Skeptic's Challenge

[DLH]

except the part where stellar nucleosynthesis is what created the matter that was brought together with gravity and formed the Earth not God, God didn't do it.

I don't know much about stellar nucleosynthesis or gravity but if they are accurate, and not changed in 10 years or so, perhaps they were God's method for accomplishing the creation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Adam's creation was the sixth day, right? You can count the age of the Earth on your fingers, then.

The term day is used three different ways in the creation account itself. 1, being the daylight hours, 2, being the 24 hour period, and 3, being all the six days combined in one day. The seventh day continued on in David's, day, then Paul's day and still in our own day. The seventh day is still going on. (Psalm 95:11 / Hebrews 3:16-4:10) The Hebrew term translated as day can be any amount of time from a few hours to time indefinite. Judgment day lasts a thousand years. The evening and morning in the creation account aren't literal days because 1, those periods only constitute a half a day and 2, there were no human witnesses on Earth those days would have applied to and 3, the only witness to mark them were in heaven where they wouldn't have literally applied either. The evening period was an unknown period of time in which the angels who anxiously watched the creation were unable to see what was going to happen and the morning was when the creative acts were revealed to the angels in stages.

Anyway, the first of those days, or creative periods, didn't begin until after Genesis 1:1 when the heavens and earth were already complete. The creative days were only progressive stages for making that completed planet habitable, so they in no way constitute the age of either the heavens or earth.

Oi. First Story of Creation -> Animals then Man. Second Story of Creation -> Man then Animals.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you justify that this is true, and not just a rationalization?

Sorry, but I've been to Star Trek conventions. Some stuff, the actual answer is that two different writers wrote two different episodes and they did not have the same understanding of the fictional mechanics of a fictional piece of gear used by fictional characters in a fictional future. But damn, the Trekkers are really good at jimmying up a rationalization that protects both episodes as if the story were factual and not contradictory nonsense.

So, what tells you that this is true?

That is sort of the purpose of having more than one testimonial. There isn't much to go on otherwise, so, since the Bible never deceives me I have no reason to doubt it. Remember, this isn't science. Its more of a trial jury.

Skeptics challenge! Show me something in error in the Bible and I'll explain why that error isn't important to ponder on about.

 

[DLH]

As opposed to someone who believes

1. The Bible is good. 2. They are smart if they read the Bible. 3. The Bible has all the answers. 4. Science is stupid and untrue. 5. People who believe in Science are intellectually inferior. 6. There is no hope for anyone who believes differently.

So on the face of it, there's no difference between you and us.

Except that science works, and the Bible doesn't. And in your heart, you know it. If you really believed in the Bible, you wouldn't be wasting your time on here arguing with us. You would be out sacrificing livestock and praying.

Most Christian thing the unbeliever is morally inferior, not intellectually so. I don't think that science is stupid and untrue I think it is often grossly overestimated by people who need to not believe in the supernatural. They found an answer elsewhere. Its a substitute. I believe that the unbeliever has the same hope as the unbeliever, they only reject it. The result of that rejection is no worse than the unbeliever would think was going to happen to them anyway. Eternal destruction. Death.

The primary difference between the two of us, in my own opinion, is that I think that you should be able to do your science in peace, whereas you think that my beliefs should be destroyed so that yours can reach their potential.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Can you justify that this is true, and not just a rationalization?

That is sort of the purpose of having more than one testimonial.

Um, no.
The purpose of having more than one testimonial is for two witnesses to tell the same story and corroborate each other.
Not to split up the testimony.

There isn't much to go on otherwise, so, since the Bible never deceives me I have no reason to doubt it.

But you don't know that The Books never deceives you.
You use that as your starting point. To keep both stories as possibly true, you have to assume that each author purposefully told only PART of the story, careful not to tell the part assigned to another author in another book, for no rational reason.
You can't identify someone telling the two authors to split the story up that way.

So, yeah, it's your rationalization.

Remember, this isn't science. Its more of a trial jury.

You have two completely different stories and an ability to try to make both of them not conflict.
This is not a jury trial, it's fanfiction.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, Tom. I don't know what to do. If I post a link to my own site to an article I wrote myself we could clear this up. That piss off the atheists. I could copy and paste the relevant portion. No, that would piss off the atheists. I could do both, but heh, that would really piss the atheists off. Lets do that.

...

But all of that is still completely scientifically inaccurate. There may not be not a single statement in there which matches up to the things you're talking about.

To keep it simplified, let's ignore most of that unscientific stuff and focus solely on a few questions about the plants and animals. You have plants, which survive through photosynthesis, existing before the sun can break through the cosmic dust clouds. How did these plants survive for thousands or millions of years without their single source of energy able to provide them with energy? Did these plants have leaves? If so, why? The only purpose of a leaf is to capture sunlight that the plant converts into energy and these ones couldn't do that.

You have these plants producing fruit before there are animals. The only reason for fruit is so that animals will want to eat it and thereby spread the plant's seed around. Why would these plants spend all these thousands or millions of years producing fruit without a single purpose for that?

You have flying animals existing before land animals. Given that land animals evolved into flying animals, where did these flying animals come from?


You can't assert that a book is scientifically accurate if you have this many scientific inaccuracies in the first chapter.

 

[DLH]

What we really are doing is addressing the common misconceptions the average or at least attending skeptics have regarding the Bible.

The most common conception atheists have about The Books is that it's an artifact of mankind as there are no gods.
Are you going to get around to addressing that as a misconception?

At this stage, from my perspective, no matter what subject I introduce the result is the same. They can't seem to get past their own anger and disbelief to discuss the subject in a rational manner. The gist of their collective response is 'God isn't real. The Bible is stupid. Tear this believer a new asshole before he runs away licking his wound.'

That would be an interesting thread of its own though, once they get used to me if I continue to participate.

 

[Sajara]

Can you justify that this is true, and not just a rationalization?

Sorry, but I've been to Star Trek conventions. Some stuff, the actual answer is that two different writers wrote two different episodes and they did not have the same understanding of the fictional mechanics of a fictional piece of gear used by fictional characters in a fictional future. But damn, the Trekkers are really good at jimmying up a rationalization that protects both episodes as if the story were factual and not contradictory nonsense.

So, what tells you that this is true?

That is sort of the purpose of having more than one testimonial. There isn't much to go on otherwise, so, since the Bible never deceives me I have no reason to doubt it. Remember, this isn't science. Its more of a trial jury.

You should probably watch this episode of brain games. Juries aren't really a good thing to mimic.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOhtQGE7nw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Sajara]

The most common conception atheists have about The Books is that it's an artifact of mankind as there are no gods.
Are you going to get around to addressing that as a misconception?

At this stage, from my perspective, no matter what subject I introduce the result is the same. They can't seem to get past their own anger and disbelief to discuss the subject in a rational manner. The gist of their collective response is 'God isn't real. The Bible is stupid. Tear this believer a new asshole before he runs away licking his wound.'

That would be an interesting thread of its own though, once they get used to me if I continue to participate.

Except we aren't angry with God. That would be like being angry with Voldemort. They are both characters in fiction. We can't get past our disbelief, but that's only because many of us started out as believers and through years of study migrated over to the disbelief side of the fence.

The Bible isn't stupid. It is a historical document full of text that is reminiscent of the authors's beliefs during that time period. The beliefs are barbaric. The God in the Bible is quite barbaric too. Saying the Bible is stupid is like saying Hamlet is stupid.

From our perspective, you are the one who isn't being rational. You are not supporting your beliefs with evidence, your logic is faulty, and by your own admissions you know little about science and yet it is absolutely wrong. Who here is being closed minded?

 

[DLH]

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.

Heli was Joseph's father in law. That was explained in my post above. They didn't use the term father in law and genealogically that is the way it was done. Remember, the Jews in Jesus' time didn't protest his chronology and they surely would have if there were any discrepancies. You are looking at it with a logical, but untrained eye.

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?

Matthan was the grandfather of Joseph, there were two people named Matthat the firs at Luke 3:29 and the second one, Mary's grandfather at Luke 3:23, 24.

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?

Luke didn't get it wrong, you did.

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?

That too was explained in the copy and paste and link I supplied on the subject above. You didn't need to have everyone listed in the genealogy, just the relevant ones, and anyway, they were doing different sides of the family.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

Yeah, I haven't been banned yet. I'm stunned. What am I supposed to do, continue?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The primary difference between the two of us, in my own opinion, is that I think that you should be able to do your science in peace, whereas you think that my beliefs should be destroyed so that yours can reach their potential.

Heh. That's funny.
I mean, it is sad that you have such a chip on your shoulder and it clearly informs the way you interpret any challenge from your critics. I, for one, don't intend to destroy religion. I served in the military with a conscious decision to support the 1st Amendment for all religions and the irreligious.

But really, it's funny.
Just how hard would I have to work against religion so that 'science' can reach it's potential? There was some significant slowing of scientific advances during the Dark Ages, sure. But who turned out to be right in the end, The RCC or Galileo?

Science advances because it works. The results are the same and don't go away no matter what your ideology is. A rabbi, an Imam, an atheist and a priest are on a space station. They develop an air leak. The air's going to leak until someone plugs the hole. It doesn't matter who applies the patch. It also doesn't matter if anyone prays. That patch is the fix.

Because science, bitches.

 

[dystopian]

At this stage, from my perspective, no matter what subject I introduce the result is the same. They can't seem to get past their own anger and disbelief to discuss the subject in a rational manner. The gist of their collective response is 'God isn't real. The Bible is stupid. Tear this believer a new asshole before he runs away licking his wound.'

Oh sure, blame *us*. It's what Christians so often do when faced with a crowd that doesn't succumb to their apologetics. Rather than accept that maybe their arguments are simply wrong/lacking, the problem must be with the atheists. Rather than the Christian being wrong, it must be that the Atheists are too angry or pigheaded to understand!

Perhaps you need to take a good long look at yourself, instead of blaming our disagreement with what you say on us.

And you *really* shouldn't call people unable to discuss things in a rational manner when you yourself consistently fail to do so.

 

[Keith&Co.]

They can't seem to get past their own anger and disbelief to discuss the subject in a rational manner.

And you're doing so much better? You seem to be seeking out ways to push the atheists' buttons to DRIVE them to angry responses.
Plus, your bias about atheist motives seems to cloud your judgment on what each challenge is about....

 

[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.

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?

Hmmm. . . . you have to be really careful when using the sort of info that search ("The Hebrew word asah") brings up. Strongs, for example, used especially for King James Version enthusiasts, tends to describe what the word might mean according to how its used in the KJV. Not really a very reliable source.

On the other hand, you have to pay attention to a wise guy like me who, uh, heh, gave you the wrong word. Asah does mean to make, it is bara that means to create.

Thanks for the correction, dude, I appreciate it.

 

[Sajara]

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?

Hmmm. . . . you have to be really careful when using the sort of info that search ("The Hebrew word asah") brings up. Strongs, for example, used especially for King James Version enthusiasts, tends to describe what the word might mean according to how its used in the KJV. Not really a very reliable source.

On the other hand, you have to pay attention to a wise guy like me who, uh, heh, gave you the wrong word. Asah does mean to make, it is bara that means to create.

Thanks for the correction, dude, I appreciate it.

So...still didn't answer Keith's question about how you know it was creatED and not creatING.

 

[DLH]

I see from your profile that you are a "Bible-Believer." But you're not a Christian, and you think swearing is OK despite the biblical prohibition. Very well then.

Swearing? That's a different issue. It was common in Jesus' day to swear to God, Heaven, the Scriptures etc. Swear to things they had no authority over, and Jesus said not to swear. At least that is how some people take it. Actually he said not to swear to things you have no authority over and rather than swearing for any little thing, like if you told the truth about snagging a piece of apple pie before it had been served just tell the truth so that you don't have to swear on the petty stuff.

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

Perhaps I am of an intellectual pedantic disposition, but the correct phrase is "Hear, Hear". The Bible says so: 2 Samuel 20:16.

Alright! Alright . . .

And let's not forget the report of St. Papias, a second-century bishop of Hierapolis. He assures us that Judas died not by hanging, but in a tragic chariot accident:

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

Interesting, but not necessarily relevant. I can't say either way because I'm not that familiar with the reference to Judas and don't have the time to research it right now. Are you sure he is talking about the same Judas?

- - - Updated - - -

Hmmm. . . . you have to be really careful when using the sort of info that search ("The Hebrew word asah") brings up. Strongs, for example, used especially for King James Version enthusiasts, tends to describe what the word might mean according to how its used in the KJV. Not really a very reliable source.

On the other hand, you have to pay attention to a wise guy like me who, uh, heh, gave you the wrong word. Asah does mean to make, it is bara that means to create.

Thanks for the correction, dude, I appreciate it.

So...still didn't answer Keith's question about how you know it was creatED and not creatING.

I know because the language dictates it. I've explained that thoroughly.

 

[DLH]

It always makes me laugh when people rail against science while on a computer using the internet.

The personal computer was invented by two college dropouts in one of their parent's garage, the Internet was invented by the U.S. Military. Science invented chemical and thermonuclear weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I know because the language dictates it. I've explained that thoroughly.

you've EXPLAINED, but you haven't shown any reference to support this.
As you said, you have to be careful with this. If you're not using Strong's to figure this language stuff out, what are you using?


See, you have accused pretty much every heathen atheist on the site as being ignorant of the truth of The Books.
Ignorance is okay, really. It's something we don't know. We're prepared to learn new things. If I say the woolly rhino was hunted 5000 years ago and someone shows me a reference that it went extinct 15000 years ago, I've learned something.
If someone just SAYS i'm wrong because HE says that the rhino was hunted until 10,000 years ago, I can't really say I learned anything. I can say that someone disagrees with me, and he's really, really certain about his facts, but he cannot show me any reason to be convinced he's right....

 

[Sarpedon]

The primary difference between the two of us, in my own opinion, is that I think that you should be able to do your science in peace, whereas you think that my beliefs should be destroyed so that yours can reach their potential.

Completely untrue. May I remind you that you came here and started preaching. You would never have even heard of me if you hadn't. Like I said, you are a one man cult, and frankly, from the looks of it the possibility that your stuff might catch on is worse than negligable. You are not on my list of priorities. I am discussing this with you as a form of entertainment and mental calisthenics, not because I have any ulterior motive about you or your beliefs. It is your ego that causes you to imagine that I am plotting against you, so that you can feel important. If you can't be honest about who is attacking who here, why should I think you are being honest about anything else.

As far as your list of pharaohs goes, thank you. However, you are still missing the name of the Pharoah of Exodus, which, yes, is the one who had to do with Moses. Others have asked about the Joseph one. Both of these would be very useful. I notice that of the pharaohs you do list, you list only the one that has been verified by conventional archaelogical science (Sheshonq) by his proper name and dynasty.

Shishak Sheshonk I, founder of the Libyan Dynasty. Ruled 21 years. Secceeded by his son Osorkon I. 1 Kings 11:402 Chronicles 12:1-12.

So Conspired with Hoshea against Shalmaneser V 2 Kings 17:3, 4

Tirhakah Taharqa. Modern historians and Biblical chronology don't agree. 2 Kings 19:8, 9 / Isaiah 37:8, 9.

Nechoh Contemporaneous with King Josiah (Herodotus II, 158, 159; IV, 42) Son of Psammetichus (Psammetichos, Psamtik I) 2 Chronicles 35:20–36:4 / 2 Kings 23:29-35 / Jeremiah 46:2

Hophra Called Ouaphre in Grek Septuagint (Jeremiah 51:30) Herodotus calls him Apries, thought to have reigned for 19 years though Herodotus says 25 (II. 161) Kere,oaj 44:1, 26, 29, 3

While egyptology is not an exact science, with the egyptians themselves not being terribly reliable when it came to dating their reigns, I'd expect that if the Bible is actually a faithful history, there would be a better record of these kings.

Here's a question for a linguist: Is the word 'Pharaoh' actually used in the bible? And if so, which kings does it refer to? Or is 'Pharaoh' just the word used in translation?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It always makes me laugh when people rail against science while on a computer using the internet.

The personal computer was invented by two college dropouts in one of their parent's garage,

Well, 1, i'd say 'developed' rather than invented.
But, hey, if they didn't use science, what did they use?

the Internet was invented by the U.S. Military.

And if the contractors they hired didn't use science, what did they use?

Science invented chemical and thermonuclear weapons of mass destruction.

...for the Military Industrial Complex. You're becoming very incoherent.

Saying that the military, not science, developed the internet is a lot like saying that Engineers did not build the Golden Gate Bridge, instead it was Welders.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

And let's not forget the report of St. Papias, a second-century bishop of Hierapolis. He assures us that Judas died not by hanging, but in a tragic chariot accident:

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

Interesting, but not necessarily relevant. I can't say either way because I'm not that familiar with the reference to Judas and don't have the time to research it right now. Are you sure he is talking about the same Judas?

You appear to have mixed up your quote tags, as that was in reply to my post, not part of it. No big deal; we all get confused with that sometimes. In fact, I'm getting in quite the tangle right now, separating that part out of your post.

But I can answer your question: yes, he's talking about the same Judas. What makes it (at least semi-)relevant is that it's just another example, like the growth in detail from Mark to Matthew and Luke, of accretion in the retelling of the story, each new storyteller adding a bit of his own imagining to what he heard from the last one.