Skeptic's Challenge

[Keith&Co.]

Here! Here! I give science a hard time when I talk to atheists because it challenges them.

Heh.
Not when you appear not to know what you're talking about. There's no challenge in dismissing people with the wrong impression of what science is, does or can do.

It (atheism) is a world view very similar to religion.

Except for the lack of gods, lack of uniformity, lack of ritual, lack of authority figures and you're welcome to question people's statements. But other than that, yeah.

 

[dystopian]

Here! Here! I give science a hard time when I talk to atheists because it challenges them. It (atheism) is a world view very similar to religion.

 

[DLH]

Fascinating.
You think we need a scientific paper to NOT be persuaded that something exists?

It is often told to me that science proves there is no God because science is the quasi religion of the so called skeptical. No such examination, much less conclusions have been drawn. Its a world view.

It's the lack of compelling evidence that he, or any other gods, exist that leaves us as atheists.

Honestly. I don't think that has anything to do with it. Have you ever heard Dr. David Berlinkski, an unbeliever, by the way, speak?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Except for the lack of gods, lack of uniformity, lack of ritual, lack of authority figures and you're welcome to question people's statements. But other than that, yeah.

Also, we don't have funny hats.

That's something which we could use.

 

[dystopian]

It is often told to me that science proves there is no God because science is the quasi religion of the so called skeptical.

...and who exactly tells you this? It certainly isn't any skeptic/atheist.

No such examination, much less conclusions have been drawn. Its a world view.

If atheism is a world view, bald is a hair color.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is often told to me that science proves there is no God because science is the quasi religion of the so called skeptical. No such examination, much less conclusions have been drawn. Its a world view.

OOooooh. It's 'often told to you.' I guess that settles it.
It's not possible that whoever says that understands less about science than you do?

The 'science minded' atheists would maintain that science is neutral on the subject of god.
And truly science-minded people would also know that science doesn't 'prove' anything. We find the best possible explanation for the observations made so far, but there's always the possibility of a better explanation being required for new observations.

It's the lack of compelling evidence that he, or any other gods, exist that leaves us as atheists.

Honestly. I don't think that has anything to do with it. .

Okay. You also think there's a god and that sciency atheists use science as a religion. So I give a rat's....why?

Have you ever heard Dr. David Berlinkski, an unbeliever, by the way, speak?.

No.

- - - Updated - - -

Except for the lack of gods, lack of uniformity, lack of ritual, lack of authority figures and you're welcome to question people's statements. But other than that, yeah.

Also, we don't have funny hats.

That's something which we could use.

I have almost finished the design of the FU sombrero. It's the battery that's giving me a problem, though.

 

[KeepTalking]

I will provide an answer from I already have on my website and we can discuss it further if you like or have questions. I would just give a link but skeptics tend to ignore them.

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Luke 3:31 / Matthew 1:6, 7) Luke follows the ancestry of Mary which shows Jesus' natural descent from David. Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. Both signify that Joseph wasn't Jesus' actual father, only his adoptive father and giving him legal right.

Matthew departs from his style when he comes to Jesus, saying: "Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16) He doesn't say that Joseph became father to Jesus but that he was "the husband or Mary, of whom Jesus was born." Luke says that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Luke 1:32-35) that "Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli." Luke 3:23.

Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit 1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: 'Genus matris non vocatur genus ( "The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant")' ('Baba bathra,' 110, a)." Commentary on Luke, 1981, page 129.

Both genealogies show descent from David - through Solomon and through Nathan. (Matthew 1:6 / Luke 3:31) They come together again in two persons; Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri - he was then the "son of Neri." or Neri's son in law. It is also possible that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his "son." (Compare Matthew 1:12 / Luke 3:27 / 1 Chronicles 3:17-19)

So, Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David's line, and Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Luke 1:32, 35 / Romans 1:1-4)

In the first chapter of Matthew the genealogy of Jesus runs from Abraham forward. In Luke 3 the genealogy goes back to "Adam son of God." Part of Jesus genealogy also appears at 1 Chronicles 1-3, running from Adam through Solomon and Zerubbabel. The books of Genesis and Ruth combined give the line from Adam to David.

The latter three lists - Genesis / Ruth, 1 Chronicles and Luke - agree fully from Adam to Arpachshad, with minor differences on certain names such as Kenan, which is "Cainan" at Luke 3:37. The Chronicles and Genesis / Ruth lists agree down to David while another "Cainan" is found in Luke's account between Arpachshad and Shelah. (Luke 3:35-36)

From Solomon to Zerubbabel the Chronicles record and Matthew agree though Matthew omits some names. Its best to address these as well as the differences in Luke's account from David to Jesus.

Genealogy involved private family records in addition to the public records of genealogies which chroniclers, such as Ezra, for example, had access to when they compiled their lists. To the registers that existed in the first century up until 70 C.E. the matter of the descent of the Messiah from Abraham through David was very important. Matthew and Luke no doubt consulted these genealogical tables.

The question is why does Matthew leave out some names that are contained in the listing of other chroniclers? For one thing it is not necessary to name every link in the line of descent. Ezra, for example, in proving his priestly lineage, at Ezra 7:1-5 , left out several names that were listed at 1 Chronicles 6:1-15. Matthew seems to have copied from the public register - leaving out some names not needed to prove the descent of Jesus from Abraham and David. Access of the Hebrew Scriptures would have likely been used as well. (Ruth 4:12, 18-22 and Matthew 1:3-6 ) Pathway Machine | Bible Topics: Jesus Genealogy

First, let's deal with the problem of who Joseph's father actually was. Matthew says it is Jacob, while Luke says it is Heli. Luke tracing the genealogy through Mary does not hold up, as Luke actually specifies that Heli was Joseph's father. Then there is the problem that they both seem to agree on Joseph's grandfather, Matthan/Matthat (the names being so similar that they are likely the same person and some examinations of the genealogies treat them as the same person). Did Joseph marry his first cousin, then? Further, if you want to claim that Luke was actually tracing the genealogy through Mary, while telling us that he is tracing it through Joseph, that makes Luke a liar. If he would lie about that, what else does he lie about? If we have known liars writing books of the Bible, and lieing about the most mundane and boring aspects of the narrative like genealogies why should we believe the fantastic stuff about gods and miracles?

Next up, and since it is on the same topic I am going to go ahead and ask it now: How is it that Matthew has 41 generations from Abraham to Jesus, and Luke has 56? That is a pretty big difference, don't you think?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm getting bored. We have a person here who knows the language better than any one else who ever lived, but needs to resort to copying and pasting other websites to answer questions. And they are attempting to derail their own thread by trying to tie up atheists with their broad brush.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm getting bored. We have a person here who knows the language better than any one else who ever lived, but needs to resort to copying and pasting other websites to answer questions. And they are attempting to derail their own thread by trying to tie up atheists with their broad brush.

What?
Is something missing from the usual itinerary?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm getting bored. We have a person here who knows the language better than any one else who ever lived, but needs to resort to copying and pasting other websites to answer questions. And they are attempting to derail their own thread by trying to tie up atheists with their broad brush.

What?
Is something missing from the usual itinerary?

No, but that doesn't mean I can't get bored.

I don't belong to an Christian group, however, I do completely worship what this website says about the lineage of Jesus via Matt and

And my question wasn't properly addressed. Joesph was Pharoah's main man. Moses was part of Pharoah's family. Moses goes back and deals with the Pharaoh. Yet, not a single name for any of these guys. In Genesis we hear about the infamous Chedorlaomer, the King of Elam. But not the leaders of Egypt?

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

And he [Judas] cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. Matthew 27:5

Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Acts 1:18

How did Judas die, and what did he do with the money?

Matthew gave the method of attempted suicide while Luke gave the results. Either Judas' rope or the tree limb from which it was hung broke and he fell down the cliff he tried to hang himself from and was split open by the rocks below.

Matthew was referring to a prophecy in the book of Zechariah 11:12, 13. He referred to it as "Jeremiah the prophet" most likely due to Jeremiah likely having been placed first in a group of books that included Zechariah. So Judas went to the Priests to return the money but they wouldn't accept it, and he threw it into the temple. The chief priests took it on his behalf and bought the potter's field to bury him in it. Matthew 26:14-16; 27:3-10

I find it highly unlikely that the authors of Matthew and Acts, working independently, both somehow failed to tell the full story of Judas' death, while filling in the missing details of each other's story. A much simpler, and more likely, explanation is that, while they did have one or more source(s) in common, they were working from different traditions and had received different versions of the story. Having been passed down orally for the first 30 or more years after the purported events, some disparity was bound to have crept in with the retellings.

As for the disposal of the money, your reply doesn't even address the question of the difference between the two stories. Yes, Matthew referred to Zechariah (albeit indirectly), because the author wanted to claim legitimacy for Jesus as one prophesied. The author of Acts, who is also the author of Luke, does the same. For example, when they both shoehorn a Bethlehem birth into their narratives. But again, they are there shown to be working from different traditions, as Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling to Bethlehem from Nazareth for the birth while Matthew has them living in Bethlehem from the start, and only going to Nazareth after returning from Egypt.

But that's another contradiction for another day. As it stands, you've cleared up nothing about the contradictory Judas stories.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm getting bored. We have a person here who knows the language better than any one else who ever lived, but needs to resort to copying and pasting other websites to answer questions.

Pathway Machine is DLH's website. Perhaps he feels that certain of his previously formulated argument structures stand up to reasoning.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm getting bored. We have a person here who knows the language better than any one else who ever lived, but needs to resort to copying and pasting other websites to answer questions.

Pathway Machine is DLH's website. Perhaps he feels that certain of his previously formulated argument structures stand up to reasoning.

As challenges go, this is not that big a deal, but I think it got him a few clicks, which is all he wanted.

 

[DLH]

Pharaoh issue unaddressed, is there an allowable question about the disordered creation of man and animals (ie Day 6 of the First Story of Creation verses the Second Story of Creation)?

I apologize, Jimmy, but it seems I had a response to the Pharaoh issue and I must have opened up another window and forgot I hadn't posted it. I'll check my drafts and see if I can recover it.

 

[bigfield]

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is scientifically inaccurate. Cosmologists estimate the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old (Source) while Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old (Source). Therefore the earth was not created in the beginning.

Again. The Hebrew word asah (created) is perfect state, indicating completion. At that point the heavens and the earth were complete. So there is no conflict with current science.

For over 9 billion years, or two thirds of the history of the universe, the planet Earth did not exist, therefore it cannot be reasonably claimed that the Earth was complete during that period. And 4.6 billion years ago is not the 'beginning' of the universe by any stretch.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is scientifically inaccurate. Cosmologists estimate the universe to be approximately 13.8 billion years old (Source) while Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old (Source). Therefore the earth was not created in the beginning.

Again. The Hebrew word asah (created) is perfect state, indicating completion. At that point the heavens and the earth were complete. So there is no conflict with current science.

According to other language experts through google, asah means do, doing and did. Make, making and made.
How do you determine that it was creatED, not creating?

 

[Iznomneak]

I'm getting bored. We have a person here who knows the language better than any one else who ever lived, but needs to resort to copying and pasting other websites to answer questions. And they are attempting to derail their own thread by trying to tie up atheists with their broad brush.

FYI, Pathway machines is his own website.

Edit: already addressed, posted in haste, sorry!

 

[Kharakov]

My question is: What is up with Bible Pi?

The apologetics seem disingenuous.

 

[DLH]

My question is: What is up with Bible Pi?

The apologetics seem disingenuous.

You mean Pathway Machine's apologetics on the Science and The Bible's look at Pi? What about it seems disingenuous and why?

 

[DLH]

Again. The Hebrew word asah (created) is perfect state, indicating completion. At that point the heavens and the earth were complete. So there is no conflict with current science.

For over 9 billion years, or two thirds of the history of the universe, the planet Earth did not exist, therefore it cannot be reasonably claimed that the Earth was complete during that period. And 4.6 billion years ago is not the 'beginning' of the universe by any stretch.

I don't think I get your reasoning there. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. At what period are you referring to in which it couldn't be complete, and how did you derive at 4.6 billion years. You are saying that they must have been created at the same time from Genesis 1:1? At that time, whatever time that was, they were both compete.