism.

It’s kind of funny, most people really aren’t BL’s, most people get it. I guess you find them when your not looking.

The Bible is many things, it has many books. It has parables, allegories, prophesies, poetry and yes some literal, in your face truth. It is a fascinating book, you can read the same thing over and over again and understand different things at different times.
Make no mistake, is it the quintessential book in Christianity, but sadly it’s often misused and misunderstood even by those who claim to know it best.
The best way to read it, I have found, is to take time to read the preludes and stuff prior to reading a book and then take your time with it. If you know, who it was written for, when it was written, and what it’s purpose is or was, the message of the book is far more clear.
When somebody drops a scriptural reference on you, read around the reference so you understand the context.

God doesn’t live in the sky.

656

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

As opposed to your rebuttal void of links?
[/quote]
I guess the fact that I am using that tactic to show you how pointless your use of them as a basis for argument is has escaped you.

ESV as well as several other versions give an atlernative translation of guess what?
Before he was governor of Syria.

I guess you missed the part where he offered no evidence that he didn’t have any administration over sytia.

“Your entire argument rests on the idea that Quirinius had NO ADMINISTRATION WHATSOEVER over Syria during Herod the GreatÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s reign. You donÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t prove that he did NOT. You say you have contrary evidence, but you do NOT cite it”.

Also your video does not address Justin Martyrs claim that he was procurator over syria at that time. Justin’s apologies would have predated Tacitus which is the source your guy is using.

I watched them and found it more of the same stuff.

Not really. He makes some claims based on Tacitus but ignores Justin, as well as the fact that He could have been in charge of more than one duty for Rome at the time.

He doesn’t address things like this.

“ItÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s also interesting that Justin didnÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t simply copy Luke and call him Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??governor of SyriaÃ???Ã??Ã?¢?? Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? he calls him Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??procurator of Judea.Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? Sometimes historical accounts that donÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??t match exactly just give MORE information not necessarily contradictory information. And more importantly, whether he was right or wrong, Justin obviously used another source than Luke Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? one that puts Quirinius in the right place at the right time”.

Call it what you want. It was me using a subtle form of sarcasm. Basically any link you can post I can post one too. I am sorry you missed it. You are not the first person that I have told it is bad form to use a link as your sole argument. It would be one thing if you had an argument and used the link as a reference. You didnâ??t your sole argument has been the web link.

Actually none of your references dealt with the possibility of procurator instead they dealt only with him being governor. You do know they werenâ??t the same right?

Yes I know he was. He was leading a campaign near the border of Syria, which I linked to and the statement was that he could have been a procurator of Syria at that time

Did you actually read my statement I said â??before he was governorâ??. Now you are implying that my argument has been that he never was governor, but instead he was only a procurator. Please show me where I stated that? This conversation with you is painful. Not because you are proving anything, but because you seem set to ignore or try to actually understand what I am writing.

It isnâ??t reconciling the Bible or refuting it, it is merely showing that your web link is incomplete. How is it an argument against it? If Luke should be translated
"This census was the first before that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syriaâ??
(Which by the way the word for governor that Luke used is also used for King, governor, Cesar, procurator and just about anyone who held a title of authority.)
which was put forth by the scholar F.M. Heichelheim.

[quote]
It was a stupid statement to make? Your acting as though his entire argument was predicated on this passing statement. He even admits in the series that taking the dec 25 date seriously is stupid. Something worth noting, parts 2-4 were all direct responses to Christians who in turn where responding to the original video… what are you even talking about?

I don’t think you fully comprehend the information being passed around here. [/quote]
I understand it. It is an old argument that was around even when Calvin was alive.
You act as if this is a sealed shut up case. This presents a problem for which there are plausible answers to it. Not everyone accepts those answers, but to act as though youâ??ve proven anything is false. The only thing it does is call into question the fallibility of the Bible.

Now unless you can prove Quirinius was not procurator during that time or that he wasnâ??t leading the census, then I would say this is done. At this point all you or the guy in the video did was cast doubt on that. That is great, people doubted Pilate being a real person up until about thirty years ago. History has a way of revealing the truth to us if we give it time.

657

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I did not brush over the points in the video because I did not and will not watch it. I have seen enough atheist propaganda in my life I know how you lot think. I am just waiting for you to use the terms “sky fairy” and ‘flying spaghetti monster’ to complete the stereotype.

I didn’t make any of those points, hat’s the problem. I simply stated that the bible is a collection of books. I further said that they aren’t books of history or science, so the point is moot. There are facts in the bible, but it is not a book of facts. It’s a book of truth. You can mock the stories all you want, it won’t change what they are. The bible uses many methods by which to get it’s points across and some are even literal.

The newest parts of the Bible are about 1900 years old. So, how many ancient texts do you poor over and study of the same age? How does their temporal accuracy stack up to the bible’s?[/quote]

The problem, Pat, is that so many christians claim the bible to be 100% literal, factual, and historically and scientifically accurate.

When it’s proven (time and time and time again) to be factually impossible, illogical, or historically inaccurate, the christians throw up more nonsense bullshit.

If christians would admit the bible to be parables, metaphores, allegories, etc, there would be much less conflict. But, alas, they do not.

Want to pick fights? Start with the christians who claim every word of the bible is 100% literal truth. Then, maybe us mean ol’ atheists will stop calling your God “Sky Wizard” (even though he’s a man with supernatural powers who lives up in the sky).[/quote]

God is a man? I need to read the Bible more…[/quote]

Yep. The part where it says God created man in his image kinda gives it away. Actually, all the times God is refered to as “he” implies God to be a man, not to mention all the times God is said to have human parts (feet, hands, the ability to sit).

And God is said to live in Heaven, which always always always is up in the sky. Always.

Please stop responding with “Who is Sky Wizard?” as though you’re not aware its a reference to the Christian concept of God.

658

[quote]pat wrote:

God doesn’t live in the sky.[/quote]

“As the Heavens are above the Earth, my ways are above your ways and my thoughts are above your thoughts.”

Please dont pretend Heaven being up in the sky is a new idea.

659

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

God doesn’t live in the sky.[/quote]

“As the Heavens are above the Earth, my ways are above your ways and my thoughts are above your thoughts.”

Please dont pretend Heaven being up in the sky is a new idea.[/quote]This is one of those times when taking the bible as being purely literal, at the etymological level, a verse at a time, is like really wrong. Taken as a whole the bible does not teach that heaven is somewhere between alpha centauri and the horse head nebula.

660

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I did not brush over the points in the video because I did not and will not watch it. I have seen enough atheist propaganda in my life I know how you lot think. I am just waiting for you to use the terms “sky fairy” and ‘flying spaghetti monster’ to complete the stereotype.

I didn’t make any of those points, hat’s the problem. I simply stated that the bible is a collection of books. I further said that they aren’t books of history or science, so the point is moot. There are facts in the bible, but it is not a book of facts. It’s a book of truth. You can mock the stories all you want, it won’t change what they are. The bible uses many methods by which to get it’s points across and some are even literal.

The newest parts of the Bible are about 1900 years old. So, how many ancient texts do you poor over and study of the same age? How does their temporal accuracy stack up to the bible’s?[/quote]

The problem, Pat, is that so many christians claim the bible to be 100% literal, factual, and historically and scientifically accurate.

When it’s proven (time and time and time again) to be factually impossible, illogical, or historically inaccurate, the christians throw up more nonsense bullshit.

If christians would admit the bible to be parables, metaphores, allegories, etc, there would be much less conflict. But, alas, they do not.

Want to pick fights? Start with the christians who claim every word of the bible is 100% literal truth. Then, maybe us mean ol’ atheists will stop calling your God “Sky Wizard” (even though he’s a man with supernatural powers who lives up in the sky).[/quote]

God is a man? I need to read the Bible more…[/quote]

Yep. The part where it says God created man in his image kinda gives it away. Actually, all the times God is refered to as “he” implies God to be a man, not to mention all the times God is said to have human parts (feet, hands, the ability to sit).
[/quote]

Man is created in God’s image, not the other way around. All of his creation is in His image, man is just more created in His image.

And, the use of “He” is because of the persons of God, God is masculine in nature, therefore we use He, like you call a car a “she” it doesn’t mean the car is a woman, it means that we give cars a feminine nature. However, God’s nature is not from man, he revealed it as He, God is masculine, humans are feminine.

Human perspective, Hell is down, Heaven is up. God reigns in Heaven and Earth. The universe is a small part of God’s being.

[quote]
Please stop responding with “Who is Sky Wizard?” as though you’re not aware its a reference to the Christian concept of God. [/quote]

It has no resemblance to the Christian concept of God. Sorry, if you knew Christian theology you would know that.

I’m trying to help you out in your argument, by insulting someone’s argument you’re not going to get them to move. You’re putting them in the defensive, and they’ll deny you all day long no matter if they think you’re right or not.

Being the ignorant person: Ask questions, play the part of student, not war lord.
At least have or pretend to have respect for their beliefs and be interested in their beliefs. You can only mount a offense against something if you know what it is you’re fighting.
Don’t act arrogant, like you’re smarter than them.
Use the questions to tie them up in their own contradictions, and make sure they give you a thorough answer not a half baked answer.
If you don’t know how to retort, tell them you’re unsure and you’ll get back to them later.

By insulting them you’ll only attract outsiders who have the “too cool for school” mentality and want to rebel against something. You’re not going to convince anyone of the truth that you’re talking about them if you put them in the defensive.