how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2016, 01:52 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(05-02-2016 01:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 06:06 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  66 books? What is this sound basis for making it just these 66 books that mean something? Why is there no book of Enoch? Why is the book of Revelation accepted. Why no 65 books, why not 70 books? why have you accepted such a curated collection chosen by committees.

Why does the Gospel of John count as it's totally different in many ways from the other 3 gospels and far more aggressive and mystical in characterization of Jesus.. Yet the gospel of Judas or Gospel of Thomas don't count? Those aren't "real" like John.

This is a case for how to use the bible against itself.. it's an arbitrary human decided core that people here like Q think is the end all be all collection of these 66 books as he says. But people all across the globe in other areas see it differently. Had he been from Ethiopia or other northern African christian origins he wouldn't think it's THOSE 66 books. If he was an eastern orthodox he would see it differently too. Even the catholic and "protestant" 10 commandments are altered from eachother.

What you have posted is mostly a case for how to use apocrypha against the Bible, not the Bible against itself. And the comparison helps the Bible shine. The apocrypha:

1. Was rejected by Jews as well as Christians

Only if you don't consider Catholics or Eastern Orthodox to be Christians. They both have numerous books in their Bibles that are considered "apocrypha" by Jews and Protestants. And for Jews, the entire "New Testament" is apocrypha, if not outright fiction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
05-02-2016, 01:56 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(05-02-2016 01:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-02-2016 04:21 PM)DerFish Wrote:  But man the fun part is reading it and laughing, time after time. ANd what better reference for your family than direct from the Babble itself. My approach has been to ask my brother to help me understand this when compared with that. As in "Hey brother did you ever notice that Joseph who was thought to be the father of Jesus had 2 different fathers? Isn't that a miracle right up there with Mary having a baby while still a virgin?

There were no in-laws in ancient Israel. One of his fathers is Joseph's natural father, the other is Mary's. Mary's line is traced back for obvious reasons.

Funny that both Gospels explicity say "X was Joseph's father" or "Joseph was the son of Y". No mention of Mary in either genealogy. You can interpret one of these to be "Mary's line", but only by pretending that it means something other than what it says. What it says is that Joseph had two different fathers.

I love how fundies insist that the Bible must be read literally -- it must mean exactly what it says -- except when it contradicts itself. Then it obviously doesn't mean what it says. How convenient.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Grasshopper's post
05-02-2016, 03:06 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2016 03:09 PM by Chas.)
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(05-02-2016 01:39 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-02-2016 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  And as I already said, I wasn't responding to that, but to your claim that the first thing on that website is somehow wrong.


I didn't say there should be. What you miss is that there is no evidence of anything even remotely like that which shows that there are no evolutionary antecedents or descendants. Where would it have come from? Where are its progeny?

No, you claim that it is not a scientific absurdity and I have shown you why it is.

Talk about "straining a gnat". I was being gracious to try to get you out of that atheist box. Did the scriptures say the Dragon was on the Earth or in Heaven? Is it a scientific absurdity that there is life similar to, yet unlike Earth's on other planets?

Or is it that you feel the Hubble has sufficiently mapped the universe already? Drinking Beverage

Other planets? Since when did you become a Mormon? Facepalm

Where in your Bible does it even imply that heaven is another planet?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
07-02-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(05-02-2016 01:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-02-2016 06:34 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I am fairly certian that number is 0. But seeing as you made the claim, please provide ONE POST, just one post where someone does this (and I mean the ENTIRE bible, not just the particular claim). You claim there are thousands, please supply one. Good luck.


You calling him out as shifting the burden of proof os totally laughable. The real question is: "why should we believe it in the first place?

If you are unaware that there are numerous posts spanning the breadth of this forum where people write, "Yes, the Bible is so wrong. Just consider this one contradiction as evidence of its idiocy..." then I can recommend an oculist.

FFS Q!!! I ask you to present some evidence to back up what you said and this garbage is what you write? All you had to do was provide a link, or a post or something and then you could earn some credibility in the claim and instead you still dodge it.

A) You make a claim
B) You provide the evidence supporting the claim.
C) Said evidence is evaluated and considered.

This is the same shit Mark has been calling you out on for so long. He has provided many, many reasons why he feels the way he does and whenever he asks you why YOU feel they way you feel, you completely ignore the question or pull crap like this. Don't make claims if you are going to be a fucking coward when someone asks you to substantiate the claim. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(05-02-2016 01:56 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 01:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There were no in-laws in ancient Israel. One of his fathers is Joseph's natural father, the other is Mary's. Mary's line is traced back for obvious reasons.

Funny that both Gospels explicity say "X was Joseph's father" or "Joseph was the son of Y". No mention of Mary in either genealogy. You can interpret one of these to be "Mary's line", but only by pretending that it means something other than what it says. What it says is that Joseph had two different fathers.

I love how fundies insist that the Bible must be read literally -- it must mean exactly what it says -- except when it contradicts itself. Then it obviously doesn't mean what it says. How convenient.

He has pulled this crap before.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ve?page=12

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2016, 01:02 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(05-02-2016 01:52 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 01:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  What you have posted is mostly a case for how to use apocrypha against the Bible, not the Bible against itself. And the comparison helps the Bible shine. The apocrypha:

1. Was rejected by Jews as well as Christians

Only if you don't consider Catholics or Eastern Orthodox to be Christians. They both have numerous books in their Bibles that are considered "apocrypha" by Jews and Protestants. And for Jews, the entire "New Testament" is apocrypha, if not outright fiction.

A common idea that is untrue. Apo=false. Crypha or Grypha=writing. Even those churches that include apocrypha in their Bibles list them separately as false writings and/or of dubious origin.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2016, 01:04 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(05-02-2016 01:56 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 01:40 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There were no in-laws in ancient Israel. One of his fathers is Joseph's natural father, the other is Mary's. Mary's line is traced back for obvious reasons.

Funny that both Gospels explicity say "X was Joseph's father" or "Joseph was the son of Y". No mention of Mary in either genealogy. You can interpret one of these to be "Mary's line", but only by pretending that it means something other than what it says. What it says is that Joseph had two different fathers.

I love how fundies insist that the Bible must be read literally -- it must mean exactly what it says -- except when it contradicts itself. Then it obviously doesn't mean what it says. How convenient.

You can do research if you wish regarding the divergence in the lines hundreds of years before Mary and Joseph--or you can start by actually reading the genealogies until you get to King David. Joseph's line comes through David's son, Solomon. Mary's comes through David's son, Nathan.

They are two different genealogies. Christians love God's Bible, so they read more than a word or two at a time. I read it literally.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2016, 01:08 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(05-02-2016 03:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 01:39 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Talk about "straining a gnat". I was being gracious to try to get you out of that atheist box. Did the scriptures say the Dragon was on the Earth or in Heaven? Is it a scientific absurdity that there is life similar to, yet unlike Earth's on other planets?

Or is it that you feel the Hubble has sufficiently mapped the universe already? Drinking Beverage

Other planets? Since when did you become a Mormon? Facepalm

Where in your Bible does it even imply that heaven is another planet?

I never said Heaven is on another planet. I said it could be in an another dimension, for one possibility. Your memory is short.

It's even shorter as you personally have replied to my posts to say that life on other planets could exist in alternate forms, for example, non-carbon based life of some kind. Then you presume that a dragon-like animal (dinosaur?) with multiple heads is non-scientific, even as you forget about polycephaly in the animal kingdom!

It is inconvenient for me to talk to you when you have such a selective memory. I wish you'd put me on ignore sometimes. But since your memory comes and goes, let me remind you again of how to find self-help:

1. You are imperfect/I am imperfect.

2. Jesus Christ is perfect and substituted for us on the cross.

3. He suffered a horrible death by torture and resurrection to take our sin/guilt/shame, our imperfection.

Trust Him and be saved, Chas. Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2016, 01:09 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(07-02-2016 11:28 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 01:41 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you are unaware that there are numerous posts spanning the breadth of this forum where people write, "Yes, the Bible is so wrong. Just consider this one contradiction as evidence of its idiocy..." then I can recommend an oculist.

FFS Q!!! I ask you to present some evidence to back up what you said and this garbage is what you write? All you had to do was provide a link, or a post or something and then you could earn some credibility in the claim and instead you still dodge it.

A) You make a claim
B) You provide the evidence supporting the claim.
C) Said evidence is evaluated and considered.

This is the same shit Mark has been calling you out on for so long. He has provided many, many reasons why he feels the way he does and whenever he asks you why YOU feel they way you feel, you completely ignore the question or pull crap like this. Don't make claims if you are going to be a fucking coward when someone asks you to substantiate the claim. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!

Please help me and readers understand. You need me to find links to TTA posts because you are unable to remember the hundreds of times someone blasted the Bible as inauthentic while quoting only one "contradiction"?

Forgive me but I don't believe you.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2016, 03:05 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 01:02 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 01:52 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Only if you don't consider Catholics or Eastern Orthodox to be Christians. They both have numerous books in their Bibles that are considered "apocrypha" by Jews and Protestants. And for Jews, the entire "New Testament" is apocrypha, if not outright fiction.

A common idea that is untrue. Apo=false. Crypha or Grypha=writing. Even those churches that include apocrypha in their Bibles list them separately as false writings and/or of dubious origin.

You just make shit up or repeat shit without fact-checking. You really are a lazy, dishonest moron.

Apocrypha
late 14c., neuter plural of Late Latin apocryphus "secret, not approved for public reading," from Greek apokryphos "hidden; obscure,"
thus "(books) of unknown authorship" (especially those included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but not originally written in Hebrew
and not counted as genuine by the Jews), from apo- "away" (see apo-) + kryptein "to hide" (see crypt).
Properly plural (the single would be Apocryphon or apocryphum), but commonly treated as a collective singular.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: