Nerdfighters

This is getting to be a serious pain, since underneath each of your posts there is no way for me to reply. Therefore to address one of your points. You claim the Bible must be true because of a,b,c, etc. But the things you list are all subjective, not empircial evidence. You claim it must be true because of the way it was written. Again, people did write fiction at that time. And even if they didn't simply because the methodology of one particular piece of writing seems "real" does not necessarily make it factual. You claim it should be true because of how many people believe it or in your terms "its impact". While Islam and Hinduism, etc, have many followers and each has made quite a large impact and this does not make any of those religions true. You need to address the contradictions: Why are all the gospels very different, one has Jesus appearing to 12, one to 11, one to 10. One has Jesus telling them to go to Galilee, in the other Jesus tells them to stay and not go anywhere. These are serious discrepancies within the Gospels.

Steping out of the mythology for a moment. The Bible's version of creation, etc. Does not account for the fact of evolution and the geologic column with invertebrates on the bottom and Homo Sapiens on the top. Creation story is utterly diametrically opposed to these facts.

Views: 604

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I certainly don't mind your interjections, but my entire point revolves around the fact that relativity IS and HAS been proven. There is NO proof of anything in the Bible haven't existed in any divine way whatsoever. Therefore his analogy was entirely fallacous and without merit. Relativity is proven out through the maths which any lay person can find and calculate for oneself, that is, one does not have to take someone else's word for it.

I suppose we'll leave it there. Even though the math supports relativity theory. And I don't believe in the Bible or God not just for complete lack of evidence (not bias) but complete evidence against it. Such as, evolution, meteors carrying amino acids and DNA componets, background radiation that points to the big bang, and the fact that one for one we contain the same elements as a supernova fusion. This kind of empirical evidence does not exist for the divity of Jesus or even the existence of a God at all.

Question, how does evolution contradict the Bible? How does the Big Bang contradict the Bible? How does the fact that all of our molecules once part of a star somehow contradict any of what the Bible says?

Evolution strickly contradicts the Bible because we know we didn't start with Adam and Eve! LIkewise the fact that we are made of the same elements as a supernova explains where we came from. Not God but from the death of a giant star. These are the explicit contradictions between truth and the Bible.

1) I’ve yet to see examples of “exalted prose” in Genesis where God created X then created Y that is merely a statement of supposed occurrences. 2) If it is only prose then perhaps it never really happened that way at all just as Romeo and Juliet never really happened.



1. You may not, but there are peer reviewed scholars that disagree

2. The fact that it is prose does not disprove its truth. Many cultures record events like that.

All you are saying here is that because you wish not to conform to a six twenty-four hour day creation you are choosing to interpret what you’ve claimed can be interpreted either way as meaning an age. That is only your interpretation, not evidentiary from the text.



I have provided evidence for an alternative reading, but since you have not bothered to read it, I will provide it again

The first thing one notices when looking at Genesis 1 is the unusual construction surrounding the words morning and evening together with day. This combination is very rare, occurring only ten times in the Old Testament, six of which, of course, are in the Genesis creation account. The remaining four verses (NASB) are listed below:

  1. "This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20)
  2. Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15)
  3. "For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4)
  4. "And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26)

The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years.

However, none of these verses have the form which is seen in the Genesis account. Let's look at the form of these "evenings and mornings:"

  • And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5)
  • And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8)
  • And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Genesis 1:13)
  • And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:19)
  • And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:23)
  • And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)

The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days.

How would God have changed the text if He intended it to indicate 24 hour days? If God were to have created in 24 hour days, I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did 'x' in the morning" and "God did 'y' in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day." So, the order indicates the end (evening) of one day is followed by the dawning (morning) of the next day. In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day (Genesis 2:4) (2). This verse indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.


To see more - http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Inherently false. According to Genesis He created the Heavens and the Earth then separated the light from the dark and this was the first day. Hence using the Sun as the only means close enough to be considered “light” on the Earth this first separation of light and dark must necessarily be the rotation of the Earth on it’s axis in an approx. 24 hour period. There is no other way around it, not matter how you try desperately to avoid it.


The fact that there was now light would have meant there was also dark. This does not then mean that it is referencing to a day in the normal sense. Again, see above.

Assuming God exits for the sake of argument, you have often posited that some versus are metaphorical and some literal. My point is that you claim above all others to know which is which.


No, I claim to listen to people wiser than me, who have studied these things. I too have studied them, and can make my own judgements, but I can also know when someone knows it better than me.

That is, which are literal (like Jesus) and which are metaphorical (like a non-24 hour period of days in Genesis). These are only your subjective interpretations and amount to nothing more. They are certainly not enough to make a serious objective statement about the validity of the Bible. Most saliently because you are assuming the conclusion as your premise. Namely that God already exists. This is not good logical practice at all.


Literary analysis and historical context make it very easy to tell the difference between Genesis 1 and the Gospels. If you think that just because it is in the Bible, it is literal, you are making a profound mistake.

I'm sorry. How did God put the book together? I thought you said it was a variety of books put together at a later date that's how you "know" it's valid.


Because of the prophecies for one thing, and because of the historical relevance on another. For example, the Gnostic gospels didn't arrive until much later, over 100 years later, when Christianity was much more of a powerful force. These people were trying to muscle in on the early signs of power that Christianity had, and they wanted to influence that power.

All I’ve seen on this subject is that he considers Genesis to be written as a story (I didn’t see anything about poetic, and that he has converted and now works in a conservatory :"Writing from a conservative, Reformed viewpoint” Which makes one wonder why his point of view is thus formulated.


I see nowhere him talking about this as a "story".

http://huiothesian.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/review-did-adam-and-eve...

Now you are changing your story yet again. First you claim you cannot reference relativity outside of books on relativity and since I provided you with two distinct methods of so doing, you revert back to Ceaser, this is back-peddling in the highest degree. I’ve already discussed why it doesn’t really matter whether someone named Ceaser existed or not. But you cannot say that about Jesus. You must believe there is support for him in the text otherwise the whole religion falls apart.



Fine, I'll rephrase. If you were to put all the evidence for relativity in a single book and then have people say "well there's no evidence for relativity... apart from the book" you'd get frustrated.

I don't see why Caesar "mattering" less than Jesus is relevant here. The point stands. If you were to collect all the evidence about him, put it in a single book and then claim that he was historical unbelievable because all of the evidence about him was only to be found in this one book, people would be frustrated.

This is but here-say, nothing more. A fable. A story.


Erm... seriously? Firstly, its "hear-say" as in "I heard him say it". Secondly, hear-say and "fable/story" mean very different things. You can't claim it to be all the same thing. Thirdly, it is not. We know it was a historical account

http://christianthinktank.com/jrthal.html

How does this apply to my response about your claim that it is like discussing relativity outside of a book on relativity which you claimed made no sense. As I’ve said you can go into any lab or simply look outside with a telescope and witness relativity first hand yourself. You’re account of the Gospels does not even remotely compare to that at all. You cannot go into a lab or witness firsthand ANY experience told within the Gospels. How you fail to see the difference is beyond me. Are you missing the point because you cannot see the difference or because you choose not to? Your reference was incorrect in its entirety, just admit it. That was a huge elementary mistake.


Firstly, Wayne has already taken issue with you on the issue of reletivity. Secondly, the comparison I was making was that there was more than one, not only one. I wasn't saying it was the same as empiricism, but that it did have multiple points of compassion, and thus historical rigor.

Now you are really going off your point. You have earlier claimed that MOST historians will insist that the Bible is real, now you are claiming that many historians don’t believe in the Bible. Which is it? Moreover, it is the same thing. If an historian doesn’t believe that the words within the Bible are true but yet knows the book obviously exists, what other categorization can one give it if not fictional?? Its’ either fictional or non-fictional.


Almost all serious historians will believe in the historical nature of the Biblical texts. IE they won't believe its fiction. However, that does not then lead them, in many cases, to become Christians. Because they do not believe in the idea that those events affect them directly.

If God created only two people from the beginning there would HAVE to be incestuous relations. Therefore if God created only two people instead of more HE SANCTIONED INCEST.


Only in the sense that we are all human and all are related to one another. If you see the OT, it does not become an issue until much later, when other problems mean it becomes dangerous.

A purely fictional response. The question still remains. And why only pigs?



It...isn't only pigs...see the Bible. Seriously, if you keep making mistakes like this, all you are demonstrating is your own historical ineptitude. I won't continue discussing with you if you do not fix this.

I’ve already made my factual points about pigs. Yes there were pig remains found around the Cannan sites which DID NOT kill the people who ate them. It WAS just a silly religious mandate. End of story.


Pig remains =/= people ate the pigs. People could have milked them, or used their skins etc. That isn't proof. And as I have said, there are hygine reasons.

Likewise, I’ve already made my point about water supply. You claimed there was no clean water in the desert until I asked how the people drank. Then you said it was limited, to which I’ve already replied: if they had enough for the other animals they had enough for pigs.


Pigs were water intensive. They needed more cleaning than most, which is why they did not focus on them. Not to mention the fact that water alone would not be enough for some of their problems. From a hygiene POV, the pigs situation was perfectly reasonable.

So why are the pigs defecating in the water supply? Again if they have space which the desert obviously supplies they are very clean. And you are really claiming that all the Jews wondering around the desert simply survived on only dew? Moreover you are making fundamental mistakes about science which really makes me think that faith is all you have and absolutely no scientific background. Dew does not “fall” it is created by condensation of water molecules in the air. You’re quote “They had dew which fell”.


Condensation which descends. IE goes down. If the water molecules are in the air, the ground is below that. Ergo, the water molecules fell.

I’ve just changed your name from Vertigo to Phillip what does that tell you about me? How does this give you more of an understanding of who I am, and how does it verify who I am? Seriously?


You've just changed MY name. That doesn't work. But lets look at it. See, the reasoning behind the name change was most likly a specific cultural one. That puts Simon Peter in a specific place, of a specfic people. Then also, there is the consideration of what the name "Peter" means. The fact that this is what he changed his name to is significant, especially in the culture of the time (Jewish names meant a great deal). Then there also the fact that it enables us to trace him historically. Having his name, and having the fact that he changed it, makes him all the more specific. So, we can locate him and find out more about the situation.

1. You may not, but there are peer reviewed scholars that disagree

How do you scientifically peer review something that cannot be proven? It is just a matter of subjective interpretation.

I have provided evidence for an alternative reading, but since you have not bothered to read it, I will provide it again

Of course I’ve read it, if you read my reply it would have been evident. The fact remains that if any of is to be taken literally or truthfully it would have to have been six 24 hour days. It doen’t matter how many different ways the word “day” can be interpreted elsewhere in the Bible, it is an apologetic method to attempt to disseminate fraudulent information. If the sun was created it is more than obvious that the separation of light and dark would have to be a normal twenty-four hour day not eons.

I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did 'x' in the morning" and "God did 'y' in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day."

Your expectations have no baring at all on what is written. I could easily say. I did X then I did Y it was morning then evening, one day. And everyone would know that what I did was in literally one twenty-four hour day not a thousand years or 10 years. That type of interpretation makes no sense unless you and other apologetics are trying to pretend it means something else because everyone knows the Earth was most definitely not created in six twenty-four hour days. But the argument fails on all levels.

The fact that there was now light would have meant there was also dark. This does not then mean that it is referencing to a day in the normal sense. Again, see above.

What else could it possibly mean? The separation of light and dark would only come from the turning of the Earth on it’s axis in a twenty-four hour periodicity.

No, I claim to listen to people wiser than me, who have studied these things. I too have studied them, and can make my own judgements, but I can also know when someone knows it better than me.

Interesting. And who are THESE people who claim to know the mind of God when you yourself must admit that the mind of God is unknowable since he is infinite and you are not. He has plans that you cannot fathom. If that is so, how can any mere mortal claim to “know” the mind of God so as to correctly interpret the Bible. And since there are so many different interpretations of the Bible it should easily be concluded that no one knows the mind of God so as to correctly interpret his words otherwise there would only be one religion not various factions of even the same religion. You cannot simultaneously claim some humans know the mind of God while others do not. For who are you to claim this?

Literary analysis and historical context make it very easy to tell the difference between Genesis 1 and the Gospels. If you think that just because it is in the Bible, it is literal, you are making a profound mistake

After the profound logical mistakes you have made it seems laughable that you would claim I’ve done the same. So now you are saying and I quote: “ If you think that just because it is in the Bible, it is literal, you are making a profound mistake” Therefore you are finally admitting that NOT everything in the Bible should be taken literally. That something’s should be taken as metaphorical like the birth and divinity of Christ or indeed the very existence of God. It was a way to make sense of occurrences upon the Earth like solar eclipses, tidal waves, Earthquakes, etc. that the primitive man had no other explanation for.

I see nowhere him talking about this as a "story”

I’m sorry you missed it. Especially since you’ve provided me with a different link then the original one.Moreover, I see you have removed the original link which is hilarious. Nevertheless it is written about his book: “how to best understand what the biblical writer was trying communicate, and how that message can fit with the findings of modern science” Well, no it doesn’t fit with modern science at all. It has been found in meteors that have crashed into Earth contain both amino acids and partial DNA. And every scientists knows we came from the materials within a supernova. One for one there is an exact match between the elements that we are made of and what elements are created in a supernova fusion. That is demonstrable.

Fine, I'll rephrase. If you were to put all the evidence for relativity in a single book and then have people say "well there's no evidence for relativity... apart from the book" you'd get frustrated.

I wouldn’t get frustrated at all. I would tell them that there is real, empirical evidence of relativity and that they can see it for themselves. Not only is it inherently demonstrable in the maths, but also in the other ways already cited.

I don't see why Caesar "mattering" less than Jesus is relevant here. The point stands. If you were to collect all the evidence about him, put it in a single book and then claim that he was historical unbelievable because all of the evidence about him was only to be found in this one book, people would be frustrated

No people would not become frustrated 1) because not all the evidence of Ceaser is contained in one single book. 2) There is independent evidence of his existence. 3) Even if he himself did not exist, it wouldn’t change what happened and what didn’t happen. For example did Shakespeare really exist? It is a controversy. But it really doesn’t mater whether he did or not; we still have amazing works by someone whether it was Shakespeare or a number of people who contributed to the writings. It just doesn’t matter or make any difference to the fact that we have the books now and can read them for what they are, wonderful stories. It is only your belief that Jesus really existed that matters to your supposed salvation. That is why a comparison between Jesus’ existence and Ceaser’s makes no logical sense.

Erm... seriously? Firstly, its "hear-say" as in "I heard him say it". Secondly, hear-say and "fable/story" mean very different things. You can't claim it to be all the same thing. Thirdly, it is not. We know it was a historical account

You really make me laugh. You make more spelling mistakes than my five year old nephew. But I decided to take the high road as an atheist and not point them all out. Moreover it would have taken me hundreds of pages to correct all of your spelling mistakes and I don’t have that kind of time. “Josephus POSSIBLY refers to a certain “ from your link. It is filled with a lot of possibles rather than empirical evidence. And since you are giving me Christian links, here’s a quote from another link: “Attempts have been made to establish the exact date of Good Friday by assuming the darkness described at Christ's crucifixion was a solar eclipse. This research has not yielded conclusive results”

Firstly, Wayne has already taken issue with you on the issue of reletivity. Secondly, the comparison I was making was that there was more than one, not only one. I wasn't saying it was the same as empiricism, but that it did have multiple points of compassion, and thus historical rigor.

See your above spelling of relativity as yet another example of your inability to spell properly.

1) I’ve already proven his idea as incorrect. 2) Comparing relativity with Biblical story is not historical rigor at all. Rather it is a misguided attempt to presuppose they have equal footing on the ground of truth, which they obviously do not.

Almost all serious historians will believe in the historical nature of the Biblical texts. IE they won't believe its fiction. However, that does not then lead them, in many cases, to become Christians. Because they do not believe in the idea that those events affect them directly.

I thank you for at least admitting that historians MAY believe that what happened in the Bible MAY have happened leaving out the creation myth, the divinity of Jesus, and all miraculous claims, which doesn’t really leave much else.

Only in the sense that we are all human and all are related to one another. If you see the OT, it does not become an issue until much later, when other problems mean it becomes dangerous.

Inherently wrong. Incest is always dangerous between close relations. (see biological science). And since there were only two people: Adam and Eve according to you, where did everyone else come from? Surely Adam and Eve did not populate the entire Earth. Surely there must have been relations between sisters and brothers.

It...isn't only pigs...see the Bible. Seriously, if you keep making mistakes like this, all you are demonstrating is your own historical ineptitude. I won't continue discussing with you if you do not fix this.

And neither will I continue if you keep eluding the questions put to you. It’s becoming quite annoying. My point was that there was NO reason to avoid eating pigs accept that it was a mistaken, religious dogma. You need to read the Bible. And thus far you have given me no reason to believe otherwise. You have provided no evidence. While I have provided evidence which you obviously have not read in which pig remains WERE found in surrounding areas. Therefore pigs were NOT unhealthy to eat. You claimed pigs were only not eaten because God said not to, because they were not clean, and I’ve made my point over and over that they were clean, and it was just dogmatic rhetoric that like all religious dogma made NO SENSE. We were discussing pigs, and since other animals could be cleaned with water, there is no reason why pigs could not be kept clean as well. No historical ineptitude here.

Pig remains =/= people ate the pigs. People could have milked them, or used their skins etc. That isn't proof. And as I have said, there are hygine reasons.

Erm...seriously? When pig remains are found in feces it was the milk they were using? Look above for misspelling of “hygiene”. If this continues...And of all the leaps of faith you make you are going to question the idea of “proof”. Really? Actually it is proof the way the bones were found that they were eaten not milked or simply used for their skin. So that ends that theory.

Condensation which descends. IE goes down. If the water molecules are in the air, the ground is below that. Ergo, the water molecules fell

That is hilarious. That is not what you meant or wrote and you know that. You are just trying to pretend that is what you meant since I called you on it. Very funny indeed. You really don’t know science at all. Water molecules exist everywhere NOT just above the ground. the “water molecules fell” is totally inaccurate. Please read a novice level science book sometime.

See, even in your book: “Deuteronomy 32:2: "My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass” Dew doesn’t fall like rain. CONDENSATION DOES NOT DESCEND. A fundamental mistake you made from the quote above. It forms from the cool surface interacting with the warmer air above but since water molecules exist everywhere it does not directly descend upon the grass for example, it forms there! Try taking a soda can out of the refrigerator and see the condensation form not fall.

But lets look at it. See, the reasoning behind the name change was most likly a specific cultural one. That puts Simon Peter in a specific place, of a specfic people

See misspellings of specific and likely above. And you are saying that there was no one else named “Peter” existing at that time or in that area? I doubt that very much. So the changing of names has NO relation to your salvation whatsoever. He changed Simon’s name to Peter meaning “rock” upon which to build the Church. But this has no significant bearing on your salvation. It doesn’t tell you how to live or what is right or wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do you scientifically peer review something that cannot be proven? It is just a matter of subjective interpretation.

Peer review is not limited to science.


The fact remains that if any of is to be taken literally or truthfully it would have to have been six 24 hour days.


No it does not. Literally and truthfully are not the same thing.


It doen’t matter how many different ways the word “day” can be interpreted elsewhere in the Bible, it is an apologetic method to attempt to disseminate fraudulent information. If the sun was created it is more than obvious that the separation of light and dark would have to be a normal twenty-four hour day not eons.


Again, I have provided evidence that disagrees. The understanding of "morning" and "evening" are not as you would say they are.


Your expectations have no baring at all on what is written.


The expectation is not mine, it is the one of the studious person who has studied this. It is based on other usage of the language in other areas. The fact that it is not in the normal format used when meaning a 24 hour period suggests that this is not what it means.

What else could it possibly mean? The separation of light and dark would only come from the turning of the Earth on it’s axis in a twenty-four hour periodicity.

Yes, the light and day refer to the 24 hour rotation, but the morning and the evening do not refernce the morning and evening as we use them.


Interesting. And who are THESE people who claim to know the mind of God when you yourself must admit that the mind of God is unknowable since he is infinite and you are not. He has plans that you cannot fathom. If that is so, how can any mere mortal claim to “know” the mind of God so as to correctly interpret the Bible.



Of course there are aspects to God we don't understand, but equally there are aspects we do. I'm using a computer, I'm breathing. By my beliefs, God allowed me to do all these things, yet I understand them. I'm not saying that interpreting the Bible is easy, but God isn't stupid. He's not going to create something to explain himself that we cannot understand.

And since there are so many different interpretations of the Bible it should easily be concluded that no one knows the mind of God so as to correctly interpret his words otherwise there would only be one religion not various factions of even the same religion. You cannot simultaneously claim some humans know the mind of God while others do not. For who are you to claim this?


Check again. Of all the church splits and divisions, very few of them are over biblical interpretation. Almost all of them have been personal or political, or sometimes focus disagreements (IE one group wanted to focus more on X while the other focused more on Y. Neither of them thought the other was wrong. They just were different). Now of course there are differences, but all that tells us is that humans are imperfect. However, I believe that we can understand it enough to continue.

because not all the evidence of Ceaser is contained in one single book.


Do you not understand the concept of a hypothetical book?

There is independent evidence of his existence.


Did you not understand that when I said put it ALL in a single book, I meant ALL.

It is only your belief that Jesus really existed that matters to your supposed salvation. That is why a comparison between Jesus’ existence and Ceaser’s makes no logical sense.


What does the significance of the individual have on the value of the evidence?

You really make me laugh. You make more spelling mistakes than my five year old nephew. But I decided to take the high road as an atheist and not point them all out.


It's not a spelling mistake you made. You used the wrong word, thereby altering the sayings meaning.

“Josephus POSSIBLY refers to a certain “ from your link. It is filled with a lot of possibles rather than empirical evidence.


There is NO empirical evidence in history anywhere. That is not what empirical means. If you are going to keep using the word to mean "certain" then you really don't understand this debate. The fact that there is a possibly does not discredit the website. Also, the fact that you have taken a single possibility out of such a massive website, really shows how very little seriousness with which you take this debate.

1) I’ve already proven his idea as incorrect.


No you havn't. You've agreed to disagree, which to be honest as far as I can see it, is you backing out. Since he continued to point out time after time the flaws in your argument.

Comparing relativity with Biblical story is not historical rigor at all. Rather it is a misguided attempt to presuppose they have equal footing on the ground of truth, which they obviously do not.


No, you believe they do not. There is nothing obvious about it.

I thank you for at least admitting that historians MAY believe that what happened in the Bible MAY have happened leaving out the creation myth, the divinity of Jesus, and all miraculous claims, which doesn’t really leave much else.

The fact that they are not Christians does not somehow disprove the truth of the claims. There are plenty of historians of great standing that are Christians. Thus it is clear that being a Christian is not based upon education, but on something deeper.


And neither will I continue if you keep eluding the questions put to you. It’s becoming quite annoying.



You said "Why only pigs?" My response was "It wasnt only pigs". That is not eluding the question.

You have provided no evidence.


On the contrary. See Pfisteria. Something to which you did not respond.

While I have provided evidence which you obviously have not read in which pig remains WERE found in surrounding areas. Therefore pigs were NOT unhealthy to eat.


No, Pigs were not unhealthy to eat by the standards of those cultures. Obviously, God was holding the Isralites to a higher standar.

Erm...seriously? When pig remains are found in feces it was the milk they were using?


Yes. Animals, once dead, may have been killed, their bodies chopped up and had the leather, other useful elements removed, and then the remains discarded in a simmilar location to where human waste was stored. Perfectly plausible.

That is hilarious. That is not what you meant or wrote and you know that. You are just trying to pretend that is what you meant since I called you on it. Very funny indeed. You really don’t know science at all. Water molecules exist everywhere NOT just above the ground. the “water molecules fell” is totally inaccurate. Please read a novice level science book sometime.


Of course water molecules exist everywhere, but the water molecules that make up dew are in the air. They condense and FALL to the ground. Therefore, the dew falls. It's a common saying. The fact that you were prepared to debate THAT with me, shows me that you are a very petty and small minded individual.

See, even in your book: “Deuteronomy 32:2: "My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass” Dew doesn’t fall like rain. CONDENSATION DOES NOT DESCEND.


Yes it does. It is in the air. It condenses, and then it is on the ground. That's a fairly simple understanding of descent. 

It forms from the cool surface interacting with the warmer air above but since water molecules exist everywhere it does not directly descend upon the grass for example, it forms there!


Were or were not the molecules originally in the air, and now they are upon the ground. The air is above the ground. No matter how hard you try to say otherwise, that is the case.

And you are saying that there was no one else named “Peter” existing at that time or in that area? I doubt that very much.



No, but what I did say was that there would have been a small number of people called Simon who later changed their name to peter. Factor in the fact he was Galilean, and the other contexts, and you have a very specific individual.

So the changing of names has NO relation to your salvation whatsoever. He changed Simon’s name to Peter meaning “rock” upon which to build the Church. But this has no significant bearing on your salvation. It doesn’t tell you how to live or what is right or wrong.



But it does tell me that what happened was real. That these were real people, not mere story book figures. We have their names, they can be traced, we have the details of their lives. It does not have to be about how to live or right or wrong for it to be relevant to salvation.

Peer review is not limited to science

Laughably you are probably right. People can sit around discussing the subjective interpretations of anything and in the end it amounts to just that; a subjective interpretation.

No it does not. Literally and truthfully are not the same thing.

I’m not going to get into a “yes it does” “no it doesn’t” argument. However, if I say I am literally 5‘11“ tall than truthfully I am 5‘11“ tall. One can not take something literally unless it is truthful.

Again, I have provided evidence that disagrees. The understanding of "morning" and "evening" are not as you would say they are.

And I have provided more than enough proof to disprove your attempt at misinterpreting the meaning in order not to be embarrassed by the fact that we all know the Earth was not created in 6 24 hr. days. It has nothing to due with how you or anyone else wishes to interpret the words themselves it is within the context that gives six twenty-four hour days. How was there a separation of light and dark being the first day NOT a twenty-four hour day through which the Earth turns on its axis. This first line gives each of the remaining “days” its twenty-four hour context.

Yes, the light and day refer to the 24 hour rotation, but the morning and the evening do not refernce the morning and evening as we use them

Thank you. Finally you admit that the separation of light and dark refer to the twenty-four hour rotation of the Earth therefore each consecutive “day” must also conform to this pattern of twenty-four hours. Since the first separation of light and dark = 1 day, each line that ends with one day= 24 hours. I find it interesting that you have now changed your story to “yes it means the 24 hour rotation” from no it refers to the light that penetrated the Earth’s atmosphere after millions of years.

but God isn't stupid. He's not going to create something to explain himself that we cannot understand

You have claimed that many times now, and if I was a believer I would have to argue that you are incorrect about this. You claim not to know God’s plan because you cannot fully fathom the entirety of the mind of God. So how does “not going to create something we cannot understand” fall under this category of the inexplicable mind of God?

Check again. Of all the church splits and divisions, very few of them are over biblical interpretation. Almost all of them have been personal or political, or sometimes focus disagreements (IE one group wanted to focus more on X while the other focused more on Y. Neither of them thought the other was wrong. They just were different). Now of course there are differences, but all that tells us is that humans are imperfect. However, I believe that we can understand it enough to continue.

You are sadly mistaken. There are so many different factions of Christianity that bicker over Biblical interpretation it’s almost impossible to keep up with how many there are. It’s all about Biblical interpretation. Do you really think the Baptists want to take over the political arena? No, of course not, they are just a different sect of the same Bible. Again, why would there be Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc., etc., if One God was the only true interpretation and not only that but the Christian God, not the Judaic God, or Muslim God?

These differences are all based on interpretation. Some have political antecedents but not all by any stretch of the imagination.

Do you not understand the concept of a hypothetical book?

Do you not understand that your idea of a hypothetical book is a horrible and illogical analogy? A single book could not be that big. In otherwords, it would simply not make any sense that way. Nevertheless, as it has been said at least with Caesar there is empirical evidence such as coins with his likeness upon them from that time period.

What does the significance of the individual have on the value of the evidence?

None. My point is that it does NOT matter if Caesar existed or not. But to you it matters whether Jesus existed, so you continue albeit to no end to compare the two. I’ve stated that Caesar existed historical and probably not Jesus even as a man. Yet to me it matters not whether a man named Caesar existed or if it was some other man. It is only to YOU that somehow attempting to prove Jesus existed matters.

It's not a spelling mistake you made. You used the wrong word, thereby altering the sayings meaning.

It was a spelling error, I meant to type hear and typed here instead. But since you knew what I obviously meant it makes no difference. That is amusing however how many legitimate spelling errors you make in almost every paragraph. But I shall rise above it, and not mention it further.

the fact that you have taken a single possibility out of such a massive website, really shows how very little seriousness with which you take this debate

The entire website was yet again Christian based not impartial. I looked through most of it, and it did nothing to persuade me otherwise. I made my point. There is no independent references to Jesus’ divinity. Only “possibilities” which ONLY refer to the idea that X believed that it happened not that it actually happened. And by the way, there is historical EMPIRICAL evidence. We know 1) meteors from millions of years ago carry amino acids and parts of DNA, 2) The fossil records indicate that dinosaurs actually did exist. These are historical empirical evidences. We also have the background radiation from the Big Bang, and redshift of the stars and galaxies that we can fully observe.

Therefore your quote exactly “There is NO empirical evidence in history anywhere” is utterly FALSE!

No you havn't. You've agreed to disagree, which to be honest as far as I can see it, is you backing out. Since he continued to point out time after time the flaws in your argument.

You have every right to view it as you wish. I was tired of making my point over and over. However it doesn’t mean that I was mistaken in my conception. Relativity is provable and can be seen via empirical evidence within a lab or the maths, or during a solar eclipse.


No, you believe they do not. There is nothing obvious about it.

They are not. It is not a belief. How can you possibly compare a book written thousands of years ago by people who were superstitious and had no other explanation for natural events other than a created diety to relativity which can be empirically tested and has its proofs within the very fabric of the maths? Thats just inane.

Thus it is clear that being a Christian is not based upon education, but on something deeper

Obviously being a Christian is not based upon education, if education played even a minor roll there would be less Christians. Sure there are people of intelligence who are religious, but a lot of that has to do with there upbringing and guilt. I’ve talked to many atheists who still feel guilty about leaving their religion because their parents raised them so strictly. Moreover, if by “something deeper” you are referring to the idea of closing one’s mind, not being a freethinking sceptical person, and accepting things on blind faith, I would agree with you. There is most certainly a great degree of faith in every religion because there is so much that cannot be proven, one must necessarily and by design accept religious dogma on faith.

See Pfisteria. Something to which you did not respond

Pfiesteria.: microalgae which produce water blooms which cause deaths in local fish

I’m sorry I may have missed a point here. What was your point about Pfisesteria?

No, Pigs were not unhealthy to eat by the standards of those cultures. Obviously, God was holding the Isralites to a higher standar.

You must be joking. First you claim God commands that pigs not be eaten because they may be unhealthy. Then I provided evidence that pigs were eaten by surrounding tribes who didn’t die from eating them, and now you admit they weren’t unheathy and pull out something about a higher standard. That is not only making something up to cover your lack of knowledge it most certainly is not “obvious” that God held anyone to a higher standard at all. That is your ad hoc interpretation.

discarded in a simmilar location to where human waste was stored. Perfectly plausible

It’s perfectly plausible that you keep making things when new evidence is cited. We’ve already covered the fact that pigs weren’t unhealthy to eat as stated above.

Therefore, the dew falls.

No it doesn’t. And who is small minded and petty? Who brought up a simple spelling error of here rather than hear while I was typing fast? Hmmmm. Yes, I think it was YOU.

The air is above the ground.

I’m sorry, how do you breath? Do you have to jump “in the air” with every breath you take? Air surrounds us, or did you not know that? You are too funny that you can’t even admit a single error as others have said about you.

But it does tell me that what happened was real. That these were real people, not mere story book figures. We have their names, they can be traced, we have the details of their lives

Seriously? How does that tell you it was real? You are again presupposing that the Bible is not fictional in order to make the story true. Within logic you cannot presuppose something is true in order to prove its truth value. That is not proper logic at all. What you are claiming is that SINCE THE BIBLE IS TRUE Jesus must have renamed Simon. You cannot presupposed anything if you want to truly study something in a reasonable way. All you are doing is assuming everything in the Bible is true and then later stating that since it happened in the story it must also be true. That is a very bad, misguided and incorrect form of argument that serves to prove nothing accept your ability to believe something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laughably you are probably right. People can sit around discussing the subjective interpretations of anything and in the end it amounts to just that; a subjective interpretation.


Or, you can respect that there are educated people of other fields. This is the kind of arrogance that science has that gets up people's noses. Science isn't the only field that can be authoritative.

I’m not going to get into a “yes it does” “no it doesn’t” argument. However, if I say I am literally 5‘11“ tall than truthfully I am 5‘11“ tall. One can not take something literally unless it is truthful.


All literal things are truthful, but not all truthful things need to be literal.

And I have provided more than enough proof to disprove your attempt at misinterpreting the meaning in order not to be embarrassed by the fact that we all know the Earth was not created in 6 24 hr. days. It has nothing to due with how you or anyone else wishes to interpret the words themselves it is within the context that gives six twenty-four hour days. How was there a separation of light and dark being the first day NOT a twenty-four hour day through which the Earth turns on its axis. This first line gives each of the remaining “days” its twenty-four hour context.


The separation of day and night do indeed equal the earth rotating on its axis. But the arrival of light is something different.

Thank you. Finally you admit that the separation of light and dark refer to the twenty-four hour rotation of the Earth therefore each consecutive “day” must also conform to this pattern of twenty-four hours. Since the first separation of light and dark = 1 day, each line that ends with one day= 24 hours. I find it interesting that you have now changed your story to “yes it means the 24 hour rotation” from no it refers to the light that penetrated the Earth’s atmosphere after millions of years.


That isn't what I said. The seperation of light and dark, yes is descriptive of day and night. But the periods of time are not described in the same way. I have provided evidence to that effect.

You have claimed that many times now, and if I was a believer I would have to argue that you are incorrect about this. You claim not to know God’s plan because you cannot fully fathom the entirety of the mind of God. So how does “not going to create something we cannot understand” fall under this category of the inexplicable mind of God?


I claim not to know the entirety of the mind of God. I claim to know enough to be saved.

You are sadly mistaken. There are so many different factions of Christianity that bicker over Biblical interpretation it’s almost impossible to keep up with how many there are. It’s all about Biblical interpretation.


Prove it. The Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants may be divided over biblical interpretation, but few others are. Some have differing areas of focus, but little else divides them other than personal issues. The central division of any Church would be over the nature of salvation. There are very few Churches that would disagree over that.

Again, why would there be Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc., etc., if One God was the only true interpretation and not only that but the Christian God, not the Judaic God, or Muslim God?


Because people are sometimes flawed. The Bible talks a lot about false teachers.

Do you not understand that your idea of a hypothetical book is a horrible and illogical analogy? A single book could not be that big. In otherwords, it would simply not make any sense that way.


A single book could be as big as it likes. And even if it wasn't a single book, the point would still stand. Imagine you collected all the evidence for Caesar into a collection of books (much like the Bible is for Jesus) and then people were to claim "well, Caser didn't exist, there's no evidence outside this collection of books"


Nevertheless, as it has been said at least with Caesar there is empirical evidence such as coins with his likeness upon them from that time period.


Coins are not emperical evidence. We have no evidence that they bore Caesar's likeness. They may the word Caesar written on them, but we do not know if that means him. There are all kinds of other ways to interpret that. Also, this is not emperical evidence. You cannot do experiments on history.

The entire website was yet again Christian based not impartial. I looked through most of it, and it did nothing to persuade me otherwise.


Your logic of impartiality is flawed. I've already explained this. If someone examines the evidence of the Gospels, believes in it and becomes a Christian, and then presents you the evidence, and you say "well you would say that, your a Christian" do you not see the problem with that? The fact that they are a Christian does not in itself damage the evidence they are presenting. It would damage it if they are being hyperbolic or untruthful, but you would have to prove that to be the case. And given that they rigorously use academic sources which have been peer reviewed, you really cannot fault their research.

We know 1) meteors from millions of years ago carry amino acids and parts of DNA, 2) The fossil records indicate that dinosaurs actually did exist. These are historical empirical evidences.


None of those things are history. They are pre history

We also have the background radiation from the Big Bang, and redshift of the stars and galaxies that we can fully observe.


And those disprove the Bible in what way?

You have every right to view it as you wish. I was tired of making my point over and over. However it doesn’t mean that I was mistaken in my conception. Relativity is provable and can be seen via empirical evidence within a lab or the maths, or during a solar eclipse.

No, it isn't. Relativity is a theoretical interpretation of the phenomenon you describe. It is a very good interpretation, but as has been pointed out, there are dissenting views which cannot be faulted on the basis of the current evidence.

They are not. It is not a belief. How can you possibly compare a book written thousands of years ago by people who were superstitious and had no other explanation for natural events other than a created diety to relativity which can be empirically tested and has its proofs within the very fabric of the maths? Thats just inane.


As has been said, the vast majority of people take relativity on authority. You claim it has been seen and tested, but only by a small number. Much the same way that only a very small number of people saw Jesus first hand, and that a very small number have had the kind of direct and personal experiances of God that people like Brother Yun have.

Pfiesteria.: microalgae which produce water blooms which cause deaths in local fish

I’m sorry I may have missed a point here. What was your point about Pfisesteria?


It has been theorized to be an algae that does well in pig feces, and doesn't do water supplies much good.

It’s perfectly plausible that you keep making things when new evidence is cited. We’ve already covered the fact that pigs weren’t unhealthy to eat as stated above.


No, pigs were unhealthy, they just weren't so unhealthy that others didn't want to eat them.

No it doesn’t. And who is small minded and petty? Who brought up a simple spelling error of here rather than hear while I was typing fast? Hmmmm. Yes, I think it was YOU.


It was a homophone, of a fairly serious type. And the dew DOES fall. It was in the air, it is on the ground. It falls. Yes, before it gets on the ground, it gets very close to the ground in the air, but the air is not the same as the ground.

I’m sorry, how do you breath? Do you have to jump “in the air” with every breath you take? Air surrounds us, or did you not know that? You are too funny that you can’t even admit a single error as others have said about you.


My head is above the ground too. Where the ground starts, the air stops.

Seriously? How does that tell you it was real? You are again presupposing that the Bible is not fictional in order to make the story true. Within logic you cannot presuppose something is true in order to prove its truth value. That is not proper logic at all. What you are claiming is that SINCE THE BIBLE IS TRUE Jesus must have renamed Simon. You cannot presupposed anything if you want to truly study something in a reasonable way. All you are doing is assuming everything in the Bible is true and then later stating that since it happened in the story it must also be true. That is a very bad, misguided and incorrect form of argument that serves to prove nothing accept your ability to believe something.


The point I was making was that more details about the people give us more to verify. It gives us more to check against. I'm not saying the existence of the detail in itself makes it true. I am saying that the detail is there to show us the truth, to give us something to check against.

Or, you can respect that there are educated people of other fields. This is the kind of arrogance that science has that gets up people's noses. Science isn't the only field that can be authoritative

There are absolutely other fields of research and discussion that are outside the realm of science that are respectable if carried forth in a reasonable, logical manner. Philosophy is one, but even philosophy now incorporates elements of the empirical sciences; especially the neurosciences. But that doesn’t mean that all fields outside the realm of science should be respected. Astrology, and so-called psychic phenomenon, for example, come to mind immediately. This is NOT arrogance it is reality. These things aren’t real.

All literal things are truthful, but not all truthful things need to be literal.

Please explain the difference and enlighten me. I will open my mind to anything you can claim is truthful but not literal, for I cannot think of an example off hand. If I truthfully confess to something, I’ve literally confessed to it. If I’ve truthfully done X then I’ve literally done X. If Y is true, it is literally true.

The separation of day and night do indeed equal the earth rotating on its axis. But the arrival of light is something different.

This comment needs further elucidation. You agree that the separation of day and night is the Earth’s rotation, I am not talking about the arrival of light. Of course that is different, there are many sources of light after the Big Bang, but none so close as to effect the Earth in a separation of light and dark. This “one day” must necessarily be considered a turning of the Earth on its axis. Hence the six day advent.

That isn't what I said. The seperation of light and dark, yes is descriptive of day and night. But the periods of time are not described in the same way. I have provided evidence to that effect.

How are they described differently? One morning, one evening, one day. Any attempt to interpret this as other than a twenty-four hour period is why religion is dangerous. It dismisses a reasonable view of proper interpretation and logic for misguided faith. Yes, the Bible uses the word “day” to mean different things in various passages, but there is just no getting around the fact that the people of the time who wrote the words were referring to a twenty-four hour period of the Earth’s rotation from darkness to light. The apologetic interpretation is a failed attempt to use slight of hand to refer to other ways in which the word could have been used. But given the account of Genesis it can only be interpreted (pretending it is real) in one specific way. The people of that time had no concept of eons of time, but did know fully well of the change from darkness to light from night to morning and thus they wrote it so.

I claim not to know the entirety of the mind of God. I claim to know enough to be saved

Therefore, it is admittedly a claim of faith. You cannot really know if the Muslim or Jewish interpretation is actually the correct one because you have already above claimed you do not know the entirety of the mind of God and you could therefore be mistaken. Since each religious person believes HE is correct and has the correct interpretation backed with the same amount of “evidence” you claim to have, it is all based on faith not evidence or logic and therefore fallible.

Prove it. The Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants may be divided over biblical interpretation

“All religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question. This can lead to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. After all, if it is the word of God, how can one compromise it? At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation. Therefore, conflict can arise over whose interpretation is the correct one, a conflict that ultimately cannot be solved because there is no arbiter. The winner generally is the interpretation that attracts the most followers”-http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/religion-and-conflict

and: http://www.gotquestions.org/denominations-Christian.html

It is all based on interpretation!

Because people are sometimes flawed. The Bible talks a lot about false teachers

Yet, oddly you never consider the fact that they are all false, or the belief that you have is false and Buddhism is correct. Very interesting. The only reason you believe what you do is because you believe it to be true. That is not very logical. And no, there are no logical reasons to believe one religion over another especially since they are all man-made.

Also, this is not emperical evidence. You cannot do experiments on history

I’m not going to comment on Caesar anymore because I’ve already made my point over and over again. Likewise I have provided early that YOU CAN DO EXPERIMENTS ON HISTORY. See above debate about finding amino acids in million year old meteors--THAT IS EMPRICAL EVIDENCE!

And given that they rigorously use academic sources which have been peer reviewed, you really cannot fault their research

Again, I ask you if you were to read a book about atheism would you become an atheist. No. Because you are too entrenched in Biblical dogma to think otherwise even if it was logical, based on evidence, peer reviewed and proven. So no, people “finding evidence” would not simply become Christians because they’ve read or seen something. That is a false hypothesis. If anything it may give them pause, but not convince them if they are truly open minded skeptics and logical thinkers. Moreover, peer review by other people who already presuppose the Bible is true does not make for good science. (See the scientific method). You know there is no evidence. It is not like arguing over whether neutrinos can travel faster than light, then finding there was an error in the calculation. The Bible cannot be examined in any real way. It has been tried and found, when people tried to teach creationism in schools to be utterly un-scientific and erroneous by real scientists.

None of those things are history. They are pre history

Biggest mistake ever. Do you mean pre-recorded history?? Because if they happened millions of years ago they ARE from history by definition!

And those disprove the Bible in what way?

These are proofs of empirical evidence of History. That was the point. But if you are now saying that God created the Big Bang, at least we agree that the Big Bang happened.

No, it isn't. Relativity is a theoretical interpretation

I’m sorry you know nothing of the evidence of relativity as seen during the solar eclipse when the star's light shifted because of the gravitational pull of the Sun. Read Relativity.

Much the same way that only a very small number of people saw Jesus first hand, and that a very small number have had the kind of direct and personal experiances of God that people like Brother Yun have

That’s odd, you’ve previous said that many people had seen Jesus walking around now it’s down to a few. Interesting change in tactics. Moreover, you cannot compare a subjective experience to an objective proof that lies within the math of relativity!

It has been theorized to be an algae that does well in pig feces, and doesn't do water supplies much good.

We’ve been over this. Pig remains were found around Canaan that they know were eaten. You’ve even admitted it wasn’t completely unhealthy to eat pigs. But I don’t get your point. Why are the pigs defecating in the water supply?? And how do YOU know they did at that time?

And before you ask me to prove you said it, here is your direct quote: “No, Pigs were not unhealthy to eat by the standards of those cultures. Obviously, God was holding the Isralites to a higher standar”

No, pigs were unhealthy, they just weren't so unhealthy that others didn't want to eat them.

See how you flip-flop consistently. “No, pigs were unhealthy” you just said but your early quote was as follows: “ No, Pigs were not unhealthy to eat by the standards of those culture.” You keep making things up ad hoc to cover what you know is sadly mistaken.

It was a homophone, of a fairly serious type

I’m sorry you found it so serious. But again should I start pointing out all the spelling errors you make of an extremely serious type or should I rise above your level and let it go as I have throughout this entire debate? Of course it’s not here-say, that doesn’t even make any sense. It was a typing error as I tend to type faster than the message I wish to convey. But if you wish to be petty about it that is your way.

My head is above the ground too. Where the ground starts, the air stops.

If you say so. Of course the air never touches the ground. That is too funny. Really it is. A fundamental mistake that I can’t help but laugh at.

I am saying that the detail is there to show us the truth, to give us something to check against

To check against what. There are no other independent examples of Jesus’ life. And certainly NOT his divinity. So He renamed Simon, now you know He’s real? No you don’t. And even if this did provide some type of “evidence” it certainly does not speak to any divinity or even that it was Jesus. If you don’t think Caesar was on the coins of that time what makes you so sure that Jesus even existed? Perhaps it was someone else entirely, a man like Siddhartha Gautama many years earlier who had a message of peace and harmony much like the one Jesus’ supposedly preached. Not that he was Siddhartha but just a man like him teaching peace.

 

 

 

 

There are absolutely other fields of research and discussion that are outside the realm of science that are respectable if carried forth in a reasonable, logical manner. Philosophy is one, but even philosophy now incorporates elements of the empirical sciences; especially the neurosciences. But that doesn’t mean that all fields outside the realm of science should be respected. Astrology, and so-called psychic phenomenon, for example, come to mind immediately. This is NOT arrogance it is reality. These things aren’t real.


Yes and if we were talking about psycics, you'd have a point. But we arn't. We're talking about Biblical scholars.

Please explain the difference and enlighten me. I will open my mind to anything you can claim is truthful but not literal, for I cannot think of an example off hand. If I truthfully confess to something, I’ve literally confessed to it. If I’ve truthfully done X then I’ve literally done X. If Y is true, it is literally true.


Metaphors. Metaphors contain truth but are not literal.

This comment needs further elucidation. You agree that the separation of day and night is the Earth’s rotation, I am not talking about the arrival of light. Of course that is different, there are many sources of light after the Big Bang, but none so close as to effect the Earth in a separation of light and dark. This “one day” must necessarily be considered a turning of the Earth on its axis. Hence the six day advent.


The arrival of light isn't the creation of the sun. Rather it is the arrival of light through the atmosphere, according to some theorists who I find myself in agreement with. Also, the evening/morning are not literal, as I have said. The descriptors are used elsewhere in the same way, and biblical scholars have pointed out that were they intended to be literal, the words would have been used differently, as I have presented evidence to show you.

How are they described differently? One morning, one evening, one day. Any attempt to interpret this as other than a twenty-four hour period is why religion is dangerous. It dismisses a reasonable view of proper interpretation and logic for misguided faith. Yes, the Bible uses the word “day” to mean different things in various passages, but there is just no getting around the fact that the people of the time who wrote the words were referring to a twenty-four hour period of the Earth’s rotation from darkness to light.


See the linguistics evidence I provided. If it was literal, it would be expected to be something very different. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that it conforms far more to other passages which are known to be not literal, suggests that this is not a literal account.

Therefore, it is admittedly a claim of faith. You cannot really know if the Muslim or Jewish interpretation is actually the correct one because you have already above claimed you do not know the entirety of the mind of God and you could therefore be mistaken. Since each religious person believes HE is correct and has the correct interpretation backed with the same amount of “evidence” you claim to have, it is all based on faith not evidence or logic and therefore fallible.


I do not claim to know the entirity of the mind of God, but I, unlike the other world religions, can claim that it was God specifically who said these things. Jesus was God. This is a very different claim to every other world religion. No other religion claim that God reached out to them, rather that they, in reaching out to God, were responded too. As a result, we have a very different and far more complete picture.

It is all based on interpretation!


All you've quoted there is the existance of dogma. You have not proven that most of the world's church splits are over dogmatic issues.

Yet, oddly you never consider the fact that they are all false, or the belief that you have is false and Buddhism is correct. Very interesting. The only reason you believe what you do is because you believe it to be true. That is not very logical. And no, there are no logical reasons to believe one religion over another especially since they are all man-made.


No, the reason I give is the evidence. I see supernatural indications in fufilled prophecies, in the accounts, in all kinds of aspects of the Bible. I do not base my beliefs on what I want to be true, but rather what I see to be true.

I’m not going to comment on Caesar anymore because I’ve already made my point over and over again. Likewise I have provided early that YOU CAN DO EXPERIMENTS ON HISTORY. See above debate about finding amino acids in million year old meteors--THAT IS EMPRICAL EVIDENCE!


Yes, but it is not history. It is pre-history. There is a reason the distinction exists.

Again, I ask you if you were to read a book about atheism would you become an atheist. No. Because you are too entrenched in Biblical dogma to think otherwise even if it was logical, based on evidence, peer reviewed and proven. So no, people “finding evidence” would not simply become Christians because they’ve read or seen something. That is a false hypothesis.


It would if the evidence was compelling. Furthermore, your athiesm argument is invalid. Athiests do not claim to have any evidence to support the non existence of God. Christians by contrast do have evidence. Therefore, finding that evidence, and being convinced by it, is a possibility. All athiests could do is make you question.

Moreover, peer review by other people who already presuppose the Bible is true does not make for good science.

That would work, were the Peer reviewers all of the same mind. But they are not. Hence why it is peer review.

Biggest mistake ever. Do you mean pre-recorded history?? Because if they happened millions of years ago they ARE from history by definition!

No, they are pre-history. History, by definition, is recorded.

I’m sorry you know nothing of the evidence of relativity as seen during the solar eclipse when the star's light shifted because of the gravitational pull of the Sun. Read Relativity.


Reletivity is one theory that explains those events. No one is disputing the events, rather they are disputing the causal network. IE lets say I see a dead body on the ground with a pool of blood around his head. I could conclude he fell out of the building next to me. There are shards of glass nearby that could be from a window. Others could say that the shards of glass were already there, and that he simply tripped on the kerb and fell. Others could say that neither were true and that he was pushed, etc etc. The point is that no one disagrees that he is on the floor and dead, just the same way that no one disagrees with those elements you describe. What they do disagree on is the cause, and how each of these things links, or indeed if they do link.

That’s odd, you’ve previous said that many people had seen Jesus walking around now it’s down to a few. Interesting change in tactics. Moreover, you cannot compare a subjective experience to an objective proof that lies within the math of relativity!


Please look at the context. It is a small number reletive to the huge number of Christians since. In the same way that the people who have done tests on reletivity are small in number compared to the people who believe reletivity.

We’ve been over this. Pig remains were found around Canaan that they know were eaten. You’ve even admitted it wasn’t completely unhealthy to eat pigs. But I don’t get your point. Why are the pigs defecating in the water supply?? And how do YOU know they did at that time?


It is a theory based on the evidence we know about the pigs and why they might not be wanted for nomadic travellers. We know they were eaten by others, but they may have had health problems. Its just that those people did not care.

If you say so. Of course the air never touches the ground. That is too funny. Really it is. A fundamental mistake that I can’t help but laugh at.


Of course air touches the ground. What stops it? I see wind causing the water in the river near my house to ripple? Are you suggesting that there is some kind of buffer there that prevents the air touching the ground?

To check against what. There are no other independent examples of Jesus’ life. And certainly NOT his divinity. So He renamed Simon, now you know He’s real? No you don’t. And even if this did provide some type of “evidence” it certainly does not speak to any divinity or even that it was Jesus.


It checks one gospel against the others. And by itself it does not prove his divinity, but as a fact proving the accuracy of the gospels, it does.

If you don’t think Caesar was on the coins of that time what makes you so sure that Jesus even existed?


Because those coins are pictures. Jesus's life is based entirely on contempoary written accounts.

Reply to latest post:

 

Yes and if we were talking about psycics, you'd have a point. But we arn't. We're talking about Biblical scholars.

The point still remains valid. Whether it be astrologers, psychics or the Bible, it is all man-made and self referential. Why do you think psychics have never passed any scientific tests of there merit? Because it is patently false. In the same way, the Bible may have the occasional historical reference within it, but other than that all other claims are not able to up to the test of science. The reason is very simple. If the Bible contained testable material, or falsifiable “evidence” it would be dismissed out of hand as a fraud. But by claiming these things are beyond science, religion enters the realm of astrology and psychics by claiming an erroneous claim that is it beyond reproach and beyond the scope of evidence thereby making sure it CAN NOT be falsified using reason and logic because it is faith-based, not evidence based.

Metaphors. Metaphors contain truth but are not literal.

Interesting tact but metaphors by definition ARE NOT truth. If the truth was being referenced it would not be a metaphor. For example, the movie X was a metaphor for World War II, but it wasn’t truthfully World War II just a representation and representations cannot by definition be truth. Therefore the example fails. Again there is nothing that is not truthful and literal.

The arrival of light isn't the creation of the sun. Rather it is the arrival of light through the atmosphere, according to some theorists who I find myself in agreement with. Also, the evening/morning are not literal, as I have said. The descriptors are used elsewhere in the same way, and biblical scholars have pointed out that were they intended to be literal, the words would have been used differently, as I have presented evidence to show you

What you have provided me was most certainly NOT evidence. It was conjecture. There is a large difference. And yet again you are changing your story more often than I can keep up with. First you posit “light” was through the atmosphere, then it was the Sun light as the Earth turned, now you are back to “through the atmosphere” again. Please make up your mind. Your quote “The seperation of light and dark, yes is descriptive of day and night”

See the linguistics evidence I provided. If it was literal, it would be expected to be something very different. The fact that it isn't, and the fact that it conforms far more to other passages which are known to be not literal, suggests that this is not a literal account.

Again you are providing nothing more than conjecture. If the Bible is either written by God, or His divine word (however you wish to interpret it) why would God not say “one evening, one morning, one billion years.” Because the people of the time had no understanding about just how old the universe really was. But as God, he should have known if He created it. Moreover, if the term “day” is used poetically in various places in the Bible (of this I do not argue) why is it being used metaphorically and not literally in what can only be described as the most important part of Biblical faith--the creation of the world? Simply because it is man-made. Ockham’s razor most certainly applies here.

I do not claim to know the entirity of the mind of God, but I, unlike the other world religions, can claim that it was God specifically who said these things. Jesus was God. This is a very different claim to every other world religion. No other religion claim that God reached out to them, rather that they, in reaching out to God, were responded too. As a result, we have a very different and far more complete picture.

No. You have a belief system based on faith that what was written in the Biblical story is true. It is only your belief. The idea that in one religion you reach to God or God(s) reach to you makes no difference to it’s truth value, it is still a faith-based belief and nothing more. Moreover, according to the mythos God created the mess, i.e., we are born in sin (I don’t know any baby that has sinned, but nevertheless), and He came to Earth and gave us a “choice”: either worship me or suffer the eternity of Hell. That does not seem right to me. Something is definitely wrong here. You’ve claimed before that God cannot tolerate imperfection so we must accept Christ, be washed of our sins and only then can we enter heaven. If that is true then you must admit that God does not have anything to do with the universe anymore or with us since there are still sinners on the Earth and He cannot tolerate imperfection, he must have to, according to your rules, stay away from the Earth altogether.

More on that point. The claim of the perfection of God is patently false. The universe is NOT perfect in any manner at all. And the Earth was certainly NOT created for us in mind. 75% of the Earth is covered in water in which humans cannot survive. Likewise there are strains of bacteria that have been around for billions of years that kill humans. There are inhospitable areas that are either too cold or too hot for humans. Yet people think the Earth was created with us in mind. It was most definitely NOT!

All you've quoted there is the existance of dogma. You have not proven that most of the world's church splits are over dogmatic issues.

All of the Christian religions have a core dogma they adhere to, but what else would they differ over if not interpretation as I’ve already stated. It must be interpretation. And since each has a different interpretation it follows that if there is only one correct one, each has it’s own claim to being that “right” one. Or more reasonably, they are all mistaken. If the Bible was written in such a way as to not cause separations between factions of the same religion it would have benefitted God much better. But it is just more proof that it is man-made.

No, the reason I give is the evidence. I see supernatural indications in fufilled prophecies, in the accounts, in all kinds of aspects of the Bible. I do not base my beliefs on what I want to be true, but rather what I see to be true.

I have not seen any evidence as of yet, only opinion and conjecture. Moreover, there have never been any fulfilled prophecies that have not been written within the same text as fulfilled. Of course if you are trying to overtake a major religion such as Judaism you are going to write about prophecies being fulfilled so that you can attempt to convert the Jews into Christians, that does not prove that they really happened by any means. “What you see to be true.” Can you give me one contemporary (within our lifetime) example of “seeing” that God exists or that Jesus exists, or that heaven is waiting, or that a soul is real?

Yes, but it is not history. It is pre-history. There is a reason the distinction exists

You claimed that before but still did not make clear what you mean by “pre-history”. It happened in the past, in the history of Earth. Moreover, if we have empirical evidence of billion year old meteors carrying amino acids, and partial DNA codes, why can we not have empirical evidence of Biblical occurrences? You keep telling me that one cannot view the Bible empirically because you cannot empirically examine history. Sorry, but if you can empirically examine pre-history, than you can likewise examine history.

It would if the evidence was compelling. Furthermore, your athiesm argument is invalid. Athiests do not claim to have any evidence to support the non existence of God. Christians by contrast do have evidence. Therefore, finding that evidence, and being convinced by it, is a possibility. All athiests could do is make you question.

You would like to think it would. But it wouldn’t. You are incorrect about the atheism argument. Atheists do have evidence of at least a possible way in which the universe began without a man-made God to create it (see Stephen Hawking). Moreover, Christians do not have evidence. If they did, as you claim, everyone would be a Christian. There would be no atheists, no Muslims, no Jews or Buddhists or Hindus, etc.. Yes Hawking’s views are not totally accepted by all atheists, but he has made a logically valid point as to how the universe came to be without the aid of a magical deity.

That would work, were the Peer reviewers all of the same mind. But they are not. Hence why it is peer review

Please send me a link to a subject of the Bible for example about the resurrection that has been peer reviewed by people who do not already presuppose its occurrence, like an atheist. What is meant by peer if not people working in the same field of study? A biologist is not going to peer review a physics paper.

No, they are pre-history. History, by definition, is recorded.

History: the study of past events, particularly in human affairs

Though not necessarily human affairs. It is the study of PAST EVENTS.

If you did X yesterday, is it part of history? Of course it is. Was it recorded? Probably not.

What they do disagree on is the cause, and how each of these things links, or indeed if they do link

There are very few people who disavow relativity theory. You’d be lucky to find a few in a thousand scientists. His vision was proven out by observation not faith.

Its just that those people did not care

Those people didn’t care that they were getting sick? And this makes sense how?

Of course air touches the ground. What stops it? I see wind causing the water in the river near my house to ripple? Are you suggesting that there is some kind of buffer there that prevents the air touching the ground?

I was being sarcastic because you wrote, and I quote: “Where the ground starts, the air stops”

That is exactly what you wrote verbatim. That is why I was laughing because there is no barrier though you claim the dew “falls”. And again I must correct you, the dew doesn’t fall it forms upon the item because air is everywhere. Though not according to your previous post it isn’t.

It was a fundamental mistake you just wont own up to.

Because those coins are pictures. Jesus's life is based entirely on contempoary written accounts.

I’m sorry but that is very bad reasoning. You believe a picture is worth less than words written on paper several thousand years ago? The coins at least provide a semblance of evidentiary “proof”, a likeness. Whereas written words provide nothing but a story. A man-made account of what allowed Christians to seize power over people and in the Catholic form, to enslave nations and torment disbelievers and so-called heretics. That is all it amounts to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RSS

Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2014   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service