TA List Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
5. My understanding is that scholarly 'consensus' contains a range of opinions on Daniel's dating. The only ones who assume a later date are those who atheistically assume supernatural prophecy cannot occur, and given Daniel’s detailed prophecies infer that it must be written later than it claims - which of course is circular reasoning, assuming that prophecy can't occur to deny evidence of prophecy, and then using that assumption to disprove prophecy. For example Gerhard Hasel points out the discovery of Daniel among the DSS is very problematic for those claiming a later date:

"For those supporting the historical-critical date of the book of Daniel new issues are being raised. Since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph, is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable."

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/201...rolls.aspx

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
28-06-2016, 10:51 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(28-06-2016 10:28 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello Jzyehoshua ! Big Grin

I'm sure GoodWithOutGod will be along to explain the problems with your point 1 and possibly point 4. It would be nice if Mathilda returned and pointed out your problems with point 2.

My comment on point 3 is that, if you make an assertion about something might you add some more information? Please expand on "Atheism is a belief' ? Consider

I'm having a hard time working out how not believing in something (A quick explanation) is akin too believing in something?

As a side note... if there is some creator then are you thence saying they are also to blame for all those other nasty things running around? Consider

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEKDYIYMgBc

Much cheers to you. Smile

Well, Christians believe in the Bible but not Islam. Atheists believe in a purely naturalistic Big Bang Theory but not God. Religion requires believing in some things but not others.

And God made everything good before the rebellion of mankind and Satan. Evil is in the world because of the disobedient pleasure seeking of God's creations and His consequent punishment of them.

http://www.bereawiki.com/Problem_of_Evil

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
28-06-2016, 10:57 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
3 years to come up with a retort and this is the best he can do?

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Commonsensei's post
28-06-2016, 11:03 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
......

... I think the saddest part of all this is that half of the people attempting it here can't perform basic subtraction.

*froths at mouth, gnaws on mathematician's shield*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
28-06-2016, 11:04 AM
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.


Hahahaha! It's all just a silly a story, you numbskull! Drinking Beverage

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 11:07 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(28-06-2016 10:51 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Well, Christians believe in the Bible but not Islam.

Great! Thumbsup

(28-06-2016 10:51 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Atheists believe in a purely naturalistic Big Bang Theory but not God. Religion requires believing in some things but not others.

No

Sadly, this is where you're a tad wrong. Sad

An Atheist is (Not time to look up exact quote) simply some one who has no belief in a deity. All the other things you've mentioned? You're parceling loads of other things into your definition. Potentially making a 'Straw man' for which there is no real equivalent.

(28-06-2016 10:51 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  And God made everything good before the rebellion of mankind and Satan. Evil is in the world because of the disobedient pleasure seeking of God's creations and His consequent punishment of them.

Consider

Riiiight... so parasites, plagues, large (And small) carnivorous critters? They all simply.. appeared then? After this fall from grace?

I mean... I have heard that things like lions and sharks all happily wandered along eating plants until 'Boom!' the fall and then your deity changes things and they all start hankering for flesh.

After all, your deity must had pre-built in their ability to eat other critters when they were initially 'designed', right?

Or did this fall literally transform everything about reality that which had already been created by said deity? Consider

But what about the parasites? Things that other pages claim are sooo amazingly and specifically 'designed' to live within the fleshy folds of other creatures, chewing, sucking etc upon their being (Often to their detriment)?

Or did they, too, just suddenly appear because of this 'Fall'?

I'm curious as to how your world view sees such things. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
28-06-2016, 11:09 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(28-06-2016 10:42 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  5. My understanding is that scholarly 'consensus' contains a range of opinions on Daniel's dating. The only ones who assume a later date are those who atheistically assume supernatural prophecy cannot occur, and given Daniel’s detailed prophecies infer that it must be written later than it claims - which of course is circular reasoning, assuming that prophecy can't occur to deny evidence of prophecy, and then using that assumption to disprove prophecy. For example Gerhard Hasel points out the discovery of Daniel among the DSS is very problematic for those claiming a later date:

"For those supporting the historical-critical date of the book of Daniel new issues are being raised. Since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph, is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable."

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/201...rolls.aspx

Your understanding is wrong then. Even Dr. Bruce Metzger, who was a bible believing christian and one of the foremost Biblical scholars in the world, knew Daniel was dated around 168-170 BCE. You're an idiot.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
28-06-2016, 11:11 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(28-06-2016 10:42 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  5. My understanding is that scholarly 'consensus' contains a range of opinions on Daniel's dating. The only ones who assume a later date are those who atheistically assume supernatural prophecy cannot occur, and given Daniel’s detailed prophecies infer that it must be written later than it claims - which of course is circular reasoning, assuming that prophecy can't occur to deny evidence of prophecy, and then using that assumption to disprove prophecy. For example Gerhard Hasel points out the discovery of Daniel among the DSS is very problematic for those claiming a later date:

"For those supporting the historical-critical date of the book of Daniel new issues are being raised. Since there is a manuscript of Daniel that supposedly dates within 50 years of the autograph, is there enough time for the supposed traditio-historical and redaction-critical developments allegedly needed for the growth of the book? Supporters of the Maccabean dating hypothesis of Daniel will be hard put to explain all of this in their reconstructions. To express it differently, do the early dates of the fragments from Cave 4 leave enough room for the developments, editorial and redactional as well as others, that are so often proposed (e.g., Koch 1986:20–24)? The verdict seems to be negative, and an earlier date for Daniel than the second century is unavoidable."

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/201...rolls.aspx

I read that entire article, and I can't understand what the objection really is, except that he "doubts" there was enough time (in a 50 year period) for a book to have become established as canon among the community at Qumran. It addresses none of the legitimate issues/problems raised by GwoG in the previous post, with regard to the choice of wording that would have been impossible given an early date for Daniel, and essentially amounts to a "because I don't think so". It's terrible, in terms of scholarship.

If you're going to cling to an Exile date for Daniel, you're going to have to explain to us why the language used wasn't appropriate for the time-- it would be like finding a book that claims to be from 1604 about the New World, yet refers to the "United States of America", which did not exist until 1776.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-06-2016, 11:12 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(28-06-2016 10:51 AM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  And God made everything good before the rebellion of mankind and Satan. Evil is in the world because of the disobedient pleasure seeking of God's creations and His consequent punishment of them.

http://www.bereawiki.com/Problem_of_Evil

This is nonsense. If he had made everything good, there would have been no rebellion.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 11:12 AM
RE: TA List Debunked
(28-06-2016 11:03 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  ......

... I think the saddest part of all this is that half of the people attempting it here can't perform basic subtraction.

*froths at mouth, gnaws on mathematician's shield*

2 Years...my bad. Anyone who has been around awhile knows I can't math. That's my story.

**I see my error, I used the joined date which is 'j' and not ''l' (last post) in my equation. Therefore 2016 - 2013, carry the twelve, squared...that's my new answer. Smartass

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: