Biblical Contradictions Answered (As best as possible) For Rook and Hammydammit

ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Biblical Contradictions Answered (As best as possible) For Rook and Hammydammit

Ok so Rook posted this long list of contradictions for all of you members to GAWK at and point and say OOOOHHHH the BIBLE has a lot of contradictions. I figured I could do like a lot of people and just post up links to answers, but I decided since I am a CHRISTIAN, I would defend my faith through study and research. It took me just over two weeks to find all of the answers to the first section of Rook's Biblical errancy section. I notice that something that Rook does is that he puts up alot of information hoping probably that you don't read it and notice that half of his accusations are not correct. I simply took the first 16 verses and to my dismay, I noticed that several of the answers were so simple I didn't have to even search that hard. I also noticed that a few passages weren't even parallel which totally violates the accusation of BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION. And I also noted that some of the passages weren't even correct. They were close in proximity but not the correct verses.

Note to Rook: You seem to be an "intelligent" man who for some reason has gone off on this Free thinking tangent: yes it is a tangent. I don't know what happended or whom influenced you, but you seem to have a knack for reading and studying. The problem seems to be you give a lot of information and all of it isn't relevant and/or consistent. You spent a lot of the first paragraph naming the same contradiction over and over again. As another observation and this goes for Hammydammit too, STOP USING STRONGS CONCORDANCE AND THE KING JAMES BIBLE AS YOUR SOURCE FOR DISCOVERING BIBLICAL ERRORS. You seem to forget that their are other more scholarly sources out their and I always read about you kats and your trusty Strong's dictionary. Go get a Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, a New American Standard Dictionary of the Hebrew language and Dictionary of Biblical Langauages and then holla at me. Also invest in another version of the Bible. If you had read another version, several of your contradictions would not have made the list. (See no.'s 6 and 7)

Here are the first 16 scriptures with answers. You'll probably try, wait let me rephrase that, you will all make up some new rule or theory and then say my answers don't make sense or they are not correct. So I anxiously await your responses. Come at me right or don't come at all. I wont answer for the next week as I am preparing the next 15 or so verses. Well maybe I'll wait for these responses first. All my Christians let me hear you say YEEEEAAAHHHH!!!!

 

1. (a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

The Hebrew word used for 700 horsemen can be also translated COMPANIES. (Strongs Number H505 as well as Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament) According to the custom of the time, There were 10 men to every company. Which means that 2 Samuel maybe referring to the properly translated 700 Companies which would equal 7000 men, uhm, as in the 7000 men mentioned in 1 Chronicles. Much like the English language, the adjectives describes the noun in the sentence however it seems that even though the word horsemen was used in both passages, the actual translation could be determined by the number used. With 700 being used in 2 Samuel then the Hebrew word parash would be translated 700 companies of horsemen which would equal 7000 men as mentioned in 1 Chronicles 18:4

2. (b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;

This answer is lengthy however I found a source that illustrates the answer much better than I can articulate it. Essentially the answer is historical in nature. You may want to considering reading the Nelson’s Illustrated Manners and Customs book. It would give you insight into the times of the Bible vs. today’s society.

This link also discovered something’s that I had uncovered as of yet.

http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP4.htm

3. (c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:Cool, 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:Cool, 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);

The answer for this is historical in nature. Jehoiachin was 18 when he reigned according to 2 Kings. The Chronicles account is a little more detailed. The solution, hinges on the phrase 8 years old from 2 Chronicles 36:9. The 8 years does not refer to the actual age of Jehoiachin but is a time marker pointing to an event: the first invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. In 605 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar invaded the Mediterranean countries including Judah. It was during this first invasion when Daniel and many others were taken to Babylon in what was to be the first of 3 deportations. The second was in 598-597 B.C. with the taking of Jehoiachin’s father Jehoiakim. The Babylonians left Jehoiachin in power as a sort of puppet regent, but only for 3 months (2 Chron. 36:9 gives the exact figure of 3 months, 10 days). Like his father, Jehoiachin rebelled and the Babylonians returned to have him removed. They took him back to Babylon, and left his brother Zedekiah as king. Jehoiachin's appointment as king was 8 years after Nebuchadnezzar came to power and invaded Judah. This is the reason 2 Chronicles 36:9 has “8 years old.” Second Kings 24:12 affirms this solution where it states, “and the king of Babylon took him (Jehoiachin) in the 8th year of his (Nebuchadnezzar) reign.”

On some occasions the biblical writers will count chronological dates from significant events. We reckon chronology in similar ways in our modern world. For all Americans, the 11th day of the 9th month of the year 2001 will forever be a significant date. In fact our society speaks of a pre-9/11 world and a post 9/11 world. This is the case here with Jehoiachin. The writer of Chronicles is reckoning his kingly appointment and his eventual capture from the time Nebuchadnezzar came to rule Babylon. Ezekiel, for example, does this in his book. He reckons dates and years from the captivity of Judah, (Ez. 1:7, 33:21, 40:1). Another example is found in 2 Chronicles 16:1 where the 36th year spoken of Asa may refer to the number of years after the division of the kingdom in 930 B.C., rather than his actual years as king.

(Sources: Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties)

4. (d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;

The answer lays in the translation. The first passage states that Joab gave the census to David and the number was 800,000 while the second passage says that their were 1,100,000 men who drew the sword. The word VALIANT is the key. There were a total of 1,100,000 men however only 800,000 were valiant. The other 300,000 were reserves. There is a classification between one who draws the sword and a valiant man who draws the sword. An example would be a military ranking such as a sergeant vs. a general. Both would be in their respects services but have significantly different rankings.

As for the 500,000 vs. 6 states that Joab had not finished the census because of David’s conviction of sin. He did not include Levi or Benjamin. So the 470,000 would have been and accurate number at that time.

5. (e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;

You have to read 4 different passages to get the answer. First there are two passages that give you two numbers in 2 Kings. 1 Kings 5:16 says that there were 3300 chief officers. And then 1 Kings 9:23 says that there were 550 chief officers. This is a total of 3850 officers to watch over the project. In 2 Chronicles 2:18 we find that the Chronicler says that there are 3600 officers. In 2 Chronicles 8:10 we hear that there are 250 officers which once again gives us the number of 3850. Both passages are in harmony as different classifications are made in the different accounts.

6. (f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

See this is how you get people thinking you have a valid argument. Unless this is a misprint, these verses don’t have anything to do with each other. Now vs. 8 would be the correct verse. And here is the answer. The original Hebrew word in 2 Sam. 6:23 is H4324 which is translated Michal. The original Hebrew word for the name in 2 Sam. 21:6 is H4764 which is translated Merab. They aren’t even the same people.

7. (g) Lot was Abraham's nephew (Gen. 14:12), brother (Gen. 14:14);

The term "brother" used in Genesis 14:14 is the same term used for "relative" which is how the verse is translated in other versions. The King James Bible, from which is the reference here, does not use the term "relative" once in the Bible. The word, however, in the Hebrew is 'ach, which is a primary root meaning close relative or even someone that bears a close resemblance. It generally indicates kindred, however. It is used over 600 times in the Bible and is translated in a variety of ways depending on context. Lot is Haran's son which makes him Abraham's nephew and relative.

8. (h) Joseph was sold into Egypt by Midianites (Gen. 37:36), by Ishmaelites (Gen. 39:1);

According the Hebrew history, Abraham had a son by Hagar the Egyptian maiden and his name was Ishmael. Then Abraham had five more sons by Keturah which would have made these five people Ishmael’s brothers. Being that Abrahams son, MIDIAN, is where the Midianites came from and Ishmael was his brother Ishmaelites came from the same source. The Midianites were those related to Midian and the Ishmaelites were those related to Ishmael. It would seem that sense they had the same father, they would be related. Judges 8 confirms the interchangeability of names. In short the Midianites were the Ishmaelites.

9. (i) Saul was killed by his own hands (1 Sam. 31:4), by a young Amalekite (2 Sam. 1:10), by the Philistines (2 Sam. 21:12);

It is a well known fact that Saul was struck down by the Philistines Archers. He was wounded beyond being able to continue to fight. He then asked his armour bearer to kill him and he refused and he fell on his own sword. His armour bearer did the same. This is the accurate account of 1 Sam 31:4. All commentaries and theologians or anyone who has answered this question will tell you that the Amalekite not only lied about the story, but historically had his arms and legs cut off for lying and he was hanged on a wall. In the last passage the Philistine archers wounded Saul so bad, he would have died anyway. The fact that the Philistines had killed Saul’s sons and that is the battle at which Saul died, would have afforded them the credit for killing Saul, however it was Saul’s own sword that killed him.

10. (j) Solomon made of a molten sea which contained 2,000 (1 Kings 7:26), 3,000 (2 Chron. 4:5) baths;

The Hebrew verb rendered "contained" and "held" is different from that translated "received"; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. This informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely fill the sea which usually held 2,000 gallons. This is identical to any swimming pool that is not filled to the brim but can hold a few thousand more gallons of water, however it is not necessary.

11. (k) The workers on the Temple had 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16), 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:18) overseers;

Answered this already in number 5.

12. (l) The earth does (Eccle. 1:4), does not (2 Peter 3:10) abideth forever;

These are not even parallel passages. Now you are reaching. The Eccl passage is wisdom literature. The example made here is that in mans knowledge would lend us to believe that mans knowledge will lead them to think that this present world (earth) will last forever. You must pick scriptures and their entire context. 2 Peter assures us the Heaven and Earth will pass away as well the works within the earth. This is what all believers adhere to. You are comparing poetry and wisdom vs. prophecy.

13. (m) If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true (John 8:14), is not true (John 5:31);

Jesus here is speaking of the unity of the Father and the Son. The first passage testifies to the oneness of the Father and the Son. Jesus says His testimony is true, if and only if according to vs. 16 that the Father testifies to Jesus’ testimony. In the second passage, Jesus says the exact same thing. He states, that if I testify by myself, alone, meaning with any other backing His testimony, then His testimony is false. He then says that there is another who testifies with and for me. Both passages are in complete agreement.

14. (n) Josiah died at Megiddo (2 Kings 23:29-30), at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 35:24);

Both passages state that Josiah was buried in Jerusalem. This is similar to the Saul passage. Josiah was so mortally wounded at Megiddo, that the credit to the death would have been Megiddo. We must note that in 2 Chr passage after being wounded by the archers almost fatally, Josiah commands that his body be taken to Jerusalem, so the account would allow for his last breath to quite possibly attributed to the battle of Megiddo even though his passing may have been in Jerusalem

15. (o) Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six (Matt. 17:1, Mark 9:2), eight (Luke 9:28) days;

(Luke 9:28-29) - "And some eight days after these sayings, it came about that He took along Peter and John and James, and went up to the mountain to pray. 29And while He was praying, the appearance of His face became different, and His clothing became white and gleaming."

In the Greek in both Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2, it says, "And after six days..." The word "after" in Greek is "meta." According to the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon "meta" means, "with, after, or behind." In Luke 9:28, it says something different. It says "And some eight days after these sayings . . ." (NASB). The Greek word "some" is "hosei" which means "about" or "nearly." Other translations render it the same way.

* "About eight days after Jesus said this . . ." (Luke 9:28, NIV).

* ". . .about an eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, KJV).

* ". . .about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, NKJV).

* "Now about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, RSV).

* ". . . about eight days after these sayings . . ." (Luke 9:28, 1901 AS)

Luke 9:28 is an approximation evidenced by it saying "about eight days after . . ." Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 are more precise. They say "after six days." Logically, eight days is after six days, so there is no logical contradiction. But, the key lies in Luke saying "about eight days later." Luke was giving an approximation. Matthew and Mark were more precise. Remember Luke was not an eyewitness as Matthew and Mark were. So he would have been afforded the opportunity to give an approximation.

16. (p) Nebuzaradan came unto Jerusalem on the seventh (2 Kings 25:Cool, tenth (Jer. 52:12) day of the fifth month.

2 Kings says he came "unto" Jerusalem and Jeremiah states he came "into" Jerusalem. His arrival at and entry into Jerusalem were therefore different days. This is indicating the army was encamped about Jerusalem for three days before they entered and destroyed it. He came twice; once to persuade Jerusalem to surrender (the 7th day) and the second time to wage war (the 10th day). Upon his arrival the army resided there for three days before destroying it.

End of Pt. 1

I gotta believe that you guys are smarter than this. Please on the next go around, read the entire passage first and then introduce them as contradictions. Also please stop tyring to compare what customs you live by in this age to the Bible times. They are 2000 years apart and entirely different cultures.

Yours In CHRIST, THE PREACHERMAN

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Nice respnse... that's all

Nice respnse... that's all I've got to say.  I'm not qualified to say anything else about this.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


ObnoxiousBitch
Superfan
ObnoxiousBitch's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: Nice

xamination wrote:
Nice respnse... that's all I've got to say. I'm not qualified to say anything else about this.

I second that emotion!

Well thought out and thoroughly researched responses with citations are always very much appreciated around here; not only by the scholarly types, but certainly by those like me who enjoy learning new things. Smiling

Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Very good research, I'll

Very good research, I'll accept your points as true, seeing as how you did your research right (taking it in context).  The Bible is sort of like a house of cards.  When you take a few cards off the top, it still stands.  But when you take a couple out of the foundation, it collapses.  So far you've refuted a portion of Rook's points on the top of the foundation.  But how about the bottom?  I'll quote Rook here:

 

Quote:

  1. (3) Jesus is a descendant of Coniah (Jeconiah, Jeconias) as the genealogy in MATT. 1:11 ("Jeconias begat Salathiel&quotEye-wink through MATT. 1:16 ("And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ&quotEye-wink shows. In JER. 22:28-30 ("Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vassal wherein is no pleasure? why are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? Thus said the Lord, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah&quotEye-wink God said Coniah would never have a descendant who sat on David's throne. Yet, many prophecies, such as that found in LUKE 1:32 ("He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David&quotEye-wink, show that Jesus must sit on David's throne eventually.
  2. (4) We have already seen that Jesus is a descendant of Coniah. FIRST CHRONICLES 3:16 ("And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah {Coniah--Ed.} his son....&quotEye-wink shows that Coniah is a son of Jehoiakim. So Jesus is a descendant of Jehoiakim too. But JER. 36:30 ("Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David&quotEye-wink says Jehoiakim would never have a descendant upon the throne of David. So, again, we see that Jesus is disqualified since he must sit upon the throne of David. God's commands given through Jeremiah that neither Jehoiakim nor his son Jeconiah (Coniah--Ed.) could have any progeny who would sit on David's throne exclude Jesus.
  3. (5) Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because LUKE 3:31 ("...which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David {in the genealogy of Jesus--Ed.}&quotEye-wink shows Nathan is an ancestor of Jesus and Nathan was excluded from any claim to the throne of David because his brother, Solomon, was chosen to head the Davidic line instead: 1 CHRON. 29:1 ("Furthermore David the king said unto all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen....&quotEye-wink, 1 CHRON. 28:5 ("And of all my sons, for the Lord hath given me many sons, he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the Kingdom of the Lord over Israel&quotEye-wink, and 1 CHRON. 29:24 ("And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of King David, submitted themselves unto Solomon the king&quotEye-wink

 

 If Jesus wasn't the Son of God, then we can throw out the entire New Testament, and eventually, the whole Bible.

 

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm not going to argue your

I'm not going to argue your answers. I think they're perfectly good rationalizations, and that's clearly what's needed. In fact, I think it's a good illustration of just how far you have to go to try to reconcile even the most basic discrepancies in the bible. This perfect book is so mangled from mistranslations, intentional and unintentional, that it is monumentally difficult to get an accurate translation (if it's possible at all, given the vagueness of many of the words). You've done a good job of illustrating this very point.

I also think it speaks volumes that your answers are for questions of the mundane... how many horses? brother or nephew? Even the basic, simple stuff is all fudged up, mistranslated, and mangled. Let's ask ourselves a simple question and use some critical thinking skills:

Assume that we have a very old book, written in an ancient language, and it's been translated into English quite a few times, each time with different results, and often, wildly different meanings. There are also glaring contradictions in every translation. The book tells of magic, miracles, and fantastic creatures, and contains narrations of events, some clearly historical, others of dubious historical veracity. It contains some stories that can only be read metaphorically, and some that could be taken literally, and some that could be taken either way. It contains some stories that are highly reminiscent of stories told in earlier books, written by earlier civilizations. The primary character, in fact, so closely resembles a mythological character from another cultuer (Mithras, of course!) that without attaching names to the characters, you could easily mistake one for the other.

Now, which of the following is a logical conclusion?

A) This book is a man made creation, containing myths handed down from previous cultures, and it is naturally a bit mangled after 2000 years of translation.

B) This book, although it resembles other books of its time in virtually every way, is The Divine and Perfect Work of the Only God, and although it appears contradictory, it is actually perfectly accurate, but nobody in 2000 years has been able to translate it accurately enough to display the perfection. Furthermore, you must believe that it is perfectly accurate despite all appearances to the contrary. If you do not believe this, you will burn in a magical lake of fire for trillions and trillions of years, wasting away in agony. Because the perfect loving god who wrote the book wanted it that way.

Me, I pick option A.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
I kinda wanna hear Rooks

I kinda wanna hear Rooks view on all of this.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yep.  I never claim to be

Yep.  I never claim to be an ancient language expert, so I'm leaving the quibbling over details to Rook.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Yep. I

Hambydammit wrote:

Yep. I never claim to be an ancient language expert, so I'm leaving the quibbling over details to Rook.

 

And you know Ham, I want to read the whole post that Rook posts but it's almost certinately going to be like a 10-15 min read at least.  


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

zntneo wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

Yep. I never claim to be an ancient language expert, so I'm leaving the quibbling over details to Rook.

 

And you know Ham, I want to read the whole post that Rook posts but it's almost certinately going to be like a 10-15 min read at least.

Rook's posts are long reads but I learn so friggin' much. Smiling 

"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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yep.  I usually take

Yep.  I usually take Rook's posts a little bit at a time.

(Actually, that sounds really dirty now that I read it again...)

When it comes to biblical contradictions, I'm honestly not concerned with quibbling over the details of language vagueries.  The point that I've never heard refuted is that contradictions in the bible, even if they are the result of mistranslations, are the strongest possible evidence that there is nothing special about the bible.  A perfect book that's never been translated perfectly is NOT perfect!  It's just like the mysterious concept of "supernatural."  It's self-refuting.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zntneo
Superfan
Posts: 565
Joined: 2007-01-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: zntneo

jcgadfly wrote:
zntneo wrote:
Hambydammit wrote:

Yep. I never claim to be an ancient language expert, so I'm leaving the quibbling over details to Rook.

 

And you know Ham, I want to read the whole post that Rook posts but it's almost certinately going to be like a 10-15 min read at least.

Rook's posts are long reads but I learn so friggin' much. Smiling

I totally agree. I can sometimes learn more in one of rooks post then a couple of lectures in a college class. 


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
So lets go from the top

So lets go from the top down to answers any questions.

Master jedi Dan I will thoroughly answers your question regarding the relationship of Jecohiah. It is really quite interesting.

HammyDAMMIT you amaze me: With study I give you accurate answers and you call them RATIONALIZATIONS. I guess now I am apart fo the RATIONAL response squad. LOL!!!

Since my answers are mundane. I'll ask you a scientific question which can simply be answered by saying Evolution is the answer. However I'll need you to explain it in detail. If you can then I'll totally buy your argument regarding the Rational Response theory Ok here goes

We have a Sun that appears to be YELLOW or ORANGE right?
That creates a sky that is BLUE
This sky has clouds in that can be WHITE or GREY
These clouds produce raindrops that are CLEAR
AND they rain on dirt that is BROWN

Now the question is explain to me how we get grass that is GREEN? Now for you answer, I expect it to involve alot of the scientific knowledge that Evolution uses so please answer that question. I have answered 16 questions for you and I only want one from you. I believe this is fair! Please site sources as I have done and uses accurate terms. I will give you two weeks to answer the question. If it makes sense and is not mundane, I'll buy the whole theory.

Rook you answer as well. Keep the reply under 150000 characters. LOL! 

As for your second statement and I quote:

Hambydammit wrote:

When it comes to biblical contradictions, I'm honestly not concerned with quibbling over the details of language vagueries.

You have to be. The Bible was written in THREE Languages you don't even speak and for a culture you don't even know. Note: I'm not an expert in languages either even though my older brother is fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek. I just use the tools afforded to me.

Hambydammit wrote:

The point that I've never heard refuted is that contradictions in the bible, even if they are the result of mistranslations, are the strongest possible evidence that there is nothing special about the bible.

This sentence alone would lead me to think that the Bible is special: because you have to study it so intently to show that you can defend your faith. I'm sure if Evolutionists had a MAJOR book you would be required to know it to really defend your thinking. Also I note that one of the main belief of Athiest is that there is NO GOD. That is it. Defending that notion is simply: you tell me to show you there is a GOD and then I say look at Creation. And then you say, how do I know GOD created that? And then we go in circles. You ask me to defend Chrisitanity and I have to commit a life to study to make sure that I give you the truth about a very complicated topic: FAITH. The definition in and of itself is not simple, so why would I give you a simple answer?

Hambydammit wrote:

A perfect book that's never been translated perfectly is NOT perfect! It's just like the mysterious concept of "supernatural." It's self-refuting.

Your statement is self refuting. A PERFECT BOOK mistranslated is NOT PERFECT. The problem lies in the TRANSLATORS that would be me and you: uhm MEN. We are all imperfect. If I take a rubix cube that has a definite answer to solving and I can't figure out how to solve it, does that make the rubix cube imperfect? (I'll need an answer) No it doesn't. Go to youtube and see how a seven year old can figure out a rubix cube in less than a two minutes!!! Its because of the knowledge that the rubix cube has answer. You just have to find it. Same as the Bible.

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
So lets go from the top

I'm working on the next 15 or so.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
if the bible is the word of

if the bible is the word of god and man is meant to live by those words, why the complexity and confusion, and lack of clear translation? a document of this supposed importance would surely merit extremely clear and concise storytelling and attention to detail, with little next to nothing left to interpretation. it makes no more sense than granting free will while establishing horrific eternal punishments for disobedience.

the mere necessity for this kind of analysis and revision only serves to prove the manmade origins of christianity.

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote: Now the

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

Now the question is explain to me how we get grass that is GREEN?

If I Remember Correctly:
The red(?) (White light become green if you absorb red light?) part of the spectrum does not carry the most energy in sunlight. Why then have plants evolved to be green? Early on, the first organism that used photosynthesis did not absorb the red(?) part of the spectrum, but rather something more like green(?). Later on, organisms evolved that used the remain part of the spectrum because the first organisms consumed the part of the spectrum with the most energy. These two types started compete and the green ones eventually won.
Quote:

Also I note that one of the main belief of Athiest is that there is NO GOD.

Incorrect; all the atheist needs is disbelief in gods, not a belief that there are no gods.
Quote:

you tell me to show you there is a GOD and then I say look at Creation.

Which god though? People claim that 'creation' shows their god.
Quote:

If I take a rubix cube that has a definite answer to solving and I can't figure out how to solve it, does that make the rubix cube imperfect?

How is a puzzle related to the Bible?
Quote:

The problem lies in the TRANSLATORS that would be me and you: uhm MEN. We are all imperfect.

Did god write a copy of it without us? If not, then wouldn't it follow that any first copy would be imperfect? And of course if the first one is imperfect, then the other ones would be at least as imperfect. This creates a problem: you and every other Christian are basing your faith around an imperfect book, so how do you know what parts of your faith were got correct and which ones were got incorrect?

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
qbg, you told me why we see

qbg, you told me why we see the grass as green. Great answer, the question is from the context of the question, use all of the criteria and the colors of the elements involved to tell my how all of those colorful elements produce green grass? Look folks I kind of see where you get people on this site. You kind of bring up a bunch on somewhat nonsense topics and get us sucked into an argument that has nothing to do with the topic. I must apologize for taking the bait.

Just to answer the question about the puzzle, a rubix cube was inspired by men to amuse entertain and confuse men. Even after hundreds of examples of how to solve the rubix cube and actually having people solve the rubix cube, there are still some people who can't solve this seemingly unsolvable puzzle. The Bible (and its a bit of a stretch) can be seen in the same light. You kats keep saying the Bible is imperfect. You use supposed contradictions to validate your point just like Rook did and upon further obersvation, you accusations turn out to be duds. Now there is another 100 or so on this site, so after ALL of the contradictions have been (and they will be) answered in a scholarly manner, then your next question or statement will still be, "duh da byble is still wrong" I've yet to hear any scholarly rebuttals to my findings. Keep off the post if you can't give me some scholarly substance and I will agree to stay to the topic, agreed?

If you have any other answers that would suggest I am incorrect, then list them, otherwise (and this goes for me too) lets stay on topic: Bible Contradictions answered. More to come

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Incorrect; all the

Quote:

Incorrect; all the atheist needs is disbelief in gods, not a belief that there are no gods.

Waaaiiit...aren't those two things the same?  Unless of course, in your first statement you are saying that god(s) exist(s) but atheists just choose not to believe in them?  I'd say that the majority of the people here have a belief that there are no gods.  Go ahead, ask them.

@ ILOVECHRIST

Wow, your brother speaks both hebrew and greek fluently?  Man, he has got some serious talent.  I've been studying Latin for four years now and I still don't quite have it down.  Kudos to him for doing that.  I'm really liking your arguments so far.  Keep 'em coming.  One request though, please, please, please, don't get arrogant.  I know it's easy to become that way when debating the people here at RRS, but I've seen way too many Christians go down that path.  Take Frank Walton, for example, the guy has some good arguments, but all he does now is bash atheists unnecessarily.   It's sad to see him do it on his blog, I almost wonder if he really is a Christian.  Remember, Christ calls you to love your enemy and to pray for those who wrong you.  That being said, keep your points coming! Laughing out loud

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST, a few

ILOVECHRIST, a few things: 

 When was the Bible "perfect"?  The Bible wasn't compiled until hundreds of years afte Jesus' death, so at its formation it wasn't perfect.  And each book of the Bible would only be perfect for only a couple of generations before it was corrupted, so what is the perfect Bible?  Is it some platonic form, or is it real?

 If you admit this book is erroneous, then how can you base your entire philosophy on life on it?  What is the truth when your source is corrupt?

 However, barring a massive response by Rook, I believe that your refutations should be reason enough to take down some of the contradictions from the site.

Oh, and we don't use "LOL" here.  This isn't AIM.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote:

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

Since my answers are mundane. I'll ask you a scientific question which can simply be answered by saying Evolution is the answer. However I'll need you to explain it in detail. If you can then I'll totally buy your argument regarding the Rational Response theory Ok here goes

We have a Sun that appears to be YELLOW or ORANGE right?
That creates a sky that is BLUE
This sky has clouds in that can be WHITE or GREY
These clouds produce raindrops that are CLEAR
AND they rain on dirt that is BROWN

Now the question is explain to me how we get grass that is GREEN? Now for you answer, I expect it to involve alot of the scientific knowledge that Evolution uses so please answer that question. I have answered 16 questions for you and I only want one from you. I believe this is fair! Please site sources as I have done and uses accurate terms. I will give you two weeks to answer the question. If it makes sense and is not mundane, I'll buy the whole theory.

Hey there Preacherman,

You may have hoped not, but the fact is this is a pretty mundane science question. If you want to ask a complex evolution question and get a detailed answer the Science forum is probably the place for that anyway, and there are a couple of well versed biologist types around who can give you all the spectacular answers you could dream of. If you're interested.

Okay, the answer for you is that the biological world is powered and sustained by energy from the sun. And energy is the key, this energy is radiated from the sun in a wide emission spectrum but we recieve it essentially as heat and light. Now light is the combination colour of the spectrum so if there is lots of pure light coming off the object it's going to be quite whitish. Heat is long wavelength low frequency aspect of electromagnetic radiation, mostly invisible to us but we can see red if there is lots of heat such as the red glow on a pot that is so hot it is emitting some heat it can no longer absorb. So that in your visual reception of a sun image your eyes will tell you you are seeing lots of heat mixed with pure light. Or the yellow/orange colour you see. Although what you are seeing is all electromagnetic radiation which is essentially light and not a colour per se, your eyes discern the most predominant wavelengths, the large amounts of heat and light mixedly equalling a yellowish colour.

Now the clouds, sky and the raindrops have very similar chemical makeup and so their relationships to light are similar. The sky appears blue due to Rayleigh scattering, the particles of the upper atmosphere are smaller than the wavelengths of the light as it comes from it's source and so the particles scatter many more short wavelengths than long ones, the short wavelength is about the colour blue, anything below blue frequency is basically concealed in the same way as I described with the sun, by the blue scatter, your eye detects the predominant colour only. Higher frequencies - shorter wavelengths, than blue such as Ultra violet are absorbed by these particles so our sky isn't purple because of that.

Clouds scatter light similarly to upper atmospheric particles, and this is called non-selective scattering, the difference here is that the particles are larger than the wavelength so that it scatters everything it recieves, not just a certain part of it, into a relatively equal mix of all the spectrum which looks white to the eye. Water droplets can also cause this type of scattering which is why they have twinkle spot, but are mostly clear, the twinkle spot is where the various miniscule radiations have collided and become visible.

Ok so now that you have a fair idea of the basics here, dirt and plants are elementary. First Dirt is loaded up with hungry biological material, it absorbs loads of energy and rejects hardly any. The small amount that is generally emitted back is a little bit of warmth, hence why the dirt looks to us like a colour close to the red spectrum. Secondly, the plant leaves have chorophyll which has a similar chemical relationship to light as I was describing in the examples above. The geometry makes red and blue the most readily absorbable energy and the green part of the spectrum is either not absorbed or not absorbed directly and bounces around inside the cell for a while. Essentially the result of this is that green wavelengths are what are left over most of all when the leaf absorbs instantaneous electromagnetic radiation, and as always our eyes discern the predominant wavelength.

The reason our eyes discern the predominant wavelength is probably the only question relating to evolution here, the rest has all been fairly simple physics. The receptor of colour in the eye is a cone like cell, this cell needs to be hit with lots of waves of radiation to actually detect one colour, and so, if one of the wavelengths is not abundantly present enough we will not see it as a colour.

Sources for you to check me up on:

Sun Emission spectrum -

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/spectra-more.html

Light Scattering -

http://www.cyto.purdue.edu/flowcyt/educate/ee520/sld035.htm

Eye Cones -

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
It's going to be a while

It's going to be a while before I get to any of these.  Between my class, and two radio shows, and editting, and my book, I can't say how soon I'll be able to devote the time it will take to answer these in the manner in which you deserve.  Be patient with me, please.

 The best,

Rook

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This sentence alone

Quote:
This sentence alone would lead me to think that the Bible is special: because you have to study it so intently to show that you can defend your faith.

So... um... because it's just like all the other writings of antiquity, it proves it's different... ok...

Quote:
I'm sure if Evolutionists had a MAJOR book you would be required to know it to really defend your thinking.

Um... "Evolutionists" (properly read: scientists) have books, and they read them. As a matter of fact, they are perfectly clear.

Quote:
Also I note that one of the main belief of Athiest is that there is NO GOD. That is it. Defending that notion is simply: you tell me to show you there is a GOD and then I say look at Creation. And then you say, how do I know GOD created that? And then we go in circles.

Your grasp on the obvious is sufficient that you ought to be able to see that you're the one with the circular position.

Quote:
You ask me to defend Chrisitanity and I have to commit a life to study to make sure that I give you the truth about a very complicated topic: FAITH.

Again, you prove my point well in your own words.

The convoluted nature of the text is perfectly good grounds for the conclusion that it is simply another man-made text. You have to start inventing bizarre rationalizations to make it anything else.

(Yes, I know you didn't invent them. That's the royal "you.&quotEye-wink

Quote:
The definition in and of itself is not simple, so why would I give you a simple answer?

The definition is quite simple. It's just that the smarter theists realize that there's a simple trap in the definition... it's contradictory. So, they invent complex explanations for what otherwise is a simple matter.

Quote:
Your statement is self refuting.

No, your ability to recognize irony is lacking.

Quote:
A PERFECT BOOK mistranslated is NOT PERFECT. The problem lies in the TRANSLATORS that would be me and you: uhm MEN. We are all imperfect.

Exactly right. So, you're saying that because men translated it, it's imperfect. Therefore. IT'S IMPERFECT. Therefore, it is NOT PERFECT. Therefore, it is NOT THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD. Thank you. Can we end this discussion now?

Quote:
If I take a rubix cube that has a definite answer to solving and I can't figure out how to solve it, does that make the rubix cube imperfect?

A rubix cube exists in whatever state it's in. If the colors are not lined up in a manner which suits you, it's your right to say that it isn't perfectly to your liking, but your use of the word "perfect" in this analogy is not perfect logic, to say the least.

Quote:
Go to youtube and see how a seven year old can figure out a rubix cube in less than a two minutes!!!

A testament to the human mind. No doubt. There were kids in my grade school who could do the same thing. It's truly amazing.

Quote:
Its because of the knowledge that the rubix cube has answer.

It's because the rubix cube was designed by people who intended it to be solved. It's a math puzzle.

Quote:
You just have to find it. Same as the Bible.

Not even remotely the same. The rubix cube comes from Hasbro, if I'm not mistaken. That's a toy company. It comes with instructions. The bible is a collection of books from a long time ago. While many of the books contain laws and various directives, there's no corroborating evidence that the magical beings mentioned therein are actually real. Your analogy is neither relevant nor meaningful.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Um...

Quote:

Um... "Evolutionists" (properly read: scientists) have books, and they read them. As a matter of fact, they are perfectly clear.

What he means is that atheists/evolutionists don't have a big book for the foundation of their beliefs that was written over the period of thousands of years.  Atheists rely mainly on science, which, since it is science, "just couldn't be wrong, because scientists must know everything."

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What he means is

Quote:
What he means is that atheists/evolutionists don't have a big book for the foundation of their beliefs that was written over the period of thousands of years.  Atheists rely mainly on science, which, since it is science, "just couldn't be wrong, because scientists must know everything."

Yeah, I know.  Sometimes I am too subtle for my own good, I guess.  My point is that he's making a false analogy...

Alleged Spiritual Foundation in Very Old Text = Very Old Tome of All Scientific Knowledge Necessary for Science To Be Correct.

This is a false analogy because science has demonstrated that complexity must follow simplicity.  There would not be such a tome for science, precisely because quantum physics must wait for arithmetic.

Further, the science books we do have are usually perfectly clear.  If they're not, they don't tend to be very popular.  His analogy with the rubix cube was similarly flawed.  When I become emperor, I'm going to make "Critical Thinking 101" mandatory for all grade schools.  Children need to learn the basics of logic much earlier.  It would save the world a lot of bullshit.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Thank you Eloise.  I was

Thank you Eloise.  I was hoping to obtain an answer from a rational responder. The point to the answering my question was to illustrate that just ONE answer about science just a little bit of evolution took up one third of my 16 answers. Thanks for the answer I knew would be a lengthy but accurate answer.  Thank you. It was to simply address Hammydammit's "mundane answer" theory and show him his answers were going to be as equally mundane.  Thanks

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
This is why I don't like to

This is why I don't like to pick on specific contradicitions. The bible-concept has much bigger problems. Try these:

The idea being espoused here is that the original bible had no errors but later translations had errors, such as in deciding what to do with ambiguous translation. My question is - If god was capable of "inspiring" the original to be error free, why did he allow so much confusion by failing to "inspire" all the translators?

Let's concede that the original texts were inspired such that they are inerrant. It still must be historically conceded that god inspired this person to write this bit and that person to write that bit. Then he waited around 100's of years before bothering to inspire the collation of these various texts...by which time translation errors had already set in. If this is true...there never has been a single inerrant bible, rendering appeals to an original inerrant bible mere fantasy.

If this is not accepted, then the biblical inerrantist is left with only one option: to claim that some later particular biblical assemblage was the only inerrant one, including translative perfection. Possibilities are the vulgate bible or the bible arising from the Council of Trent. The King James is also popular.

But this will put the biblical inerrantist in an impossible position because then all one needs to do is spot a single translation error in the originals that are in hand.

In the end, biblical inerrancy can only survive as long as its supporters are allowed to appeal to a nonexistant 'original' bible that is an abstraction of original texts that 1)we do not have and 2) were written over a long time span.

It's too goddamn much wiggle room.

And one final problem: the bible can't have been of much importance to god considering how lax he was about its assemblage.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Let's concede that

Quote:
Let's concede that the original texts were inspired such that they are inerrant. It still must be historically conceded that god inspired this person to write this bit and that person to write that bit. Then he waited around 100's of years before bothering to inspire the collation of these various texts...by which time translation errors had already set in. If this is true...there never has been a single inerrant bible, rendering appeals to an original inerrant bible mere fantasy.

You've just put better words to what I've been trying to get across.  Thank you.

 

Quote:

If this is not accepted, then the biblical inerrantist is left with only one option: to claim that some later particular biblical assemblage was the only inerrant one, including translative perfection. Possibilities are the vulgate bible or the bible arising from the Council of Trent. The King James is also popular.

But this will put the biblical inerrantist in an impossible position because then all one needs to do is spot a single translation error in the originals that are in hand.

 Exactly.

 When I tried to make this point, I got lectured about rubix cubes.

 

Quote:
And one final problem: the bible can't have been of much importance to god considering how lax he was about its assemblage.

Apparently god didn't love each and every one of us enough to get his ass off the immaterial couch and light a fire under his editors' asses to keep the asses of those millions of people who didn't have the finished work out of hell.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote: just ONE

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
just ONE answer about science just a little bit of evolution took up one third of my 16 answers.

Well actually Preacherman, I answered your six points individually. The single answer to the question could have been condensed to a couple of lines saying:

energy pervades our world in an emission spectrum of wavelengths, there are sections of the spectrum which are visible corresponding to the three primary colours (see link on mixing primary colours _insert link_). Grass looks green because it radiates most the wavelength corresponding to the green colour. The radiation of green wavelengths from grass is a result of the geometry of Chlorophyll molecules (see reference this link _insert link here_). We merely see the most predominant wavelength because our optic cells responsible for colour require a flood of light wavelengths to detect colour (see link).

I answered the way I did because you seemed to also want to know why the other objects/visuals were a different colour. So I actually gave you about six answers, I apologise I didn't realise that you were asking for only one answer. 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
xamination

xamination wrote:

ILOVECHRIST, a few things:

When was the Bible "perfect"? The Bible wasn't compiled until hundreds of years afte Jesus' death, so at its formation it wasn't perfect. And each book of the Bible would only be perfect for only a couple of generations before it was corrupted, so what is the perfect Bible? Is it some platonic form, or is it real?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the compilation so you call it, has nothing to do with the authorship. To my knowledge the last book was written around AD 96 or AD 70 (depending on your stance) by a man who walked with Jesus for three and a half years. So being that authorized version was not compiled until 1611, does not alter the fact that the scriptures had been in use for almost 1600 years. I have asserted now and do assert that the Bible is still perfect. The reason I assert this is because I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy as it is part of my faith. I secondly assert that the Bible is perfect because the contradictions that you present are being one by one proven to be NOT CONTRADICTIONS.

xamination wrote:

However, barring a massive response by Rook, I believe that your refutations should be reason enough to take down some of the contradictions from the site.

Please don't use an anticipation for a MASSIVE response by Rook as an answer all to keeping these nonsense accusations on the Board. I am currently working on the next set of contradictions and man oh man is this going to be good.

Quote:
Wow, your brother speaks both hebrew and greek fluently? Man, he has got some serious talent. I've been studying Latin for four years now and I still don't quite have it down. Kudos to him for doing that. I'm really liking your arguments so far. Keep 'em coming. One request though, please, please, please, don't get arrogant. I know it's easy to become that way when debating the people here at RRS, but I've seen way too many Christians go down that path. Take Frank Walton, for example, the guy has some good arguments, but all he does now is bash atheists unnecessarily. It's sad to see him do it on his blog, I almost wonder if he really is a Christian. Remember, Christ calls you to love your enemy and to pray for those who wrong you. That being said, keep your points coming!

Please forgive me, but there is a certain swagger I carry when it comes to this type of discussion. I do agree some of my statements come off as offensive, however I have to make this clear. I am not here to gain accolades. I want to give God's Word and let the Holy Spirit deal with them. I'll concede that my delivery is not always wrapped up in meekness, but this kind of stuff about attacking or accusing God's Word gets my blood boiling. I will make an effort not to be so "out there" but if you ask my wife, she tell you that this is me all day. So please Christians pray for the preacher. An apologists seems to be what I'm working at, I just don't fit the suit and tie mold of it. I'll work on it.

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I dont think anyone should

I dont think anyone should ask you to be pollitically correct. Just stick to backing up the claims you make. 

"God/god/deity" is a naked assertion by any name you give it. It starts from the assumption that a magical "who" in the sky did it. So what, you are not the only person or the only sect or the only relious person making claims like this.

Others have much more patience than I do in deconstructing convoluted drawn out arguments. I personaly go after outragious fantastic claims.

"This person existed" or "this place existed" is irrelivent.

Thats like saying "Superman can really fly because we see New York City in the background".

"The words were twisted by later interpreters"

So? I dont care. The bible makes outragious comic book claims, that is what I focus on. You cant sit there and tell me, in this medical and scientific age that "POOF" a woman came from a man's rib. You cant tell me that "POOF" a man came from dirt. You cant tell me that a "spirit" knocked up a girl. You cant tell me after having all your blood drain out of your body, after suffering organ failure and brain death and rigor mortis, that human flesH "POOF" magically reconstituts itself.

All the other arguments are irrelievent needless distractions to me and are nothing but, "Pay no attention to the mythology behind the curtain".

No, I personally dont expect you to use kid gloves. Others may lengauge you in the long deconstrution you seem to need. I cut to the chase and call magic magic and call a duck a duck and call fiction fiction.

"The real words of the bible", so? Where are the "real" words in the bible that explain the mechinsims of how these things happen? Where are the falsifiable experimants in the bible that can be replicated?

Nope, all you have is "God did it"

No different to me than

"Allah did it"

"Yahwey did it"

"Osirus did it"

"Thor did it".

"The original laguage of the bible" explains nothing of how the outragous claims could have happened other than "God did it".

Sounds more like Harry Potter and Peter Pan than reality.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote: Correct

ILOVECHRIST wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the compilation so you call it, has nothing to do with the authorship. To my knowledge the last book was written around AD 96 or AD 70 (depending on your stance) by a man who walked with Jesus for three and a half years. So being that authorized version was not compiled until 1611, does not alter the fact that the scriptures had been in use for almost 1600 years. I have asserted now and do assert that the Bible is still perfect. The reason I assert this is because I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy as it is part of my faith. I secondly assert that the Bible is perfect because the contradictions that you present are being one by one proven to be NOT CONTRADICTIONS.

You're just avoiding the question. WHICH BIBLE is perfect? As I was saying, when you have 2000 years of different texts for wiggle room you can always come up with a seeming resolution. You're ability to make contradictions vanish is not at all surprising to me, given the ridiculous scope you allow yourself.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You're just

Quote:

You're just avoiding the question. WHICH BIBLE is perfect?

He said that the Bible is perfect.  In other words, all of them.  Duh.  Besides, how many of them are there?  Most of them stick to the 66 books, except for maybe the Mormon one, the Catholic one (I think it has a few extra books stuck in there), and the extra "book of Judas", which could probably be proven inaccurate.  So in other words, the ones that have 66 books in them, like, for example, NKJV, NASB, etc., are the ones that he is claiming are true.  I'm betting that he's going to have some good arguments for the next portion.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Quote:

You're just avoiding the question. WHICH BIBLE is perfect?

  I'm betting that he's going to have some good arguments for the next portion.

Oooh, Somebody pinch me !

I'm betting that it will never dawn on you that to the deluded mind, contradictions in the bible are just as easy to rationalize away as its horrific atrocities.

While providing rationalization for the many contradictions of the writings of this Bronze Age myth blatantly stolen from Pagans may give you comfort, you follow the same tired, worn out and blood drenched path of millions before you...Yawn !!

Wake me when he tries to rationalize the talking snake, the unicorns and the two bears that ripped 42 children into little pieces for calling someone bald. 

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I still don't understand

I still don't understand why women are allowed to speak in church.

Oh, and I think it's really bizarre that from two or three rather vague verses, millions of Christians rationalize legislation, violence, and hate towards doctors who perform abortions, and though the bible (in the NT!!!!) says women should keep their mouths shut in church IN AS MANY WORDS, women are constantly yapping in church.

I say put an end to it.  Take the bible literally!  Tell your women to shut the heck up, and the lord will look on you favorably!  Put them in their place!

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: No, I

Brian37 wrote:
No, I personally dont expect you to use kid gloves. Others may lengauge you in the long deconstrution you seem to need. I cut to the chase and call magic magic and call a duck a duck and call fiction fiction.


    Thank you! This website is ridiculous at times. Someone will say that the bible is inerrant and other people will act like it’s a serious argument. What part of the bible do they find to be the most inerrant, the part where a guy puts two of every animal on the planet into one boat and god floods the world or the part where a guy dies and returns to life three days later? It’s a fucking joke. That people take it as seriously as our friend here does only makes it that much more amusing.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


ILOVECHRIST
Theist
ILOVECHRIST's picture
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-05-19
User is offlineOffline
Brain37 - Are you

Brain37 - Are you conversing with yourself?

Quote:

I dont think anyone should ask you to be pollitically correct. Just stick to backing up the claims you make. 

"God/god/deity" is a naked assertion by any name you give it. It starts from the assumption that a magical "who" in the sky did it. So what, you are not the only person or the only sect or the only relious person making claims like this.

Others have much more patience than I do in deconstructing convoluted drawn out arguments. I personaly go after outragious fantastic claims.

"This person existed" or "this place existed" is irrelivent.

Thats like saying "Superman can really fly because we see New York City in the background".

"The words were twisted by later interpreters"

So? I dont care. The bible makes outragious comic book claims, that is what I focus on. You cant sit there and tell me, in this medical and scientific age that "POOF" a woman came from a man's rib. You cant tell me that "POOF" a man came from dirt. You cant tell me that a "spirit" knocked up a girl. You cant tell me after having all your blood drain out of your body, after suffering organ failure and brain death and rigor mortis, that human flesH "POOF" magically reconstituts itself.

All the other arguments are irrelievent needless distractions to me and are nothing but, "Pay no attention to the mythology behind the curtain".

No, I personally dont expect you to use kid gloves. Others may lengauge you in the long deconstrution you seem to need. I cut to the chase and call magic magic and call a duck a duck and call fiction fiction.

"The real words of the bible", so? Where are the "real" words in the bible that explain the mechinsims of how these things happen? Where are the falsifiable experimants in the bible that can be replicated?

Nope, all you have is "God did it"

No different to me than

"Allah did it"

"Yahwey did it"

"Osirus did it"

"Thor did it".

"The original laguage of the bible" explains nothing of how the outragous claims could have happened other than "God did it".

Sounds more like Harry Potter and Peter Pan than reality.

Brian are you ok? Next time use the quote tags

I'll Defend God. Don't Test Me. You'll Lose


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
ILOVECHRIST wrote: I have

ILOVECHRIST wrote:

I have asserted now and do assert that the Bible is still perfect. The reason I assert this is because I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy as it is part of my faith.

sure the bible is perfect, if your idea of perfect is a violent, sadistic, racist, sexist, perverted piece of crap. and your mastubatory fascination with it does nothing to diminish it's disgusting nature. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What part of the

Quote:

What part of the bible do they find to be the most inerrant, the part where a guy puts two of every animal on the planet into one boat and god floods the world or the part where a guy dies and returns to life three days later? It’s a fucking joke. That people take it as seriously as our friend here does only makes it that much more amusing.

What about the Bible's prophecies?  They've been inerrant.  Besides, the Bible has predicted a lot of stuff, and all of it has come true so far ... check out this link for a list of prophecies in the Bible that have been fullfilled or are being fullfilled ...  http://www.100prophecies.org/  Check it out, it has some good evidence.  Can any of you provide any prophecies in the Bible that have been proven false?

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
That argument is specious.

That argument is specious. A prediction requires a specific time place and event not one out of three or two out of three, all three.

If I say that there will be an economic collapse and then 20 years from now Italy experiences an economic collapse will you come back and say ‘wow I can’t believe that Gauche’s prophesies were inerrant’?  No, I didn’t say when or who or how or why, I just said what and the what wasn’t outside the realm of normal probability.

Second if any prophesies didn’t come true (even though they weren’t actual predictions anyway)  it can be said that they just haven’t come true yet.

Third even if they were predictions and they all came true that still wouldn’t erase the other problems.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13652
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Quote:
What about the Bible's prophecies? They've been inerrant. Besides, the Bible has predicted a lot of stuff, and all of it has come true so far ... check out this link for a list of prophecies in the Bible that have been fullfilled or are being fullfilled ... http://www.100prophecies.org/ Check it out, it has some good evidence. Can any of you provide any prophecies in the Bible that have been proven false?

Hey all you atheists reading this, wouldnt it be great if we all had a nickle we saw this? We'd make Donnald Trump look like a street wino.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
would the second coming of

would the second coming of jesus count as an unfullfilled prophecy, since so many xians have estimated arrival dates that have come and gone? or does that one get the convenient "still could happen" excuse?

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: would the second

Quote:

would the second coming of jesus count as an unfullfilled prophecy, since so many xians have estimated arrival dates that have come and gone? or does that one get the convenient "still could happen" excuse?

Well, lets see what the Bible has to say about it.  It says that no one knows when Jesus will come back and that it could happen at any time.  So I guess it would still get the "still could happen" excuse.  But there are several prophecies that have been exactly fullfilled:  the dispersing of Israel among the nations, and its reforming.  Here is a very good example of a prophecy that has come true exactly by the book.  It predicts both date (1948), place (Israel), and event (the reforming of the nation of Israel).  Hope you're happy.

Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re-established
Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1948
   In Ezekiel 4:3-6, the prophet said the Jews, who had lost control of their homeland, would be punished for 430 years. This prophecy, according to Bible scholar Grant Jeffrey, pinpointed the 1948 rebirth of Israel. Here's a summary of Jeffrey's theory:

1. Ezekiel said the Jews were to be punished for 430 years because they had turned away from God. As part of the punishment, the Jews lost control of their homeland to Babylon. Many Jews were taken as captives to Babylon.

2. Babylon was later conquered by Cyrus in 539 BC. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and to return to their homeland. But, only a small number returned. The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC, about 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon.

3. Because most of the exiles chose to stay in pagan Babylon rather than return to the Holy Land, the remaining 360 years of their punishment was multiplied by 7. The reason is explained in Bible's book of Leviticus. (Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28). In Leviticus, it says that if the people did not repent while being punished, the punishment would be multiplied by 7. And, by staying in pagan Babylon, most exiles were refusing to repent.

4. So, if you take the remaining 360 years of punishment and multiply by 7, you get 2,520 years. But, Jeffrey says those years are based on an ancient 360-day lunar calendar. If those years are adjusted to the modern solar calendar, the result is 2,484 years.

5. And, there were exactly 2,484 years from 536 BC to 1948, which is the year that Israel regained independence.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Feh... They used to say

Feh...

They used to say "all the bible prophecies have been fulfilled" when I was in church.  It's sort of like all the non-sequiturs in Pascal's Wager... there are so many disconnects, there's almost no way to start discrediting the statement...

Anyway...

1) The bible doesn't have footnotes indicating what's a prophecy and what's not.

2) The prophecies, as have been pointed out, are quite vague, and open to interpretation.  In other words, no matter how much you think it might say this, if I can think of another reasonable interpretation, then it is UNCLEAR, and therefore NOT USEFUL as prediction.

3) Open ended prophecy is meaningless.  Without specific times, dates, places, names, any reasonable event that can be made to fit with the most convenient interpretation (see #2) can be claimed as fulfillment.  Further, any interpretation that hasn't been fulfilled can be claimed to be "accurate but as yet unfulfilled."  This is, of course, a handy way to avoid any prophecy ever being wrong.

4) Neophyte students of history should be aware that the "interpretation" of many prophecies has changed multiple times.

5) Even if there were prophecies, the question is still begged, "Why not just say what you mean?"  The standard answer, "because people were not ready.  As they become ready, the interpretation is revealed," is insufficient, because each generation has considered itself ready, and has interpreted differently.  It's still a lottery.  When someone figures out something that can fit the interpretation, they say the prophecy has been fulfilled.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm satisfied that enough questions have been asked and not answered that we can call this thread PWNED.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
It's far from pwned ...

It's far from pwned ... ILOVECHRIST will be back.  So you ask for a prophecy with a specific date, place, and event, and I give you one, and then you say, well, this isn't really true, because events have been filled in by later people.  Why the hell would the Bible have footnotes?  Wouldn't that be evidence against it?  I'm pretty sure that people in the pre-B.C. times didn't use footnotes.

I'm just curious, so I'm going to throw this out there for all the atheists (I'm still undecided).  If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible?  Obviously you believe that it's crap and that it's all made up, but what if it did happen?  Would you believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible?

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: If

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible? 

no, because i would assume that there was a much more realistic, and considerably less silly, explanation for the events that occured. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
djneibarger wrote: Master

djneibarger wrote:
Master Jedi Dan wrote:

If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible?

no, because i would assume that there was a much more realistic, and considerably less silly, explanation for the events that occured.

Christians claim that we will one day disapear. (so fast that how we leave won't matter) However we have never claimed how we would all disapear, so perhaps your less silly way is the actual way Chrsitians will disapear. Once again, Christians disapearing would fullfil the prophecy of Christians disapearing.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote: It's

Master Jedi Dan wrote:
It's far from pwned ... ILOVECHRIST will be back.

Why do christians always think someone is going to come back? Your great-grandchildren's great-grandchildren will probably be awaiting the second coming of the original poster. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:

simple theist wrote:
Christians claim that we will one day disapear. (so fast that how we leave won't matter) However we have never claimed how we would all disapear, so perhaps your less silly way is the actual way Chrsitians will disapear. Once again, Christians disapearing would fullfil the prophecy of Christians disapearing.

so if global warming causes the oceans to rise and all the christians disappear under 20 feet of water, that would fullfill the prophecy? 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan wrote:I'm

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

I'm just curious, so I'm going to throw this out there for all the atheists (I'm still undecided).  If the Biblical rapture happened (one of the biggest prophecies in the Bible), would you believe in the Bible?  Obviously you believe that it's crap and that it's all made up, but what if it did happen?  Would you believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible?

If there were proof of extraterrestrial visits to earth would you believe in scientology?  An E-Meter is just $ 129.95 w/ tax.... My answer:  No..the ideology is still complete bullsh&* and isn't based on any truth!  Thankfully for those hungry for money and power, there are always a majority of humans simple minded enough to be fleeced.

Here's a very short history of the simple minded predicting the return of jesus: 

AD 30 Jesus. According to Matthew 16:28, Jesus himself predicted his second coming and the end of the world within the lifetime of his contemporaries.

AD 156 A man named Montanus declared himself to be the "Spirit of Truth," the personification of the Holy Spirit, mentioned in the Gospel of John, who was to reveal all truth. Montanus quickly gathered followers, including a pair of far-seeing "prophetesses", who claimed to have visions and ecstatic experiences supposedly from God. They began to spread what they called "The Third Testament, a series of revelatory messages which foretold of the soon-coming Kingdom of God and "The New Jerusalem," which was about to descend from heaven to land in Montanus' city of Pepuza, in Phrygia (modern-day Turkey), where it would be home for all "true" believers. The word was spread, and all were urged to come to Phrygia to await the Second Coming. The movement divided Christians into two camps, even after the New Jerusalem didn't appear. Whole communities were fragmented, and continuous discord resulted. Finally, in AD 431, the Council of Ephesus condemned Chiliasm, or belief in the Millennium, as a dangerous superstition, and Montanus was declared to be a heretic. Despite the failure of the prediction, the cult survived several centuries until it was ordered exterminated by Pope Leo I. --SSA pg 54

AD 247, Christian prophets declare that the persecutions by the Romans are a sign of the impending return of Jesus.

AD 300 Lactantius Firmianus (AD c260 - AD c340), called the "Christian Cicero", from his Divinae Institutiones: "The fall and ruin of the world will soon take place, but it seems that nothing of the kind is to be feared as the city of Rome stands intact." Rome would fall in AD 410. --TEOTW pg 27

AD 365, Hilary of Poitiers predicted the world would end in 365.

AD 380, The Donatists, a North African Christian sect, predicted the world would end in 380.

AD 387 St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, identified the Goths with Ezekial's Gog. The Goths had just destroyed the Imperial army at Adrianople, prompting Ambrose to say, "...the end of the world is coming upon us." --TEOTW pg 27

AD 300 St. Martin, Bishop of Tours: "Non est dubium, quin antichristus...There is no doubt that the Antichrist has already been born. Firmly established already in his early years, he will, after reaching maturity, achieve supreme power." --TEOTW pg 27

AD 410 When Rome was sacked, some proclaimed, (as reported by St. Augustine of Hippo) "Behold, from Adam all the years have passed, and behold, the 6,000 years are completed." This alludes to the Great Week theory, held by many millennialists, that the God-alloted time of man on earth was 6,000 years, to be followed by a thousand years of peace under the earthly reign of Christ. --TIME pg 30

AD 500 At the mid-fifth century, Vandal invasions recalled calculations that the world would end in the year 500, 6000 years after Creation, and spurred new calculations to show that the name of the Vandal king Genseric represented 666: the number of the Beast. --Apoc pg 34

AD 500 Hippolytus of Rome, a third-century theologian supported the oft-accepted (for the day) view of the end of the world occuring sometime around the year AD 500. He used a mass of scriptural evidence, including the dimensions of the ark of the covenant. --TIME pg 31

AD 500 Roman theologian Sextus Julius Africanus (ca. 160-240) predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 500.

AD 500 The theologian Irenaeus predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 500.

AD 590 Bishop Gregory of Tours, who died in AD 594, calculated the Time of the End for sometime between 799 and 806. --Apoc pg 48

AD 793 Elipand, bishop of Toledo, accused Beatus, abbot of Liebana, of having prophesied the end of the world. Beatus made the prediction on Easter Eve, predicting the end of the world that very night, sparking a riot. --Apoc 49-50

AD 800 Sextus Julius Africanus predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 800.

AD 800 Beatus of Liébana, not having learned anything from the riot he started in 793, wrote in his Commentary on the Apocalypse that the world would end in the year 800 at the latest.

AD 806 Bishop Gregory of Tours predicted the world would end between 799 and 806.

Ad 848 The Christian prophetess Thiota predicted the world would end in 848.

AD 900 Adso of Montier-en-lDer, a celbrated 10th-century apocalyptic writer, a Frankish emperor of Rome who was 'the last and greates of rulers' would, after governing his empire, go to Jerusalem and put off his sceptre and crown at the Mount of Olives; this would be the end and consummation of the Christian empire and the beginning of the reign of Antichrist. --TIME pg 53

AD 970 Lotharingian computists foresaw the End on Friday, March 25, 970, when the Annunciation and Good Friday fell on the same day. They believed that it was on this day that Adam was created, Isaac was sacrificed, the Red Sea was parted, Jesus was conceived, and Jesus was crucified.

AD 992 A rumour that the end would come when the feast of the Annunciation coincided with Good Friday. This happened in 992, when Easter fell on March 22, and eager calculators established that the world would end before three years had passed. --Apoc pg 50-51

AD 1000 Christian authority all over the known world predicted the second coming in the year 1000.

AD 1033 When the world did not end in 1000, the same Christian authorities claimed they had forgotten to add in the length of Jesus' life and revised the prediction to 1033. The writings of the Burgundian monk Radulfus Glaber described a rash of mass hysterias during the period from 1000-1033.

AD 1033 The roads to Jerusalem fill up with an unprecedented number of pilgrims. Asked why this is happening, the 'more truthful of that time...cautiously responded that it presaged nothing else but the coming of the Lost One, the Antichrist, who, according to divine authority, stands ready to come at the end of the age." --TIME pg 47

AD 1100 Guibert of Nagent (1064-1125) informed would-be crusaders that they should seize Jerusalem as a necessary prelude to its eventual capture by Antichrist. "The end of the world is already near!," he explained. --TIME pg 61-62

AD 1184 Various Christian prophets predicted the end of the world in the year 1184. Nobody seems to remember just why.

AD 1186 Certain prophecies, during the time of the Third Crusade, began circulating in 1184, telling of a "new world order." These were believed to have been written by astrologers in Spain, and one of them, the "Letter of Toledo," appearing in 1186, urged everyone to flee to caves and other remote places, because the world was soon to be devastated by terrible storms, famine, earthquakes, and more. Only a few true belivers would be spared. --SSA pg 55

AD 1260 The year, according to Joachim of Flores'(c1145-1202) prophecies, when the world was supposed to pass throught the reign of Antichrist and enter the Age of the Holy Spirit. Joachim was an Italian mystic theologian who wrote, in his Expositio in Apocalypsia, that history was to be divided into three ages: The Age of the Law (the Father), The Age of the Gospel (the Son), and the final Age of the Spirit. He had indicated at the end of the 12th Century that the Antichrist was already born in Rome. --DOOM pg 87, TEOTW pg 125

AD 1260 A Dominican monk named Brother Arnold gained a following when he wrote that the end was about to take place. According to his scenario, he would call upon Christ, in the name of the poor, to judge the Church leaders, including the Pope. Christ would then appear in judgement, revealing the Pope to be the heralded Antichrist. --SSA pg 56

AD 1297 Writing in 1297, the friar Petrus Olivi predicted Antichrist's coming between 1300 and 1340, after which the world would enter the Age of the Holy Spirit, which itself would end around the year 2000 with Gog and the Last Judgement. --Apoc pg 54

AD 1284 Pope Innocent III predicted the end of the world in the year 1284, 666 years after the founding of Islam.

Ad 1290 When Joachim of Fiore's predicted end of the world had not happened by 1260, members of his order (the Joachites) simply re-scheduled the end another 30 years later to 1290.

AD 1300 A Frenchman, Jean de Roquetaillade, published a guide to the tribulation. Imprisoned for most of his adult life, he predicted Antichrist in 1366, to be followed in 1369 or 1370 by a millennial Sabbath. Jerusalem, under a Jewish king, would become the center of the world. --Apoc pg 55

AD 1300 Many Germans were living in fearful expectation of the return of the Emperor Frederick II, who had been considered a century earlier as the Antichrist, the terrible ruler who was to chastise the Church before the return of Christ.

AD 1306 Gerard of Poehlde, believing that Christ's Millennium actually began when the emperor Constantine came to power,
predicts the end of the world 1000 years after the start of Constantine's reign, in 1306.

AD 1307 fra Dolcino founds a society, the Apostolic Bretheren, in 1260. He preached that authority had passed from the Roman Church to themselves. The Pope and clergy would soon be exterminated by the forces of the Last Empoeror in a tremendous battle leading to the age of the spirit. Dolcino and his followers perished in a battle at Monte Rebello in 1307. --TIME pg 68

AD 1335 The Joachites again re-scheduled the end of the world, this time to the year 1335.

AD 1348 Agnolo di Tura, called "the Fat," writing during the time of the Black Death: "And I...buried my five children with my own hands, and so did many others likewise...And nobody wept no matter what his loss because almost everyone expected death... People said and believed, 'This is the end of the world.'" --TEOTW pg 115

AD 1349 The group known as the Flagellants claimed that their movement must last thirty-three and a half years, culminating in the Second Coming. They persuaded many people that their assertions were true. One chronicle states: "Many persons, and even young children, were soon bidding farewell to the world, some with prayers, others with praises on their lips." --TEOTW 125-129

AD 1366 Jean de Roquetaillade, a French ascetic, predicted the Antichrist was to come in 1366, with the end of the world a few years after that.

AD 1367 Czech archdeacon Militz of Kromeriz claimed the Antichrist was alive and well and would show up no later than 1367, bringing the end of the world with him.

AD 1378 The Joachites again re-scheduled the end of the world, this time to the year 1378.

AD 1420 Martinek Hauska, near Prague, led a following of priests to announce the soon Second Coming of Christ. They warned everyone to flee to the mountains because between February 1 and February 14, 1420, god was to destroy every town with Holy Fire, thus beginning the Millennium. Hauska's band then went on a rampage to "purify the earth", ridding the world of, in their eyes, false clergymen in the Church. They occupied an abandoned fortress which was named Tabor, and defied the religious powers of the day, ultimately succumbing to the Bohemians in 1452 --SSA pg 56, TIME pg 75-77

AD 1476 Hans Bohm was burnt at the stake for heresy, after proclaiming the village of Nikleshausen the center of imminent world salvation. --Apoc pg 151

AD 1490 Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican visionary, attracted large crowds with his prophecies of Antichrist. He began preaching that his city of Florence would soon be "The reformation of all Italy..." and that its people would take on the mantle of God's elect, saved from destruction to play a glorious new role. This would only be accomplished, however, if Florence submitted peacefully to the invading Charles VIII of France. They did so, and for a short time became what has been called a 'proto-Messianic republic.' But when the corrupt Pope Alexander VI regained Florence, Savanarola was publicly executed in May, 1498. --TIME pg 79-81

AD 1496 Several 15th Century prophets predict the end of the world for the year 1496.

AD 1499 A mathemetician in Tubingen, Germany, had foretold of a coming alignment of the planets in 1524, which would bring a disastrous world-wide flood. This was generally rejected because such would violate God's covenant with Noah. the uneasiness, though, did not pass, and in 1523, printing presses in Germany churned out 51 pamphlets which added fuel to the speculative fire.

AD 1500 Martin Luther, Protestant reformer, stated: "I persuade myself verily, that the day of judgement will not be absent full three hundred years. God will not, cannot, suffer this world much longer... the great day is drawing near in which the kingdom of abominations shall be overthrown."

AD 1500 The Italian artist Botticelli captioned his painting, "The Mystical Nativity" with a message warning that the end of the world would occur within three years, based on the predictions of Girolamo Savonarola.

Why end in AD 1500 ?  Because this crap becomes too long to paste.......

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rapture.html

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


inspectormustard
atheist
inspectormustard's picture
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
djneibarger wrote: simple

djneibarger wrote:

simple theist wrote:
Christians claim that we will one day disapear. (so fast that how we leave won't matter) However we have never claimed how we would all disapear, so perhaps your less silly way is the actual way Chrsitians will disapear. Once again, Christians disapearing would fullfil the prophecy of Christians disapearing.

so if global warming causes the oceans to rise and all the christians disappear under 20 feet of water, that would fullfill the prophecy?

Yeah, but what are the chances of that? Er, wait. . .

I hope that doesn't happen, 'cause then with the remaining christians we'd have a whole crapload of no-true-scotsmans followed by the burning of the atheists who kept saying "no, it's JUST GLOBAL WARMING!." That'd suck.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Master Jedi Dan

Master Jedi Dan wrote:

Well, lets see what the Bible has to say about it. It says that no one knows when Jesus will come back and that it could happen at any time. So I guess it would still get the "still could happen" excuse.
There's no proof that jesus ever came so an argument concerning the second coming is moot.
Quote:
But there are several prophecies that have been exactly fullfilled: the dispersing of Israel among the nations, and its reforming. Here is a very good example of a prophecy that has come true exactly by the book. It predicts both date (1948), place (Israel), and event (the reforming of the nation of Israel). Hope you're happy.
First of all, you claimed to be undecided, but you believe in prophecies (as well as the bible it seems). A prophet, in this case, is an individual who is an ecstatic visionary claiming divine inspiration. This would indicate that you believe there's a god unless you are using the word 'prophet' to describe someone who claims to be able to predict the future and in neither case is any evidence to support that anyone is able to foretell the future. As a side note, prophecies are symptomatic of predetermination, which eradicates the so-called free will that your god supposedly gave man.

Quote:
Ezekiel predicted when Israel would be re-established
Bible passage: Ezekiel 4:3-6
Written: between 593-571 BC
Fulfilled: 1948
In Ezekiel 4:3-6, the prophet said the Jews, who had lost control of their homeland, would be punished for 430 years. This prophecy, according to Bible scholar Grant Jeffrey, pinpointed the 1948 rebirth of Israel. Here's a summary of Jeffrey's theory:

1. Ezekiel said the Jews were to be punished for 430 years because they had turned away from God. As part of the punishment, the Jews lost control of their homeland to Babylon. Many Jews were taken as captives to Babylon.
Clearly you are defending the bible. That is very strange behavior for someone who claims to be "undecided".

Quote:
2. Babylon was later conquered by Cyrus in 539 BC. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and to return to their homeland. But, only a small number returned. The return had taken place sometime around 536 BC, about 70 years after Judah lost independence to Babylon.
What difference does this make? The jews yet do not have their country back!

Quote:
3. Because most of the exiles chose to stay in pagan Babylon rather than return to the Holy Land, the remaining 360 years of their punishment was multiplied by 7. The reason is explained in Bible's book of Leviticus. (Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28). In Leviticus, it says that if the people did not repent while being punished, the punishment would be multiplied by 7. And, by staying in pagan Babylon, most exiles were refusing to repent.

4. So, if you take the remaining 360 years of punishment and multiply by 7, you get 2,520 years. But, Jeffrey says those years are based on an ancient 360-day lunar calendar. If those years are adjusted to the modern solar calendar, the result is 2,484 years.


5. And, there were exactly 2,484 years from 536 BC to 1948, which is the year that Israel regained independence.
A calender system will not change the earth's complete revolution around the sun, which is what determines the passing of a year whether there is 365 days or 360 days in the calender.

 

Grant Jeffrey, btw, is not a scholar, but merely a bible apologist

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Clearly you are

Quote:

Clearly you are defending the bible. That is very strange behavior for someone who claims to be "undecided".

I'm just throwing something out there that seems plausible to me, wondering who's going to disprove it.

Quote:

What difference does this make? The jews yet do not have their country back!

Um...then what is Israel?  I'm confused.  Isnt' that why Israel was re-formed in 1948, so that the Jews could have a homeland? 

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.