GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2014, 07:17 PM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 08:23 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
PART 3 of response

Daniel
The Book of Daniel is often paired with the Book of Revelation as providing the road map of future end-time events. Many alleged prophecies in Daniel were fulfilled, but is that because Daniel was a divinely inspired seer? Critical scholars see a more mundane explanation. Daniel might actually be a Jew from the Hellenistic period, not a person from the Babylonian court. His so-called prophecies were made ex eventu, or after the fact, so that he could pass himself off as a genuine seer. The book itself betrays more than one author. Chapters 1–6 were written in Aramaic, while chapters 7–12 are in Hebrew. Daniel makes many historical errors when talking about the Babylonian period, the time in which he supposedly lived. For example, he claims that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but the Nabonidus Cylinder found in Ur names Nabonidus as Belshazzar’s actual father.

Also, Belshazzar was a crown prince but never a king, contrary to Daniel’s claim. In Daniel 5:30, Daniel writes that a certain Darius the Mede conquered Babylon. It was actually Cyrus the Great, a Persian and not a Mede, who overthrew Babylon. On the other hand, Daniel writes about events of the Hellenistic era with extreme accuracy. Chapter 11, presented as prophecy, is on the mark in every detail. This leads to the conclusion that Daniel was witness to these events but not to those of the Babylonian period, on which he is vague and unfamiliar.

Scholars thus place the writings of Daniel at around 167–164 B.C., during the persecution of the Jews by Syrian tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes. The book was meant as inspirational fiction to encourage the Jews in their time of trial. Daniel did take a shot at making a real prophecy, predicting the death of Antiochus in the Holy Land. This genuine prophecy turned out to be wrong. Antiochus actually died in Persia in 164 B.C.

Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE). Its exclusion from the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve) was probably because it appeared after the canon for those books had closed, and the dominant view among scholars is that Daniel is not in any case a prophetic book but an apocalypse.

Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous. Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10. The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.

Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.

The actual historical setting of the book is clear from chapter 11, where the prophecy is accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author knows about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BCE), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he knows nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or the actual circumstances of the death of Antiochus in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. (Wiki)

Now the good stuff:

Today the consensus of scholars understands the whole book of Daniel to be put together by an author editor who first collected traditional stories in chapters 1-6 about the boy hero Daniel showing his courage during the persecutions of exile, and added to them the visions of chapters 7 – 12 that predicted the coming end of Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution. This kind of writing is called a Vaticinium ex eventu, a “prediction after the fact,” in which an author creates a character of long ago and puts into his mouth as predictions all the important events that have already happened right to the author’s own time and place. The language is often coded with symbolic animals and colors and dates to protect its message from the persecuting authorities. Its focus is not on predicting the future, but getting some meaning to present happenings by explaining the past events that led up to this terrible situation (Boadt 1984, p509).

To achieve such an important purpose, the authors mixed historical facts with older religious traditions and even pagan myths (Boadt 1984, p509).

It is important to note that the entire book claims to take place in the sixth century BC and to report a series of visions that come to the boy Daniel, who is remarkable for his great wisdom and his ability to receive divine revelation about the future. Very few scholars today, however, believe that this book originated in any way during the days of the Babylonian exile. And the ones who do usually have a very difficult time explaining the references to historical people and places which seem to be grossly wrong.

Darius the Mede is called the son of Xerxes in 5:31 and 9:11, both are wrong:

Darius was not a Mede but a Persian and the father of Xerxes. Belshazzar is called the king of Babylon in chapter 7 and the son of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 5. He was neither: he was only crown prince under his father Nabonidus.

In chapter 6 Cyrus succeeds Darius as King of the Persians. This too has history backward, since Cyrus was the founder of the Persian dynasty. The author seems to be quite confused about his facts and either lived long afterward or else intended the giant bloopers to warn the audience that what follows is not intended as history but a story of faith; similar to the approach of the book of Judith (Boadt 1984, p508).

Although the book of Daniel was supposed to have been written during the Babylonian exile by an official of King Nebuchadnezzar, modern scholars date its writings to the second century BCE. The reasons for this include:

• It is listed in the writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 B.C.E.)
• Parts of the book (2.4 – 7.28) were written in Aramaic, which suggest a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.
• The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents Babylon in the sixth century BCE.
• The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with sixth century B.C.E. Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official of King Nebuchadnezzar.
• Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8.16 and 9.21 and Michael and 10.13, 10.21, and 12.1). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.
• The absence of Daniel’s name in the list of Israel’s great men in Ecclesiasticus.
• Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king’s name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.
• In 2.2 the Kings wise men are called “Chaldeans.” But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, “Chaldean” would have referred to the nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer. (Wells 2013, p 1109)

Do you see how these books were put together not by whom you think, not when you think and how they are allegorical writings based on parables, meant to drive a message and purposely designed in a hubris attempt to give them credibility? This was the driving force for me losing my faith, an intelligent person can't ignore facts, and the facts have been laid out. The more I learned, the more I thought, the less I believed. Your thoughts?

Works cited:

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

Boadt, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York. Paulist Press.

Wells, S. (2013) The skeptics annotated Bible. New York. SAB Books, LLC

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
27-10-2014, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2014 10:58 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
PART 4 of RESPONSE

“On another topic, you said you are an ex-Christian. I'm curious about that. I know people who used to participate in a church and who no longer do, but I've never had a discussion with someone who labels himself as an ex-Christian. What does that mean? What is your definition of being a Christian?"

I grew up southern baptist. My father was a minister, I was saved, baptized and involved at all levels of our church. I was surrounded in its glory, saw the ins and outs...as a young married man both of my daughters were diagnosed with infantile tay sachs disease, a horrible terminal disease with no cure...slow death came to them, my family surrounded us, we prayed, we rocked, I cried, I dont think there is a human on earth that prayed harder than I during that year of sorrow..I beseeched heaven and earth to take me instead....guess what happened? they died in my arms three months apart later that year...this was 1998. My wife committed suicide 2 months later..couldnt take the pain. I wanted to die, but unfortunately it appears I am extremely mentally resilient. Never saw a shrink, never popped a pill, I cried, I moved on, one foot in front of the other. Now I know you are thinking Ah, that is why he hates god, no, I started researching, thinking, asking questions, starting with the obvious why...the ministers and leaders told me things like "we don’t know god's plan", "It is not of us to question god", "god allowed this to happen to bring you closer to him" etc etc..I remember one night we had the church to ourselves, they opened it up, and a dozen preachers were there, we anointed the girls, prayed, and then the senior guy put his hands on my children and prayed, and shook and then looked at me and said, the power of jesus christ has healed them...you have only to turn your life to jesus, and believe and they are healed....yeah, no...they died. What kind of sick man tells a grieving heart broken couple that?

Anyway, I went through the stages of grief, and onto my trail of why...why did this happen, why would a god allow this to happen, then that started other questions...why was the 14 million jews allowed to be mass murdered...why this and that...what is this religion, what is it based on, I read the bible cover to cover, I started comparing it, learning the back stories, I started going to college and taking every theology class i could get my hands on, books, I own hundreds of them now, from all sides of the debate.....needless to say, the more I learned, the less I believed...all total nonsense. I expanded my search to other religions, the more I looked and read and investigated, the more ridiculous the story was....i didnt "turn from god" because my family died, but that experience gave me the drive to think, to learn, to read, to research, to discover that it is a clever, subjugative corrosive made up thing that the majority of the human race has embraced. When you learn that the gospels were not written by whom you think, that the bible is riddled with lies, parables, pseudepigrapha and interpolations...when you learn that moses, adam, eve etc were all complete fabrications, when you learn that the alleged miracles of jesus never happened, when you learn the most important lesson, that NO ONE who wrote of jesus knew him...it makes it all fall apart.

interesting side note, my parents later divorced, and remarried others, my mother is now a pentecostal preacher and my father converted to mormonism.

I apologize for the 4 lengthy responses, but you asked questions that require and deserve substantive answers. Take your time reading, validating, researching, thinking and respond at your leisure to any or all of it.

A christian is someone who believes that jesus christ was the divine son of god, and died for their sins. Accepting jesus christ as your savior and asking for forgiveness of your sins is the key to heaven. As such the incarnation and atonement was paid. There are over 40,000 denominations of Christianity......

GWG

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
28-10-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
Tsukho,

I hope I didn't drown you in info and chase you off. But when you ask, "how is the bible a fabrication", it is hard to sum that up in a short paragraph. It would be like asking how does nuclear fusion work...in order to give the question the attention it deserves, and the substantiation.. requires a semi lengthy response. I have tons more info to share, but wanted you to take your time, read, re-read, validate, think and reply as you see fit. No rush..

GWG

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
31-10-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
GWG,

That was a HUGE data dump and a very interesting read. There are a number of concepts with which I am unfamiliar. But this is good, since considering new ideas is the point of our conversation.

I apologize that I cannot address every point immediately for expediency's sake. However, I would like to address some.

Be aware that I have neither your specific education nor your library resources to draw upon. I'm aware that proper refutation should include documented, probably peer-reviewed, published sources. I don't have the time, money or energy to keep up with that. So please excuse me if I refer to online resources.

The problem with trying to make absolute declarations about history is that none of us were there. As historical researches identify new nuggets of information, theories change, they argue with each other, and a prevailing thought percolates to the top. Even then, however, we all default to a point of view that seems most accurate and logical to us.

Let me say up front that I have doubts about the concept of uniformity in regards to observational science. We think because we observe something now, that it has always been that way. For instance we see slow erosion of a stream and assume that same erosion explains the Grand Canyon's existence through the course of thousands and thousands of years. I don't think that is accurate and also it dismisses the concept of a causing agent.

As for your thoughts on the flood, I believe there are other concepts that fit in with a Biblical point of view.

Many of the thoughts I have are supported by the Answers in Genesis website. You might say the site is not mainstream and is not approved by the scientific community, but that is the point.

The historical Egyptian timeline may be prevalent, but it is not without issues. I found this article at Answers in Genesis interesting. It casts doubt on the veracity of the timeline. https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology...nreliable/

I don't think any trees lived through the flood. The bristle-cone tree, Methuselah, dates back to around when the flood occurred, but that assumes that tree-ring dating is absolutely accurate.

We assume that that rain started falling and filled up the earth. however, the flood did not consist of just rain, so that amount of water need not have been present in the air. Genesis 7:11 mentions the springs of the deep opening. I believe this means underground water rose up. A recent article posits huge underground sources of water. http://time.com/2868283/subterranean-oce...gwoodite/.

As the flood waters receded the turbulence would explain a number of things, including why mountains in one area seem more eroded than in other areas. It also would explain much of the land erosion for the Grand Canyon. Ken Ham points to pyroclastic flows at Mt. Saint Helen as an example of the laying down of many sedimentary layers in short order. This is also an interesting article here: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/are...processes/

I understand your re-population issue. I think it depends on uniformity, though. We assume that how things are now is how they were then. First, we don't know that Noah had no other children. We know three came out of the ark with him and are mentioned in later books. He lived another 350 years. He could very well have fathered many more children. Two, we assume the strength, intelligence and rate of population today is the same as then. I speculate that people of that time period were superior to us now. I can't prove that by the Bible, but there are verses that intimate it. Longevity (Noah lived centuries. Gen 9:28) Strength (David killed lions by hand. I Sam 17:36.) Rate of population (Gen 4 says Adam had three sons. 1 Chron 1:1 says he had one. The Bible does not identify all the children born. For example Gen 5:6. In addition they often had multiple wives.) The Bible mentions a also details the results of sin. One is that it brings death. (Rom 6:23) Creation is affected by our sin. (Rom 8:19-22) Even our brains are shrinking. (http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-...shrinking) I speculate the diseases and genetic disorders we have now stem from sin the world. (I have twin great nephews with a rare genetic disorder. They will never be able to function by themselves. I am not blaming their condition on their sin or their parents. I'm blaming it on collective sin that has impacted the world beginning with Adam. I think we are affected by this more so than in the past.

In addition, consider the concept of Pangaea. This is not a new scientific theory. Again, I cannot support these thoughts, but I speculate Adam and Eve lived on a supercontinent. That would explain all available animals being in one place. That supercontinent was broken up during the floods with the release of the waters of the deep.

I am not convinced by radiometric dating. I know it's not an exact science, but that also the different types of radiometric dating techniques tend to agree with each other. The jury is still out.


The concept of Documentation Hypothesis (JEPD) is new to me. Some of my preliminary research into it makes me skeptical. It seems as if the entire process predicates on the assumption that review of the Pentateuch language allows someone to definitively determine authorship.

Alas, I don't have time to fully research all of this. But I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
Find all posts by this user
31-10-2014, 06:25 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2014 10:40 AM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
Tsukho,
Thanks for replying, yeah sorry about the over data dump, I was striving to answer your questions fully, and those were huge questions. I will answer your post in bold for each point, if that is okay.


GWG,

That was a HUGE data dump and a very interesting read. There are a number of concepts with which I am unfamiliar. But this is good, since considering new ideas is the point of our conversation.

Awesome, learning new things, or considering new perspectives is always a good thing.

I apologize that I cannot address every point immediately for expediency's sake. However, I would like to address some.

Be aware that I have neither your specific education nor your library resources to draw upon. I'm aware that proper refutation should include documented, probably peer-reviewed, published sources. I don't have the time, money or energy to keep up with that. So please excuse me if I refer to online resources.

Absolutely, now if I may enter an opinion. I have found if one goes to the fringe hard right of either side's perspective, you get slanted, biased information cleverly spun to support their agenda. I don't normally use Atheist books or websites for research most of the time, or if I do, I vet (verify) the information from neutral scholarly sources, multiple ones are desired, in order to find the facts, the hard data, and then I can form an informed unbiased, opinion, rather than regurgitate invalid, misinformation. Ken Ham's AIG site is about as far right as you can go, he expends a ton of energy and time spinning pseudo-science in support of his intelligent design focused, young earth creationist views. Referencing him would be like me referencing the flat earth society's website for information about how the earth was formed...or expounding breatharianism as a philosophy to live by. It is fine if you are of the same opinion as Ken Ham, but don't follow his guidance, and take his musings as factual without independently researching it yourself. That goes for me too, please don't take a thing I say as fact, PLEASE go and independently verify it from NEUTRAL scholarly sources, then think about the information, does it make sense? I know my information is substantiated, there is no smoke and mirrors here Tsukho, just facts. How we can interpret those facts is of course subjective...

The problem with trying to make absolute declarations about history is that none of us were there. As historical researches identify new nuggets of information, theories change, they argue with each other, and a prevailing thought percolates to the top. Even then, however, we all default to a point of view that seems most accurate and logical to us.

Science is constantly evolving, it has to, that is how we learn. Science at one point thought the world was flat, then their perspective evolved with the discovery of new information. Religion on the other hand is stagnant, no matter how much we learn, and how much we discover that refutes their story, they "stay the course" and enter apologetics...tap dancing around trying to play word games to explain away the obvious plethora of flaws in their creation story. I know you are smart enough to be able to think on your own, without the influence of Ken Ham, or any other "religious leader", if not, then you are just blindly following someone else's delusion.

Let me say up front that I have doubts about the concept of uniformity in regards to observational science. We think because we observe something now, that it has always been that way. There are distinct constants in our observable universe, laws that haven't changed, for example the speed of light. AIG has an interesting area with a list of things not to debate with atheists, speed of light is one of them, we will get into the speed of light later For instance we see slow erosion of a stream and assume that same erosion explains the Grand Canyon's existence through the course of thousands and thousands of years. I don't think that is accurate and also it dismisses the concept of a causing agent.

Speed of light...

Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.

The stars gave light to the earth immediately, although the closest star, Alpha Centauri, is 4.3 light years away. So the very first star light would have taken 4.3 years to reach earth. The light we see from the Andromeda Galaxy takes 2.2 million years to reach earth, which also debunks the argument that the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old.



For info regarding the formation of the grand canyon please see: http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/ge...ations.htm

Why must there be a causing agent?

As for your thoughts on the flood, I believe there are other concepts that fit in with a Biblical point of view.

Not to beat a dead horse, but no, the great flood is solidly debunked. Here are two easy ways to establish that: The great mythical flood allegedly occurred in 2348 BCE. Weather conditions since then have not existed in order to rebuild Greenland (an island made up of over 80% ice) . Thus Greenland would not exist if there had been a global flood covering the highest mountain by 40 feet. The ice wold have been melted/floated and snapped off of its foundation, never to return, yet it exists......think about that for awhile. I also named several civilizations that existed during the great mythical global flood, that were not only NOT wiped out, but failed to even mention it. The Great flood story was borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Many of the thoughts I have are supported by the Answers in Genesis website. This doesn't surprise me, now...go do independent research into their claims, read, think...and see if you still hold the same opinion.... You might say the site is not mainstream and is not approved by the scientific community, but that is the point. That IS the point, his posits have been solidly debunked over and over, his misinformation and misguided twisting of science does not make him a credible source of information.

The historical Egyptian timeline may be prevalent, but it is not without issues. I found this article at Answers in Genesis interesting. It casts doubt on the veracity of the timeline. https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology...nreliable/

Thanks, I clicked, I read, and I compared it to known Egyptian history, archaeological data, and history of their dynasties. Sorry, Ken Ham is spinning yarns again, please independently research it, I would inundate you with the information, but then you would have to read through pages of information again from me. A key is seen here from the link you provided: "This so-called traditional Egyptian chronology would have the pyramids predate the flood of Noah’s day; such cannot be the case, for pyramids could never withstand a worldwide flood." Do you see what he did there? He spun it around and said, the pyramids could not have predated the flood, because the bible says flood happened, and that would have destroyed it.....exactly Ken, exactly. The bible is false, and it DIDN'T happen. It is like when he says, the earth is 6,000 years old, because the bible says so, thus all that fossil evidence is false...no, not the way it works Ken...or when he says dinosaur fossils can't be millions of years old because the bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old...yes ken, we are aware of the story, but it doesn't match fact.

By the way, the Exodus never happened.

The Exodus is now accepted by scholars as having been compiled in the 8th–7th centuries BCE from stories dating possibly as far back as the 13th century BCE, with further polishing in the 6th–5th centuries BCE, as a theological and political manifesto to unite the Israelites in the then‐current battle for territory against Egypt. Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide.


Just another big story, disproven by empirical evidence, or rather, the lack there of.

I don't think any trees lived through the flood. The bristle-cone tree, Methuselah, dates back to around when the flood occurred, You are correct, if the global flood had happened, and submerged the world for a year, no tree, or any other plant life would have survived, and the land would have been salted, the greenery long rotted, all fresh water animals dead etc....But speaking of trees; actually Methuselah is the oldest non clonal tree in the world at 5,000 years old, that predates the flood by 600+ years, the oldest clonal tree system is Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant, and is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers and assumed to have one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons), making it the heaviest known organism. The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms but that assumes that tree-ring dating is absolutely accurate.

Good point, so the flood happened allegedly 2348 BCE (according to AIG), so about 4400 years ago or so. As I mentioned before, Greenland ice core samples that go back 40,000 years, do not reflect a layer of sediment that would have occurred from a global flood (nor incidentally would Greenland even exist if the flood had occurred) NOR does tree ring information.

See here: http://www.livescience.com/29152-oldest-...world.html

I don't use wiki normally, but here is an easily laid out refutation to the flood.

Click here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

and here shows a local flood may have happened, but not a global flood: http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-flo...hole-earth

We assume that that rain started falling and filled up the earth. however, the flood did not consist of just rain, so that amount of water need not have been present in the air. Genesis 7:11 mentions the springs of the deep opening. I believe this means underground water rose up. A recent article posits huge underground sources of water. http://time.com/2868283/subterranean-oce...gwoodite/.

Yes, I am aware of that discovery, unfortunately there does not exist enough water on or in the earth to cover the highest mountain by 40 feet.

As the flood waters receded the turbulence would explain a number of things, including why mountains in one area seem more eroded than in other areas. It also would explain much of the land erosion for the Grand Canyon. Ken Ham points to pyroclastic flows at Mt. Saint Helen as an example of the laying down of many sedimentary layers in short order. This is also an interesting article here: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/are...processes/

That isn't the way it works, I laid out conclusive evidence against that in my earlier posts.

I understand your re-population issue. I think it depends on uniformity, though. We assume that how things are now is how they were then. First, we don't know that Noah had no other children. We know three came out of the ark with him and are mentioned in later books. He lived another 350 years. He could very well have fathered many more children. Two, we assume the strength, intelligence and rate of population today is the same as then. I speculate that people of that time period were superior to us now. I can't prove that by the Bible, but there are verses that intimate it. Tsukho, you are over reaching here, I understand the desire to support your world view, and to cover your inner doubts that MUST be shouting at you even as you type that..not only has the flood (Global) been disproved, there is no way 6 people, or 8 if you wish to entertain that the two senior citizens were helping out, could repopulate the world in that short of a time period, as I laid out quite extensively in my earlier post, stop regurgitating Ken's lies, and do the math, do some research on it, strengthen your faith with solid facts...think about it...it isn't possible. Longevity (Noah lived centuries. Gen 9:28) Strength (David killed lions by hand. I Sam 17:36.) Rate of population (Gen 4 says Adam had three sons. 1 Chron 1:1 says he had one. That is actually backwards, we are living longer now, not shorter lives. The bible is not a source of factual information on this. The Bible does not identify all the children born. For example Gen 5:6. In addition they often had multiple wives.) The Bible mentions a also details the results of sin. One is that it brings death. (Rom 6:23) That is a twist of scripture, it was intended to mean without accepting jesus as your personal savior, your life will end in death, with him, you will have eternal life in heaven. Remember, I have a degree in theology. and am very familiar with christian doctrine. Creation is affected by our sin. (Rom 8:19-22) That is why they created the incarnation and atonement concept Even our brains are shrinking. (http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-...shrinking) Yes, this matters how exactly, and suggests what? I speculate the diseases and genetic disorders we have now stem from sin the world. (I have twin great nephews with a rare genetic disorder. They will never be able to function by themselves. I am not blaming their condition on their sin or their parents. I'm blaming it on collective sin that has impacted the world beginning with Adam. I think we are affected by this more so than in the past. So you think collective sin caused your twin nephews disease? Now why would god allow two innocent souls to be born with a disease like that? Or like the disease which killed my two daughters? I will post a paper I wrote on sin in the next post, so as not to over clutter, this already overcluttered post

In addition, consider the concept of Pangaea. This is not a new scientific theory. Again, I cannot support these thoughts, but I speculate Adam and Eve lived on a supercontinent. That would explain all available animals being in one place. That supercontinent was broken up during the floods with the release of the waters of the deep. Close, it was formed about 300 million years ago, and broke up about 200 million years ago, long long before the mythical global flood. The continents are still drifting apart to this day, about 4 inches a year (gotta love GPS technology).

I am not convinced by radiometric dating. I know it's not an exact science, but that also the different types of radiometric dating techniques tend to agree with each other. The jury is still out. Actually it is pretty solid. Each type has its errency rates, but you are talking 5-10% of the age given depending on which style of dating method, and there is a huge difference between 6,000 years and 4.54 billion years in regards to the age of earth.


The concept of Documentation Hypothesis (JEPD) is new to me. Some of my preliminary research into it makes me skeptical. It seems as if the entire process predicates on the assumption that review of the Pentateuch language allows someone to definitively determine authorship.

The gospels were not written by whom common people think, fact, not opinion. No one who wrote of jesus, actually knew him, also fact, not opinion. I got into that pretty heavy on my earlier posts, please re-read, and independently validate it. So if no one who wrote of jesus actually knew him, then it is all based on religious "tradition" which means oral retelling of stories or myths. I will post a factoid on Romulus in the next post that you may find interesting. The mind blowing thing is not the amount of written material about jesus that exists, but the shocking lack of it during the "period of silence" (I will add some info on that in the next post as well). If someone was performing miracles, walking on water, healing people, and upon execution, caused the world to go dark and corpses to burst out of their graves...SOMEONE would have deemed it important enough to write down at the time it happened, not wait 60-150 years later...

Alas, I don't have time to fully research all of this. But I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.

I truly am here to help, help you on your journey towards the truth...be not a blind person led by his faith, seek knowledge, seek to learn about your faith which you hold so dear, you may be surprised by what you find...I was.


'til next time..

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
31-10-2014, 06:37 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2014 06:42 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
The relationship between incarnation and atonement

To contemplate the relationship between incarnation and atonement, with special emphasis on Anselm’s idea of satisfaction, we must first look at what incarnation and atonement means to those of the Christian faith. Incarnation is continual in that our redemption depends on the reality that the eternal son of God came to us as a man. If he did not come fully down, then we are not fully saved (Dawson 5-6). Since Jesus became what we are, accepting our very humanity and God crossed the gap between human and deity, and he overcame our sin and came to live on our behalf. He chose to leave a faithful life that was beyond our capacity, but required by the Father.

The very obedience of Jesus led him to die on the cross as penalty for human sin. Not only did he die for us, but he gave us new life for salvation, and salvation depends on our continuing union with him. The Incarnation is basically a fundamental theological teaching of Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. The Incarnation represents the Christian belief that Jesus, who is the second part of the triune, God, took on a human body and became both man and deity. This can be seen in the Bible in John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (Bible – King James version – John). The Christians worldview is rooted in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the belief that Jesus is God in human in one person (Mueller 141).

Atonement is a theological theory which describes human being’s reconciliation with God. This atonement is basically the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus. This voluntary sacrifice by Jesus made possible the reconciliation between man and God. “God so loved the world, and gave his only begotten son” (Bible – King James version – John 3:16). This Scripture verse highlights the source of atonement by the very provision of God’s love. It is the love of God the father that Paul has in view when he speaks of him who “spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all” (Bible – King James version – Romans 8:32). Surely God could have saved man by other means then allowing his only son to die, since God is all-powerful, other ways of forgiving sin were available to him. Some view the very necessity of his great self-sacrifice magnified his glory and enhanced the precise character of the salvation bestowed (Murray 12). Salvation requires not only the forgiveness of sin but also justification. Sin is the contradiction of God he must react against it with holy wrath demonstration of Christ on the cross is the ultimate demonstration of the love of God. The very nature of the atonement requires that it contains obedience, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption.

Obedience is a compilation of motive, purpose, direction and intention, of which Christ was the epitome of obedience and discharge of God’s will in its increasing demands leading up to his inevitable sacrificial death. Sacrifice is the removal of sin liability via the transference of liability itself. Propitiation; to pacify, and Christ’s propitiation to God was to deal with the wrath so that those loved would no longer be the objects of wrath, and God’s love would be eternal. Reconciliation is concerned with our alienation from God, and the inherent need to have that alienation removed. Redemption by Jesus’ blood, “Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Bible – King James version – revelations 5:9).

This atonement can be broken down into various theories, one of which is the satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033 – 1109). Anselm posited that sin unbalanced the order of justice in the universe. Once a sin has been performed, something good must be done in order to restore the balance. For example, a sin is incurrence of debt to God, the source of order, and that debt must be paid through true repentance (Albl 271). The work of Christ is to repair the breach human sin introduced into the relationship between humanity and God. Anselm argued in Cur Deus Homo that this work can be accomplished only by a God-man; one person equally divine and human. This doctrine of Christ is commonly called “Chalcedonian Christology” because it was created by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE (Visser 213).

One cannot explain the incarnation by appeal to any supposed obligation on God’s part to respect the devil’s rights over humanity. Since the devil had no such rights, so it appears that God would not have been acting unjustly if he had just delivered human beings the power of the devil by fiat. What reason did God have to redeemed mankind and the way he did, given that he was not under any obligation to do so? Anselm suggests that since we know God’s will is never irrational, we can be confident that God had some reason for doing what he did, even if we do not see or understand what the reason is (Visser 214).

Anselm believed he could prove, by unavoidable logical steps, that Christ was removed from the case, as if there had never existed anything to do with him, is it possible that without him mankind could have been saved (Anselm 261 – 262). A foundation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins (Bible – King James version –1 Cor 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever. This is the doctrine of the atonement (Mattison 1). At this point the author makes a faith claim, or commonly known as a knowledge claim, by positing “its reality is not in dispute”. I must interject here the whole subject is in dispute, and has been the center of debate for centuries. The author’s mere assertion in a knowledge claim that the atonement “reality” is not in dispute does not make it true. It does however assert that the atonement theory is an essential foundation of Christian religious belief. The author goes on to say, “we know that the atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.” Again, a knowledge claim is made; we have zero proof that the atonement works, at best it is a comforting theory for the faithful to cling to in order to validate their faith to themselves.

“The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible –King James version – Matthew 20:28). The statement suggests that Jesus gave his life as an extreme expression of love for mankind. Iranaeus of Lyons argued that Jesus was paid as the ransom to the devil free people’s souls. This view was known as the ransom or classic theory. The ransom theory was the dominant theological theory for centuries until dismantled by Anselm of Canterbury. He pointed out that this theory empowered the devil too much, and he posited that Jesus’s life was ransom paid to God, not the devil. Anselm viewed sin as dishonorable conduct that went against God. Since God cannot ignore this conduct, a debt or “satisfaction” is required. Since mankind is unable to make the requisite level of satisfaction, God became human to do it on our behalf. Thus, Jesus was payment to God, not the devil. But since Jesus was part of the triune god, did god merely appease himself?

The church leaders developed doctrine to reflect Jesus Christ’s fulfilling of God’s will through active obedience, vice his passive obedience through death. Basically, God requires mankind to obey and live a life of perpetual obedience (Mattison 1). This endless cycle of perpetual intellectual and spiritual slavery upon birth, where we continuously strive to bow and scrape in deference to our alleged creator’s self-centered will and ego, is hardly what a thinking person would presume a deity of such universe and life creating power, would be so obsessed with. What kind of immature supreme being would create all of this, create life, destroy life, send part of his own “body” down in the form of a man through immaculate conception, so he can die on our behalf to satisfy God’s ego requirement for sacrifice. I don’t purport to understand the consciousness of this alleged magical creature, but it is hard to conceive such childish, disingenuous manipulation of life for the entertainment of itself. This dramatic, over thought, contrite, anthropocentric theory must be the creation of man’s imagination. How could it be anything else?

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought, and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.

break

The odd silence about jesus

Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).

Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him.

It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.


Justus of Tiberius
There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius who was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: “he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.”

Your thoughts Tsukho?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
31-10-2014, 06:39 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2014 06:42 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
Romulus

Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.
In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

Works cited:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

Tsukho, does this story sound familiar? Your thoughts?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
06-11-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
GWG,

Thank you for all the material. It provides me a large body of information to digest.

I'm going to go radio-silent while I research all of this. In the meantime, I appreciate your candor, your willingness to talk to me, and the effort you've gone through to provide me with these thoughts.

I wish the best for you.

Thanks,
Tsukho.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Tsukho's post
06-11-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
(06-11-2014 09:56 AM)Tsukho Wrote:  GWG,

Thank you for all the material. It provides me a large body of information to digest.

I'm going to go radio-silent while I research all of this. In the meantime, I appreciate your candor, your willingness to talk to me, and the effort you've gone through to provide me with these thoughts.

I wish the best for you.

Thanks,
Tsukho.

You are very welcome, take your time, research, validate, and contemplate. I am not going anywhere, and I look forward to your eventual response. This information was pivotal in my turning from the myth, and I felt it important enough to share it with you.

GWG

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
27-11-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: GWG invites tsukho to a civil debate
*whistles calmly while cleaning his nails* Drinking Beverage

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: