Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes. That's exactly what I implied. All history is false! 

 

What I actually was getting at, was that you can't simply take a look at a writing and say "that's a historical account" if it isn't corroborated by other writings. The bible isn't. I'm glad that you've basically resorted to acting like a child, because it's more in line with your beliefs: childlike. 

no, I simply took the easy route to your explanation.  it worked.  if that's childsplay then I see the level you're at.

You're right, you can't simply  just look at a writing and say it's historical... you actually have to do homework on the subject. 

For example, The Bible is not "A" book, but 66 separate books.  There are more than 24000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament alone.  no not copies of the Bible, copies of the original scrolls.  Of those 24000 copies the variants are minimal.  Some of that information is from Earthlink.

Beyond that, the archaeological evidences of Bible stories is sufficient to validate the historocity of most of the stories.  There is a whole Bible out there dedicated to just that evidence, the Archaeological study Bible.  Most scholars don't question the historocity, rather some question the God aspect of the stories, not whether the stories actually happened. 

That's only part of it, but that alone make it the most documented book of the ancient times.  Despite the attempts over the thousands of years to discredit these very stories you seem to think you have more information about than the rest of the geniuses in human history who have failed to discredit it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Some don't do the homework AND try to be too technical? I'm not sure what you're getting at. There is no evidence even of the writers of the gospels being one of the seventy disciples that followed Jesus. Provide evidence to me, and I will change my tune. Until then, I will reject the claim. 

like what?  a name behind the information I just gave?  Basically it has to be one of the few based on writing style and verbiage as well as perspective writing... Honestly if you have evidence of another possible writer of the book, please present it. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your post indicating Peter as the author of 1 Peter says "hard to dispute that". Presenting two different sides to the argument shows that there indeed is a dispute regarding the authorship. Shooting yourself in the foot in two threads now.

based on likely insufficient evidence... how many toes do you have left?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your problem is highlighted in your last paragraph. You hold the bible as true until proven false. That is the opposite of what you should be doing. Either way, where the hell does it confirm that it was written by eyewitness accounts? The 3 layer hypothesis is something new to me as well, but it doesn't mean that the "personal experience of Jesus" was authentic in any way either. 

The evidence of eye-witness accounts is in the writing.  You can analyze the verbiage and perspective used to be written as if it was witnessed or being told by others.  One can argue that anyone can write as if they witnessed soemthing even though they didn't but we have no evidence to suggest the witness based writing wasn't just that. 

I hold the Bible as true until proven false becasue it has already been proven to me.  So of course I am... just as you're holding what the world is telling you as truth until it's proven false. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

That link does describe how particular it is. It doesn't really leave room for your model, that must be both particular, and not, simultaneously. If you're passing something down word for word, you will NOT get locations wrong in that way. 

...unless its' written hundreds of years later... most times locations are not as important as what happened.. that's not an uncommon error.. Not to confuse the error, the mistakes in location is not geological, it's only by name, as to what the "current" geological location was called at the time of documentation rather than the time fo the story. 

jabberwocky wrote:

I'm sorry I forgot a word there. I meant where did you get Hebrews 2:9 being related to Matthew 4:1-11 (the part about Jesus' temptation)? Where does it imply that? Show me chapter and verse please. 

The link is the temptation mentioned in Matthew and the fact that Hebrews mentions that Jesus was made a little lower than angels.  God cannot be tempted... It is understood that Jesus is equal to God and therefore could not have been tempted if He was not made lower than angels for that time.  This is reading in the context.. it's understanding the phases of Jesus' life and where He was at at what point... Hebrews clarifies how Jesus was able to be tempted at all and be going through temptations like a human would go through.  Otherwise, it would not make much sense. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Pasted links from wiki...right. You are bad at providing sources for your claims. 

yea, true... I've only sourced pretty much everything for you... I should have made sure literally everything was sourced... but then, i feel even that effort would be pointless with you.  I've even told you to ask for sources for specific peices of information that you claim I didn't source to make sure I can back it up and you still ignore sourcing...  

it's really all you have left to defend your understanding isn't it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

That aside, it's because the bible makes some extraordinary claims for things that could not possibly have gone unnoticed. To stick to the gospels here, Jesus starting a riot in the temple, raising people from the dead, other people rising from their graves during his crucifixion....these are not things that would have escaped the notice of historians. There is no possible way. While literacy levels were low back then, it is still a relatively well documented time and place in history. There were historians of various backgrounds (Jewish, Roman, Greek, etc.) writing things down constantly. They somehow didn't get a single bit of news until 30-40 years after the death of this guy? That is suspicious. 

Secondly, the bible to me is just another holy book. Just like the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Bhavagad Gita, it is a book that centers on a reiligious concept. These books are frequently mutually exclusive, hence can't all be true. They can all be false though. I dismiss them until the evidence to consider them arrives. Still waiting. 

except the book of Mormon, the Qu'ran both were written by one person during a single lifetime, not hundreds of people over 1500 years.  Haven't researched the Bhavagad Gita. 

It's also historical fact that authorities of the time would not publically at least document situations that would demote their stature and/or make them look bad in any way... evidences of this is in hyrogliphics in Egypt where some pharaohs wrote of obvious false outcomes of certain battles and one was found to have a false documentation written on an outer wall where everyone could see and the true outcome written on that same wall on the inside.  I don't remember whihc pharaoh that was, but I'm pretty sure that was a Nat Geo or Nova source.  Just happened to catch that one time... the rest of it can be easily googled. 

Bad sourcing?  it's common knowledge here, do you really need sources? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

In that same chapter, it says (verse 11) that Moses did exactly that. 33:20 in some translations implies (at least to me) that no longer will that be possible. However, there are 2 references in the gospel of John, one in 1 Timothy, and one in 1 John, that say that it NEVER happened. You have to at least concede that not all of the verses I have mentioned here can possibly be accurate, as they are in direct contradiction to one another, no?

Just as other wordings in scripture can make it sound like the two may have been looking at each other, there is no implication that Moses visually saw God, only that God would come down to meet him to talk...which if you read scripture God has never done with anyone else as scripture determines. 

To add to it, it is generally understood that Moses likely did not write the books of the OT as some assumed originally... with that said, ti's also said in scripture that when Moses went to talk to God, no one would go with Him, so no one would have known for sure that Moses actually saw God, only that Moses would go up a mountain to talk to God... From an outside perspective, that would seem like a face to face meeting. 

Also, with Moses' first meeting with God, Moses would prostrate himself on the ground when talking with God, which would mean [if he was doing it in the proper way] that he would be facing the ground in the presence of God and not necessarily looking up at Him... Considering the authority figure of God in the Bible, it would make sense that such a sign of respect would have continued to happen with Moses. 

it's helpful if you can give me specific verses so I can cross reference what you're talking about. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I think that gods require supernatural power. I believe that people can make a god out of a person in their minds (see: North Korea). I do not believe that a person could not be an actual god though. You believe that there exist many supernatural entities then, but you only pledge your allegiance to one, making you a monotheist? Do I have that right?

yes, you have that right...

jabberwocky wrote:

I haven't found any. Could you provide me a link? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

focus texts are "existence" and "other possibly historical elements" though the whole thing is interesting to read if you have the time.  There are other extra "wiki" sources if you want to explore... go to Bing and search "Historical Jesus"

Jabberwocky wrote:

I have no idea what that bolded part is about. You asserted that "what is known is what matters, that Jesus was born where HE was and where He lived in this part."

I stated that that exact part of your post is an assertion, based on no evidence. You keep telling me to wiki it. I have. Trust me. Not just wiki. Googled, read Christian websites, skeptic websites, all sorts. You ask me to wiki things a lot (instead of providing relevant links as I do most often in such a situation). Now do you know why Wikipedia is so trusted even though anyone can edit it? It's because Wikipedia's staff check edits made to pages (and put harder restrictions on things of high prominence, such as the existence of Jesus, his birth, etc.). At the bottom of every page (except perhaps a very small page) you find SOURCES. Just like when you write an essay in school, you must add sources to your info. In reading Christian websites, I found no sources. Nowhere have I found reliable sources discussing Jesus being born in Bethlehem. This seems to be limited to the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and nothing more. To me, that's not enough as the bible, to me, is not evidence but the claim. Can you provide me any other sources? 

well actually I tell you to wiki things because you have shown me time and time again that you rely on that source as a means of reasoning... I would otherwise use other sources... I like to try to use sources others think are accurate rather than what I think are accurate so as to avoid the credibility arguement.  

If you've found no sources on Christian websites then I question whether they're valid Christian websites or just extremist sites. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not sure if 24000 is the number, but I'm fine with accepting it for the sake of argument for now. What does that prove that there are 24000 copies of scrolls? It's a well known fact that these were texts that were copied on a massive scale. When you go back to earlier times, then of course you're going to see more copies of the original scrolls. So what does this prove?

why copy something on a massive scale if it holds no truth?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Failed to discredit it? As I said....Jewish archaeologists searching for evidence of the exodus found nothing. Absolutely 0 evidence, in a place where they would have to have found evidence had the event truly occurred. One major narrative, disproven. We've gone through this a million times. You simply plug your ears, and ignore the internal contradictions, the contradictions with science, etc. You're not a young earth creationist, but seem to refuse to believe that humans evolved from a common primate ancestor with chimpanzees (and I'm not sure that you accept that we ARE primates ourselves). You ignore the problem with the census I brought up. You ignore in an entire long thread evidence that make the flood seem impossible. You ignore conflicting genealogies of Jesus. I don't care how many geniuses believed in the bible. To bring that up is merely an argument from authority. Isaac Newton was a genius of his time. He also believed in the phlogistan theory if I recall correctly (A long since disproven theory about what makes certain objects flammable). To know something involves more than mere certainty. It requires justification. If you are unable to demonstrate why something is true, then you don't know it. 

do you have a link so I can reference what you're referring to here?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Recently, when Ken Ham debated Bill Nye, Bill Nye compared disbelief in modern biology to people who think that the Earth is flat. Truly, the comparison is very appropriate. Ken Ham's response was to show a video (obviously sped up) of the round earth from space, rotating about its axis. However, the shape of the Earth (approximately anyhow) was confirmed long before we were able to photograph it from space. In fact, even you agree that the gospel writers probably thought that the Earth was flat (in our discussion re: Jesus seeing everything in the world from a tall mountain), hundreds of years before that, it was known in other parts of the world that it was indeed round. Eratosthenes even made measurements of the circumference. How accurate he is isn't exactly known since the standard of units used is in dispute, but it was likely between 1.6% and 16%. However, his method itself was sound. It was found that had he not made some bad assumptions, probably understandable for the time, he would have been within 0.16%. Remarkable for someone ~2300 years ago.

there was more to that part of the debate than a video shown, but beyond that, Bill Nye also mentioned many "mystries" as to which Ken Ham responded with "there's a book"...

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

You simply put full trust into one book. 

yea, it's just the book.. see where accepting what the world tells you gets you?  maybe start reading some of my posts before responding.

Jabberwocky wrote:

That link does describe how particular it is. It doesn't really leave room for your model, that must be both particular, and not, simultaneously. If you're passing something down word for word, you will NOT get locations wrong in that way. 

...unless its' written hundreds of years later... most times locations are not as important as what happened.. that's not an uncommon error.. Not to confuse the error, the mistakes in location is not geological, it's only by name, as to what the "current" geological location was called at the time of documentation rather than the time fo the story. 

jabberwocky wrote:

Nope, I'm sorry. So the soccer team I support has a song that the fans sing. It's a long one, about a fellow who goes to fight in a war. Any devoted fan knows it pretty much word for word, but there are 2 contentions. Was he under a Libyan sun, or under an Arabian one? Did he go to Anfield quite a lot, or did he get kicked out quite a lot? Now why doesn't this matter at the end of the day? Because the rest of the words are the same regardless of who sings it, and it is, as far as I know, not a tale based on an actual person. However, when it actually comes to the history of this club, about real events, people do get things right. (although for what it's worth, I've just read that "Libyan" is correct, hah)

Also, it wasn't written hundreds of years later. I think maybe 100 in the case of John, but not hundreds. 

Your argument here requires that something be accurate in just the right places, and blatantly wrong in others. It's just not very plausible that things would change in this way. Except weren't we talking about the census? So what of the story is true according to you? Mary and Joseph went to Joseph's home town of Bethlehem. Why? Census? Nope. No census recorded. A census never was recorded requiring anyone to  do that either. No such event occurred during the reign of Quirinius, or the governor at the actual time the story is said to have taken place. So all you're left with is "well it says they went to Bethlehem, so they did". So every other conceivable detail was mistaken? I don't buy it, and neither should you. 

...but you haven't shown me reasoning to question it yet, other than your skepticism.. we've already been through why this isn't a big issue.. there's a consistency in all the writings with these types of things. 

jabberwocky wrote:

I asked you where the link was. You provided nothing, except that you seem to have made the connection yourself. So my question, namely, where does the bible suggest that those two are related, was answered with nothing of any substance. Hebrews 2:9 seems to talk specifically about his crucifixion, and makes no reference to his temptation whatsoever. 

The Bible doesn't usually make direct references to itself be it that it historically was never one Book as we discussed... why would you expect to find a direct reference or link in this case?  The connection is in the context... it's consistent... if I'm mistaken, please use the context to show me how.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Hahaha....sourced everything? So why write that you got the info from pasted wikipedia articles, without citing the articles themselves? That way I could look through it, and check the citations in the articles (which is really the important part). Otherwise, you are just making an argument from authority. Also, I read a post in another place on the internet about the article regarding the historicity of Jesus, and how Christians are attempting to take control of it, and claim more for the historicity than is actually verifiable. This is why you should provide me with the links, that I may check them myself. I have done that for you on multiple occasions. Is it that difficult for you? When you say "I've only sourced pretty much everything for you", it makes me think this is a troll job. 

if I were a troll what does that say about you talking to me as long as you have... stop coming up with excuses... if you're looking for article sources, I will try to remember to include them.  I figured wiki is easy enough to search by key word. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Who cares how they were written, or by how many people? It doesn't matter a single lick. 

Historians of different backgrounds...that is one reason why the documents we find are deemed reliable. The diveristy of nationalities for the sources make it far less likely that modifying information for appearance's sake went on. It would be obvious if only Roman historians left out a certain event, or only Greek historians included another. 

Also, it's funny that you bring up the issue of the possibility of bias in sources. Then, you find nothing suspicious about only one of 4 gospels including mass zombie sightings in Jerusalem? You find that to be reliable even though it's not corroborated by anyone, and the writers of ALL of the books of the bible had to have either been believers themselves, or wanting to convince others to believe (AKA charlatans)? So you trust one absolutely uncorroborated source, but chalk it up to bias that actual historians of the time of various backgrounds wrote virtually none of those things down? 

That's part of the synoptic problem and also context shows that's not the first time people were risen from the grave, granted in quantities as suggested haven't happened, but it is prophesied that such an occurance will happen again.  There's more to it than that... You are obviously ignorant of the compilation, the synoptic problem, Q and contextual reasoning. We would need to have a very extensive discussion on those topics to clarify your issues above.  Something I'm convinced at this piont you're not very capable of having. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Exodus 33:11, as I said. It says in at least a few translations (including the NASB which I believe was one of the 2 you cited as a good translation),  Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

So what say you about that?

I just addressed that in the previous post

If you believe that other gods exist (real ones), you are by definition not a monotheist. You pledge your allegiance to one god, but you believe that others exist. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

why copy something on a massive scale if it holds no truth?

For the majority, perhaps it wasn't optional. For the minority, perhaps it was useful. 

perhaps you don't have a good reason other than a basis of truth for the writing. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

That very part of the wikipedia article covers it well. 

ok.  This covers the first part of the statement you made, but not the rest.  Let's address it though.

Most historians don't consider the information about the Exodus recoverable.  Nowhere does it say "false".  There is only a question of relevance in Israel's history... as to which this article states that it is nearly impossible to accurately date and therefore we cannot determine where the relevance would apply. 

Beyond that, the article tries to analyze dating and numbers as to which we've already discussed how they might vary and why.  How does this support your blatent "false" claim?  We can go through it step by step if you want.   Kind of the same issue here as with the Noah story where dating is... you know a slight importance when determining its place in history. 

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do you see it as some sort of a victory that Ken Ham responded to those things with "there's a book"? I see it as asserting something you can't know. Bill Nye is not afraid to say "I don't know" because he is an intelectually honest man. Ken Ham is not. 

you see "there's a book' as a dishonest statement?    Basically Ken Ham saw answers in the Bible to each point that Bill seemed to think there was a "mystery".  Beyond that, to become a believer is to acknowledge that there's more that you "don't know" than you thought when you didn't believe.  However with that expanded realization of the absence of knowledge comes more answers to things you originally felt were "mysterious".. 

I don't see it a victory any more than Bill's statement that there are mysteries is a a victory for the other side.  In other words, it's not.   These types of debates don't have victories.. if they did, then it would be the final debate on the subject.   We both know this did not seal the emvelope on the subject. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't understand your response here whatsoever. Since you failed to provide any evidence that this book is reliable, you simply trust it based on no evidence. 

a 1500 year compilation surviving mellinia of skeptics, haters and nay-sayers yet it has no evidence for reliability...  I don't understand that.  Considering the opposition throughout its history, there should not be a single copy left in circulation if what you claim of it is true. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

So do the writers modify it themselves? Or is it modified when being orally passed down? If the information isn't accurate in certain parts, how do you deduce that it is in others? Also, how do you know the original information was even authentic? You simply don't. 

The writers wrote based on what they knew presently.  That present information likely did not apply at the time of the event, but they wouldn't know any different.  The tradition of orally passing can modify a writing a bit, people tend to inflate numbers or volumes of events to make the story more interesting and/or catchy so as to keep the interest of the audience. 

How do I kno the original information was authentic?  Congruency within scriptures and outside.  Basically if an event took place in town B, but the story says the event took place in Town A... which happens to geographically lie in the location of the original town B, and other stories acknolwedge the event within scripture or flow smoothly from the results of the event then it is logical to conclude the event could have taken place.  Why use other scripture?  Other scripture does have historical support.  Either it's all true or it's not. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

So for you, a complete inconsistency with historical records isn't a reason to question it?

there isn't a complete inconsistency with historical records.... unless you have something new to show me.  Lack of evidence isnt' inconsistency, it's lack... inconsistency to me is you finding an alternative timeline that takes the place of the timeline in question and results in the same known historical outcome.  Do you have a link for this newly discovered timeline?  A link that directly acknowledges the Biblical timeline in question and compares it to the historically suppported timeline taht takes its place would be very useful. 

 

jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The Bible doesn't usually make direct references to itself be it that it historically was never one Book as we discussed... why would you expect to find a direct reference or link in this case?  The connection is in the context... it's consistent... if I'm mistaken, please use the context to show me how.

So are you implying that the verse in Hebrews 2:9 applies to his whole life? 

I'm implying that the connection is in the context of the Bible and that the Bible would not necessarily directly reference itself nor woudl it need to to have a connection. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, when you look up the sources yourself, do what I do and simply paste it for me. 

As far as what it says about me talking to you for so long if you're a troll, I can say that it involves enough boredom on my end. 

I'll paste links, but if they're long I hope you understand why I wouldn't. 

If you're bored get a hobby. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

We would? We would need to discuss the bible extensively in order to answer the question "Why did no historians write of these events?" I highly doubt that. 

well sure... I mean did you forget to link me the source that shows that Q was NOT written by a historian?  Who wrote Q then and when was it written?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Not to my satisfaction. Basically, your response wasn't much more than asserting that the bible's specific words imply something different. If the bible is being vague, then you can perhaps interpret things differently. When it's being specific, as it is in Genesis 33:11, your only response is that the bible doesn't mean what it clearly says. If that's the case, then even I can say that the bible is 100% true. It just has all the wrong words in it. Were you to replace them with correct words, it would be true. 

If you're going to be as critical as you are with the scriptures, we would need to discuss them more directly despite your skepticism in doing so.  Basically here's my problem with your issue here.  The Bible makes it clear that no one was brave enough to go up the mountain with MOses to meet with God... which means NO ONE SAW THE INTERACTION WITH MOSES AND GOD which means any claim that Moses actually looked at God was speculation at best.  This is what is called using contextual clues.  The direct worded claim that Moses met with God face ot face as friends do is perspective based considering that Moses would go up a mountain to talk directly with God.  Considering further contextual clues in the Bible, there is nothing to suggest that Moses actually looked at God including the first interaction where Moses did not look and to further support the idea that Moses did not look at God and see Him in his interaction, the Bible explicitly states that anyone who sees the face of God will die and it is said repeatedly in the NT that no one has seen the face of God.  Considering the authors of the NT, they would have been very aware of the story of Moses and would have taken that into consideration when writing that.  [jn. 1:18, Ex. 13:20]

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do they?

yes

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

perhaps you don't have a good reason other than a basis of truth for the writing. 

No clue what you mean. None. 

basically your response above was reaching for an excuse.  Perhaps is not a sound means of debate and likely means you have nothing to go on... in other words, you have no good reason to hold onto your idea of truth. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

As usual, you read nothing more than the introduction of a link I provided (or in one case, quite hilariously, one that you provided), except this time you actually understood the definition of all of the words used (no hard words here like "monophyletic&quot. The first sentence under the next minor heading:

wikipedia wrote:

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible

Not the consensus of evil atheist archaeologists. Not the consensus of RRS posters with "atheist" tags. Biblical scholars. They accept that it never happened in any way that resembled what was written. Hence, what was written can not possibly be considered accurate. So if it's inaccurate, how can you call it correct or true at the same time? If Jews weren't enslaved in Egypt in any meaningful numbers, and there is no way such a massive migration event happened, what part of the story is actually true? 

the question is "proportions".  the consensus as you just quoted is they say there ws never any exodus of the PROPORTIONS described... I've already addressed this.  The article goes on to talk about numbers... As I've said many times before, it is not uncommon for numbers to be different, usually inflated to bring emphasis to the story.  The number of people in an event doesn't matter as much as the event itself.  The point of the story are the events that took place, not whether 600 or 60000 people were involved.  The same goes with location names.  There we'd need to consider geographical location referenced rather than names. 

What's your next excuse?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes. I see it as dishonest. To profess something as true, you must be able to justify it in some way. What does it mean to "know" something? Mere certainty isn't the only criteria. This is evident without even leaving the realm of Abrahamic religions, as there are Muslims as certain of Islam as you are of Christianity (and possibly even more-so). At least one of you have to be wrong (and both of you could be, but due to the mutual exclusivitiy, it's impossible for both of you to be right). Your entire first paragraph is an utter fucking train wreck here. If you don't know something...well, you don't know it. Ken Ham doesn't know how the Earth came about. He is certain that he does, but he doesn't, because he is unable to demonstrate this. It's also hilarious that you disagree with him (given your allowance, and even your insistence, that the Earth is at least a few million years old). I hate quoting prominent atheists at risk of making an argument for authority, but I fully agree with Aronra on this, and I like the way he phrases it because he possesses an ability for brevity I seldom have. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Simple and true. 

I can't show you my grandfathers ability to make a really great spaghetti sauce because he's not capable of doing it anymore... that doesn't mean I don't know that he had the ability.  It was there in the past just as these events were... I cannot demonstrate an event that cannot be repeatable, but non-repeatable events do exist and have existed many times in the past... I cannot demonstrate anything that is beyond my ability... but just becuase I cannot demonstrate it doesn't mean it's not possible.  Unless of course you think I am the most powerful person in the world..  I guess I'll take that as a comliment then... thank you...

[sarcasm above, no I don't think you believe that about me just in case you were going to try to tangent with that]

Jabberwocky wrote:

By that logic, there should be nothing left of the Hindu Vedas either, yet there is. You assertion that it must be reliable because it continues to exist necessitates that one of the following 2 statements regarding the Vedas are true. 

1. There are no copies left in circulation (not true), or

2. The Vedas are just as true as the bible, if not more-so (as they have survived a few centuries longer than the old testament thus far). 

You must now see how bad this argument you just made was...right?

yes I do... I shouldn't have made the claim that there would be no copies left.. what I should have said is that it wouldn't be distributed to this day at the volume that it is.

Jabberwocky wrote:

So maybe the exageeration was, a flood happened in one town, and 3 people drowned, and it got inflated into everyone drowned but 8 people who built a giant floating fucking zoo. If you leave room for embellishment, you must explain how much is reasonable. 

Yes. And since the scriptures are internally contradictory in places, it's impossible for all to be true. 

the magnitude would have to be still much larger than your scenario above... and of all who have tried to point out contradictions in scripture, all have failed... So far all the alleged contradictions have been miscomprehensions of the scripture either based on an English rendering of the original language that is sub-par and/or taken out of context... which means they didn't do their homework before making a claim. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria when the bible claimed he was. That is 100% an event that the bible claims happened, when we know it didn't. So even in your distorted idea of standards of evidence (the bible claim shall stand as true unless you can prove exactly what time and place the bible was referring to, and show that something else happened in place of the events of the biblical claims, which is an impossible standard of evidence to begin with, and one which you yourself wouldn't ever grant to the Qu'ran or the aforementioned Vedas, meaning you are engaging in special pleading)....even with your distorted standards of evidence and burden of proof, the bible's account is 100% inconsistent with historical records regarding who was in charge of that place at the time. 

was he governor when the story claiming it was written?  Please reference the place too so I can cross reference..

jabberwocky wrote:

Gibberish. I don't know what you are getting at. 

just because you don't understand what I'm getting at doesn't make it gibberish... it just might be beyond your understanding.  The Bible is compiled through contextual evidence.  Each story is connected to another in some way or another or it wouldn't be there.  The connection is based on direct referencing and indirect referencing within each story.  There is a laundry list of evidences that need to be examined in order to determine its authenticity in scripture.  This starts with any reference to any persons in another authenticated book... From there, the accuracy of historical understanding is taken into consideration compared to the authenticated story and or events.  The list goes on. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I would read more than one paragraph, which seems to be what you do (and if I don't understand a word, I would look it up too! Novel concept, eh?...oops my Canadian is showing)

This is one of them. My hobby right now is desensitizing myself to how much cognitive dissonance people who aren't me can actually put up with. It might help my sanity if I ever meet someone like you in person. 

your assumption is based on ignorance of what you posted as exampled earlier in this post.  Ignoring a key word in a statement does not justify your comprehension of truth. 

It'd be fun to meet you in person.  I'd hope that we could sit down to a beer and enjoy each others company. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Q is an (justifiably) assumed shared source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are in the bible. The bible is not evidence. It is a claim. So why is the default position that a source for the claim was historic in nature, and it is up to me to prove otherwise? Also, since the assumed Q verses (which, as you know, are verses that exist in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark) mostly (if not exclusively) consisted of "sayings of Jesus" not descriptions of what he actually did, or about his life, it stands to reason that it almost certainly wasn't written by a historian. Historians don't tend to have careers as historians if their entire writings consist of "shit this one guy said". 

you're the one making the claim so of coures if you're absolutely sure a historian didn't write the events, then you must know all the sources that the Bible writers used to compile their manuscripts... either that or your'e just making an assertion.  Q is an assumed shared source... what is not assumed is that there is another unknown source that the books used becuase there are identical claims that are not in the writing style of either author.

The Bible when comprehended for what it is does apply as a peice of evidence.  Remember it's not one book and it was not written by a group of friends over coffee. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Why be specific if you don't know? I know it's sort of what religious people do (like your constant claims of certainty about things you can't possibly demonstrate), but it just makes it more fishy that way, no?

dont' know what exactly?  with things that are not known, we need to look at what is known... about the writing itself... because that was the topic in this particular part... are you suggesting I don't know how the bible was compiled and the reasonings for certain methods of translatino?  I woudl questino your knowledge on this topic. 

jabberwocky wrote:

My question was a challenge to show me where. Your response is an evasion of that challenge, meaning you can't actually demonstrate the accuracy of your assertion. 

I'm not going to repaste the majority of your posts..  I have directly addressed those parts in the posts in question. 

caposkia wrote:

show me how I was wrong.  Please use the Hebrew in your explanation as well as specific Bible references, that way I can double check my work. 

Wow, all I asked for was a link and you demand that jabberwocky learns hebrew... your intellectual dishonesty stretches to even more ammazing levels.

 

 

A Pan rozmawiał z Mojżeszem twarzą w twarz, jak się rozmawia z przyjacielem.

I am not going to quote & paste the previous post (912) but please use it has a reference. You are separating the Quran from the bible has if it were two different books, while at the same time pointing out (accurately) the many rewrites and reedits that both have gone through. They are NOT separate, the Quran is an update of the Christian bible; so says the prophet, and according to Muslims "The last prophet". Add in a few other existing writings and common-law customs and you have the Quran. There is very little of the Quran that was new or original even in the early 7th century. Has for being the BEST selling book in History; I dispute that. It is the most PRINTED book in history, followed by the Quran. The Gideon Society alone prints millions of bibles, in their own printing shop, each year and they sell exactly ZERO!!!!! They're handed out free. Other bible society's do the same: has do Quran printers and their society's. Very few bibles or Qurans are actually bought & sold. Without the free handouts the sales numbers wouldn't change much.

Doesn't matter. Your question was "why copy something if it holds no truth". I answered you. I know the difference between the Quran and the bible. It has no bearing on the discussion that we were having. If your argument is that the books were copied individually in large volumes before compiled into one biblibcal canon, well then what of the ones that were copied in large numbers and didn't make it? The council of Nicaea compiled this basically by figuring out which books were read most frequently by priests. It boiled down to which ones they liked. So are you saying that there is also that much truth in the gospel of Thomas? The gospel of Judas? If so, why weren't they included? 

Also, the bible wasn't compiled over 1500 years. It was closer to 1000. From 800BCE to the first council of Nicaea in 325CE, you have 1125 years. Not a big deal, but it's good to have your information straight. 

As far as answering your question of "Which one seems to hold more credibility just from that information?" my answer is neither. The Hindu scriptures were fractured in the same way as Christian ones were before the bible was codified. Does that mean that they, too, hold a truth that important? 

Carefully see what I bolded in quoting you. If all of it is true, the proportions have to be accurate as well. There is no evidence for such an event, and something of that massive scale would have left archaeological evidence. So, is all of Exodus true in your opinion, or is all of Exodus true except for perhaps the proportions?

I don't accept or reject the claim. I am willing to accept it, because it is a reasonable claim to make about a human being. You could be deliberatetly misleading me, and the only risk I take in accepting it if you are, is that I am misinformed about your grandfather's ability to make spaghetti sauce. Such things don't matter to me at all. If you ARE misleading me, I don't feel it problematic either, as it says more about you than it does about me. I tend to take peoples' word for things in general unless there is a risk to doing so. If I find you mislead me on all sorts of things (not related to the bible and Christianity, where I think you are more misleading yourself than me), then I cease trusting your word at all....and that second paragraph...it is an extraordinary claim to say that your grandfather made great spaghetti sauce? Right....

The whole thing here is that we are speaking of things that would leave physical evidence behind. Your grandfather's spaghetti sauce wouldn't, unless samples were frozen (and freezing could compromise the quality I suppose as well). The Exodus would, as would many other biblical stories (like that flood we're discussing elsewhere). Your god would know that rationalists who base what they accept as true on evidence would exist. He would know that leaving such evidence would convert them. So, did the Exodus not happen, or did God wipe the evidence so that people like myself would burn in hell? 

As mentioned...not sold. Distributed. Gideons gives away fucktons for free every year. Even if it were true, an argument from popularity is not a good argument either. There is a lot of popular music that I don't like. It doesn't mean I'm wrong. The bible is popular. That is all. 

And no, religions do not have any truth in them, I'm sorry. Unless there is a religion that is based only upon evidence (depending on the definition of religion, that may be impossible) it just can't have any truth in it. There can be parts of the bible that are correct. However, the method by which the claims in the bible were made, and the conclusions in the bible were reached, are not based on evidence. As I said, if you can't demonstrate it, you can't know it. You countered with that ridiculous spaghetti thing. As I said, that claim can be deemed plausible, because people make good spaghetti sauce, and your grandfather was a person. People rising from their graves (during Jesus' alleged crucifixion for example) is something that we DON'T see. There is no precedent, and that claim is not plausible, because the mechanics of it include things that are impossible. As a hilarious picture I once saw said, "The good news Bible: Citations needed"

caposkia wrote:

show me how I was wrong.  Please use the Hebrew in your explanation as well as specific Bible references, that way I can double check my work. 

No. I showed you the two languages I do know. You claim to have studied Hebrew. Explain to me where I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting. To demand I learn Hebrew (as another poster mentioned) is preposterous.

You said everything in the bible is connected and references other events. What does that verse have to do with anything is my question? I didn't ask if that was the point of the story. The dead rising thing is incredible because in that time and place, ONLY the bible makes those claims (And perhaps other Christian texts from the time that didn't make the canon). Are you suggesting that becuase the bible says more than one time that people rose from the dead, that it's indeed a mundane occurrence? That's fucking stupid. If it happened all the time, sure that would be mundane. However, it happens....well, never from what we can gather. You just tried to use the bible's reality to tell me that "oh people rising from the dead en masse....no big deal. Happened ALL The time back then in fact!" 

Yes, there's one story that talks about Lot. But you said all the stories get referenced all the time. I never heard more about that story. Hence your claim is invalid.

You sound too irrational in general, honestly.

As I asked, why clarify the point later in the same chapter that god was able to be seen up until that point, but can no longer? Why was that even included? Why be that specific about something for which you have no details? Also, has anyone witnessed someone looking at god and NOT surviving? Is that sort of a story included anywhere? 

This entire post also shows your dishonesty (and irrationality) in general. Why go on about translations, and asking me to learn Hebrew if my entire point didn't even matter? Here, you are implying that the people writing down the details got them wrong. So now you accept that the bible has incorrect details. However, then you also say that it's all true and there are no contradictions. This particular post by you contradicts itself very specifically, and you didn't even notice. So now, you're saying that you somehow know that a voluminous religious text is all consistent throughout internally? Give me a break! 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Of course. This is basically the Sye Ten Bruggencate defense without resorting to the brain in a vat argument. It just says "unless you are 100% certain, you can't know". For Cap's position to be valid, he would have to demonstrate that both the English AND Polish translations (which corroborate one another...you'll just have to take me at my word there) 

Biblia tysiąclecia wrote:

A Pan rozmawiał z Mojżeszem twarzą w twarz, jak się rozmawia z przyjacielem.

(and/but) (mr./the lord) spoke to Moses face (in/to) face, like (się rozmawia = one speaks) to a friend (Polish doesn't use articles like "a, an, the"....aside from this, everything is word for word, with multiple definitions/contexts in brackets). 

You yourself said that you studied Hebrew Cap, did you not? Why don't you provide me with a good translation of Exodus 11? Does it imply what I say it does? Or does it not?

I thought I had posted that already.

ואדבר ה 'אל משה פנים אל פנים , כמו שאתה מדבר עם חבר .

Alright, the above translation is the literal Hebrew translation of what we see the English and the Polish saying.  Below is the literal scriptural translation.    I'm sure i don't need to go into explanation and you can take my word for it that it says nearly the same thing.  The implication as said is that the author understands that God and Moses spoke face to face.  Again, what they know is that Moses would go up a mountain BY HIMSELF to talk to God.  How they actually spoke is up for speculation... the author can claim that they both spoke to each other while embraced in a hug and it's all still speculation because based on that same book, no one ever followed Moses up the mountain to witness the interaction.  All other scripture in the Bible indicates that they weren't likely actually looking at each other.  If they literally were face to face and Moses was allowed to stand in the presence of God Almighty [I highly doubt] then He could have kept his eyes closed or looked away so as to survive the ordeal.  Again, speculation only becasue no one was there to witness... Scripture is quite specific to indicate that one one has lived and seen the face of God. 

the other more likely possibility is that God appeared in a form kind of like the burning bush and Moses talked to God's manifestation, which then would not be looking directly at God, but could still be seen as talking face to face.  Kind of like metaskype. 

I swear though i already posted all of this...

 

 

 

  וְדִבֶּ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה אֶל־ מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־ פָּנִ֔ים כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יְדַבֵּ֥ר אִ֖ישׁ אֶל־ רֵעֵ֑הוּ וְשָׁב֙

caposkia wrote:

 

error or speculation was admitted here? 

Error. You have said many times in the bounds of this discussion between us (can god be seen by someone, with the person who saw him surviving), that you believe it to be the case that it is impossible, based on (at least) 2 verses in the gospel of John. If you believe that, then for your position to be consistent, you must concede that the author of Exodus 33:11 speculated (in ERROR) that Moses spoke to god face to face, in a manner no different than one person speaks to another face to face. Therefore, your position allows for the bible to contain human error. At the same time, you have said at least once (probably many more times) that none of the bible is untrue. This position is logically inconsistent, and therefore impossible. You have to pick one. Until you are able to do that, then this topic is impossible to actually discuss with you. 

It really puzzles me that someone can be shown to be absolutely wrong on a wide variety of subjects, yet keep returning to argue despite being thoroughly defeated. In the world entire it makes a bit more sense, as even today one can pick up their stuff and move to a place that never heard of them, or even simply stop associating with the group that so thoroughly defeated them. But in this case we have someone who constantly runs into a wall at full speed in front of an audience that never changed, though became less tolerant as the years went by. Even the biggest attention whores eventually stop when the majority of the audience belittles and heckles them. Even the biggest liars stop running for politics once the voters laugh them out of office. But caposkia remains. Proven wrong on hundreds of different topics and sub topics, with evidence and logic thrown at him over and over. None of it reaches him. He doesn't understand that repeating bullshit doesn't make it less bullshit. He hasn't grasped that he will never convert anyone here, and that he actually assists in converting his own against him. Even the religion he purports to support has accepted the realities that science has shown us, but he continues to wallow in ignorance. He has no humility, no shame. His arrogance is well beyond that of any I've encountered. It is so powerful that it actually has taken over his thought processes. He is so full of himself he can no longer process information. It's like I would be if I actually believed my egotistical statements were accurate instead of humourous and inflamatory. He has no concept of the divide between reality and his imagination. It both saddens and amuses me to know that he'll never know what a waste his life was. How he actually worked against his beliefs instead of for them. Unless he's right and there is a god. In which case he'll be thrown in hell for consistently and willfully breaking the laws of his own god. He bears false witness and worships false idols on a nearly daily basis here. One wonders how many more he breaks in his peronal life.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have answered the question "is the entire bible true?" with yes (essentially). 

You also assert that the "proportions" of things in the bible may be inaccurate, AND you admit that the writers didn't see everything, so could have gotten details wrong. 

 

These two things are mutually exclusive. It can't be both. Your response is absolute gibberish again. So answer this question just to make sure:

Did Moses speak to god face to face like one man speaks to another as written in Exodus 33:11, or is the bible incorrect about that particular detail?

The Entire Bible can be true when it comes to the stories as a whole... when nitpicking of course you're going to find small speculative errors.  why? it was written by people, so that is expected... does that invalidate the story?  of course not... Did MOses look at God?  likely not... but did Moses go up a mountain by himself into a stormcloud and talk directly to God... yes. 

You're basing the validation of the whole Bible on where someone was looking during a conversation. 

He claimed that the suspect looked at the ground before he attacked...  but he didn't see the suspect look, he was speculating... therefore the suspect never attacked the victim.  Does that make any sense?  This is what this sounds like to me. 

So how do you determine which specifics in the bible are accurate, and which ones aren't?

I'm not having a discussion with you, I made an observation. You are incapable of rational thought, and therefore the only value in discussion with you is for the audience. I don't care that you choose to remain ignorant, and have no interest in proving to you that you are wrong. I've done so literally more than a dozen times and you still pretend otherwise. I'd have to be as irrational as you are to keep trying.

Vastet wrote:

I'm not having a discussion with you, I made an observation. You are incapable of rational thought, and therefore the only value in discussion with you is for the audience. I don't care that you choose to remain ignorant, and have no interest in proving to you that you are wrong. I've done so literally more than a dozen times and you still pretend otherwise. I'd have to be as irrational as you are to keep trying.

yet here you are... you have failed at every attempt... and when backed into the corner you resort to these passive agressive commentary approaches that again would not be necessary to mention if what you say is actually fact. 

i mean do I actually have to say to you; look into a mirror?  i wish honesty was a reqirement on these threads

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:

I'm not having a discussion with you, I made an observation. You are incapable of rational thought, and therefore the only value in discussion with you is for the audience. I don't care that you choose to remain ignorant, and have no interest in proving to you that you are wrong. I've done so literally more than a dozen times and you still pretend otherwise. I'd have to be as irrational as you are to keep trying.

yet here you are... you have failed at every attempt... and when backed into the corner you resort to these passive agressive commentary approaches that again would not be necessary to mention if what you say is actually fact. 

i mean do I actually have to say to you; look into a mirror?  i wish honesty was a reqirement on these threads

well no, I've never lied...

I may have been mistaken about a fact here and there, but I have faced all of those mistakes head on.

Ignorance does not excuse you from falsely accusing someone of something they have not done.

caposkia wrote:

well no, I've never lied...

That is a lie. Best ask forgiveness.

Being mistaken isn't the problem. Wilfully denying being mistaken despite absolute proof of being mistaken is the problem.

Ignorance is your specialty. I avoid subjects I'm ignorant of. You embrace subjects you're ignorant of. All my accusations are true and verifiable. Should anyone ask for a demonstration, I shall provide it. Except you. I already provided it to you. Multiple times. It just made you lie even more.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but the verse in Ex. 33:11 does says that he did exactly that. Exodus 33:20 doesn't say that it was NEVER impossible. Jacob said he saw god face to face. God is said to have appeared to Abra(ha)m as well, although no "Face-to-face" reference is mentioned. Moses and Jacob are said to have experienced god in exactly that fashion. Moses asking to see god's glory isn't any indication that he had never seen him at all. Certainly if you're referring to the mere sight of someone/something as glory, of course you're going to want to see it again. If you didn't see it in the first place, how would you know to call it glorious?

face to face is a description of an interaction, not a description of what was actually seen. 

Moses asked to see "all" of God's glory, not just His glory.  He knows to call God glorious because God is himself glorious. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I am reading it in context. You are not. You are picking a side of this contradiction (god can NOT be seen), most probably because Christians tend to lend more credibility to the new testament than the old where there are..."problems"...and since it's in a gospel to boot, you have put your chips on the side of the fence that god can not, has not, and never will be seen (at least perhaps not on earth). I'm even conceding that the majority of such references are vague enough where your argument (as weak as it is in the first place) could be made. However, when Exodus 33:11 and Genesis 32:30 both mention, specifically, that two people have indeed seen god face to face, you have two choices; be honest and admit the contradiction with the new testament verses, or simply pretend that it says something else. As I said...if it said 2+2=3, you would probably find a way to reconcile it when it clearly can't be so. Exodus 33:11 and Genesis 32:30 can work if Exodus 33:20 says that god can no longer be seen (or would, if later books didn't mention such things too, albeit less specifically). However, either Ex33:11 and Ge32:30 are both wrong, or John 1:18 and John 6:46 are wrong. If you don't accept that those are the only two options, then you are allowing yourself to believe a logically impossible proposition in order to uphold your belief that the bible is true and god breathed. If you don't accept those as the only 2 options, then we are done on this point, as we won't get anywhere if you simply dump logic. 

the context repeatedly explicity states that God cannot be seen by a living person.. how am I not reading it in context? 

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It reminds me of Sye Ten Bruggencate giving what he probably thinks is a brilliant and brief disproof of Islam. He says that the Quran says that scripture can't be wrong, says that the bible is scripture, and says that the bible is wrong. I haven't looked it up if the Quran says that or even implies it, but I'm willing to take his word for it....yeah....I'm willing to take Sye Ten Bruggencate's word for something....wow. I know that the Quran comments on Jesus and calls him a prophet although not the son of god, still says that he was born a virgin, but that someone else was crucified in his place. That is enough for me to accept that the Quran calls the bible false, as it contradicts a central theme. The thing with people like you and STB, is that you are completely willing to apply logic to disprove any other scripture, but when your own book contains an internal error like the one we're discussing, you do this pathetic dance, trying to somehow say that the bible is all true, even when it's logically impossible. You say it might be off on proportion, but is somehow true. You say the writer(s) of Ex. might have erroneously interpreted Moses' meeting in 33:11 as face to face, but then also somehow gotten verse 20 right that he can't be seen. You don't drop logic elsewhere in your life, do you? Why do it for the bible?

From what i've read of the Q'uran, it does say scripture can't be wrong, but does not defend the Bible by any means.   Granted I haven't read every word, but have read a good chunk of it. 

I wouldn't say that it defends the bible either. I didn't imply that it did. I was providing an example of faulty logic applied by a popular (yet exceptionally stupid) apologist. However, I was saying that he made 3 points essentially about the Qu'ran. (scripture can't be wrong, bible is scripture, the bible is wrong) I know that the Qu'ran either says literally, or implies heavily enough to the same effect that the bible is inaccurate. Hence it's only the first 2 points I feel I must check now. If it indeed makes those implications, than someone who believes the bible is literally true (even more-so than you, because this person believes that there is no proportional discrpenancy, and that the Earth and Universe are indeed 6018-6019 years old) is able to make a logical argument regarding other books that logically actually does disprove the Qu'ran. However, this same person is able to ignore any such contradiction in the bible (like the one we are discussing which is obvious to anyone for whom the bible being enitrely true has no emotional implications) for bad reasons. This is special pleading (I won't bother explaining it to you again, because you either don't understand waht it is, or pretend not to). 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

You're right. You did decide it's possible to take the literal meaning of the words and understand them as is without still seeing god. However, what you fail to admit is that you have to figuratively put your fingers in your ears, and sing a song in your head. From one of your preferred translations (the NASB)

Quote:

Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

*Thus Bill used to speak to his nemesis, Fred, face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.* 

What's going on in this statement I typed? There is quite literally no way to interpret this, except that Bill is talking to a man he is not friends with, and having a normal civil conversation with him (for one reason or another), instead of being hostile. I added the nemesis reference, as the last part of the sentence makes no sense (or at least less sense) without it. You would never, reading this sentence, think that Fred didn't see Bill during this conversation, (unless some additional information is provided, like your earlier example of one being blind, or something of the sort). Let's establish that neither Bill nor Fred are blind. An omnipotent god can't be blind, and I don't think it's reasonable for Moses to have done the things he is said to have done in the bible were he blind himself. To imply anything other than Fred having seen Bill in the sentence I wrote above, is to say *I have read a sentence that has been concisely communicated to me. I will now figuratively shit on it, and pretend that for some reason, Fred never saw Bill here*. It's absurd, and you know it's absurd. You would not make that implication if you replaced the characters in the sentence, because it would be stupid. Why is it appropriate to make it when reading Exodus 33:11?

So you do take the word of a bystander over the source. 

I have no idea what you mean, and I doubt anyone else reading this does. 

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah. Accusing me of being a troll....that's hilarious.

well... you just accused yourself.. I said you're either. or... so you are a troll???  again, I'm questioning your admission here, not accusing.

No I didn't. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't care about the point of the bible, because I find it un-entertaining. However, I believe many people mis-classify it as fact, when it is indeed fiction. Of course, book discussing facts can contain errors. However, it's extraordinarily rare for them to include internal errors, because they are typically proofread. Books of fiction, on the other hand, can contain errors (as can movies, TV shows, etc.). I can enjoy Star Wars (at least episodes 4-6...hopefully 7...) despite knowing that parsecs are a measure of distance and not time (and I think the explaining away by very overzealous fans that say the Kessel run can be cut down on distance by going through an asteroid field, hence cutting down distance is a STUPID one), and despite the fact that ObiWan implies that Storm Troopers are brilliant marksmen (they are shown to be the opposite throughout the movies). This is ok, as it's fiction. I can deal with bad English in Final Fantasy VII. I can deal with all sorts of ridiculous paranormal things in X-Files (and the fact that the skeptic is routinely proven wrong by ol' Spooky Mulder). However, you are claiming that the entire bible is true. That isn't true by default if it contains 0 contradictions, but containing 0 internal contradictions is the very minimum requirement for your assertion to be true. You are simply pretending that the contradictions staring you in the face are not there, because you have been taught to do that (whether by yourself or other people). The bible has failed the minimum requirement to be 100% true, therefore the point is moot! It's readable as fiction in that case if you enjoy it, but it is impossible for the bible to be all true, because it contains these contradictions. 

that you have yet to really support beyond random banter. 

YOu talk about proof reading... There are scriptures that you are putting in question that have survived thousands of years of skeptics... and somehow you seem to think you've figured it out because... well... proof reading would assure there were no internal errors and so the Bible must be a writing of fiction. 

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nope. When a blind person speaks to someone, it is implied that he doesn't see them because....he's blind. If I say that I have a conversation with a deaf person as I do with one who isn't deaf, the implication is that the deaf person is a very good lip reader (let's pretend for the sake of this argument that they are 100% deaf). The reason I add "as I do with one who isn't deaf" to that sentence, is because when you typically mention a conversation with a deaf person, sign language is at least implied as a possibility. If god routinely communicates with people by other means (which is implied often, whether it's through angels, by just speaking but not appearing, etc.) then merely saying "Blank talked to god" does not mean that Blank saw god. If, on the other hand, more information is added to the sentence, then it is immediately implied that the nature of the conversation took place in exactly the manner that two humans speaking have a conversation. You can ignore it all you want. That's what it says. The gospel of John is wrong about this, (twice) or Exodus 33 is wrong about it. As I said, if you don't believe that those are the only 2 options, you are shitting on logic to support your belief. That means you are extraordinarily illogical in all your endeavors, or you are making a special exception in this one case. Either way, it's not a good thing. 

So ultimately, a blind person is incapable of a face to face interaction.  ok then, thank you for clarifying your perspective.  By this understanding, the author/observer would have to be claiming that Moses actually looked at Gods face..

So now to address the understanding that no one actually witnessed the interaction, how reliable would you say this assumption is on the actual interaction between Moses and God assuming this actually happened?

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Not past Genesis? The Quran mentions Jesus....

Anyway, I'm not ignoring the complexity of the bible. I am simply highlighting verses that are mutually exclusive to one another, both in context, or on their own. This means that the bible fails the minimum pre-requisite for the whole book to be true, and therefore at the VERY least, one side of each contradictory part must be incorrect. It's simple logic. 

Q'uran mentions Jesus, but it is not congruent past Genesis.  Jesus would be a random fact mentioned and does not imply any other congruency.. what they mention of Jesus is quite contrary to the Bible. 

Anyway

based on a bystander's claim...

So the Qu'ran's comments on Genesis are always 100% accurate, but not beyond? 

caposkia wrote:

quote=Jabberwocky]

Contextual contradiction...I found a literal contradiction. You're ignoring it. This is getting stupid. You claim that you would re-evaluate given a contradiction. You are given one, and you don't. So you are either deluding yourself, or lying to me. 

Just because I don't immediately submit to your blind assumption doesn't mean I"m not willing to re-evaluate something.  You have not given me one, you have given me your assumption that one is there.  I have looked into it.  I have explained to you in a few different ways why it isn't a contradiction... you have ignored it.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't believe that there was any mention in the bible before Ex 33:20 that says or even implies that seeing god's face results in death. The most logical conclusion based on that (given, also, that many times before, people seeing god has been said concisely, or at least implied), is that this is a new rule implemented by god in Exodus 33:20, and Moses was simply the last one to see him just 9 verses earlier. If you cut it off at Exodus (and back, or backparts don't count, as that is what 33:23 says Moses WILL see) then one can say that the face of god was seen and could be seen up until that point, and that would still be a consistent interpretation. Once it's later said in the gospel of John that it isn't possible, and WAS never possible, means that one of these statements is incorrect. I can't believe I have to repeat and rephrase this this many times.

 

In short, I am unable to believe that logical contradictions are possible. You seem to have that ability. 

Contradictions are not possible... period. 

I'm not sure that there is anything mentioned before either... as the Bible is compiled... but are you assuming that Genesis is the oldest book and that each book in the order they have been put in the Bible are chronologically aged????  that is a common misconception.

Going back to the Hebrew.. EX. 33:20 is written in a way to explain that God's face could never have been seen by a person and have that person survived the interaction.  The Hebrew didn't typically use past tense to explain a universal constant, but rather neuter or present... In this verse  "יִרְאַ֥נִי" is present neutral and is in reference to all time.  that would be the root "ra'ah" which is the word "see".  The Hebrew here is suggesting that it was never possible in the text regardless if any text before or after ever claimed it. 

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

I wouldn't say that it defends the bible either. I didn't imply that it did. I was providing an example of faulty logic applied by a popular (yet exceptionally stupid) apologist. However, I was saying that he made 3 points essentially about the Qu'ran. (scripture can't be wrong, bible is scripture, the bible is wrong) I know that the Qu'ran either says literally, or implies heavily enough to the same effect that the bible is inaccurate. Hence it's only the first 2 points I feel I must check now. If it indeed makes those implications, than someone who believes the bible is literally true (even more-so than you, because this person believes that there is no proportional discrpenancy, and that the Earth and Universe are indeed 6018-6019 years old) is able to make a logical argument regarding other books that logically actually does disprove the Qu'ran. However, this same person is able to ignore any such contradiction in the bible (like the one we are discussing which is obvious to anyone for whom the bible being enitrely true has no emotional implications) for bad reasons. This is special pleading (I won't bother explaining it to you again, because you either don't understand waht it is, or pretend not to). 

 

You're right. You did decide it's possible to take the literal meaning of the words and understand them as is without still seeing god. However, what you fail to admit is that you have to figuratively put your fingers in your ears, and sing a song in your head. From one of your preferred translations (the NASB)

*Thus Bill used to speak to his nemesis, Fred, face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.* 

What's going on in this statement I typed? There is quite literally no way to interpret this, except that Bill is talking to a man he is not friends with, and having a normal civil conversation with him (for one reason or another), instead of being hostile. I added the nemesis reference, as the last part of the sentence makes no sense (or at least less sense) without it. You would never, reading this sentence, think that Fred didn't see Bill during this conversation, (unless some additional information is provided, like your earlier example of one being blind, or something of the sort). Let's establish that neither Bill nor Fred are blind. An omnipotent god can't be blind, and I don't think it's reasonable for Moses to have done the things he is said to have done in the bible were he blind himself. To imply anything other than Fred having seen Bill in the sentence I wrote above, is to say *I have read a sentence that has been concisely communicated to me. I will now figuratively shit on it, and pretend that for some reason, Fred never saw Bill here*. It's absurd, and you know it's absurd. You would not make that implication if you replaced the characters in the sentence, because it would be stupid. Why is it appropriate to make it when reading Exodus 33:11

So you do take the word of a bystander over the source. 

IF anything you've got one thing right... we are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Caposkia wrote:

 YOu talk about proof reading... There are scriptures that you are putting in question that have survived thousands of years of skeptics... and somehow you seem to think you've figured it out because... well... proof reading would assure there were no internal errors and so the Bible must be a writing of fiction.

Religion survives through marketing, not scientific testing and falsification and peer review. It is a book of myth, written over 1.000 year period with books left out, and none of the gosphels were written during the alleged time of the alleged character Jesus's alleged life time.

And it still would not matter if a man with that name existed. Men do not magiclaly pop out of dirt, women do not come from mens ribs. Donkeys and bushes and snakes do not talk. You cannot cure blindness with spit or mud. Men do not magically turn water into wine. It takes two sets of DNA to make a baby and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. 

And there are plenty of contradictory stories from the OT to the NT and even discrepancies between the gospel writers.

It was understandable when people believed that crap back then. It reflected a very patriarchal fuedal time and a very scientifically ignorant time. Gods in monotheism and polytheism reflected the societies of those times. 

The fact is the earth is 4 billion years old, no religion was around back then. The universe is 14 billion years old, and again, no religion existed back then. In billions of years from now our species will be extinct, and eventually the core of our planet will burn out and the planet will die itself. Our sun as well has a life span and it too will die. None of what you typed or what i am responding to will be of any record to the future. The universe will go on without us or any care of us.

That is the reality you do not want to face. There is no super hero in the sky by any name and there never was. There are simply humans who believe because it feels good and or are afraid of their finite existence. The only thing religions by any name prove is our species imagination. Hardly impressive and unfortunately quite mundane in our species.

 

Brian I love how you give your 2 cents and run.  Stick around for a bit this time..  I've enjoyed our conversations in the past... you were great comic releif on the mega-thread.  I need some here.  

I mean your blind faith in people astounds me.   It's like you believe we have it all figured out now.  If you're looking for a superhero in the sky Brian look for a big S on his chest.  

So, are you back because you're afraid people might forget to think for themselves or do you actually have something new for me?

IF anything you've got one thing right... we are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

caposkia wrote:

IF anything you've got one thing right... we are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

          I could never worship a god that thought creating the human race was a good idea.