PDA

View Full Version : Bible contradictions



GhostAnime
19th June 2008, 11:04 PM
yeah, this is a continued topic from the abraham god thread. since the tangent won't stop anytime soon, we'll have to create a new topic for it.

anyway, pikablu, what the heck do you mean by 'he was less than god at the time'?

as far as i know, jesus said both lines while he was mortal, so that point's automatically dismissed.


2. Paul in Romans is writing to a group of Christians, unlike Jeremiah, and Exodus, written to the Jews, who were being warned to "stay in line."this is just a silly way of justifying a contradiction.


1. God is good to all
2. God has mercy
3. In Jeremiah, God was speaking in judgment
4. When God says, "nor have mercy" He is referring to those that He will judge
5. All people have a chance to come to God, but those who do not in Jer. 13:14 will be judged harshly, for they had their chance
it doesn't even matter if god was speaking in judgment or not. if he wasn't going to show mercy during judgment, he would have specified that.

actually, if you're a merciful god at all, you actually DO show mercy to even bad people. i mean, who else would you show mercy to? the ones who obeyed?

Mr. Mudkip
19th June 2008, 11:13 PM
yeah, this is a continued topic from the abraham god thread. since the tangent won't stop anytime soon, we'll have to create a new topic for it.
actually, if you're a merciful god at all, you actually DO show mercy to even bad people. i mean, who else would you show mercy to? the ones who obeyed? Everyone sinned. We Christians were also condemned to hell, but were saved through him, that is his mercy. But we will still be judged for our earthly conduct. The punishment of sin is death, but we are saved. If you ran into the street when you were little and your mom pulled you back to avoid being hit by a car she saved you from death, but she will still scold you for carelessness.
there's your answer, another mom analogy lol.

GhostAnime
19th June 2008, 11:25 PM
the difference there is that my mom would never send me to eternal damnation (or timeout forever).

Poliwag2
20th June 2008, 12:01 AM
I doubt many intelligent Christians choose to interpret the Bible literally. Therefore, this is a mistaken approach for opponents to Christianity. Think of it more as a guideline, rather than law.

GhostAnime
20th June 2008, 12:19 AM
even as a guideline it has to make logical sense.

Mr. Mudkip
20th June 2008, 12:24 AM
the difference there is that my mom would never send me to eternal damnation (or timeout forever).

Your mom could have not grabbed you, or you could have avoided her, just like God tries to save you but you may avoid him. and in example
death=hell
mom=God
Grabbing for child=trying to save you from hell

So if your mom succedes in saving you she still scolds you.
If God saves you he will judge you for sins.

It's exactly the same only less severe in case No. 1

Kiyohime
20th June 2008, 12:33 AM
The Bible was written in a time so long ago that today's society seems alien in comparison. So in this time and day, some things from the bible are obsolete, I suppose.

But I can't argue with the doctrine to "love thy neighbor." Ironically, that seems to be the ONE thing that is almost universally ignored, nowadays.

GhostAnime
20th June 2008, 12:34 AM
but mom didn't create the car like god did. he could have not created hell.

but this is irrelevant; we're talking about mercy.

pikablue
20th June 2008, 12:35 AM
bible contradictions? i got one:D
dont quote me on this, but i swear there was a line in the bible about worshipping something other than the christian god, with a quote that goes something like "i am a jealous god". Isn't jealousy (envy) a deadly sin? :S

Mr. Mudkip
20th June 2008, 12:48 AM
bible contradictions? i got one:D
dont quote me on this, but i swear there was a line in the bible about worshipping something other than the christian god, with a quote that goes something like "i am a jealous god". Isn't jealousy (envy) a deadly sin? :S

He wants you to worship him, not a toothbrush or money or a log that could've been fire wood.
He's not actually jealous, a lot of things in the bible were put into terminology for the people of that day to understand it. Like when it talks about hell and flames, people don't get what an absence from God (which is what hell is, and mind you the Devil isn't happy there, he's suffering too.) the flames are just an allusion to what it is like, (only hell is much worse) because people understood how it felt when you got a burn and how it would feel to be constantly burning.

Pokelover33
20th June 2008, 3:33 AM
bible contradictions? i got one:D
dont quote me on this, but i swear there was a line in the bible about worshipping something other than the christian god, with a quote that goes something like "i am a jealous god". Isn't jealousy (envy) a deadly sin? :S

Envy is a deadly sin, but God is telling you not to worship anything but him, no idoles, no false gods, just the one true God.

Carlisle
20th June 2008, 3:56 AM
Envy is a deadly sin, but God is telling you not to worship anything but him, no idoles, no false gods, just the one true God.
Goodness, God is rather selfish, isn't he?

Mr. Mudkip
20th June 2008, 4:31 AM
Goodness, God is rather selfish, isn't he?

Not really. Otherwise he wouldn't have made us.
You are very anti-christian aren't you.

K Brown
20th June 2008, 9:21 AM
God is rather selfish, isn't he? Well, annyone who fails to worship him in the way he wants will be tortured forever.

Mr Mudkip: I fail to see how that makes him less selfish. Making humans whose purpouse is to worship reduces humanity to nothing more that a canned applause. And God to a selfish and insecure deity who can go on without someone telling him how good he is.

ImJessieTR
20th June 2008, 1:34 PM
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."

This is what is poorly understood (aka: grammar): God is not saying other gods are false or they don't exist, He's only saying that in prayer He wants to be first in line. True monotheism wasn't invented in Judaism until the Babylonian exile.

Strants
20th June 2008, 10:07 PM
True monotheism wasn't invented in Judaism until the Babylonian exile. If you talk to a Jew or Muslim, they may say that Christianity is a polytheism because of the trinity.

Not really. Otherwise he wouldn't have made us. So, if I have a child, but demand that (s)he licks my boots clean every night, makes my dinner, etc., I am kind just becuase I created him/her? If I create sentinint life, does that mean they are lesser than me, and I can demand anything from them?

HyenaHaze
21st June 2008, 12:59 AM
Oh wow Strants, that's an excelent point...

In the bible, there are several laws in the old testament that people nowdays tend to simply ignore. You're not supposed to eat things with cloven hooves (pigs, etc), wear clothing that consists of more than one material (cotton and wool, for example), not supposed to grow two different crops in the same field, and not supposed to go anywhere near a woman on her period.

Some of the laws in the bible were simply barbaric, and we can't call them metaphorical, because they were practiced. Examples: If a son is disrespectful, you can stone him to death.
If you raid a village you are allowed to take the women as wives. (Rape and slavery, anyone?)
Eye for an eye unless you're a slave, then it's basically death penalty for anything you do.

Hive Mind
21st June 2008, 1:28 AM
Hmmm, so we get in trouble for what our ancestors did? Seems pretty unfair. And if you say that everyone sins, it's because if raised by an average person, it's pretty much unavoidable. If there was a kid raised by someone like Mother Teresa, you probably wouldn't sin at all. Anyone else, and it's like what I said before. Then, you'd counter it by saying something utterly desperate like "Oh, when you are born you give pain to your mother, so you sin," Not your fault, anyway. People that believe in God are so eager to patch up holes in their religion by saying something completely contradictory then persistently saying it's true and/or by saying something that is conveniently unable to be proven. Being a part of a religion usually makes you completely intolerant of ones without. Don't try to force your ideas on us. It just makes you look much more despondent.

Hive Mind
21st June 2008, 1:29 AM
Hmmm, so we get in trouble for what our ancestors did? Seems pretty unfair. And if you say that everyone sins, it's because if raised by an average person, it's pretty much unavoidable. If there was a kid raised by someone like Mother Teresa, you probably wouldn't sin at all. Anyone else, and it's like what I said before. Then, you'd counter it by saying something utterly desperate like "Oh, when you are born you give pain to your mother, so you sin," Not your fault, anyway. People that believe in God are so eager to patch up holes in their religion by saying something completely contradictory then persistently saying it's true and/or by saying something that is conveniently unable to be proven. Being a part of a religion usually makes you completely intolerant of ones without. Don't try to force your ideas on us. It just makes you look much more despondent.

Ethan
21st June 2008, 3:54 PM
K Brown, want to have another go? =)



Mr Mudkip: I fail to see how that makes him less selfish. Making humans whose purpouse is to worship reduces humanity to nothing more that a canned applause. And God to a selfish and insecure deity who can go on without someone telling him how good he is.

Now I wouldn't say that. You can argue that your meaning is reduced if your given any sort of fixed purpose. It is always typical of man to want to lead his own way and control his own destiny. Personally I think it would be quite flattering that I was created it glorify an all powerful God...but let's move beyond looking glasses.


So, if I have a child, but demand that (s)he licks my boots clean every night, makes my dinner, etc., I am kind just becuase I created him/her? If I create sentinint life, does that mean they are lesser than me, and I can demand anything from them?

Now I think you know this isn't the sturdiest of arguments. Please link the two properly.



Oh wow Strants, that's an excelent point...

Mhmm.


In the bible, there are several laws in the old testament that people nowdays tend to simply ignore. You're not supposed to eat things with cloven hooves (pigs, etc), wear clothing that consists of more than one material (cotton and wool, for example), not supposed to grow two different crops in the same field, and not supposed to go anywhere near a woman on her period.

Did you ever think that perhaps that's why it's called the old testament?


Some of the laws in the bible were simply barbaric, and we can't call them metaphorical, because they were practiced. Examples: If a son is disrespectful, you can stone him to death.
If you raid a village you are allowed to take the women as wives. (Rape and slavery, anyone?)
Eye for an eye unless you're a slave, then it's basically death penalty for anything you do.

In a biblical debate, unless you can arm yourself with scripture, your points is virtually null.


I doubt many intelligent Christians choose to interpret the Bible literally. Therefore, this is a mistaken approach for opponents to Christianity. Think of it more as a guideline, rather than law.

Well said.

Hero
21st June 2008, 5:35 PM
What happened to pre-Bible people ? If early cavemen "sinned" did they go to hell, despite their complete lack of knowledge of God ? Seems pretty unfair to me.
And no Adam and Eve **** please. In this day and age creationism is about as likely to be right as Harold Shipman being elected the next Prime Minister.

Ethan
21st June 2008, 5:47 PM
What happened to pre-Bible people ? If early cavemen "sinned" did they go to hell, despite their complete lack of knowledge of God ? Seems pretty unfair to me.
And no Adam and Eve **** please. In this day and age creationism is about as likely to be right as Harold Shipman being elected the next Prime Minister.

I doubt it. It would be similar to animals. Beings with no understanding or exposure of good and evil can't be judged.

GhostAnime
21st June 2008, 7:29 PM
but how do you know god won't judge them? nothing in the bible says that.

.. heck, the bible doesn't even MENTION them. i wonder why.

Ethan
21st June 2008, 7:54 PM
but how do you know god won't judge them? nothing in the bible says that.

.. heck, the bible doesn't even MENTION them. i wonder why.


I don't. I was making an educated guess.

HyenaHaze
21st June 2008, 7:58 PM
@ Babylon- Old testament, shmold testament. Sacrifice, slavery, and rape were practiced in the new testament as well. (And yes, I arm myself with scriptures in bible debates so the fundamentalists don't whine.)

GhostAnime
21st June 2008, 8:00 PM
well the guess is pretty logical, i'll admit; but that's the thing, it's logical!

HyenaHaze
21st June 2008, 8:00 PM
@ Babylon- Old testament, shmold testament. Sacrifice, slavery, and rape were practiced in the new testament as well. (And yes, I arm myself with scriptures in bible debates so the fundamentalists don't whine.)

Ethan
21st June 2008, 8:04 PM
@ Babylon- Old testament, shmold testament. Sacrifice, slavery, and rape were practiced in the new testament as well. (And yes, I arm myself with scriptures in bible debates so the fundamentalists don't whine.)

Funny thing is, you still haven't given any scriptures.

HyenaHaze
21st June 2008, 8:07 PM
Funny thing is, you still haven't given any scriptures.

That's because I don't a bible handy.
Cha-whip.

GhostAnime
21st June 2008, 8:09 PM
biblegateway.com best place ever.

Ethan
21st June 2008, 8:10 PM
That's because I don't a bible handy.
Cha-whip.

Then don't expect anyone to take your claims seriously.

Also:

http://www.google.com/

You can find scriptures with it. Amazing isn't it?

Edit: What GA said.

HyenaHaze
21st June 2008, 8:12 PM
Ah, fine then. I'm searchin. (*mutter mutter refrence mutter*)
Edit:
Exodus 21:22 and 26
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

Compansate for the tooth or eye means paying it off, not sacrificing your own eye. Therefore, slaves < everyone else.

Leviticus 19
19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Oops, too late.

I have to go feed horses now, so I won't be able to read the replies for a while.

Fire Trainer128
21st June 2008, 8:36 PM
What happened to pre-Bible people ? If early cavemen "sinned" did they go to hell, despite their complete lack of knowledge of God ? Seems pretty unfair to me.
And no Adam and Eve **** please. In this day and age creationism is about as likely to be right as Harold Shipman being elected the next Prime Minister.

Cavemen didn't exist. Adam and Eve were the first two people to exist.

Carlisle
21st June 2008, 8:39 PM
Cavemen didn't exist. Adam and Eve were the first two people to exist.
OOH! I just LOVE all this scientific evidence you have! Dear god, I can't handle it!

And actually, it was Adam and Steve. -snickers-

GhostAnime
21st June 2008, 8:45 PM
Cavemen didn't exist. Adam and Eve were the first two people to exist.welcome your two new biggest enemies: logic and science.

Ethan
21st June 2008, 8:54 PM
Exodus 21:22 and 26
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.


26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.


These were laws directly overrides by Jesus Christ in the New testament.

Matthew Chapter 5


38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.



Compansate for the tooth or eye means paying it off, not sacrificing your own eye. Therefore, slaves < everyone else.


Mind explaining that better?


Leviticus 19
19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

What's so wrong about these laws? Secondly you ignored my point altogether. I said that most these laws we can dismiss because of the introduction of the new testament and the teaching of Jesus. Your reply was "Old testament, smold testament." yet instead of providing verses from the new, you provide verses from the old.

Mr. Mudkip
21st June 2008, 11:36 PM
Leviticus 19
19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Oops, too late.

I have to go feed horses now, so I won't be able to read the replies for a while.

Why did you even post that?

Fire Trainer128
22nd June 2008, 12:56 AM
welcome your two new biggest enemies: logic and science.

Really? Lets see your proof that cavemen or evolution exist then.

GhostAnime
22nd June 2008, 1:02 AM
evidence for macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

here (http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg) are pictures of our skull over time.

Carlisle
22nd June 2008, 1:24 AM
Really? Lets see your proof that cavemen or evolution exist then.
Lets see your proof of Adam and Eve. Outside of the Bible.

Fire Trainer128
22nd June 2008, 1:31 AM
http://www.macroevolution.org/siteindex.html

And the above link is evidence that macroevolution is false.

Fire Trainer128
22nd June 2008, 1:40 AM
Lets see your proof of Adam and Eve. Outside of the Bible.

Believing Adam and Eve were the first humans takes faith to believe, so I can't really back that up outside the Bible. http://unasked.com/Question5023.htm But this link is what I will use to back up my claim that cavemen didn't exist.

GhostAnime
22nd June 2008, 1:49 AM
your source is just a source that shows a bunch of other questionable sources that are dead.

and wtf your second source is worse than wikipedia. now you're throwing a random answer from a guy to us?

Fire Trainer128
22nd June 2008, 2:07 AM
My mistake, didn't check the links, I'll search for another form of evidence then.

GhostAnime
22nd June 2008, 2:16 AM
consider a few things first.. you can get the internet to say anything you want, so make sure it's credible.

Mr. Mudkip
23rd June 2008, 12:13 AM
lol, carlisle, Mc Cain is Christian.

Carlisle
23rd June 2008, 12:16 AM
lol, carlisle, Mc Cain is Christian.
What's your point?

Mr. Mudkip
23rd June 2008, 12:35 AM
What's your point?

Well, now you change your sig... but you are so anti-christian, but you'll vote for a Christian as president? (if you could vote.)

GhostAnime
23rd June 2008, 12:58 AM
all presidents claim to be christian. simply because they are christian doesn't mean their policies have anything to do with it.

in other words, it doesn't matter.

Laser Shuckle
23rd June 2008, 10:00 AM
tell me, how do we have a conscience?

why is killing another person wrong? why do we feel bad for doing wrong things, and what makes them wrong?

did morals just evolve? how can the complicated building blocks of like just magically appear?

either way, no one was around to know. just do what you think is morally right and hope for the best. if you want to have faith in a god, then thats not the wrong opinion because it hasn't been proven false, and neither has evolution or belief in it. debating about this isn't gonna lead anywhere because the fact is none of you are gonna prove either is false unless jesus himself comes back or something serious like that.

ImJessieTR
23rd June 2008, 12:11 PM
did morals just evolve? how can the complicated building blocks of like just magically appear?

either way, no one was around to know.
You can still check ancient laws for an idea of how moral ideals changed over time.

-=TrenchCoat=-
26th June 2008, 6:30 PM
tell me, how do we have a conscience?

why is killing another person wrong? why do we feel bad for doing wrong things, and what makes them wrong?

did morals just evolve? how can the complicated building blocks of like just magically appear?


Again, ancient laws.(like posted above)

But another thing is, some people don't feel bad for doing wrong things simply because in their mind they don't think they're wrong. If a homeless boy has not been taught it is wrong to steal, he is probably going to steal, whether it is required to survive or not.

thunderblade12
27th June 2008, 8:47 AM
The Bible was written in a time so long ago that today's society seems alien in comparison. So in this time and day, some things from the bible are obsolete, I suppose.

But I can't argue with the doctrine to "love thy neighbor." Ironically, that seems to be the ONE thing that is almost universally ignored, nowadays.

Yeah thats true, I guess people think that comandment wasn't as important as the others and could be easily overlooked, seems kind of hypocritical.

Pikablu_the_Pokemaster
4th July 2008, 2:20 PM
either way, no one was around to know.

Well then we aren't around now and we aren't in the debate forum on Sppf.

There were people back then, just as there are now.


just do what you think is morally right and hope for the best.

Its not a hope in the sense you are speaking of, it is a knowing hope, that we know will happen.


debating about this isn't gonna lead anywhere because the fact is none of you are gonna prove either is false unless jesus himself comes back or something serious like that.

There are multiple proofs for the Bible and Jesus

GhostAnime
4th July 2008, 2:35 PM
Well then we aren't around now and we aren't in the debate forum on Sppf.

There were people back then, just as there are now.
irrelevant. we can leave off plenty of things. the people back then barely left off anything.. especially the ones in the bible.


There are multiple proofs for the Bible and Jesus
let's see it.

Pikablu_the_Pokemaster
6th July 2008, 6:18 PM
irrelevant. we can leave off plenty of things. the people back then barely left off anything.. especially the ones in the bible.

Irrelivant to what? It was perfectly relevant to what he said. He said "either way, no one was around to know" when there were in fact people to know.


let's see it.

Archeological Evidence for the Bible (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html) (from a too-biased-for-you site)
Extra-Biblical Sources that speak of the same history (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html) (from the same site)

Extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus and other people and things of the New Testament (http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm) (from a 'more neutral' site)

GhostAnime
6th July 2008, 6:47 PM
He said "either way, no one was around to know" when there were in fact people to know.
the evidence for these people?




Archeological Evidence for the Bible (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html) (from a too-biased-for-you site)
Extra-Biblical Sources that speak of the same history (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html) (from the same site)

Extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus and other people and things of the New Testament (http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm) (from a 'more neutral' site)
what a bunch of ridiculous evidence. nevermind how the first two have already proven to be not credible but even if we assume it is a credible source it isn't evidence for anything but the people who wrote the bible knew their surroundings. they could have easily lied about the actual STORY.

and hearsays isn't proof for the neutral one.

now, can you prove jews were in egypt? can you even prove there was a great flood? these are the things you'd have to do to prove the bible is even legitimate.

Pikablu_the_Pokemaster
6th July 2008, 7:14 PM
the evidence for these people?

The evidence that you exist and are debating me on Sppf?


what a bunch of ridiculous evidence. nevermind how the first two have already proven to be not credible

They are just as credible as your sources.


but even if we assume it is a credible source it isn't evidence for anything but the people who wrote the bible knew their surroundings.

How the heck would the idea that they knew their surroundings prove anything? (I really feel like screaming 'idiot!' right now)


they could have easily lied about the actual STORY.

As science builds on itself, the first fact that sparked physics could've been wrong.


and hearsays isn't proof for the neutral one.

That sentence makes little sense. Hearsay is a synonym for gossip, and saying 'and gossip isn't proof for the neutral one' makes little sense.



now, can you prove jews were in egypt? can you even prove there was a great flood? these are the things you'd have to do to prove the bible is even legitimate.

Its not much, but here (http://www.askmoses.com/article/241,612/Is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-Jews-being-in-Egypt.html) is some evidence of the Jews being in Egypt. And don't say anything about the traditional evidence.

This (http://www.allaboutcreation.org/great-flood-faq.htm), though I would not like it to be, is a very neutral site, that gives some facts that could be either for the flood, or just fact with possible things, that you might not know about, GhostAnime, called alternatives.

ImJessieTR
6th July 2008, 8:17 PM
You have a very interesting idea of what constitutes "neutral." All your sites are from Christian sites. The "more neutral" site merely acknowledges what "conventionalists" say. I wonder why science is considered "convention", since the biblical interpretation has been around a lot longer.

But, for the sake of it....

First 2 sources. Yes, there are those who say certain people never existed. However, the people and places mentioned only "proves" ... that they were a part of the story. There are stories that seem more factual ... like the Persian invasion of Babylon ... but some stories are just that. Proving Cyrus showed up and knocked off the Babylonians doesn't also tell us that Lot's wife turned to salt, that dragons existed, etc. There's a difference in finding a text outside the bible that mentions the House of David or the House of Nimshi (both discovered at least) and saying that it's proven David could out-Springer Jerry or other people were as good or as bad as mentioned. There are kings who are vilified in the bible for not sucking up to the priests ... but history shows they were decent administrators. There are also kings who were praised to the skies for loyalty to Yahweh ... and couldn't stop Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. They've finally published a text written on stone that talks about Gabriel promising a Messiah that he will die and be resurrected in three days ... before Jesus was born. You can take that 2 ways ... it's a prophecy ... or it was inserted into the story of Jesus to show that He "fit the prophecies". Take your pick.

Third source: most of it concerns Christianity or Christians, not Jesus. Saying He had followers who called Him Christ and saying He's Christ are two different things. It then goes into some story about an eclipse and an earthquake ... then destroys any credibility that passage had by noting you can't have a full moon and a solar eclipse at the same time. Then, again with mentioning Christians more than Christ, Lucian notes with some disdain that Christians worshipped Christ, with a tone of voice that suggests that many thought Christians silly for worshipping some common human (though, considering his Greek background with its soap-opera pantheon, seems a tad hypocritical).

Fourth source (AskMoses, for those keeping count): this is not a scholarly article by any stretch of the imagination. It's only an unsubstantiated blurb.
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/timelines/topics/slavery.htm

[5] There is no Egyptian evidence that the Hebrews sojourned in Egypt during the New Kingdom. But, being a semi-nomadic people, they would have been likely to migrate towards the Nile during times of prolonged drought in Canaan. Being forced to do corvée work might have looked very much like slavery to wandering nomads used to few restrictions. The Egyptian authorities did not take kindly to what they considered corvée dodging.
Although slavery existed, many workers' sites dug up have shown inventories and other records that give a picture of HIRED WORKERS who worked there.

Last source: how is this neutral? Once you get past the first page, it dismisses those "alternatives" other than the biblical story. On the Flood, page 2, it notes that the Grand Canyon and other canyons are proof of the Flood. I don't care how many degrees this guy says he has ... if he doesn't understand how to tell a floodplain from a canyon ... he must have printed off those degrees himself on his own printer.

GhostAnime
6th July 2008, 8:20 PM
thank you jessie. i wasn't going to waddle through that.

Pikablu_the_Pokemaster
6th July 2008, 9:05 PM
dragons existed,

Don't quote me on this, but aren't dragons only mentioned in the apocrypha?


then destroys any credibility that passage had by noting you can't have a full moon and a solar eclipse at the same time

(I was again wanting to scream idiot at that point) What makes a full solar eclipse is a full moon positioned like this:
/
Sun ------Light Rays------- Moon (Light scatters, earth is blocked by moon) Earth
\

The moon being a full moon.


Fourth source (AskMoses, for those keeping count): this is not a scholarly article by any stretch of the imagination. It's only an unsubstantiated blurb.

Yes, I know AskMoses is a hardly credible source.


how is this neutral?

Its almost completely neutral because it gives both sides of the argument and doesn't favor one much over the other (but it does obviously favor the Bible)


Last source: how is this neutral? Once you get past the first page, it dismisses those "alternatives" other than the biblical story. On the Flood, page 2, it notes that the Grand Canyon and other canyons are proof of the Flood. I don't care how many degrees this guy says he has ... if he doesn't understand how to tell a floodplain from a canyon ... he must have printed off those degrees himself on his own printer.

Its obvious that you haven't thought about it much. Tons of pounds of pressure on some ground could depress it quite much. Its similar to the scientific hypothesis that water eroded it, but in a shorter period with more water.

I know that this isn't the best example, but floodplain from a canyon, is somewhat similar to in topology in which a doughnut can be homeomorphed into a coffee cup and back again.

The other things I'm not going to address because they actually make sense. (especially next to GhostAnime's) and are decent.

ImJessieTR
6th July 2008, 11:25 PM
Don't quote me on this, but aren't dragons only mentioned in the apocrypha?
I only meant it as a catch-all of all references of fantastical creatures.



(I was again wanting to scream idiot at that point) What makes a full solar eclipse is a full moon positioned like this:
/
Sun ------Light Rays------- Moon (Light scatters, earth is blocked by moon) Earth
\

The moon being a full moon.
You cannot have a full moon and a solar eclipse at the same time. A full moon is a moon where the whole surface facing the earth is illuminated ... which cannot happen during a solar eclipse, since the earth-side is completely dark.
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/thallcomp.html (an interesting, though long, look at the whole story)
The only real issues I have are that putting a lot of weight on an author we have no copies of seems academically irresponsible and calling an event supernatural because the facts don't seem to add up seems rather lazy. I don't see where someone did the math. Astronomers can simulate astrological records to come up with sky views that are centuries or millennia old ... so it shouldn't be too hard (though it'd eat up some computer time) to do the math and see whether or not there was an eclipse around that time. Another thing, is that 32AD seems awfully convenient. Jesus is said to die "around 30". That's not helpful at all, especially considering our calendar is 3-7 years off (for instance, a supernova or something occurred in 7BC while Herod dies in 4BC).
http://english.pravda.ru/science/tech/16-05-2003/2819-christ-0
According to some calculations, modern scientists go more for 33 AD. So, the question becomes ... where did Thallus get 32AD?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990QJRAS..31...53S
Okay, this is another long article. Long story short, "In summary, at no time during the eclipse would even a serious and experienced observer in Jerusalem have realized that an eclipse was occurring (page 65)." Though, I thought we were talking about a solar eclipse, not a lunar one.


Its almost completely neutral because it gives both sides of the argument and doesn't favor one much over the other (but it does obviously favor the Bible)
It can't be neutral just because they mention alternatives on page one and then goes on to denounce them all on every subsequent page. You're either neutral or you're not. A neutral source would elaborate on all claims and let the reader decide ... not just say "Well, the bible's right, duh."



Its obvious that you haven't thought about it much. Tons of pounds of pressure on some ground could depress it quite much. Its similar to the scientific hypothesis that water eroded it, but in a shorter period with more water.
http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm
A river must create a canyon. A flood, particularly a big one, cannot. Take an area of dirt. Divide the area in two. On one half, use a garden hose at a close angle or even at the ground level to mimic a river. On the other, use a bucket of water to simulate a flood. If you can get the flood simulation to create a mini-canyon ... I'll concede. Every flood picture I've ever seen (go look up that tsunami thing) shows the aftermath to be a leveling of the ground, with undulating "waves" of dirt and mud and debris. It does not create canyons. Like I said, I question the "scientist's" credibility if he doesn't know the difference. I want to see experimental or even real-live pictures/footage of such an event before I'll even consider it.

Carlisle
7th July 2008, 12:33 AM
Well, now you change your sig... but you are so anti-christian, but you'll vote for a Christian as president? (if you could vote.)
My religious views don't matter in this.

All people who run for president that actually have a shot are Christian. It doesn't matter. Besides, after a month or so I'm off to supporting Obama officially and firmly after he and Hillary have campaigned together. The stakes are just too high to elect a third George Bush.

Hive Mind
7th July 2008, 6:22 PM
Well, someone is going to be president, and IIRC they are all Christian.

Mr. Mudkip
7th July 2008, 6:50 PM
let's see it.

Uhh... remember my thing of the dead sea scrolls? also recently (in the past 3 or so years) They uncovered the washing basin where Jesus healed the blind man, which was previously believed to be fake. (I forget the name though :( )

And sorry for leaving you hanging lately Pikablu. After typing about 7 really good long posts, and having them not post and be lost I got really P!ssed and needed a break.