how to use the bible agaisnt itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2016, 03:05 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 01:09 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(07-02-2016 11:28 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  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.

Facepalm Let's try this again.

YOU make the claim, it is up to YOU to provide the evidence of said claim. This has 2 major purposes.
1) It shows that you are providing the evidence to support your own claim and not talking our of your ass.
2) it ensures that I see what you saw so I don't see another post that may not allow me to see it from your point-of-view.

For someone who has claimed to have such academic prowess, the fact that I even have to tell you this is suggesting that you don't have a clue of what you are doing.

Watch and learn, son.
I made a claim that you claim to have academic prowess.
see. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...sts?page=3
Post 26 to be specific.

See how that worked? I made a claim and I provided some evidence for said claim. Does it make it the claim fact? No, but it does provide support. Now will you please present your evidence so I can evaluate it? You may certainly be right but it is very very difficult to see your perspective without seeing the evidence you saw that led to your particular perspective. THAT is the reason the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, to prevent a discussion where both sides are talking about 2 different pieces of evidence. For someone who supposedly was coaching academics, you sure have no idea how to support your claims. If you have ever published a paper in a peer reviewed journal, you would understand that it is up to the investigator to support the claims/conclusions.

If I had to guess, you are thinking of someone who simply addresses a particular absurdity and in part, are calling into question of the bible as a result (which if it is inerrant, that is certainly a prudent thing to do).

Edit: And I am aware that there are posts where people talk about the contradictions in the book. I however, have never seen a person chuck the entire thing because of only 1 which is what you claimed.

"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, 03:09 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

No you don't. It nowhere says that one genealogy is Mary's. You just make shit up.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
08-02-2016, 03:10 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 01:08 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 03:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Oh, you think Hubble can map other dimensions? You just make shit up, you moron.

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
08-02-2016, 03:11 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 01:09 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(07-02-2016 11:28 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  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.

It only requires one contradiction to prove that it is not 'inerrant'. Do you even logic?

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-02-2016, 03:32 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2016 03:36 PM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

Here are 2 points of interest.

Docskeptic has addressed this with you here in post 35.

Several of us pointed this out to you here. I even copied and highlighted the important parts from biblegateway in my post.

And yet, you still apparently can't seem to come to terms with a flaw.

And so you can't weasel your way out of not seeing this, here it is again.
Quote:Matthew 1
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

This is clearly the lineage of Joseph.

Quote: Luke 3
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai,


I expect you being a good christian, to read every word.

"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
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
08-02-2016, 06:34 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 are flat-out wrong here. I was born and raised Catholic, and every Catholic Bible I have ever seen includes the so-called "apocrypha" (the books that are not included in Jewish or Protestant Bibles) in the Old Testament, right alongside all the other Old Testament books. They are not separated or segregated or distinguished in any way. They are simply part of the Old Testament.

For someone who claims to despise Catholics, you sure don't know much about them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
08-02-2016, 06:46 PM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-02-2016 01:56 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  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.

Yes, indeed, they are two different genealogies, proceeding from different sons of David. That is the whole point. And neither one of them even mentions Mary. They both clearly end with Joseph. That, sir, is a contradiction -- especially if you "read it literally".

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that in ancient Israel, the mother's "line" was absolutely irrelevant. There are only a small handful of places in the entire Bible where women's names are mentioned at all in any genealogy. The names are 99% male, because that's what was important to them. If I'm wrong about this, Aliza or Bucky can correct me. They have actually studied this stuff. You're just making things up.

There is no evidence whatsoever that either genealogy has anything to do with Mary. That is purely an invention of people like you. In my opinion (and I'm being perfectly honest that it's my opinion, because I don't know the real answer -- nobody does), they didn't have a clue about Jesus' genealogy, but they really really wanted him to have been a descendant of King David, so they contrived a genealogy to "prove" that. And Matthew and Luke contrived it differently -- just like their nativity stories (they really really wanted him to have been born in Bethlehem, even though everyone knew him as "Jesus of Nazareth"), but that's another topic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
10-02-2016, 10:46 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 03:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 01:02 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

I'm sorry you chose that source. The apo- prefix means false, as in apostasy, apostate... most of the TTA members are apostate Christians who are not hidden in secrecy regarding their abandonment of faith.

Crypha or grypha is writing. As in hieroglyphic, graph, cryptic and cryptography. Obviously the last two contain elements of put away or hiding.

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
10-02-2016, 10:47 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(10-02-2016 10:46 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 03:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

I'm sorry you chose that source. The apo- prefix means false, as in apostasy, apostate... most of the TTA members are apostate Christians who are not hidden in secrecy regarding their abandonment of faith.

Crypha or grypha is writing. As in hieroglyphic, graph, cryptic and cryptography. Obviously the last two contain elements of put away or hiding.

I am sorry you ignore facts and just make shit up.

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
10-02-2016, 10:48 AM
RE: how to use the bible agaisnt itself
(08-02-2016 03:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-02-2016 01:04 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

No you don't. It nowhere says that one genealogy is Mary's. You just make shit up.

You are correct, both genealogies are given for Joseph. However, I've given the correct apologetic. You make it sound as though only atheists noticed the issue over the past two millennia. Not so.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: