TA List Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2014, 03:29 PM
TA List Debunked
The ThinkingAtheist list has now been completely debunked here.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/ThinkingAtheist

Here are some examples of really bad claims on the list that should've never been included:

Was Jesus Born in a House or a Manger?

A manger isn't a living area. Really? And if it was, I doubt it would fit very many people. Humor aside, Luke 2 never says where they lived, only that it had a manger and was not an inn. Presuming more than that is reaching.

How Old Was Jehoiachin When He Began to Reign in Jerusalem? And for How Long?

Both passages are correct. Jehoiachin began to reign in Judah at age 8 (2 Chronicles 36:9) and in Jerusalem at age 18 (2 Kings 24:8).

Who Did the Midianites Sell Joesph To?

As often happens, the critic's faulty reading comprehension comes into play here. The passage never says "The Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites." Reading the passage in context clearly shows it was Joseph's own brothers who sold Joseph to the Midianites/Ishmeelites. Ishmeelites was just a synonym for the Midianites. Joseph's own brothers sold him to the Midianites/Ishmeelites. In fact, the passage itself clearly shows this if read in context, but TheThinkingAtheist.com failed to quote the key verse 27 that would've made this obvious. As v. 27 clearly shows, it was Joseph's brothers who sold him to the Ishmeelites, because the Ishmeelites and Midianites are one and the same. For example, I am both an American and an Illinoisan, they are two different names for what I am, but one defines me by continent, and one by state. In the same way, one can be a member of two groups. The context in this passage was very obvious just from a single verse earlier, that this got called a contradiction is simply ridiculous. Therefore, Joseph's brothers sold him to the Midianites/Ishmeelites, who in turn sold him to Potiphar. A reading of the chapter in context clearly shows these were two separate events.

Where Did the Anointing of Jesus Take Place?

The Matthew and John passages relate the same incident involving Mary, as does Mark 14:3, but the Luke 7 passage is obviously not even the same incident. It doesn't even occur close to the same time! The incident with Mary occurs near the end of the Gospels right before the Passover/Crucifixion, whereas the Luke 7 incident is much earlier in Jesus' ministry. Whoever claimed this as a contradiction has a serious issue with telling time, and that's putting it nicely.

These are obviously two different cases. And as for the critic claiming a contradiction because "It isn’t an unnamed woman sinner who anoints Jesus, but Mary who does the honors"? This would be like someone referring to you as "that person over there" and another referring to you by name, it's obviously not a contradiction to just refer to someone with a descriptor instead of a name. If one writer wants to refer to her as a woman and another by name, they certainly are not contradicting.

What Was the Population of Israel? And How Many Fighting Men Did They Have?

The "ThinkingAtheist" omits the crucial verse, 1 Chronicles 21:6, which explains the discrepancy. Unlike in 1 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21 states "But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them." In other words, 1 Chronicles 21 is omitting 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel. 1.1 million is 85% of 1.3 million, and 5/6 is 83%, so it appears that for whatever reason two fewer tribes are being counted in 1 Samuel 24. Why that might be we can only hypothesize, perhaps a separate count of Levi and Benjamin was performed once it was discovered Joab had disobeyed, and the full amount given in 1 Samuel 24. At any rate, the two accounts are perfectly congruent in light of the fact that two fewer tribes were being counted in the second passage.

Did Jesus Speak at His Hearing Before Pilate?

What we have here is a critic using a word they don't understand, namely charges. Charges are the accusations the priests and elders made against Jesus, not Pilate's curious questioning of Jesus. If the critic had any reading comprehension they would have noticed this. Jesus refused to answer the accusations the prosecution made, but did carry on a conversation with the judge about who He was, in other words. This really should have been quite obvious since John 18 also mentions Jesus responding to Pilate's questions. It should have been very obvious that Pilate's questions were not considered charges like the accusations of the priests and elders. Either the critic didn't even bother reading the passage at all carefully to see this, making a careless accusation, or deliberately was dishonest in trying to make the passage appear to say something it didn't.

What Were the Centurion’s Words at the Cross?

The statements are not remotely incompatible, there is no reason the centurion could not have said them both. Mark 15:39 additionally records the first statement. The critic simply doesn't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction." A contradiction means there are two incompatible statements which are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true, not a case like this where additional detail is given.

Shepherds or Wisemen?

Obviously there can be both and the passages don't contradict in any way. If all four Gospels provided the exact same detail/wording, what would be the point in having four different accounts? They'd obviously have colluded. Providing different detail is not in any way a contradiction. Claiming this a 'contradiction' is just outright ridiculous, to put it politely.

Who Did the Angel Speak to Regarding the Birth of Jesus?

Obviously an angel spoke to both of them. As pointed out in the note for Matthew 1:16 the genealogy provided in Matthew is for Joseph while the genealogy in Luke is for Mary. The detail given in the early chapters of Matthew appears to be from Joseph's perspective whereas the detail given in the chapters of Luke from Mary's perspective. Thus, Joseph in the book of Matthew relates his experience with an angel, while Mary in the book of Luke relates her experience. Whether it was the same angel or different angels is uncertain.

Did Mary Journey to Bethlehem?

First of all, where does it say they traveled via donkey? Neither Matthew or Luke appear to mention this, and Mark and John don't mention Jesus' childhood. Secondly, Joseph in the book of Matthew gave different detail about Jesus' childhood than Mary did. That they chose to relate different aspects of what occurred is not unusual and certainly not contradictory. The event does not need to be mentioned in both books for the Bible to be true, after all. Thirdly, both Mary and Joseph were of David's lineage and both needed to go. Joseph's genealogy in Matthew and Mary's genealogy in Luke show they were both of the lineage of David. For more on how Mary's genealogy was presented in Joseph's name per Jewish custom, see Luke 3.

How Many Blind Men Did Jesus Heal on the Road from Jericho?

Mark 10:46 never says there was "only" one blind man, it just happens to mention one. It's not uncommon for witnesses in court to only mention people at a scene they consider relevant. No court would take seriously a claim that the testimony of witnesses contradicts because they mention different unconflicting details of what occurred; it's just taken for granted their accounts need to be accepted as different perspectives of what occurred until they disqualify themselves as dishonest, or the evidence does.

Mark perhaps interviewed Bartimaeus or someone in his family who mentioned him specifically, while Matthew mentioned both people. This isn't in any way a contradiction, just mentioning varying levels of detail about what happened. The Gospels are different accounts from different people. You expect different levels of detail in different accounts so long as there's no clear conflict, which there isn't here. Had the Mark passage used the word "only" then there would be a contradiction, but nowhere is the word found in the passage. The critic is putting words in God's mouth, essentially.

Is it Good or Bad to be Wealthy?

Ultimately the critic makes a very simple mistake in failing to distinguish between this life and the next. Psalms 112 in context is speaking of future rewards, eternal rewards, as evidenced by the phrase "righteousness endureth for ever" (which the 'ThinkingAtheist' dishonestly did not quote). Another verse in the chapter, Psalms 112:6, shows that this is referring to eternal riches, not riches in this life. It is ultimately not riches themselves that are evil, but the love of them, trusting in them, rather than in God and the eternal riches which He gives to the righteous.

Who Were the First Visitors to Jesus’ Tomb?

That this is not a contradiction should of course be patently obvious. None of the verses remotely appear to contradict one another. Matthew 28 mentions two of the three present, Mary Magdalene and another Mary. Mark 16 mentions all three, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Jesus, and Salome. John 20 mentions only Mary Magdalene. Luke 24 mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Jesus, Joanna (who may be the same as Salome and/or the mother of Zebedee's children in Matthew 27:56), and other women.

If one author was aware of one person present, another of two people, and another that three were there, it is in no way a contradiction. One writer may see fit to mention only one, another two, and yet another writer to mention all persons present. In no way does it contradict, it simply means less detail was provided about those present by different writers. Had the Matthew or John passages said "ONLY X persons were at the sepulchre" than that would be a contradiction, but to put words in the mouth of the writers when that is not what they said is to falsely accuse the Bible of a contradiction that does not in fact exist.

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
Originality 3/10.
Conviction 7/10.
Insanity 2/10.

Overall 4/10. Would troll again.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 16 users Like cjlr's post
10-07-2014, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2014 03:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: TA List Debunked
(10-07-2014 03:29 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  The ThinkingAtheist list has now been completely debunked here.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/ThinkingAtheist

Here are some examples of really bad claims on the list that should've never been included:

Was Jesus Born in a House or a Manger?

A manger isn't a living area. Really? And if it was, I doubt it would fit very many people. Humor aside, Luke 2 never says where they lived, only that it had a manger and was not an inn. Presuming more than that is reaching.

How Old Was Jehoiachin When He Began to Reign in Jerusalem? And for How Long?

Both passages are correct. Jehoiachin began to reign in Judah at age 8 (2 Chronicles 36:9) and in Jerusalem at age 18 (2 Kings 24:8).

Who Did the Midianites Sell Joesph To?

As often happens, the critic's faulty reading comprehension comes into play here. The passage never says "The Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites." Reading the passage in context clearly shows it was Joseph's own brothers who sold Joseph to the Midianites/Ishmeelites. Ishmeelites was just a synonym for the Midianites. Joseph's own brothers sold him to the Midianites/Ishmeelites. In fact, the passage itself clearly shows this if read in context, but TheThinkingAtheist.com failed to quote the key verse 27 that would've made this obvious. As v. 27 clearly shows, it was Joseph's brothers who sold him to the Ishmeelites, because the Ishmeelites and Midianites are one and the same. For example, I am both an American and an Illinoisan, they are two different names for what I am, but one defines me by continent, and one by state. In the same way, one can be a member of two groups. The context in this passage was very obvious just from a single verse earlier, that this got called a contradiction is simply ridiculous. Therefore, Joseph's brothers sold him to the Midianites/Ishmeelites, who in turn sold him to Potiphar. A reading of the chapter in context clearly shows these were two separate events.

Where Did the Anointing of Jesus Take Place?

The Matthew and John passages relate the same incident involving Mary, as does Mark 14:3, but the Luke 7 passage is obviously not even the same incident. It doesn't even occur close to the same time! The incident with Mary occurs near the end of the Gospels right before the Passover/Crucifixion, whereas the Luke 7 incident is much earlier in Jesus' ministry. Whoever claimed this as a contradiction has a serious issue with telling time, and that's putting it nicely.

These are obviously two different cases. And as for the critic claiming a contradiction because "It isn’t an unnamed woman sinner who anoints Jesus, but Mary who does the honors"? This would be like someone referring to you as "that person over there" and another referring to you by name, it's obviously not a contradiction to just refer to someone with a descriptor instead of a name. If one writer wants to refer to her as a woman and another by name, they certainly are not contradicting.

What Was the Population of Israel? And How Many Fighting Men Did They Have?

The "ThinkingAtheist" omits the crucial verse, 1 Chronicles 21:6, which explains the discrepancy. Unlike in 1 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21 states "But Levi and Benjamin counted he not among them." In other words, 1 Chronicles 21 is omitting 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel. 1.1 million is 85% of 1.3 million, and 5/6 is 83%, so it appears that for whatever reason two fewer tribes are being counted in 1 Samuel 24. Why that might be we can only hypothesize, perhaps a separate count of Levi and Benjamin was performed once it was discovered Joab had disobeyed, and the full amount given in 1 Samuel 24. At any rate, the two accounts are perfectly congruent in light of the fact that two fewer tribes were being counted in the second passage.

Did Jesus Speak at His Hearing Before Pilate?

What we have here is a critic using a word they don't understand, namely charges. Charges are the accusations the priests and elders made against Jesus, not Pilate's curious questioning of Jesus. If the critic had any reading comprehension they would have noticed this. Jesus refused to answer the accusations the prosecution made, but did carry on a conversation with the judge about who He was, in other words. This really should have been quite obvious since John 18 also mentions Jesus responding to Pilate's questions. It should have been very obvious that Pilate's questions were not considered charges like the accusations of the priests and elders. Either the critic didn't even bother reading the passage at all carefully to see this, making a careless accusation, or deliberately was dishonest in trying to make the passage appear to say something it didn't.

What Were the Centurion’s Words at the Cross?

The statements are not remotely incompatible, there is no reason the centurion could not have said them both. Mark 15:39 additionally records the first statement. The critic simply doesn't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction." A contradiction means there are two incompatible statements which are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true, not a case like this where additional detail is given.

Shepherds or Wisemen?

Obviously there can be both and the passages don't contradict in any way. If all four Gospels provided the exact same detail/wording, what would be the point in having four different accounts? They'd obviously have colluded. Providing different detail is not in any way a contradiction. Claiming this a 'contradiction' is just outright ridiculous, to put it politely.

Who Did the Angel Speak to Regarding the Birth of Jesus?

Obviously an angel spoke to both of them. As pointed out in the note for Matthew 1:16 the genealogy provided in Matthew is for Joseph while the genealogy in Luke is for Mary. The detail given in the early chapters of Matthew appears to be from Joseph's perspective whereas the detail given in the chapters of Luke from Mary's perspective. Thus, Joseph in the book of Matthew relates his experience with an angel, while Mary in the book of Luke relates her experience. Whether it was the same angel or different angels is uncertain.

Did Mary Journey to Bethlehem?

First of all, where does it say they traveled via donkey? Neither Matthew or Luke appear to mention this, and Mark and John don't mention Jesus' childhood. Secondly, Joseph in the book of Matthew gave different detail about Jesus' childhood than Mary did. That they chose to relate different aspects of what occurred is not unusual and certainly not contradictory. The event does not need to be mentioned in both books for the Bible to be true, after all. Thirdly, both Mary and Joseph were of David's lineage and both needed to go. Joseph's genealogy in Matthew and Mary's genealogy in Luke show they were both of the lineage of David. For more on how Mary's genealogy was presented in Joseph's name per Jewish custom, see Luke 3.

How Many Blind Men Did Jesus Heal on the Road from Jericho?

Mark 10:46 never says there was "only" one blind man, it just happens to mention one. It's not uncommon for witnesses in court to only mention people at a scene they consider relevant. No court would take seriously a claim that the testimony of witnesses contradicts because they mention different unconflicting details of what occurred; it's just taken for granted their accounts need to be accepted as different perspectives of what occurred until they disqualify themselves as dishonest, or the evidence does.

Mark perhaps interviewed Bartimaeus or someone in his family who mentioned him specifically, while Matthew mentioned both people. This isn't in any way a contradiction, just mentioning varying levels of detail about what happened. The Gospels are different accounts from different people. You expect different levels of detail in different accounts so long as there's no clear conflict, which there isn't here. Had the Mark passage used the word "only" then there would be a contradiction, but nowhere is the word found in the passage. The critic is putting words in God's mouth, essentially.

Is it Good or Bad to be Wealthy?

Ultimately the critic makes a very simple mistake in failing to distinguish between this life and the next. Psalms 112 in context is speaking of future rewards, eternal rewards, as evidenced by the phrase "righteousness endureth for ever" (which the 'ThinkingAtheist' dishonestly did not quote). Another verse in the chapter, Psalms 112:6, shows that this is referring to eternal riches, not riches in this life. It is ultimately not riches themselves that are evil, but the love of them, trusting in them, rather than in God and the eternal riches which He gives to the righteous.

Who Were the First Visitors to Jesus’ Tomb?

That this is not a contradiction should of course be patently obvious. None of the verses remotely appear to contradict one another. Matthew 28 mentions two of the three present, Mary Magdalene and another Mary. Mark 16 mentions all three, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Jesus, and Salome. John 20 mentions only Mary Magdalene. Luke 24 mentions Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Jesus, Joanna (who may be the same as Salome and/or the mother of Zebedee's children in Matthew 27:56), and other women.

If one author was aware of one person present, another of two people, and another that three were there, it is in no way a contradiction. One writer may see fit to mention only one, another two, and yet another writer to mention all persons present. In no way does it contradict, it simply means less detail was provided about those present by different writers. Had the Matthew or John passages said "ONLY X persons were at the sepulchre" than that would be a contradiction, but to put words in the mouth of the writers when that is not what they said is to falsely accuse the Bible of a contradiction that does not in fact exist.

The times and the days of Jebus' crucifixion and death are not the same in the 4 gospels. There are countless other contradictions and errors in the Babble. If you're going to play games for idiots, knock yourself out :
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_m...tions.html
Those are not "differing views by differing people". They flat out cannot BOTH be true. Jebus cannot BOTH have been silent at his trial AND given a speech.

Pro tip : No one cares about your ancient books. Humans wrote them. Humans screw up. No biggy. Get a life.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-07-2014, 03:40 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
You're critiquing the wrong list. You need to go after Buddy Christ's list instead.

Old Testament
New Testament

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
(10-07-2014 03:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The times and the days of Jebus' crucifixion and death are not the same in the 4 gospels. There are countless other contradictions and errors in the Babble. If you're going to play games for idiots, knock yourself out :
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_m...tions.html
Those are not "differing views by differing people". They flat out cannot BOTH be true. Jebus cannot BOTH have been silent at his trial AND given a speech.

Pro tip : No one cares about your ancient books. Humans wrote them. Humans screw up. No biggy. Get a life.

That list is debunked here. There were some really bad ones on that list also.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/Infidels

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
Also, the crucifixion proceedings began back on the 3rd hour (Mark 15:25) but the crucifixion itself did not begin until after the 6th hour. Confusion occurs because it simply says "crucified" to refer to the crucifixion proceedings/trial, including the scourging and mockery of Mark 15:15-21. The actual crucifixion itself coincided with the darkness over the land lasting from the 6th to 9th hours, beginning with the start of the crucifixion and ending with Jesus' death on the cross.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/ABC:Matthew_12#Verse_40

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2014, 03:48 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
(10-07-2014 03:44 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 03:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The times and the days of Jebus' crucifixion and death are not the same in the 4 gospels. There are countless other contradictions and errors in the Babble. If you're going to play games for idiots, knock yourself out :
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_m...tions.html
Those are not "differing views by differing people". They flat out cannot BOTH be true. Jebus cannot BOTH have been silent at his trial AND given a speech.

Pro tip : No one cares about your ancient books. Humans wrote them. Humans screw up. No biggy. Get a life.

That list is debunked here. There were some really bad ones on that list also.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/Infidels

Your excuses are bad and you should feel bad.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
10-07-2014, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 10-07-2014 06:50 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: TA List Debunked
(10-07-2014 03:44 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 03:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The times and the days of Jebus' crucifixion and death are not the same in the 4 gospels. There are countless other contradictions and errors in the Babble. If you're going to play games for idiots, knock yourself out :
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_m...tions.html
Those are not "differing views by differing people". They flat out cannot BOTH be true. Jebus cannot BOTH have been silent at his trial AND given a speech.

Pro tip : No one cares about your ancient books. Humans wrote them. Humans screw up. No biggy. Get a life.

That list is debunked here. There were some really bad ones on that list also.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/Infidels

You forgot the ones I mentioned. Oops.
Before you play this stupid game, you have to get those with whom you debate to agree the texts have any authority. No one has agreed with that. Your little exercise is the same as *debunking errors* in "Horton Hears a Who", or Harry Potter. No one here cares or grants your texts "authority" You have broken the FIRST rule of debate : "Know your audience". I do get it you have a bad case of Anal Retention and NEED (I repeat NEED) your simple-minded nonsense to be true, or your world falls apart, but perhaps you should consider an enema or more fiber in your diet.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-07-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
(10-07-2014 03:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-07-2014 03:44 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  That list is debunked here. There were some really bad ones on that list also.

http://www.bereawiki.com/wiki/Infidels

You forgot the ones I mentioned. Oops.
Before you play this stupid game, you have to get those with whom you debate to agree the texts have any authority. No one has agreed with that. You little exercise is the same as *debunking errors* in "Horton Hears a Who", or Harry Potter. No one here cares or grants your texts "authority" You have broken the FIRST rule of debate : "Know your audience". I do get it you have a bad case of Anal Retention and NEED (I repeat NEED) your simple-minded nonsense to be true, or your world falls apart, but perhaps you should consider an enema or more fiber in your diet.

So, you are on a site that exists to assert contradictions exist in the Bible, but think it's a waste of time to examine the Bible because you don't think the text has any authority? Would you call that circular reasoning or inconsistency? Smile

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: TA List Debunked
I have neither the time or desire to debunk all your claims, but I thought I'd check a couple just to see what you're about and right in the very first two I already saw nothing but inaccuracy (or perhaps even dishonesty):

(10-07-2014 03:29 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:   Was Jesus Born in a House or a Manger?
A manger isn't a living area. Really? And if it was, I doubt it would fit very many people. Humor aside, Luke 2 never says where they lived, only that it had a manger and was not an inn. Presuming more than that is reaching.
You avoided the point of the contradiction. One verse says Jesus was born in a house; the other says in a manger. The manger doesn't need to be a living area for the contradiction to be established.

(10-07-2014 03:29 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:   How Old Was Jehoiachin When He Began to Reign in Jerusalem? And for How Long?

Both passages are correct. Jehoiachin began to reign in Judah at age 8 (2 Chronicles 36:9) and in Jerusalem at age 18 (2 Kings 24:8).
Um no. Look it up again. 2 Chronicles 36:9 says he began to reign in Jerusalem at age 8, not Judah. He can't begin reigning in the same place both at age 8 and at age 18.

Seriously, why should I even read the rest? You come to an atheist site all high and mighty to debunk this list and you haven't even checked your facts. Rolleyes

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: