Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Origin of Language = Epic Evolution/Atheist FAIL!

Here is something I find quite puzzling.  If God did not create us, and we evolve from other creatures,  how did our languages come into existance?   The world is full of many rich cultures complete with an unique linguistic form of language following an agreed set of rules.  So who created the rules, the sounds, and how did this person or evolutionary ancestor get others to understand and agree with the rules?   THis is obviously a huge leap from the primitive grunts and noises that other animal species make.  Yes, primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't verbalize into words, or express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas. 

How would you convey to a fellow creature a metaphorical or philosophical question when there is no foundation for language?  You can point to objects and make a noise, but that only gets you so far in language.  The same problem exists for creating a written language.

 

Even if evolutionary linguists can come up with a plausible explanation, there remains one big problem.   Why don't we all speak the same language? 

 

Another issue is you don't see any transitional forms with anything resembling our complex voice box anatomy.  Why did we evolve to have this feature?  What was the enviromental factors that separated our genetic line from other animals and created the need for a voice box?  I would be more convinced if someone found a fossil that contained at least a primitive form of a voice box.

 

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence. 

 

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being.  Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah.  Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth.  This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account.  They infused their own language and culture into the original story.

Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1509
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No Subject)

Thumbnail

 I can assume you are intentionally avoiding this subject out of a childish fear.  Perhaps you never caught what I am insinuating (See: Page 1) . .  Be aware the Sumerian account pre-dates the biblical account IS a fact.

From another part of the forum. As Bill Nye said in an interview with The Associated Press. " . . if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs."

 

 

### mod edit - shrunk image to align page


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: TWD

danatemporary wrote:

 

TWD wrote:
  I'm perfectly willing to admit there is pretty much a permanent stalemate here.   You also examine Christian evidence through the prism of your rock solid skepticism and hostility towards the Christian faith.

  So, No hope of getting back to the text?  Instead it is greater and greater ways to evade the subject or points brought up about said subject. Now it is by talking about hostility towards the faith. While weeks roll on by and the topic is ignored, along with things that directly pertain to 'it'. 

 

 

Which topic are we talking about? 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1509
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Here (See :: Below)

danatemporary wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

  There is still much of the Middle East that has not been excavated and certainly part of the problem is you have hostile governments controlling the lands in those areas  .. our first evidences of language occur in *Mesopotamia? ..



  Let's avoid the foul language for a moment, K ?  Bluntly, Speaking of the fertile land between two rivers, of *the Sumerians  ..

Thorkild Jacobsen's translation from one of the oldest bodies of religious texts in the world:  " .. could address EnLil, verily, in  but a single tongue. In those days (having) lordly bouts, princely bouts .. (did) EnKi, (having) lordly bouts, .. having princely bouts fought, having princely bouts fought, .. did EnKi, lord of abundance, lord of effective command, did the lord of intelligence, ..the country's clever one, did the leader of the gods, did the sagacious omen-revealed; lord of Eridu 'estrange the tongues of their mouths as many as were there. The tongues of men which were one'. (taking in, then sending an envoy to Aratta)." 

  For anyone who can but does not. With a quick internet search on 'google', one finds this . .

  In those days...the people entrusted [to him] could address Enlil, verily, in but a single tongue. In those days...did Enki...estrange the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there.. The tongues of men which were one (Jacobsen 1997; cf. Kramer 1968, 1970; Cohen 1973).

  Though a lot to take in but you do realize these accounts, of the region, both pre-date and precede the biblical account ?


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

  There is still much of the Middle East that has not been excavated and certainly part of the problem is you have hostile governments controlling the lands in those areas  .. our first evidences of language occur in *Mesopotamia? ..



  Let's avoid the foul language for a moment, K ?  Bluntly, Speaking of the fertile land between two rivers, of *the Sumerians  ..

Thorkild Jacobsen's translation from one of the oldest bodies of religious texts in the world:  " .. could address EnLil, verily, in  but a single tongue. In those days (having) lordly bouts, princely bouts .. (did) EnKi, (having) lordly bouts, .. having princely bouts fought, having princely bouts fought, .. did EnKi, lord of abundance, lord of effective command, did the lord of intelligence, ..the country's clever one, did the leader of the gods, did the sagacious omen-revealed; lord of Eridu 'estrange the tongues of their mouths as many as were there. The tongues of men which were one'. (taking in, then sending an envoy to Aratta)." 

  For anyone who can but does not. With a quick internet search on 'google', one finds this . .

  In those days...the people entrusted [to him] could address Enlil, verily, in but a single tongue. In those days...did Enki...estrange the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there.. The tongues of men which were one (Jacobsen 1997; cf. Kramer 1968, 1970; Cohen 1973).

  Though a lot to take in but you do realize these accounts, of the region, both pre-date and precede the biblical account ?

 

Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?  I don't think you can say this with 100% certainly.  The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition.  As mankind scattered after the Babel incident,  the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.  This explains why we see flood myths with details in common with the Bible's account all around the world.

 

It is more reasonable to consider that the Sumer accounts were copied from the Hebrew stories.  For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?  The Bible account is more detailed and works.   As people moved away, they forgot the important details and just filled in the blanks and new myths are created.

 

If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?  Idol worship was the norm for all those ancient civilizations except the for the Israelities.  They even rebelled and try to go idol worship.  Why keep a record of people acting this way? 

 

Furthermore,

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:danatemporary

TWD39 wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

  There is still much of the Middle East that has not been excavated and certainly part of the problem is you have hostile governments controlling the lands in those areas  .. our first evidences of language occur in *Mesopotamia? ..



  Let's avoid the foul language for a moment, K ?  Bluntly, Speaking of the fertile land between two rivers, of *the Sumerians  ..

Thorkild Jacobsen's translation from one of the oldest bodies of religious texts in the world:  " .. could address EnLil, verily, in  but a single tongue. In those days (having) lordly bouts, princely bouts .. (did) EnKi, (having) lordly bouts, .. having princely bouts fought, having princely bouts fought, .. did EnKi, lord of abundance, lord of effective command, did the lord of intelligence, ..the country's clever one, did the leader of the gods, did the sagacious omen-revealed; lord of Eridu 'estrange the tongues of their mouths as many as were there. The tongues of men which were one'. (taking in, then sending an envoy to Aratta)." 

  For anyone who can but does not. With a quick internet search on 'google', one finds this . .

  In those days...the people entrusted [to him] could address Enlil, verily, in but a single tongue. In those days...did Enki...estrange the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there.. The tongues of men which were one (Jacobsen 1997; cf. Kramer 1968, 1970; Cohen 1973).

  Though a lot to take in but you do realize these accounts, of the region, both pre-date and precede the biblical account ?

 

Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?  I don't think you can say this with 100% certainly.  The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition.  As mankind scattered after the Babel incident,  the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.  This explains why we see flood myths with details in common with the Bible's account all around the world.

 

It is more reasonable to consider that the Sumer accounts were copied from the Hebrew stories.  For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?  The Bible account is more detailed and works.   As people moved away, they forgot the important details and just filled in the blanks and new myths are created.

 

If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?  Idol worship was the norm for all those ancient civilizations except the for the Israelities.  They even rebelled and try to go idol worship.  Why keep a record of people acting this way? 

 

Furthermore,

 

Most generous dating of Genesis - 1446 BCE

Sumerian creation myth - 2150 BCE

The numbers disagree with you. Why would an elder civilization wait to copy a story from one younger than itself?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD39 continues to get schooled.

Why yes, I've learned that atheists are arrogant, rude, biased, and generally not likeable people.   Thank you for teaching me this valuable lesson. 

 

Ok, you can return back to your fantasy land where atheists are always right, and Christians are evil and stupid.

 

Typical delusional hypocrite christian.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

  There is still much of the Middle East that has not been excavated and certainly part of the problem is you have hostile governments controlling the lands in those areas  .. our first evidences of language occur in *Mesopotamia? ..



  Let's avoid the foul language for a moment, K ?  Bluntly, Speaking of the fertile land between two rivers, of *the Sumerians  ..

Thorkild Jacobsen's translation from one of the oldest bodies of religious texts in the world:  " .. could address EnLil, verily, in  but a single tongue. In those days (having) lordly bouts, princely bouts .. (did) EnKi, (having) lordly bouts, .. having princely bouts fought, having princely bouts fought, .. did EnKi, lord of abundance, lord of effective command, did the lord of intelligence, ..the country's clever one, did the leader of the gods, did the sagacious omen-revealed; lord of Eridu 'estrange the tongues of their mouths as many as were there. The tongues of men which were one'. (taking in, then sending an envoy to Aratta)." 

  For anyone who can but does not. With a quick internet search on 'google', one finds this . .

  In those days...the people entrusted [to him] could address Enlil, verily, in but a single tongue. In those days...did Enki...estrange the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there.. The tongues of men which were one (Jacobsen 1997; cf. Kramer 1968, 1970; Cohen 1973).

  Though a lot to take in but you do realize these accounts, of the region, both pre-date and precede the biblical account ?

 

Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?  I don't think you can say this with 100% certainly.  The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition.  As mankind scattered after the Babel incident,  the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.  This explains why we see flood myths with details in common with the Bible's account all around the world.

 

It is more reasonable to consider that the Sumer accounts were copied from the Hebrew stories.  For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?  The Bible account is more detailed and works.   As people moved away, they forgot the important details and just filled in the blanks and new myths are created.

 

If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?  Idol worship was the norm for all those ancient civilizations except the for the Israelities.  They even rebelled and try to go idol worship.  Why keep a record of people acting this way? 

 

Furthermore,

 

Most generous dating of Genesis - 1446 BCE

Sumerian creation myth - 2150 BCE

The numbers disagree with you. Why would an elder civilization wait to copy a story from one younger than itself?

 

 

You are assuming that the account in Genesis was an eyewitness account.   Abraham is dated to have lived around 2150 BCE.  The sumerians could have went on their merry way after the Towel of Babel and then created a vague similar myth to cuneiform based on whatever details people remembered.  

 

You can't even claim it was a copy.  There are significant differences between the two stories. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:jcgadfly

TWD39 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

 

  There is still much of the Middle East that has not been excavated and certainly part of the problem is you have hostile governments controlling the lands in those areas  .. our first evidences of language occur in *Mesopotamia? ..



  Let's avoid the foul language for a moment, K ?  Bluntly, Speaking of the fertile land between two rivers, of *the Sumerians  ..

Thorkild Jacobsen's translation from one of the oldest bodies of religious texts in the world:  " .. could address EnLil, verily, in  but a single tongue. In those days (having) lordly bouts, princely bouts .. (did) EnKi, (having) lordly bouts, .. having princely bouts fought, having princely bouts fought, .. did EnKi, lord of abundance, lord of effective command, did the lord of intelligence, ..the country's clever one, did the leader of the gods, did the sagacious omen-revealed; lord of Eridu 'estrange the tongues of their mouths as many as were there. The tongues of men which were one'. (taking in, then sending an envoy to Aratta)." 

  For anyone who can but does not. With a quick internet search on 'google', one finds this . .

  In those days...the people entrusted [to him] could address Enlil, verily, in but a single tongue. In those days...did Enki...estrange the tongues in their mouths as many as were put there.. The tongues of men which were one (Jacobsen 1997; cf. Kramer 1968, 1970; Cohen 1973).

  Though a lot to take in but you do realize these accounts, of the region, both pre-date and precede the biblical account ?

 

Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?  I don't think you can say this with 100% certainly.  The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition.  As mankind scattered after the Babel incident,  the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.  This explains why we see flood myths with details in common with the Bible's account all around the world.

 

It is more reasonable to consider that the Sumer accounts were copied from the Hebrew stories.  For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?  The Bible account is more detailed and works.   As people moved away, they forgot the important details and just filled in the blanks and new myths are created.

 

If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?  Idol worship was the norm for all those ancient civilizations except the for the Israelities.  They even rebelled and try to go idol worship.  Why keep a record of people acting this way? 

 

Furthermore,

 

Most generous dating of Genesis - 1446 BCE

Sumerian creation myth - 2150 BCE

The numbers disagree with you. Why would an elder civilization wait to copy a story from one younger than itself?

 

 

You are assuming that the account in Genesis was an eyewitness account.   Abraham is dated to have lived around 2150 BCE.  The sumerians could have went on their merry way after the Towel of Babel and then created a vague similar myth to cuneiform based on whatever details people remembered.  

 

You can't even claim it was a copy.  There are significant differences between the two stories. 

No, I gave you what you asked for. The oldest written copy of Genesis with a very generous dating and the oldest Sumerian creation story.

Of course it's not an exact copy. The Sumerians worshipped Enki and the Hebrews worshipped Yahweh - just a few name swaps and a god of Sumer became a god of Canaan.

What is the basis for your date for Abraham, btw? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4405
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:I'm perfectly

TWD39 wrote:

I'm perfectly willing to admit there is pretty much a permanent stalemate here.   You also examine Christian evidence through the prism of your rock solid skepticism and hostility towards the Christian faith.  Nothing I say on this forum will change that, and vice versa.  You also reject immeidately any argument I have, and go so far to say I never even presented an argument.

 

You choose to gamble your eternal destination on complete faith in the scientific method.  But a man designed that method.  Man is fallible.   Can a fallible man create something that is perfect and infallible?  Even our great machines eventually wear out.  An infallible machine would run perfectly forever.   But then I look at nature, and it is perfect and infallible, and never breaks down (although it appears man can screw it up assuming global warming is real)   Everything runs like clock work.  I can put complete faith that in October, the days will grow shorter, and eventually it will be dark in the afternoon.

 

The scientific method is great for examining truths in the physical world, but God is not a physical being.

Lol, I think that is what they refer to in MMA as a "tap out"- I declare AE winner by submission.

 

You are aware TWD that the Earth, the sun and even the entire universe are breaking down? Even without human interference, none of them will last forever. Stuff in nature breaks down all the time, entire species go extinct, whole regions are destroyed and things change. Even your stupid little example doesn't hold, the rotation of the Earth is not constant nor is our orbit around the sun. It is relatively stable in the sense that without very accurate measuring techniques we can't notice the difference but it is not "perfect" in any sense of the word. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, if the heat death

Yeah, if the heat death isn't fallibility, then neither is a car breaking down.

But creationists are too ignorant to see how literally stupid their arguments are.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:You made

Jabberwocky wrote:

You made the claim that the bible is 100% true. I presented evidence to the contrary. You have declined the opportunity to refute the evidence, and until you do, your claim holds no water. Also, while I use the SAB to actually aste the passages, I picked those 3 arguments out of my head, because it doesn't take any digging whatsoever to come up with obvious problems in the bible.

Wow, you actually admit to using the ridiculous SAB.  Most of their notations are laughable at best, pathetic deliberate attempts to discredit the Bible.   Most scholars don't bother to take such nonsense seriously.

I guess I miss the part where you presented actual evidence.

Jabberwocky wrote:

The genealogy in Matthew goes to Joseph, and finishes with mentioning that he was the husband of Mary. The one in Luke says that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and then traces his genealogy back from there, also with no break. Are you hoping that at some point I'll forget how to read, so you can win your argument by lying? 

 

There are two geneologies.  One is a legal geneology.  Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph so he would have legal inheritance to the throne.  The subject should not even be approached without understanding the culture of the time which I suspect you don't. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

You ignore the fulfilled prophecy from Terminator 1, that John Connor would lead the victorious fight against SkyNet and the Terminators. It was fulfilled in Terminator Salvation. 

I attach as much to your claim as you do to the above claim. 

 

 

Wrong again.  Terminator is a well established work of fiction.  The Bible is not.  Furthermore, nothing from the Terminator has come true.  OTOH, I only have to look at today's headlines to give validity to the Bible. Let's see, oh yea, Israel is in the news again, her enemies are gathering against her as the Bible predicted, and Israel is the focal point of world news right now.   Just as the Bible predicted would happen AFTER it became a nation again.  If you believe that Israel is insignificant in world politics right now then you truly live in a fantasy world.

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5092
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi TWD

TWD39 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

TWD39 wrote:

 

BTW,  no one has destroyed my arguments. 

 

 

The only people who believe in the literal truth of the bible are christians. Name me one unbiased commentator who accepts that everything in the bible is absolutely correct.

Your position in unsupportable using the scientific method, your concept of rationality flawed. And you mistake the atheist position. Generally, we accept empirical evidence but we never entirely embrace it. Always we remain open to new evidence that might re-write everything we think we know. Do you get it? We like hypotheses supported by data, supported by interlocking hypotheses supported by data and even then we might find new evidence that unstitches the entire structure. 

But you on the other hand, have a system of knowing that you claim is absolute. Your insistence that all the bible, all it's minutiae and mythology, is absolutely correct can only be based on a prior acceptance by you, that the bible was inspired by god. Your so-called undestroyed arguments primarily consist of your rejecting every explanation or argument offered you and saying "is too, is too, is too."

It's obvious you believe in god and you see everything through the prism of that belief. That's fine. But you should admit that this position constitutes a bias in your mind. In truth, it is not possible to know many of the things you insist you know. First cause, the existence of spirituality, the holy spirit. Let's not even get to Noah's Ark and the multiple creation stories. Where is the material proof of these things that is not pure faith? Again, I think you are entitled to your faith but why not call it what it actually is?

 

 

 

I'm perfectly willing to admit there is pretty much a permanent stalemate here.   You also examine Christian evidence through the prism of your rock solid skepticism and hostility towards the Christian faith.  Nothing I say on this forum will change that, and vice versa.  You also reject immeidately any argument I have, and go so far to say I never even presented an argument.

You choose to gamble your eternal destination on complete faith in the scientific method.  But a man designed that method.  Man is fallible.   Can a fallible man create something that is perfect and infallible?  Even our great machines eventually wear out.  An infallible machine would run perfectly forever.   But then I look at nature, and it is perfect and infallible, and never breaks down (although it appears man can screw it up assuming global warming is real)   Everything runs like clock work.  I can put complete faith that in October, the days will grow shorter, and eventually it will be dark in the afternoon.

The scientific method is great for examining truths in the physical world, but God is not a physical being.

 

TWD, if god is not physical, what proof do you have of his activities that is not subjective or simply assertion? Are there are other religious claims you accept wholesale or are the other 3500-odd religions in the world deluded? I agree we have a different standard of evidence. We don't believe anything can be absolutely known from a human perspective - certainly we would argue nothing outside the universe can be known and nothing supernatural can be known. 

Nor do most of us deny everything in the bible. The bible talks about places that exist but this does not mean we should accept the ancients built a mud brick tower 80,000 metres tall, without the use of steel or rebreathing equipment. A tower that got so close to heaven an angry god smote the people with languages. I can imagine him smiting them with a plague of frogs but languages seems a little...cerebral a punishment for yahweh.  

As for gambling my 'eternal destination' - well. Do you have any proof there is an eternal destination? No one has seen it, no one has been there. Some priests made up stories about it but they never saw it any more than you or I have. Why did they do this? Why is the fundamental reason for believing in god not actual material proof, but the threat of eternal shrieking immolation if you don't embrace god's 'love' for you. Burning people alive is not any sort of love I can imagine. 

Personally, I think that early life terraformed the earth and evolved to fill the niches its activities created. That's what the material evidence suggests anyway. I wonder if Gaia would make an evil being. Or are humans formulated just as they need to be? Competitive of finite resources, but loving/caring of family and in-group? It certainly would explain our perception of moral dichotomy. 

I don't like christianity or islam, I admit this. That's in significant part because the idea of being threatened into accepting naked assertions with a lake of fire seems irrational and morally inconsistent to me. There may be some who like their loved ones standing over them with a clenched fist but I'm not cut from such cloth. 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Jabberwocky

TWD39 wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You made the claim that the bible is 100% true. I presented evidence to the contrary. You have declined the opportunity to refute the evidence, and until you do, your claim holds no water. Also, while I use the SAB to actually aste the passages, I picked those 3 arguments out of my head, because it doesn't take any digging whatsoever to come up with obvious problems in the bible.

Wow, you actually admit to using the ridiculous SAB.  Most of their notations are laughable at best, pathetic deliberate attempts to discredit the Bible.   Most scholars don't bother to take such nonsense seriously.

I guess I miss the part where you presented actual evidence.

Jabberwocky wrote:

The genealogy in Matthew goes to Joseph, and finishes with mentioning that he was the husband of Mary. The one in Luke says that Jesus was the son of Joseph, and then traces his genealogy back from there, also with no break. Are you hoping that at some point I'll forget how to read, so you can win your argument by lying? 

 

There are two geneologies.  One is a legal geneology.  Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph so he would have legal inheritance to the throne.  The subject should not even be approached without understanding the culture of the time which I suspect you don't. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

You ignore the fulfilled prophecy from Terminator 1, that John Connor would lead the victorious fight against SkyNet and the Terminators. It was fulfilled in Terminator Salvation. 

I attach as much to your claim as you do to the above claim. 

 

 

Wrong again.  Terminator is a well established work of fiction.  The Bible is not.  Furthermore, nothing from the Terminator has come true.  OTOH, I only have to look at today's headlines to give validity to the Bible. Let's see, oh yea, Israel is in the news again, her enemies are gathering against her as the Bible predicted, and Israel is the focal point of world news right now.   Just as the Bible predicted would happen AFTER it became a nation again.  If you believe that Israel is insignificant in world politics right now then you truly live in a fantasy world.

 

 

 

Where in the Bible does it say that Israel will start or provoke the war (I've never seen it)? Israel is the aggressor if you look at the news. In no way is Israel insignificant. They are the nuclear powered bully in the region. Any other nuclear weapons programs in the ME are being started because those nations are scared to death of Israel.  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:TWD39

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I'm perfectly willing to admit there is pretty much a permanent stalemate here.   You also examine Christian evidence through the prism of your rock solid skepticism and hostility towards the Christian faith.  Nothing I say on this forum will change that, and vice versa.  You also reject immeidately any argument I have, and go so far to say I never even presented an argument.

 

You choose to gamble your eternal destination on complete faith in the scientific method.  But a man designed that method.  Man is fallible.   Can a fallible man create something that is perfect and infallible?  Even our great machines eventually wear out.  An infallible machine would run perfectly forever.   But then I look at nature, and it is perfect and infallible, and never breaks down (although it appears man can screw it up assuming global warming is real)   Everything runs like clock work.  I can put complete faith that in October, the days will grow shorter, and eventually it will be dark in the afternoon.

 

The scientific method is great for examining truths in the physical world, but God is not a physical being.

Lol, I think that is what they refer to in MMA as a "tap out"- I declare AE winner by submission.

 

You are aware TWD that the Earth, the sun and even the entire universe are breaking down? Even without human interference, none of them will last forever. Stuff in nature breaks down all the time, entire species go extinct, whole regions are destroyed and things change. Even your stupid little example doesn't hold, the rotation of the Earth is not constant nor is our orbit around the sun. It is relatively stable in the sense that without very accurate measuring techniques we can't notice the difference but it is not "perfect" in any sense of the word. 

 

 

I'm stupid because I used the scientific method of observation to expect the fall season?  BTW, declaration of a stalemate is a kind offer to shake one's opponent's hand and agree to disagree.  You see, Christians are nice that way, but the atheist will continue to spit in my face. 

 

Nice dodge on my question though.  Can fallible man create something that is infallible?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Is there

TWD39 wrote:

Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?  I don't think you can say this with 100% certainly.  The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition.  As mankind scattered after the Babel incident,  the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.  This explains why we see flood myths with details in common with the Bible's account all around the world.

jcgadfly wrote:

Most generous dating of Genesis - 1446 BCE

Sumerian creation myth - 2150 BCE

The numbers disagree with you. Why would an elder civilization wait to copy a story from one younger than itself?

 

Given certain internal evidence (camels as common beasts of burden for instance), Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed) proposed a date for the Pentateuch as 900 BCE. 

I don't know enough to argue for either date.  But the domestication of the camel is documented pretty well in archaeology.  Remember, domesticated animals have finer bones and other physical characteristics.  And the bones show they were eaten by humans, we being the scavengers we are.  So, wild camels were eaten first, then they were domesticated in herds, then they were trained to be beasts of burden.  Doesn't happen over night.

Evidence -

Bones are found in middens (garbage heaps) near where humans lived.  The bones show marks of stone tools and the long bones have been broken for the marrow.  There is no difference between the bones in the middens and bones found far from human habitations.

Bones are found in middens in larger quantities, but the bones themselves are smaller than their wild cousins.  There are also more of them, all with tool marks on the bones.

Bones are found in middens and now there are remains of leather bridles and other equipment generally associated with riding and packing trained livestock.  Bones are further from the wild cousins which start to show significant reduction in numbers.  Humans have pretty much hunted out the wild camels, eating the older ones and/or taming the young.  There was also a climate change in the area about this time to drier and hotter.  So the wild ones likely couldn't find as much food and so didn't reproduce as much.

This pattern is followed for all known domesticated herd animals (with differences in timing and perhaps in the presence of climatic changes), including the domesticated camelids (dromedary, bractrian, llamas, alpacas).

Take a pre-historic archaeology class for more details on domestication and the factual evidence found all over the world where ever humans domesticated animals.

 

(In part, this message is not aimed just at jcgadfly, but at everyone who reads the forums.)

 

Flood myths - NOT found all over the world.  Most flood myths are about localized flooding, common in any area of the world.  Even the deserts.  See the Missoula Floods for details about regional flooding and the myths about them.  Not one myth concerning the final Missoula Flood claimed it was world wide - as it wasn't.  The aboriginal peoples watched it from a distance -- their homes weren't flooded.  Regional.

 

TWD39 wrote:

If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?  Idol worship was the norm for all those ancient civilizations except the for the Israelities.  They even rebelled and try to go idol worship.  Why keep a record of people acting this way?

 

Idol worship was the norm for the Israelites as well until a few hundred years after the Pentateuch was written.  Monotheism seemed to catch on after the area was conquered by the Assyrians.  Then, it was a political way to be rebellious to differentiate your people from the rulers.  Since most people could not read or write, they were willing to believe in the tales of a perfect, wonderful time, where they were the rich ones and everyone else was under their thumb.  This was never the case, Israel was never that rich or as populous as the bible claims.  But, it has been shown that if it happened before your grandparent's time, there is no conscious memory of the event.  If you don't write it down, the event didn't happen.  Whatever the event might be.  If a people are not literate, then they are willing to believe any story of events of a hundred years ago.  They do not have extensive, accurate, oral records.  They have stories that morph and change over time.

Surely, you have played "gossip" at some time.  We used to play it in the church I attended in Junior High.  The final message bears little resemblance to the original after just 12-20 iterations.

Is your god/s/dess non-physical?  I've talked to plenty of christians who believe in a physical god/s/dess.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

You choose to gamble your eternal destination on complete faith in the scientific method.  But a man designed that method.  Man is fallible.   Can a fallible man create something that is perfect and infallible?  Even our great machines eventually wear out.  An infallible machine would run perfectly forever.   But then I look at nature, and it is perfect and infallible, and never breaks down (although it appears man can screw it up assuming global warming is real)   Everything runs like clock work.  I can put complete faith that in October, the days will grow shorter, and eventually it will be dark in the afternoon.

The scientific method is great for examining truths in the physical world, but God is not a physical being.

...........<snip>

As for gambling my 'eternal destination' - well. Do you have any proof there is an eternal destination? No one has seen it, no one has been there. Some priests made up stories about it but they never saw it any more than you or I have. Why did they do this? Why is the fundamental reason for believing in god not actual material proof, but the threat of eternal shrieking immolation if you don't embrace god's 'love' for you. Burning people alive is not any sort of love I can imagine. 

 

Pascal's wager:

               God exists             God does not exist

Belief          +infinity                0

 

Skepticism   - infinity                0

 

But that is totally wrong by my way of thinking.

First, if god/s/dess does not exist, and I tithe to some church, all of that money was wasted.  Yes, some churches do good in the form of charity, but often, I could have contributed to some other charity or done the charitable works myself.  Nothing stops me from contributing to medical research or remediation for people less fortunate than I.  I have also wasted all those hours at church.  I could have been working on my home or garden, performing charitable acts, or almost anything else rather than sitting on my butt on some really hard pew.

So, belief x god/s/dess does not exist is not 0, not - infinity, but some negative quantity, let's call it -100,000 in round numbers.

Skepticism x god/s/dess does not exist is not 0, but some positive quantity, say + 100,000, for all that time and money I didn't waste and all the potential good I could have accomplished with that time and money that would have been wasted on a non-existant deity.

Second if god/s/dess exists, I do NOT want to go to heaven.  For three reasons.  The first is that I have no desire to spend eternity with the likes of John Calvin or Tammy Faye Bakker or any of the other televangelists.  The second is I have no desire to worship a god/s/dess so incompetent that their "plan" for humans includes child abuse and starvation.  No, I do not buy the free will argument that it is all humanity's fault that children are abused and starved.  Nor do I go for it being Satan's fault.  God/s/dess could stop it, and s/he/it/they don't.  I'm not impressed.  Thirdly, heaven sounds like the most boring condition to be in for eternity.  Think about it - bad harp music and out of tune singing - for eternity.  No thanks.

So, belief x god/s/dess exists is not + infinity for me, it is some negative quantity - say, about -100,000.

Lastly, if god/s/dess exists, and I am a skeptic, I will wind up in hell for eternity.  "Burning in lakes of fire."  Or, "Separated for all of eternity from god/s/dess' loving arms."  Or something like.  At least I can hang with Mark Twain, Shermer, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mahatmas Ghandi, and so on.  Much better company than John Calvin.  And it certainly won't be boring.  Let's call this one worth about -100,000 for potential pain that is offset by stellar company.

That brings my results of the wager to:

               God exists             God does not exist

Belief          -100,000                -100,000

 

Skepticism   - 100,000                +100,000

 

In my matrix, skepticism offers the only positive outcome.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Beyond Saving

TWD39 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

I'm perfectly willing to admit there is pretty much a permanent stalemate here.   You also examine Christian evidence through the prism of your rock solid skepticism and hostility towards the Christian faith.  Nothing I say on this forum will change that, and vice versa.  You also reject immeidately any argument I have, and go so far to say I never even presented an argument.

 

You choose to gamble your eternal destination on complete faith in the scientific method.  But a man designed that method.  Man is fallible.   Can a fallible man create something that is perfect and infallible?  Even our great machines eventually wear out.  An infallible machine would run perfectly forever.   But then I look at nature, and it is perfect and infallible, and never breaks down (although it appears man can screw it up assuming global warming is real)   Everything runs like clock work.  I can put complete faith that in October, the days will grow shorter, and eventually it will be dark in the afternoon.

 

The scientific method is great for examining truths in the physical world, but God is not a physical being.

Lol, I think that is what they refer to in MMA as a "tap out"- I declare AE winner by submission.

 

You are aware TWD that the Earth, the sun and even the entire universe are breaking down? Even without human interference, none of them will last forever. Stuff in nature breaks down all the time, entire species go extinct, whole regions are destroyed and things change. Even your stupid little example doesn't hold, the rotation of the Earth is not constant nor is our orbit around the sun. It is relatively stable in the sense that without very accurate measuring techniques we can't notice the difference but it is not "perfect" in any sense of the word. 

 

 

I'm stupid because I used the scientific method of observation to expect the fall season?  BTW, declaration of a stalemate is a kind offer to shake one's opponent's hand and agree to disagree.  You see, Christians are nice that way, but the atheist will continue to spit in my face. 

 

Nice dodge on my question though.  Can fallible man create something that is infallible?

No you're delusional in calling observation "faith". And as I told you - fallible man created the God you serve - that's why there's so much wrong with him.

Also, a stalemate means that neither side has an advantage. You have been arguing at a disadvantage since you started. Why would anyone accept a draw from you? What you want us to call a stalemate when you do it you'd be the first to call chickening out of the argument if we did it to you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1509
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Book of Ezekiel Chapter Eight . .

   Look I will freely admit this is more deserving than a single passage, because it deserves more attention than I have  given.  I am more than a little puzzled why someone wouldnt look for evidence that would establish, if in fact, Israel may have know of this in the first place ? It's sad that you assert the board tries to appear intellectually superior and would just simply deny anything a Christian says. In this line of reasoning, means we get further and further away from the subject. Commentaries arent always so helpful, especially when most of the commentators didnt know of this. 


Nahum 1  (NJKV)  - "The Lord will take vengeance on His adversaries, And the Lord reserves wrath for His enemies. The Lord is slow to anger and great in power, And will not at all acquit the wicked.  The Lord has His way  In the whirlwind and in the storm, And the clouds are the dust of His feet. He rebukes the sea and makes it dry,"

More to the point:

Ezekiel 8:12a-17a (NJKV)  -  “Son of man, have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the room of his idols? For they say, ‘The Lord does not see us, the Lord has forsaken the land.’”
And He said to me, “Turn again, and you will see greater abominations that they are doing.” So He brought me to the door of the north gate of the Lord’s house; and to my dismay, women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz.
Then He said to me, “Have you seen this, O son of man? Turn again, you will see greater abominations than these.” He brought me into the inner court of the Lord’s house; and there, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five
men with their backs toward the temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they were worshiping the sun toward the east. And He said to me, “Have you seen this, O son of man? Is it a trivial thing to the house of Judah to commit the abominations which they commit here?



 Please note I am only citing an instance where the Israelites seem to have know of this.    > > Scholars of religion know Tammuz is recognized as a story representative of the usual birth-death cycle of vegetation. But what is the point in citing the passage, mainly ?  Tammuz is a Sumerian god,  for them to have observed his yearly festival would indicate some sort of knowledge of the older religion. Thus establishing yada yada  yada . . .

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4405
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Lol, I think

TWD39 wrote:

Lol, I think that is what they refer to in MMA as a "tap out"- I declare AE winner by submission.

 

You are aware TWD that the Earth, the sun and even the entire universe are breaking down? Even without human interference, none of them will last forever. Stuff in nature breaks down all the time, entire species go extinct, whole regions are destroyed and things change. Even your stupid little example doesn't hold, the rotation of the Earth is not constant nor is our orbit around the sun. It is relatively stable in the sense that without very accurate measuring techniques we can't notice the difference but it is not "perfect" in any sense of the word. 

I'm stupid because I used the scientific method of observation to expect the fall season?  

No, you are ignorant because you are using caveman style observations. Your belief that the fall season will always be there for forever would have been perfectly reasonable 2000 years ago. 2000 years ago it was also reasonable to believe the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth because people were very limited in how they could observe, relying mostly on their eyes. Now we have a number of new ways to observe the world that tell us some of our observations that were once seen as obvious were in fact incorrect. When you use the scientific method, you have to be open to new information and new observations because you might find out all your previous beliefs were wrong. The reason why religion cannot substitute for science is that you can never admit you were wrong and have to continue believing even when all the available information suggests you are wrong. 

You are stupid because you stubbornly refuse to recognize reality even as it stares you in the face simply because you are afraid that facts will force you to confront that the bible is not an infallible document. 

 

TWD39 wrote:

BTW, declaration of a stalemate is a kind offer to shake one's opponent's hand and agree to disagree.  You see, Christians are nice that way, but the atheist will continue to spit in my face. 

You "agree to disagree" when you are dealing with a matter of preference, like say I announce coffee is better than tea and you disagree. Whether or not god exists is not a question of preference, it isn't about agreement- it is a question of fact, one of us is right and the other is wrong. Now I will agree that you are completely free to be wrong and ignorant, but when you state something wrong and ignorant I am going to point it out. 

 

TWD39 wrote:
 

Nice dodge on my question though.  Can fallible man create something that is infallible?

Perhaps at some point in the future. At this moment in time? Probably not. So what? As far as I know there is nothing in the universe that is infallible, which seems at odds with the idea of the existence of an infallible god. If a creator god exists, either it is fallible or it intentionally created everything in the universe to be fallible for some unknown reason. 

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:TWD39 wrote:Is

cj wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?  I don't think you can say this with 100% certainly.  The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition.  As mankind scattered after the Babel incident,  the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.  This explains why we see flood myths with details in common with the Bible's account all around the world.

jcgadfly wrote:

Most generous dating of Genesis - 1446 BCE

Sumerian creation myth - 2150 BCE

The numbers disagree with you. Why would an elder civilization wait to copy a story from one younger than itself?

 

Given certain internal evidence (camels as common beasts of burden for instance), Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed) proposed a date for the Pentateuch as 900 BCE. 

I don't know enough to argue for either date.  But the domestication of the camel is documented pretty well in archaeology.  Remember, domesticated animals have finer bones and other physical characteristics.  And the bones show they were eaten by humans, we being the scavengers we are.  So, wild camels were eaten first, then they were domesticated in herds, then they were trained to be beasts of burden.  Doesn't happen over night.

Evidence -

Bones are found in middens (garbage heaps) near where humans lived.  The bones show marks of stone tools and the long bones have been broken for the marrow.  There is no difference between the bones in the middens and bones found far from human habitations.

Bones are found in middens in larger quantities, but the bones themselves are smaller than their wild cousins.  There are also more of them, all with tool marks on the bones.

Bones are found in middens and now there are remains of leather bridles and other equipment generally associated with riding and packing trained livestock.  Bones are further from the wild cousins which start to show significant reduction in numbers.  Humans have pretty much hunted out the wild camels, eating the older ones and/or taming the young.  There was also a climate change in the area about this time to drier and hotter.  So the wild ones likely couldn't find as much food and so didn't reproduce as much.

This pattern is followed for all known domesticated herd animals (with differences in timing and perhaps in the presence of climatic changes), including the domesticated camelids (dromedary, bractrian, llamas, alpacas).

Take a pre-historic archaeology class for more details on domestication and the factual evidence found all over the world where ever humans domesticated animals.

 

(In part, this message is not aimed just at jcgadfly, but at everyone who reads the forums.)

 

Flood myths - NOT found all over the world.  Most flood myths are about localized flooding, common in any area of the world.  Even the deserts.  See the Missoula Floods for details about regional flooding and the myths about them.  Not one myth concerning the final Missoula Flood claimed it was world wide - as it wasn't.  The aboriginal peoples watched it from a distance -- their homes weren't flooded.  Regional.

 

TWD39 wrote:

If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?  Idol worship was the norm for all those ancient civilizations except the for the Israelities.  They even rebelled and try to go idol worship.  Why keep a record of people acting this way?

 

Idol worship was the norm for the Israelites as well until a few hundred years after the Pentateuch was written.  Monotheism seemed to catch on after the area was conquered by the Assyrians.  Then, it was a political way to be rebellious to differentiate your people from the rulers.  Since most people could not read or write, they were willing to believe in the tales of a perfect, wonderful time, where they were the rich ones and everyone else was under their thumb.  This was never the case, Israel was never that rich or as populous as the bible claims.  But, it has been shown that if it happened before your grandparent's time, there is no conscious memory of the event.  If you don't write it down, the event didn't happen.  Whatever the event might be.  If a people are not literate, then they are willing to believe any story of events of a hundred years ago.  They do not have extensive, accurate, oral records.  They have stories that morph and change over time.

Surely, you have played "gossip" at some time.  We used to play it in the church I attended in Junior High.  The final message bears little resemblance to the original after just 12-20 iterations.

Is your god/s/dess non-physical?  I've talked to plenty of christians who believe in a physical god/s/dess.

 

Thanks cj, I saw the 900 BCE dating but I wanted to give TWD the maximum  benefit of the doubt to show that he was still WAY off. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

Were the Egyptians known to record embarrassing defeats is this time period?  My initial research says NO.

I was just reviewing Wheless' Forgery in Christianity. Reading that nonsense claim again I am reminded believers are still liars. You have researched NOTHING on the subject. You are repeating what some Christian liar wrote. If you wish to participate at least be honest in what you post.

Quote:
And the whole encounter with Moses would have been quite an embarrassment for a leader who was regarded as a god.  It's perfectly reasonable that pharoh would put to death anyone who dared keep a record of the effects.

And that is called misdirection. 1/3 of the population of Egypt got up and left. There is no evidence of such a population decrease. If you claim the bible exaggerates then you agree the bible lies. If it lies about the number of people then it lies about a Moses victory. If it lies in these matter then it lies about the whole leaving thing in the first place.

Trick question, why did Moses write in early Phoenician instead of in Egyptian?

Quote:
Then you have the flip side.  The Bible offers a window into the Egyptian culture with a good bit of detail certainly with the Joseph story.
 

Even if you ignore the fact that the "insight" is 100% totally wrong and false it still makes a poor lie. It just as stupidly wrong about the Moses part too. And this is more evidence you lied when you said you did research.

Quote:
Now how could a poor band of sheep herders know so much about the inner workings of Egyptian culture?  Also,  what archaeological evidence would you expect to find if the Jews did live in Egypt as slaves?  They would be forced to obey the social and political laws.  Also, a slave would most likely have few possessions.  Their lifestyle would be pretty much the same as a regular Egyptian citizen.

As an example of getting it all wrong, Egypt did not have chattel slavery. At most it had bond servants but only to pay off debts from other causes, sort of an open air debtor's prison affair. It was learning the bible was total bullshit about ancient Egypt that lead to the foundation of modern archaeology to replace the earlier adventurers.

In any event we know the entire slavery part of Gensis is a lie.

Quote:
Here's why I don't take atheist's charge on the matter seriously.  You throw the baby out with the bath water.  Since there is no rock solid evidence regarding Exodus then the entire Bible is false.  You use Exodus as a crutch to throw out anytime a Christian tries to prove the Bible.   The lack of evidence for  Exodus is not the smoking gun which unravels the Christian faith.  There are explanations out there.

But there is rock solid evidence Exodus is total fiction regarding Egypt and therefore the Torah is bullshit. The Torah is the law. The rest is secondary.

Quote:
I also don't agree that there is ZERO evidence for the towel of Babel.  We have the remains of ziggaurats which are consistently with the building method described in the account.   Archaelogists have found what may be the foundation of the tower.  We have accounts of Nebuchadnezzar II trying to rebuild the tower.  It was called Etemenanki.   Herodotus also described a great tower in the region.

Again you lie but show us you are other than a liar for your silly lord. Cite the professional archaological papers which recount this discovery. Notice the professional part. That means amateur sources like the BAR magazine are as valid as Fate Magazine.

Here is your chance. Demonstrate you are not a liar.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
It's easy to simply write it all off as myth.  Not as easy to prove some backing proof.  You offer none as usual.  How about providing a scripture passage that shows the Hebrews performing a distinct cultural ritual in Egypt which could leave archaeological evidence?  Can you do that? Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air.

He who makes the positive assertion bears the burden of producing physical evidence of the assertion. The ball is in the court of the believers.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
At the very least, you can not boldly claim that the Bible is completely fiction or a book of fairy tales as some atheists do.   Archaeology gives support for the Bible.  Atheists once boldly claimed that the Hittities never existed orPontius Pilatus was a fictional character until archaeology proved them wrong.

Not only do I claim it, I demonstrate it is fiction should you care to read it. www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html As to Pilate, the evidence found shows he did not have the job the gospels claim he had. Meaning he would not have conducted a trial.

However the rational person does not take it seriously a priori because contains magic which does not happen. Magical tales are to entertain children. You might as well search for a kernel of truth about the real wizard who ruled the Emerald City. It is just as silly an endevour.

Quote:
Archaeology has also proven that the Bible was written down hundreds of years before originally thought.

That is a flat out lie.

Quote:
Ever heard of the Hinnom Silver Amulet scrolls?  It is the oldest discovered biblical scripture dated around 200 BC, 400 years before the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Yes it is an incantation to the sun god Ra. What the hell do you think "may his light shine upon you" means? Ra is the light bearer who carries the sun across the sky. That also makes him Lucifer the light bearer. That the incantation was copied into Psalms has no bearing on the subjecct. After all, the Psalms and all of the OT books were composed in Egypt.

Quote:
There's bound to be other even older scrolls out there which have yet to be discovered. We also see many times in the Bible where the Hebrew culture intersects with other ancient civilizations.  The level of detail involving the other civilization is never inaccurate.  You would think if the Bible was handed down and diluted through oral tradition, they would have got at least one fact wrong, right?

Considering you are lying and that it is never correct in any distinguishing detail I have to agree with Whelss that believers make a deliberate effort to lie through their teeth.

Quote:
Unfortunately,  your post doesn't tell me how archaeology can distinguish between fact and fiction.  You say there is a lot of information about the Pharohs.  So what?  There is a lot of information about the fantasy worlds created by Tolkien in the Lord of the Rings.  How do I really know it isn't all myth?  It still sounds like atheists want to practice a double standard.  Accept archaeological finds without question for every civilization except those findings which support the Bible.  That's intellectual dishonesty.

Considering your facility in lying you are not the person to be talking about intellectual dishonesty. But for the record Tolkien's world is much more consistent. The OT is nothing but a collection of back stories about a fabled kingdom to back up the claims of the Hasmonean priest kings founded by Judah Maccabe.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:
Dude, if you're going to dispute something, you need to demonstrate valid reasons for your dispute.  Otherwise, you're just demonstrating that you disagree with me because you just can't admit for once that a Christian is right.  At least posters like CJ put some backbone in their  replies.  If your response is to thumb your nose and say "I don't have to prove jack" then I'm done with you.  It's like debating with a brick wall.

You have made many clearly false claims contrary to well known facts of archaeology such as falsely claiming the OT correctly describes ancient civilizations when in fact it is materially wrong in every distinguishing fact. IF you were aware of your obligation to establish the evidence in support of your claims and IF you did in fact know the subject then you would know not to post without evidence. But you post lies just for the fun of it.

Quote:
And yes, I can provide plenty of examples of archaeological evidence.  Here's a good staring point:

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

Excuse me but in case you missed it, anonymous sources suitable for high school students at best are not acceptable to high school graduates much less the level of disucssion you are pretending to have as a screen for your unremitting lies.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:TWD39

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Were the Egyptians known to record embarrassing defeats is this time period?  My initial research says NO.

I was just reviewing Wheless' Forgery in Christianity. Reading that nonsense claim again I am reminded believers are still liars. You have researched NOTHING on the subject. You are repeating what some Christian liar wrote. If you wish to participate at least be honest in what you post.

Quote:
And the whole encounter with Moses would have been quite an embarrassment for a leader who was regarded as a god.  It's perfectly reasonable that pharoh would put to death anyone who dared keep a record of the effects.

And that is called misdirection. 1/3 of the population of Egypt got up and left. There is no evidence of such a population decrease. If you claim the bible exaggerates then you agree the bible lies. If it lies about the number of people then it lies about a Moses victory. If it lies in these matter then it lies about the whole leaving thing in the first place.

Trick question, why did Moses write in early Phoenician instead of in Egyptian?

Quote:
Then you have the flip side.  The Bible offers a window into the Egyptian culture with a good bit of detail certainly with the Joseph story.
 

Even if you ignore the fact that the "insight" is 100% totally wrong and false it still makes a poor lie. It just as stupidly wrong about the Moses part too. And this is more evidence you lied when you said you did research.

Quote:
Now how could a poor band of sheep herders know so much about the inner workings of Egyptian culture?  Also,  what archaeological evidence would you expect to find if the Jews did live in Egypt as slaves?  They would be forced to obey the social and political laws.  Also, a slave would most likely have few possessions.  Their lifestyle would be pretty much the same as a regular Egyptian citizen.

As an example of getting it all wrong, Egypt did not have chattel slavery. At most it had bond servants but only to pay off debts from other causes, sort of an open air debtor's prison affair. It was learning the bible was total bullshit about ancient Egypt that lead to the foundation of modern archaeology to replace the earlier adventurers.

In any event we know the entire slavery part of Gensis is a lie.

Quote:
Here's why I don't take atheist's charge on the matter seriously.  You throw the baby out with the bath water.  Since there is no rock solid evidence regarding Exodus then the entire Bible is false.  You use Exodus as a crutch to throw out anytime a Christian tries to prove the Bible.   The lack of evidence for  Exodus is not the smoking gun which unravels the Christian faith.  There are explanations out there.

But there is rock solid evidence Exodus is total fiction regarding Egypt and therefore the Torah is bullshit. The Torah is the law. The rest is secondary.

Quote:
I also don't agree that there is ZERO evidence for the towel of Babel.  We have the remains of ziggaurats which are consistently with the building method described in the account.   Archaelogists have found what may be the foundation of the tower.  We have accounts of Nebuchadnezzar II trying to rebuild the tower.  It was called Etemenanki.   Herodotus also described a great tower in the region.

Again you lie but show us you are other than a liar for your silly lord. Cite the professional archaological papers which recount this discovery. Notice the professional part. That means amateur sources like the BAR magazine are as valid as Fate Magazine.

Here is your chance. Demonstrate you are not a liar.

 

Oh wonderful, another jerk atheist to join the fun.  Let's see:

 

1.  Using profanity - check

2.  Makes bold claims with no supporting cites - check  , (I'm supposed to just take your garbage talk at face value, umm NO)

3.  Comes off arrogant and condescending by calling the theist stupid, ignorant or a liar - check

4.  Shows no respect for a a difference of beliefs (silly lord) - check

5.  Makes bold claims, but falls back on the "I don't have to prove jack" escape route - check

 

Thank you for holding up the negative atheist stereotypes.  Your support is appreciated. 

 

Course, you could chip away at it by providing some of that rock solid proof, and nope,  lack of archaelogical finds is not  hard evidence. 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

This one still puzzles me... 

The scripture doesn't give any indication of their progress.  It could have been a multi-generational project that God stopped mid-way.

First off your Genesis story says the godS plural stopped it not a singular god. They are presumably the same gods that separated the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1. That believers are too stupid to understand Elohim is plural for El is not something anyone has to honor in discussions with them.

Second we talk about your idiots gods who thought there was a possibility of building a tower to reach heaven. What kinds of stupid gods do you worship? Your gods were afraid of that? They are as dumb as you.

You do not get to shut off your brain here. It says what it says as INSPIRED word and thus cannot be wrong, period. It is not inspired then it is all fairytale. You do not get a pass on any of it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:TWD39

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
Dude, if you're going to dispute something, you need to demonstrate valid reasons for your dispute.  Otherwise, you're just demonstrating that you disagree with me because you just can't admit for once that a Christian is right.  At least posters like CJ put some backbone in their  replies.  If your response is to thumb your nose and say "I don't have to prove jack" then I'm done with you.  It's like debating with a brick wall.

You have made many clearly false claims contrary to well known facts of archaeology such as falsely claiming the OT correctly describes ancient civilizations when in fact it is materially wrong in every distinguishing fact. IF you were aware of your obligation to establish the evidence in support of your claims and IF you did in fact know the subject then you would know not to post without evidence. But you post lies just for the fun of it.

Quote:
And yes, I can provide plenty of examples of archaeological evidence.  Here's a good staring point:

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

Excuse me but in case you missed it, anonymous sources suitable for high school students at best are not acceptable to high school graduates much less the level of disucssion you are pretending to have as a screen for your unremitting lies.

 

 

Right, only ATHEIST sources are suitable huh?   SUch a lame copout.  If you were truly being honest here, you would point out exactly where the wikipedia source is wrong in its list. 

If I'm wrong, fine, prove it instead of wasting my time with your condescending worthless vomit. 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:TWD39

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

This one still puzzles me... 

The scripture doesn't give any indication of their progress.  It could have been a multi-generational project that God stopped mid-way.

First off your Genesis story says the godS plural stopped it not a singular god. They are presumably the same gods that separated the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1. That believers are too stupid to understand Elohim is plural for El is not something anyone has to honor in discussions with them.

Second we talk about your idiots gods who thought there was a possibility of building a tower to reach heaven. What kinds of stupid gods do you worship? Your gods were afraid of that? They are as dumb as you.

You do not get to shut off your brain here. It says what it says as INSPIRED word and thus cannot be wrong, period. It is not inspired then it is all fairytale. You do not get a pass on any of it.

 

That's right.  The plural is the Holy Trinity which includes Jesus.  It is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.  Obviously, you are ignorant about my faith.

There are theological explanations why God was offended at the tower.  But you proven incapable of understanding so no point in explaining it.   Your post is nothing but taking an opportunity to take a cheap shot at my faith.  Disgusting, but typical of immoral atheists.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

danatemporary wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
So now you are telling me the problem has been answered by atheists, wikipedia is lying here, and us poor ignorant country folk are just too un-educated?

 Minor twibble independent of this topic . . (Off-Topic -- Comment  ONLY):

 Wikipedia usually is lying, or entirely mistaken. What do I mean ? After poring over dozens and dozens of semi-lengthy articles from Wikipedia on subjects I am both very well and more than alittle acquainted with. Article after article show no less than 'one fifth' of the information is incorrect. It consistently will test an individual on the subject-mater  to see if you spot and then can point out the one fifth that is entirely wrong with Wikipedia's submissions. They're  being inherently irresponsible in pairing things that do not belong together. That is often on top of the incorrect information they've dovetailed on to  their articles. Please, Note I said 1/5. BTW, I almost never use Wikipedia as a primary source for information, matter of fact, absolutely never is it used in such a fashion by myself. I always take the more laborious path (consistently).

I've played games with them a couple times. Their bible editors refuse to accept Jospehus as a source for anything. They refuse to acknowledge they have no source for their "independent" recounting of events in bibleland. It is occassionally fun to harrass them.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
TWD39 continues to get schooled.

Why yes, I've learned that atheists are arrogant, rude, biased, and generally not likeable people.   Thank you for teaching me this valuable lesson. 

Ok, you can return back to your fantasy land where atheists are always right, and Christians are evil and stupid.

And you have demonstrated believers are liars. But we knew that.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Atheistextremist

cj wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

You choose to gamble your eternal destination on complete faith in the scientific method.  But a man designed that method.  Man is fallible.   Can a fallible man create something that is perfect and infallible?  Even our great machines eventually wear out.  An infallible machine would run perfectly forever.   But then I look at nature, and it is perfect and infallible, and never breaks down (although it appears man can screw it up assuming global warming is real)   Everything runs like clock work.  I can put complete faith that in October, the days will grow shorter, and eventually it will be dark in the afternoon.

The scientific method is great for examining truths in the physical world, but God is not a physical being.

...........<snip>

As for gambling my 'eternal destination' - well. Do you have any proof there is an eternal destination? No one has seen it, no one has been there. Some priests made up stories about it but they never saw it any more than you or I have. Why did they do this? Why is the fundamental reason for believing in god not actual material proof, but the threat of eternal shrieking immolation if you don't embrace god's 'love' for you. Burning people alive is not any sort of love I can imagine. 

 

Pascal's wager:

               God exists             God does not exist

Belief          +infinity                0

 

Skepticism   - infinity                0

 

But that is totally wrong by my way of thinking.

First, if god/s/dess does not exist, and I tithe to some church, all of that money was wasted.  Yes, some churches do good in the form of charity, but often, I could have contributed to some other charity or done the charitable works myself.  Nothing stops me from contributing to medical research or remediation for people less fortunate than I.  I have also wasted all those hours at church.  I could have been working on my home or garden, performing charitable acts, or almost anything else rather than sitting on my butt on some really hard pew.

So, belief x god/s/dess does not exist is not 0, not - infinity, but some negative quantity, let's call it -100,000 in round numbers.

Skepticism x god/s/dess does not exist is not 0, but some positive quantity, say + 100,000, for all that time and money I didn't waste and all the potential good I could have accomplished with that time and money that would have been wasted on a non-existant deity.

Second if god/s/dess exists, I do NOT want to go to heaven.  For three reasons.  The first is that I have no desire to spend eternity with the likes of John Calvin or Tammy Faye Bakker or any of the other televangelists.  The second is I have no desire to worship a god/s/dess so incompetent that their "plan" for humans includes child abuse and starvation.  No, I do not buy the free will argument that it is all humanity's fault that children are abused and starved.  Nor do I go for it being Satan's fault.  God/s/dess could stop it, and s/he/it/they don't.  I'm not impressed.  Thirdly, heaven sounds like the most boring condition to be in for eternity.  Think about it - bad harp music and out of tune singing - for eternity.  No thanks.

So, belief x god/s/dess exists is not + infinity for me, it is some negative quantity - say, about -100,000.

Lastly, if god/s/dess exists, and I am a skeptic, I will wind up in hell for eternity.  "Burning in lakes of fire."  Or, "Separated for all of eternity from god/s/dess' loving arms."  Or something like.  At least I can hang with Mark Twain, Shermer, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mahatmas Ghandi, and so on.  Much better company than John Calvin.  And it certainly won't be boring.  Let's call this one worth about -100,000 for potential pain that is offset by stellar company.

That brings my results of the wager to:

               God exists             God does not exist

Belief          -100,000                -100,000

 

Skepticism   - 100,000                +100,000

 

In my matrix, skepticism offers the only positive outcome.

 

 

Your post is disappointing.   Strip away your equations, and we have a simple demonstration of extreme contempt for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with this blasphemous rhetoric.  If you truly consider yourself an intellectual, have you ever considered that your extremely negative perception of God could be wrong?  That there may be a completely pure and valid explanation for His actions that is beyond the capabilty of comprehension in our human brains?  Certainly your idea of heaven comes from man created imagery.  There's nothing in the Bible to suggest we will play harps and it will be so boring.   I rather be alive and fellowshiping in joy with my fellow believers than either being annililated or burning in hell. 

If you honestly think hell will be a party with other sinners then you are truly ignorant.  You won't have company there.   You are either going to be destroyed from existence or weeping and gnashing your teeth forever.   I would gladly be heaven's janitor to avoid either one of those outcomes.

BTW, whenever God does work to wipe out the evil in the world, you blame Him for genocide.   When He spares man,  you blame Him too.  God just can't win with you people. lol  

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

Is there conclusive proof that the oldest created written record of Genesis was formed after the sumerian tablets?  I don't think you can say this with 100% certainly.  The OT stories could have been handed down carefully through oral tradition.  As mankind scattered after the Babel incident,  the stories became diluted and details altered to fit whatever culture they devised.  This explains why we see flood myths with details in common with the Bible's account all around the world.

And after the mythical return from the mythical captivity in Babylon Ezra miraculously reconstructs all the lost books. Is the bible itself not enough for you?

Or should I invoke the archaeology showing camels were domesticated as pack animals no earlier than the 8th c. BC and look for mentions of camels as pack animals in Exodus and Genesis? Does that not place the Torah AFTER they came to be used as pack animals? Physical evidence only not mights and maybes of pious speculation remember? Should I recount Exodus "written" by Moses recounting the death and burial of Moses as evidence it was written at an indeterminate time after the mythical Moses supposedly existed?

Did you ever actually read the crap you are talking about?

Quote:
It is more reasonable to consider that the Sumer accounts were copied from the Hebrew stories.  For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?  The Bible account is more detailed and works.   As people moved away, they forgot the important details and just filled in the blanks and new myths are created.

How could the Sumerians copy a language, Hebrew, that did not yet exist written by a person, Moses, who was thousands of years in future?

There is an observation that believers are so convinced they are correct that they make any superficial claim without thinking it through because they know they cannot be wrong. And you keep doing it.

Quote:
If the Bible is a mere copy of earlier texts, why is God changed to a non-physical entity?  Idol worship was the norm for all those ancient civilizations except the for the Israelities.  They even rebelled and try to go idol worship.  Why keep a record of people acting this way?

To remind you, Elohim is PLURAL so you are talking about gods regardless of the idiot translation you use. The god named Yahweh has an ass he shows to Abraham and fire from his mouth and smoke from his nostrils to someone else. He walks to Sodom to SEE what is going on, presumably with its eyes. IT needs a place to live, BT YHWH, House of Yahweh, aka temple. It needs food sacrifice just like all the other gods. It controls the fates, weather, crops just like all the other gods. It does not differ in any way from the other gods save for your false claim of non-physical which is not established in the OT save by claiming metaphor as a rationalization for the physical descriptions.

The issue is not the trivial difference but the otherwise extensive list of identical descriptions. If false gods want sacrifice one would expect the real one to not want them. One expects the one and only real god to be entirely different from all the fake gods, do we not? More importantly we would expect all the fake gods to deliver nothing in return for sacrifice and thus be abandoned while the real god delivers as promised. Thus it is impossible to explain why people actually followed false gods when a simple test of sacrifice to the true one would prove it was the true god.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1509
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
.. the question on everybody's lips would be . . .

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Quote:
It is more reasonable to consider that the Sumer accounts were copied from the Hebrew stories.  For example, why would Epic of Gilgamesh contain dimensions for a boat that wouldn't work or be sea worthy?  The Bible account is more detailed and works.   As people moved away, they forgot the important details and just filled in the blanks and new myths are created.

How could the Sumerians copy a language, Hebrew, that did not yet exist written by a person, Moses, who was thousands of years in future?

There is an observation that believers are so convinced they are correct that they make any superficial claim without thinking it through because they know they cannot be wrong. And you keep doing it.


  I think the question on everybody's lips would be:  TWD39  is it more reasonable to you ? Please envision and create, you really need to do some fact-checking, getting some assistance

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

This one still puzzles me... 

The scripture doesn't give any indication of their progress.  It could have been a multi-generational project that God stopped mid-way.

First off your Genesis story says the godS plural stopped it not a singular god. They are presumably the same gods that separated the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1. That believers are too stupid to understand Elohim is plural for El is not something anyone has to honor in discussions with them.

Second we talk about your idiots gods who thought there was a possibility of building a tower to reach heaven. What kinds of stupid gods do you worship? Your gods were afraid of that? They are as dumb as you.

You do not get to shut off your brain here. It says what it says as INSPIRED word and thus cannot be wrong, period. It is not inspired then it is all fairytale. You do not get a pass on any of it.

 

That's right.  The plural is the Holy Trinity which includes Jesus.  It is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.  Obviously, you are ignorant about my faith.

There are theological explanations why God was offended at the tower.  But you proven incapable of understanding so no point in explaining it.   Your post is nothing but taking an opportunity to take a cheap shot at my faith.  Disgusting, but typical of immoral atheists.

The Trinity is a Christian cornerstone. It's a shame for you that it's not a Biblical cornerstone. Essentially, it's a feel-good polytheism. So, which god do you worship? 

Please provide these theological explanations instead of simply asserting them. I'd love to see how you try to make God not look butthurt because men weren't spending more time sucking up to him.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:TWD39

jcgadfly wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 And... Remind me how the tower of babel could have been built again, seeing as there would have only a few hundred people alive descended from noah after the flood a hundred years before?

This one still puzzles me... 

The scripture doesn't give any indication of their progress.  It could have been a multi-generational project that God stopped mid-way.

First off your Genesis story says the godS plural stopped it not a singular god. They are presumably the same gods that separated the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1. That believers are too stupid to understand Elohim is plural for El is not something anyone has to honor in discussions with them.

Second we talk about your idiots gods who thought there was a possibility of building a tower to reach heaven. What kinds of stupid gods do you worship? Your gods were afraid of that? They are as dumb as you.

You do not get to shut off your brain here. It says what it says as INSPIRED word and thus cannot be wrong, period. It is not inspired then it is all fairytale. You do not get a pass on any of it.

 

That's right.  The plural is the Holy Trinity which includes Jesus.  It is one of the cornerstones of Christianity.  Obviously, you are ignorant about my faith.

There are theological explanations why God was offended at the tower.  But you proven incapable of understanding so no point in explaining it.   Your post is nothing but taking an opportunity to take a cheap shot at my faith.  Disgusting, but typical of immoral atheists.

The Trinity is a Christian cornerstone. It's a shame for you that it's not a Biblical cornerstone. Essentially, it's a feel-good polytheism. So, which god do you worship? 

Please provide these theological explanations instead of simply asserting them. I'd love to see how you try to make God not look butthurt because men weren't spending more time sucking up to him.

 

Sorry for you, but the Bible says otherwise.  John 10:30, one of many.  Now scurry back to your sewer pit of God hate filth.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Your post is

TWD39 wrote:

Your post is disappointing.   Strip away your equations, and we have a simple demonstration of extreme contempt for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with this blasphemous rhetoric.  If you truly consider yourself an intellectual, have you ever considered that your extremely negative perception of God could be wrong?  That there may be a completely pure and valid explanation for His actions that is beyond the capabilty of comprehension in our human brains?  Certainly your idea of heaven comes from man created imagery.  There's nothing in the Bible to suggest we will play harps and it will be so boring.   I rather be alive and fellowshiping in joy with my fellow believers than either being annililated or burning in hell. 

If you honestly think hell will be a party with other sinners then you are truly ignorant.  You won't have company there.   You are either going to be destroyed from existence or weeping and gnashing your teeth forever.   I would gladly be heaven's janitor to avoid either one of those outcomes.

BTW, whenever God does work to wipe out the evil in the world, you blame Him for genocide.   When He spares man,  you blame Him too.  God just can't win with you people. lol  

 

Genocide wipes out evil???????  Your ignorance is inexcusable.  Rwanda.  Darfur.  The Holocaust.  Armenia.  The Sudan.  Bosnia.  Cambodia.  The American Indians in the United States (Sand Creek, Wounded Knee, Little Big Horn, Bear River).  Please read up on any of these atrocities and explain to me which side was evil.

If I ever have the misfortune to meet your god with his unknowable plans, I will do my best to kick him where it hurts and demand to be sent to hell or annihilated.

Why?  November, 2009 in North Carolina, a mother sold her 5 year old daughter to the mother's drug dealer.  To satisfy a debt and to get her next fix.  The grandmother and aunt of the little girl came to the house that day and called in an Amber Alert.  They found the baby in the woods, having been raped and strangled to death.  Fortunately, in time for solid DNA evidence.  Not in time unfortunately for the little girl.

You want to verify this?  Fine.  There are plenty of news reports online.  I understand there has since been a court case as well, so you can write (and I'm certain for a small fee per page) get a copy of the court case and autopsy report as well.

Maybe you think this can be justified.  Maybe god/s/dess wanted that child in heaven.  Fine, stop her heart in the middle of the night, there was no need to torture the child to death.  (The rape of a 5 year old by an adult male is torture.  You will have to trust me on this.)  Maybe god/s/dess wanted to bring the mother and drug dealer closer to him/her/it/them.  Fine.  The deity could have given the pair of them seizures in the right temporal lobe.  These kinds of seizures are associated with people reporting amazing religious experiences.  Free Will?  And just WHAT FREE WILL DID THAT LITTLE GIRL HAVE?????

Maybe this is okay with you.  An all knowing, all powerful, god/s/dess knows about the 5 year old girl's torture, could prevent it, yet does nothing for that baby.  And I'm supposed to accept this? 

I have no anger towards god/s/dess since it doesn't exist.  Why be angry with it?  But I am fried with all the christian apologists who claim that "there must be an plan that our tiny brains can not encompass for all the hurt in the world/universe."  Know what?  There is NO plan that excuses that kind of hurt in this world.  And I don't care about your justification for a so-called loving god/s/dess.  Maybe your mind is too puny to know about such a plan, but I refuse to accept such a plan.  There is NO justification for allowing that kind of sadistic torture when you have the power to prevent it.  Not now, not later, not in all eternity.

And I would never accept a place in heaven with such a god.  And hanging out with people who think this kind of evil is acceptable is not my idea of heaven.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5092
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps unsurprisingly

 

TWD39 wrote:

I rather be alive and fellowshiping in joy with my fellow believers than either being annililated or burning in hell. If you honestly think hell will be a party with other sinners then you are truly ignorant.  You won't have company there.   You are either going to be destroyed from existence or weeping and gnashing your teeth forever.  I would gladly be heaven's janitor to avoid either one of those outcomes. BTW, whenever God does work to wipe out the evil in the world, you blame Him for genocide.  

 

to those who know me, I've come to the end of my politeness with TWD39. The basis of the contentions above is irrational fallacious appeal to force, these beliefs are held without cogent proof and show profound moral inconsistency. The only conclusion to be drawn from the bizarre, sick beliefs of this person seemingly based on childish acceptance of unsubstantiated bible mythology along with fallacious appeals to emotion (oh, my darling lord and saviour) and appeals to outrage (oh, how dare you insult my darling lord and saviour) is that TWD39, like most literal christians, is a narcissistic arsehole. TWD, once again, none of us would worship a being who would torture you. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

TWD39 wrote:

I rather be alive and fellowshiping in joy with my fellow believers than either being annililated or burning in hell. If you honestly think hell will be a party with other sinners then you are truly ignorant.  You won't have company there.   You are either going to be destroyed from existence or weeping and gnashing your teeth forever.  I would gladly be heaven's janitor to avoid either one of those outcomes. BTW, whenever God does work to wipe out the evil in the world, you blame Him for genocide.  

 

to those who know me, I've come to the end of my politeness with TWD39. The basis of the contentions above is irrational fallacious appeal to force, these beliefs are held without cogent proof and show profound moral inconsistency. The only conclusion to be drawn from the bizarre, sick beliefs of this person seemingly based on childish acceptance of unsubstantiated bible mythology along with fallacious appeals to emotion (oh, my darling lord and saviour) and appeals to outrage (oh, how dare you insult my darling lord and saviour) is that TWD39, like most literal christians, is a narcissistic arsehole. TWD, once again, none of us would worship a being who would torture you. 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, you've been polite?  Certainly could have fooled me.  But go ahead and blast your furnace talk.  I'm sure it gives you some degree of comfort to belittle and talk trash about God.  But it does nothing to change the reality that He exists.  I have demonstrated in many ways different kinds of proofs, but as expected, it was ignored because you have a Satan fueled anger against God.  Furthermore, you have demonstrated poorly if at all that the Bibe is a book of myths.  The fact that the prophecies regarding Israel have come true alone puts the Bible way ahead of any other ancient myth.  You want to write it all off as myth, but then have to admit that the Bible has some historical fact.  You want to accept archaelogy for anything that is non-Christian, but if it supports the Bible, oh no, that's the same thing as Spiderman.  The double standard just shows how fake and hypocritical atheists really are. 

 

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

TWD39 wrote:

I rather be alive and fellowshiping in joy with my fellow believers than either being annililated or burning in hell. If you honestly think hell will be a party with other sinners then you are truly ignorant.  You won't have company there.   You are either going to be destroyed from existence or weeping and gnashing your teeth forever.  I would gladly be heaven's janitor to avoid either one of those outcomes. BTW, whenever God does work to wipe out the evil in the world, you blame Him for genocide.  

 

to those who know me, I've come to the end of my politeness with TWD39. The basis of the contentions above is irrational fallacious appeal to force, these beliefs are held without cogent proof and show profound moral inconsistency. The only conclusion to be drawn from the bizarre, sick beliefs of this person seemingly based on childish acceptance of unsubstantiated bible mythology along with fallacious appeals to emotion (oh, my darling lord and saviour) and appeals to outrage (oh, how dare you insult my darling lord and saviour) is that TWD39, like most literal christians, is a narcissistic arsehole. TWD, once again, none of us would worship a being who would torture you. 

 

 

 

Wow, you've been polite?  Certainly could have fooled me.  But go ahead and blast your furnace talk.  I'm sure it gives you some degree of comfort to belittle and talk trash about God.  But it does nothing to change the reality that He exists.  I have demonstrated in many ways different kinds of proofs, but as expected, it was ignored because you have a Satan fueled anger against God.  Furthermore, you have demonstrated poorly if at all that the Bibe is a book of myths.  The fact that the prophecies regarding Israel have come true alone puts the Bible way ahead of any other ancient myth.  You want to write it all off as myth, but then have to admit that the Bible has some historical fact.  You want to accept archaelogy for anything that is non-Christian, but if it supports the Bible, oh no, that's the same thing as Spiderman.  The double standard just shows how fake and hypocritical atheists really are. 

 

On a last note, I should remind you of a wonderful invention.  It's called free will.   If my posts annoy you that much,  you have, get this, it's so cool, you have the freedom to NOT READ them.  Just ignore em, cool huh?

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5092
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well TWD there's one thing you were right about

 

TWD39 wrote:

Primates can communicate on a basic level.  But they can't...express complete sentences conveying abstract ideas

 

This is an observation that certainly applies to you. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5092
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD

 

TWD39 wrote:

I'm sure it gives you some degree of comfort to belittle and talk trash about God.  But it does nothing to change the reality that He exists. 

 

You have zero proof this is true. Show us god exists. So far all you have done is serve up assertions.

 

TWD39 wrote:

I have demonstrated in many ways different kinds of proofs, but as expected, it was ignored because you have a Satan fueled anger against God. 

 

No, you have told us over and over without giving proof that a god exists beyond the hubble constant. No one can see beyond the hubble constant but TWDry. 

I have satan-fueled anger? You have a terminal case of Dunning-Kruger. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

TWD39 wrote:

Furthermore, you have demonstrated poorly if at all that the Bibe is a book of myths.  The fact that the prophecies regarding Israel have come true alone puts the Bible way ahead of any other ancient myth.  You want to write it all off as myth, but then have to admit that the Bible has some historical fact.  You want to accept archaelogy for anything that is non-Christian, but if it supports the Bible, oh no, that's the same thing as Spiderman.  The double standard just shows how fake and hypocritical atheists really are. 

 

The fact the bible mentions there are hittites, egyptians and a place called jerusalem does not mean the whole book is suddenly correct. The bible also claims there are demons, dragons, that angels can fly, that jesus did magic, that tens of millions of organisms were all crammed onto a boat 400 feet long. If you can't see the difference between geographical name dropping and the wholesale mythology that makes up the bible's stock in trade when it attempts to materialise the supernatural then you are just a total idiot. 

 

Ed: Deletion of needless profanity... 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1509
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Why not call it a day ? Why not call it a day ??

TWD39 wrote:
   The fact that the prophecies regarding Israel have come true alone puts the Bible way ahead of any other ancient myth.  You want to write it all off as myth . . .

 

 

  You reading comprehension must be slipping that is not what AE said earlier.

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

TWD39 wrote:

I'm sure it gives you some degree of comfort to belittle and talk trash about God.  But it does nothing to change the reality that He exists. 

 

You have zero proof this is true. Show us god exists, you numbat. So far all you have done is serve up assertions.

 

TWD39 wrote:

I have demonstrated in many ways different kinds of proofs, but as expected, it was ignored because you have a Satan fueled anger against God. 

 

No, you have told us over and over without giving proof that a god exists beyond the hubble constant. No one can see beyond the hubble constant but TWDry. 

I have satan-fueled anger? You have a terminal case of Dunning-Kruger. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

TWD39 wrote:

Furthermore, you have demonstrated poorly if at all that the Bibe is a book of myths.  The fact that the prophecies regarding Israel have come true alone puts the Bible way ahead of any other ancient myth.  You want to write it all off as myth, but then have to admit that the Bible has some historical fact.  You want to accept archaelogy for anything that is non-Christian, but if it supports the Bible, oh no, that's the same thing as Spiderman.  The double standard just shows how fake and hypocritical atheists really are. 

 

The fact the bible mentions there are hittites, egyptians and a place called jerusalem does not mean the whole book is suddenly correct, you halfwit. The bible also claims there are demons, dragons, that angels can fly, that jesus did magic, that tens of millions of organisms were all crammed onto a boat 400 feet long. If you can't see the difference between geographical name dropping and the wholesale mythology that makes up the bible's stock in trade when it attempts to materialise the supernatural then you are just a total fucking idiot. 

 Attn.  Twd  To:: TWD39 

 Why not call it a day ?

  Hey Allow cooler heads to prevail . . You have been at this for quite a while. You mentioned prophesies and myths. The problem with christians talking about myth is they generally know so little. Example if you describe Tiamat as  over a chaotic formless void or the mother of all monsters you know little. If you know her right and left eyes were said TigrisEuphrates rivers (by the Babylonians) 'then'  you know something. If you dont know who Tiamat is, well, that's just frightening,. You should give much thought to dare make up your mind as to what you believe. That might as well include finding about the Bible; as much as you can. Instead of this competitive non-sense you starting to exhibit all over, once more. Chill-out or call it a day already, K?


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 315
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Wow, you

TWD39 wrote:

Wow, you actually admit to using the ridiculous SAB.  Most of their notations are laughable at best, pathetic deliberate attempts to discredit the Bible.   Most scholars don't bother to take such nonsense seriously.

I use it as far as where I paste my quotes from, as I find it quicker/easier to use than biblegateway. I mentioned specifically that I did not mine my arguments from there. Even were that the case, I don't see how it makes any difference however. I do agree there is the occasional annotation that is a stretch, however it's typically less of a stretch than the drivel you cite as evidence. 

TWD39 wrote:

I guess I miss the part where you presented actual evidence.

No. Here is the play by play:

I presented some arguments, including one asking about the obvious discrepancy in the genealogies between the two gospels which present them. You then said that one refers to Mary, as in the following quote by you:

TWD39 wrote:

I'll address one though so you can't do your little dance that I'm running away from your questions.  Joseph was Jesus adopted father.  Jesus came from the seed of David via Mary which can be through the geneology back to Nathan.

I then outlined in the most idiot-proof way how both genealogies clearly refer to Joseph, and not Mary. Specifically in this case, the one in the gospel of Luke, as that one goes back to David via Nathan, whom you said was an ancestor of Mary, even though the gospel does not say any such thing! Now we're back in the present day, where you spout the following (completely different claim!):

TWD39 wrote:

There are two geneologies.  One is a legal geneology.  Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph so he would have legal inheritance to the throne.  The subject should not even be approached without understanding the culture of the time which I suspect you don't. 

1. Is the legal one the biological as well?

2. If not, then what is Joseph's relation to the legal one (you neglected to say which is which, and as usual, provide no source for this information)? If so, what the hell is the relation of the one who is neither the legal nor the biological father of Joseph? Why is this important?

TWD39 wrote:
 

Wrong again.  Terminator is a well established work of fiction.  The Bible is not.  Furthermore, nothing from the Terminator has come true.  OTOH, I only have to look at today's headlines to give validity to the Bible. Let's see, oh yea, Israel is in the news again, her enemies are gathering against her as the Bible predicted, and Israel is the focal point of world news right now.   Just as the Bible predicted would happen AFTER it became a nation again.  If you believe that Israel is insignificant in world politics right now then you truly live in a fantasy world.

I would argue that a large group of people don't cite the bible as fiction, I would argue that it is. The Terminator's prophecies about judgement day aside, you have to admit both AI and robotics are much more advanced today than when the original movie came out. Also, there was/is a company manufacturing drones named....wait for it...SkyNet! That's more impressive than almost any bible prophecy ever, except we actually know that SkyNet happened. The bible's prophecies are typically fulfilled in later parts of the bible, which we can't verify the authenticity of either. 

I think you would agree that the more logical explanation for a drone producing SkyNet is that they had named their drone manufacturer after Skynet, as an homage to the films. Similarly, I would say that the writers of the new testament deliberately wrote stories of old testament prophecies being fulfilled. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


jose1223
Posts: 1
Joined: 2012-09-23
User is offlineOffline
You are funny. Listen to

You are funny. Listen to what you said:

Sure, there are a number of theories, but they are pretty weak sauce with zero supporting evidence.

OTOH, the Bible perfectly explains how language and culture came into being. Man began with an universal language after the Flood with Noah. Then after the man started building the tower of Babel, God confused the languages which scattered people all over the earth. This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar to the Bible's account. They infused their own language and culture into the original story. Yep, I'll take the truth of the Bible over fallible man's theories anytime.

are you saying that before Noah nobody had a language??? so how did noah communicate to his family what he is supposed to do? so I don't really understand you or your question but... 

Let me ask you a few questions before we continue with this conversation.

what kind of person are you? I mean are you the kind of person that takes knowledge from evidence or faith?

If you say Faith then we cannot continue with this conversation because faith is believing in something with no proof and there is no amount of evidence that will change your mind. That is irrational and we should not engage in a conversation with an irrational because being irrational is being an animal... and I don't talk to animals! 

If you say Evidence, then ask yourself the next question: what kind of evidence do we need to present so you can change your mind? when you answer that question, write it down and try to find any loopholes. your answer should be well define and it has to be testable. once you have it, do your own research, read about the history of languages. because I am pretty sure that some one somewhere already did a study on that and your question came out of ignorance about the subject. 

jose1223


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1509
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Universal myths . . .

jose1223 wrote:
This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar

  Hello and welcome. Good energy; glad to see you made it to the board. Brief comment. I dont think you realize this or not but you just made a man-made theory of your own. The reason so many myths are similar is not at all what you think or are saying. Although one could make some interesting correlations between immigration and etymological evidence that would support your claim but via a different route than you'd have us  all believe.  Mankind has a universal fear of snakes. Most giant snake myths have to do with water. If you purchase Joe Nickles book on Lake Monsters, you'd better understand the 'why' they are associated with water. The storm god is often fighting giant baddy. Remind you of any atmospheric phenomena pray tell ? As for your remarks please feel free to address any one of the main points brought up on this page. You might have noticed you are on page 7-8. It so happens we were talking about some bible passages before you burst on the scene. You are welcome to review the passages that were discussed on page 7 and more than welcome to comment further.  We were determining the role the Sumerian materials played in the OP's initial remarks.  Care to comment on that please ??? Appreciate it if you'd do just that. I'd take the earliest materials myself, yep!

 

 


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
A slight misunderstanding?

danatemporary wrote:

jose1223 wrote:
This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar

  Hello and welcome. Good energy; glad to see you made it to the board. Brief comment. I dont think you realize this or not but you just made a man-made theory of your own. The reason so many myths are similar is not at all what you think or are saying. Although one could make some interesting correlations between immigration and etymological evidence that would support your claim but via a different route than you'd have us  all believe.  Mankind has a universal fear of snakes. Most giant snake myths have to do with water. If you purchase Joe Nickles book on Lake Monsters, you'd better understand the 'why' they are associated with water. The storm god is often fighting giant baddy. Remind you of any atmospheric phenomena pray tell ? As for your remarks please feel free to address any one of the main points brought up on this page. You might have noticed you are on page 7-8. It so happens we were talking about some bible passages before you burst on the scene. You are welcome to review the passages that were discussed on page 7 and more than welcome to comment further.  We were determining the role the Sumerian materials played in the OP's initial remarks.  Care to comment on that please ??? Appreciate it if you'd do just that. I'd take the earliest materials myself, yep!

 

It was TWD who wrote "This also explains why we find global myth stories with many details striking similiar" in his OP rather than jose1223.

Jose probably isn't familiar with the quote facility.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1509
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Yeah I saw that too late

 Yeah I saw that too late


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3271
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
TWD39 wrote: There are two

TWD39 wrote:

 

There are two geneologies.  One is a legal geneology.  Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph so he would have legal inheritance to the throne.  The subject should not even be approached without understanding the culture of the time which I suspect you don't. 

 

typical apologeticist response that was probably pulled out of some dude's ass around the turn of the 20th century.  i know, because i quoted it numerous times as an evangelical, and always breathed a sigh of relief when no one took me to task on it.

there is ZERO evidence for this argument in the texts, and the idea that a husband can be mentioned in a wife's genealogy in her place (as mary is not mentioned in "mary's" genealogy) appears NOWHERE in any pagan or jewish source from anytime even remotely near the first century.  i say this as someone who majored in both religion and classical studies and has continued reading both original source material and scholarly literature ever since graduating (about 8 years).

since you claim to "understand" the culture, give me one shred of extrabiblical (or biblical, for that matter) evidence that a husband can stand in for a wife in her genealogy, other than the fact that it helps us gloss over an embarrassing discrepency.  in fact, give me one example period of a woman's genealogy in any jewish or pagan literature from that time.  the fact of the matter is, once a woman married a man, she became part of his family (as evidenced so lovingly in the book of ruth) and her own genealogy ceased to be relevant.

luke and matthew have two conflicting genealogies.  there is absolutely no evidence inside or outside the texts otherwise.  accept it.  trust me, you'll feel better. 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

Were the Egyptians known to record embarrassing defeats is this time period?  My initial research says NO.

I was just reviewing Wheless' Forgery in Christianity. Reading that nonsense claim again I am reminded believers are still liars. You have researched NOTHING on the subject. You are repeating what some Christian liar wrote. If you wish to participate at least be honest in what you post.

Quote:
And the whole encounter with Moses would have been quite an embarrassment for a leader who was regarded as a god.  It's perfectly reasonable that pharoh would put to death anyone who dared keep a record of the effects.

And that is called misdirection. 1/3 of the population of Egypt got up and left. There is no evidence of such a population decrease. If you claim the bible exaggerates then you agree the bible lies. If it lies about the number of people then it lies about a Moses victory. If it lies in these matter then it lies about the whole leaving thing in the first place.

Trick question, why did Moses write in early Phoenician instead of in Egyptian?

Quote:
Then you have the flip side.  The Bible offers a window into the Egyptian culture with a good bit of detail certainly with the Joseph story.
 

Even if you ignore the fact that the "insight" is 100% totally wrong and false it still makes a poor lie. It just as stupidly wrong about the Moses part too. And this is more evidence you lied when you said you did research.

Quote:
Now how could a poor band of sheep herders know so much about the inner workings of Egyptian culture?  Also,  what archaeological evidence would you expect to find if the Jews did live in Egypt as slaves?  They would be forced to obey the social and political laws.  Also, a slave would most likely have few possessions.  Their lifestyle would be pretty much the same as a regular Egyptian citizen.

As an example of getting it all wrong, Egypt did not have chattel slavery. At most it had bond servants but only to pay off debts from other causes, sort of an open air debtor's prison affair. It was learning the bible was total bullshit about ancient Egypt that lead to the foundation of modern archaeology to replace the earlier adventurers.

In any event we know the entire slavery part of Gensis is a lie.

Quote:
Here's why I don't take atheist's charge on the matter seriously.  You throw the baby out with the bath water.  Since there is no rock solid evidence regarding Exodus then the entire Bible is false.  You use Exodus as a crutch to throw out anytime a Christian tries to prove the Bible.   The lack of evidence for  Exodus is not the smoking gun which unravels the Christian faith.  There are explanations out there.

But there is rock solid evidence Exodus is total fiction regarding Egypt and therefore the Torah is bullshit. The Torah is the law. The rest is secondary.

Quote:
I also don't agree that there is ZERO evidence for the towel of Babel.  We have the remains of ziggaurats which are consistently with the building method described in the account.   Archaelogists have found what may be the foundation of the tower.  We have accounts of Nebuchadnezzar II trying to rebuild the tower.  It was called Etemenanki.   Herodotus also described a great tower in the region.

Again you lie but show us you are other than a liar for your silly lord. Cite the professional archaological papers which recount this discovery. Notice the professional part. That means amateur sources like the BAR magazine are as valid as Fate Magazine.

Here is your chance. Demonstrate you are not a liar.

 

Oh wonderful, another jerk atheist to join the fun.  Let's see:

Lets see. I give an irrefutable example of the lies in Genesis and you demonstrated you are ignorant of the meaning of the word profanity.

I am not surprised.

Quote:
1.  Using profanity - check

2.  Makes bold claims with no supporting cites - check  , (I'm supposed to just take your garbage talk at face value, umm NO)

3.  Comes off arrogant and condescending by calling the theist stupid, ignorant or a liar - check

4.  Shows no respect for a a difference of beliefs (silly lord) - check

5.  Makes bold claims, but falls back on the "I don't have to prove jack" escape route - check

Thank you for holding up the negative atheist stereotypes.  Your support is appreciated. 

Course, you could chip away at it by providing some of that rock solid proof, and nope,  lack of archaelogical finds is not  hard evidence. 

As intelligent people know, proof is only for math and logic. As there was no slavery in ancient Egypt and as there is no evidence of 1/3 the population vanishing overnight, it is established the Torah, the Law, is total fiction, lies believers like to tell.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

TWD39 wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

TWD39 wrote:
Dude, if you're going to dispute something, you need to demonstrate valid reasons for your dispute.  Otherwise, you're just demonstrating that you disagree with me because you just can't admit for once that a Christian is right.  At least posters like CJ put some backbone in their  replies.  If your response is to thumb your nose and say "I don't have to prove jack" then I'm done with you.  It's like debating with a brick wall.

You have made many clearly false claims contrary to well known facts of archaeology such as falsely claiming the OT correctly describes ancient civilizations when in fact it is materially wrong in every distinguishing fact. IF you were aware of your obligation to establish the evidence in support of your claims and IF you did in fact know the subject then you would know not to post without evidence. But you post lies just for the fun of it.

Quote:
And yes, I can provide plenty of examples of archaeological evidence.  Here's a good staring point:

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

Excuse me but in case you missed it, anonymous sources suitable for high school students at best are not acceptable to high school graduates much less the level of disucssion you are pretending to have as a screen for your unremitting lies.

Right, only ATHEIST sources are suitable huh?   SUch a lame copout.  If you were truly being honest here, you would point out exactly where the wikipedia source is wrong in its list. 

If I'm wrong, fine, prove it instead of wasting my time with your condescending worthless vomit.

Anonymous sources producing material for high school students is inadmissible.

It remains true you have NEVER done any research on the subject. It remains true you have lied about the OT descriptions of ancient civilizations.

It remains true you promote the lie that the OT is talking about one god when it clearly talks about the many gods, the Elohim.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml