If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary

danatemporary wrote:
\

 

(paraphrase) Thou Shall Not put the Lord your God to the Test . .

     It'd be like  getting into a bind & then a poisonous serpent biting  but you fully expecting your  Heavenly  Parent  to be right behind you to get you out; with no effect and the outcome would somehow turn out to be favorable.  Do NOT be a fool!! We all have to think of the future of our future loved ones afterall, right ?

 

I read your whole post, but I liked this part... a good way of looking at it. 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm sorry. The writing itself can not possibly be evidence. Is it impossible to write certain things unless they really happened? No. It's not. 

all history is false... got it

Yes. That's exactly what I implied. All history is false! 

 

What I actually was getting at, was that you can't simply take a look at a writing and say "that's a historical account" if it isn't corroborated by other writings. The bible isn't. I'm glad that you've basically resorted to acting like a child, because it's more in line with your beliefs: childlike. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, he is disputed as the author. Various sects of Christianity disagree on this. There is disagreement on whether John Mark, Mark the evangelist, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas are the same person. This makes "Mark the evangelist" simply anonymous. If it's certain, why is there no consensus even among Christians?

some just don't do the homework... and try to be too technical.  They were all still one of the seventy disciples that followed Jesus whether they were the same person or not. 

Some don't do the homework AND try to be too technical? I'm not sure what you're getting at. There is no evidence even of the writers of the gospels being one of the seventy disciples that followed Jesus. Provide evidence to me, and I will change my tune. Until then, I will reject the claim. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

wikipedia wrote:

The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language

The authorship of 2 Peter isn't as certain as you are asserting either. You are asserting traditional authorship, and ignoring what historians who study it have said on the matter.


 

wikipedia wrote:

On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[7] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that Peter did not write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,[8] and the earliest attestation of Peter's authorship comes from 2 Peter (AD 80–90) and the letters of Clement (AD 70-140)

I also read everything before I "assert" something. 

Your post indicating Peter as the author of 1 Peter says "hard to dispute that". Presenting two different sides to the argument shows that there indeed is a dispute regarding the authorship. Shooting yourself in the foot in two threads now.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

wikipedia wrote:

Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[7][8] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[9][10][11][12][13][14] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.

Nope. Doesn't seem that John wrote that either. 

wikipedia wrote:

According to some, the Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[34] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[35]

  1. An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
  2. A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
  3. The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.[36]

Within this view of a complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.

or maybe only wrote a part of it... I hadn't seen that research, but the question originated with whether they were eye-witness accounts.. as to which your wiki source confirms.  It also doesn't seem to go into why John couldn't have authored it even if He used other sources... It is not unheard of to find multiple authors for a Bible book be it that they are usually compiled of many different peices.  

I would like to see more sourcing and specific referencing to the claims that John didn't write it at all.  Again, i hadn't seen that research. 

 

Your problem is highlighted in your last paragraph. You hold the bible as true until proven false. That is the opposite of what you should be doing. Either way, where the hell does it confirm that it was written by eyewitness accounts? The 3 layer hypothesis is something new to me as well, but it doesn't mean that the "personal experience of Jesus" was authentic in any way either. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

it's not reasoning, it's evidence of writings of that time..  it is known that when referencing to something of a past event that was a story handed down from generations that they would reference current locations and events to describe the story rather than having all the history correct because the important aspect of the story was what happened, not necessarily the name of the location or even the exact dating.  E.g.  if their tribe escaped a traumatic event in history what was important to know was that they escaped by the means said in the story... it really doesn't matter to them after the fact whether it happened in A.D. 320 or B.C. 600 or if it was at that time called Bottlestown or Lionsden.

Is that the case? Can you provide me some examples of writings from that time of history that are written that way? Something non-religious? That would be interesting if it's indeed true. I've never heard about that, but if it's the case, provide examples.

Most things at that time were oral before being written... I couldn't find anything specific with a quick google search, but this wiki link seems to get to the heart of the matter of Oral tradition and how particular it was... there are also many links toward the bottom that look interesting... I hadn't the time to check it all out, but if you find something itneresting, please let me know.

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

That link does describe how particular it is. It doesn't really leave room for your model, that must be both particular, and not, simultaneously. If you're passing something down word for word, you will NOT get locations wrong in that way. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

I asked you a question. You answered it with 2 more questions and I'm not sure why. I commented that Jesus seems to not always be so godly. You then said that "in the moment of temptations, Jesus had been made 'a little lower than angels'" and cited Hebrews 2:9. Where does the bible imply that Hebrews 2:9 is related to 4:1-11? 

you were missing something and to question it you must have known the reference point that was not mentinoed... guess not though.

that verse in Hebrews reference to Jesus the man.... the Gospels imply that that particualr verse relates. 

I'm sorry I forgot a word there. I meant where did you get Hebrews 2:9 being related to Matthew 4:1-11 (the part about Jesus' temptation)? Where does it imply that? Show me chapter and verse please. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Literary style can not be evidence of authenticity, I'm sorry. I can write true things in a style "It is said that gravity is a force which draws all objects to one another". I can also write bullshit in that style "It is said that coffee is a liquid that is explosive". 

Now John 1:6-13 is terribly written gibberish. To use that as an argument is as circular as it gets. The gospel of John talks about John, so John must really be the writer of John.....that's basically your argument and it's awful. 

I don't believe anybody believes that any original bible manuscripts have remained, so handwriting is out. You seem to be unable to allow for a possibility that these things were NOT written by eyewitnesses. Why do you believe that this couldn't have been all BS? 

no one has shown me any reason to consider that.  Blantant disregard for structural evidence and admitted skepticism is hardly a reason for me to question those texts.  I mean you question authorship as if you know more than the historians who apparently can't come to an agreement themselves, you question authenticity based on no other documentation despite the level of illiteracy during the time, you question consistency and congruency despite the literally hundreds or even thousands of sources that went into compiling the Bible as it is today.... Why do you believe this couldn't have all been True?

[above based on pasted links from wiki]

Pasted links from wiki...right. You are bad at providing sources for your claims. 

 

That aside, it's because the bible makes some extraordinary claims for things that could not possibly have gone unnoticed. To stick to the gospels here, Jesus starting a riot in the temple, raising people from the dead, other people rising from their graves during his crucifixion....these are not things that would have escaped the notice of historians. There is no possible way. While literacy levels were low back then, it is still a relatively well documented time and place in history. There were historians of various backgrounds (Jewish, Roman, Greek, etc.) writing things down constantly. They somehow didn't get a single bit of news until 30-40 years after the death of this guy? That is suspicious. 

Secondly, the bible to me is just another holy book. Just like the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Bhavagad Gita, it is a book that centers on a reiligious concept. These books are frequently mutually exclusive, hence can't all be true. They can all be false though. I dismiss them until the evidence to consider them arrives. Still waiting. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So ignorance is bliss?

Why wouldn't the old testament ever mention that people avoided looking at god? Who the hell would write of all these appearances and not mention that nobody actually saw him were that the case?

didn't you just complain about me asnwering your question with more questions? 

The OT did say no one can live and see the face of God [Ex. 33:20]

In that same chapter, it says (verse 11) that Moses did exactly that. 33:20 in some translations implies (at least to me) that no longer will that be possible. However, there are 2 references in the gospel of John, one in 1 Timothy, and one in 1 John, that say that it NEVER happened. You have to at least concede that not all of the verses I have mentioned here can possibly be accurate, as they are in direct contradiction to one another, no?

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I think none of them exist. Do you believe they do? If so, that would make you a polytheist.

I'd be a polytheist if I followed all of them.  gods by definition are ones in power and have authority over others.  A demon can be a god, a person can be a god, gods can also be idols. 

I think that gods require supernatural power. I believe that people can make a god out of a person in their minds (see: North Korea). I do not believe that a person could not be an actual god though. You believe that there exist many supernatural entities then, but you only pledge your allegiance to one, making you a monotheist? Do I have that right?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

The problem with this statement is that if it's all bullshit, like I think it is, then that means that the people who know the most about the supernatural are those who dismiss it. This supernatural expertise is only valid if it's true, which I don't accept. 

yea, that defies the law of non-contradiction right there. 

If people know most about the supernatural dismiss it, then the supernatural doesn't exist and thus they couldn't know anything about it.. therefore no one would know more about it than others or anything about it for that matter. 

Hahaha, no it doesn't. I am simply saying that if the supernatural dimension doesn't exist, then the people most correct about it are those who dismiss it. Who knows more about Santa Claus? Those who know all of the stories and the origin well, and don't believe him to be real (beyond the actual St. Nicholas who is long dead)? Or those who know the stories the same but believe that he actually does fly a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer? I would argue that it's the former. 

your wording was confusing then.  YOu specifically said; "the people who know the most about the supernatural are those who dismiss it."  which is contradictory.  The way you worded it now makes more sense. 

I thought you would have understood my point. Glad it's clear now. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

My quesation was where are these records aside from Matthew and Luke? 

there are records of Jesus' birth... though there is debate whether it's THE Jesus or just another Jesus in history... you can wiki that. 

I haven't found any. Could you provide me a link? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

The bolded part says a lot to me. You're asserting again. No evidence...again. 

what is known is what matters and so you claim what is known is assertion... known things are lack of evidence rather than the evidence itself... you're being contradictory again.  I just stated you can wiki the birth of Jesus and the whole controversy around it historically. 

I have no idea what that bolded part is about. You asserted that "what is known is what matters, that Jesus was born where HE was and where He lived in this part."

I stated that that exact part of your post is an assertion, based on no evidence. You keep telling me to wiki it. I have. Trust me. Not just wiki. Googled, read Christian websites, skeptic websites, all sorts. You ask me to wiki things a lot (instead of providing relevant links as I do most often in such a situation). Now do you know why Wikipedia is so trusted even though anyone can edit it? It's because Wikipedia's staff check edits made to pages (and put harder restrictions on things of high prominence, such as the existence of Jesus, his birth, etc.). At the bottom of every page (except perhaps a very small page) you find SOURCES. Just like when you write an essay in school, you must add sources to your info. In reading Christian websites, I found no sources. Nowhere have I found reliable sources discussing Jesus being born in Bethlehem. This seems to be limited to the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and nothing more. To me, that's not enough as the bible, to me, is not evidence but the claim. Can you provide me any other sources? 

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Worship came up as a general topic due to the issue of 'idols'

  Like The Westerner Marcus Grodihis's show, in its' famous title suggests more than a single post --

  Re ::  Worship came up as a general topic due to the issue of  'idols', K?   .. of which I forewarned you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who foolishly practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom
 

  ::

    Poor little thing,  Man!! It's a dark  dark worldly old world  See: Image --

::

 

Caposkia wrote:
God wants people to WANT to worship Him... If you dont' want to worship Him God is ok with that... but the only reason why someone would not want to worship God is becuase they haven't accepted the gift of Jesus

 

 

The Gospel according to Saint Mark Ch XII 

  

    Then one of the scribes and teachers of the law came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving  that Christ had answered them well, asked him,  Which is the first commandment of all?  Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.  And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. The second is likewise, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'''

  Reminds of a constrasting similarity because of the term worship came up  in various faiths

    ((Linga  Center Black)) . . "Sambhuti"  संभूतिं च विनाशं च यस्त द्वेदोभय सह   विनाशेन मृत्युं तीर्त्वा संभूत्यामृतमश्नुते  is placed, by which the Divine is recognized or approached ( ‘lingyate jnayate anena iti lingam’ ). The Agama texts also bring out another valid explanation for the word ‘linga’: linga in its primary sense is broken up into ‘ling’ (to dissolve, to get merged, to destroy) and ‘ga’ (to emerge, to go out). Linga is so called because all phenomena are dissolved in Siva at the time of cosmic dissolution, and it emerges from Siva once again at the time of creation. (Ajitagama, 3, 16-17) 

 

 

 

   (Personal  note  --  I am always confronted with so many limited and REALLY poor choices  for images, the ones you can just pull off the internet, this one I can only be enormously pleased with, it's trick )

 

  ::

  {SanJay wrote}::

  SanJay posted in another forum about a side issue :

   ‘’(quote)I don't know that Hinduism has such a concept as "false gods," since we believe that there is only one God. We do believe that attachment to worldly things will usually hinder our spiritual growth, but this isn't some sort of abominable sin. That said (and maybe this is my somewhat American upbringing getting in the way), even as an Indian I have to admit that there are a lot of stupid things in Indian culture. Obsession with celebrities, obsession with the West, excessive concern with status and wealth, rampant superstition, etc., are all bad traits that I see in our Indian culture. At least this is what I observe from Indians in America. My parents tell me that things are different in India, but then, their information is about 30 years out of date. These foolish things that exist in our culture are, in my opinion, contrary to Hindu Dharma, and ought to be combated with with Dharmic teaching.

 

The contamination of Hindu culture concerns me. I often see a few of these traits in my own brother. He lives at home and goes to college. He's highly intelligent; he's manages a 4.0 while doing a biochemistry major; however, unfortunately he's also as godless as they come. He forgets that God gave him all of his intellectual faculties, and refuses to offer God the worship that he deserves. Sometimes when my parents and I do Satyanarayana Puja, he even refuses to eat the prasadam that I offer him, in spite of the warnings against this that are given in the Katha. And he's no exception. I have several Indian friends that I have known since I was a child. Several of them have sex with women despite that they aren't married. A few profess blatant turning towards atheism. All of this is because they are attached to the worldly pursuits and the promise of wealth.

 

I would not call attachment "worship," however, which is why I don't say that these people are worshiping false gods. Worship can't be performed by accident. It requires selfless devotion to God  .. [Others brought up professing belief only]. SanJay continues,  .. ''Ah yes, you're referring to religious hypocrisy. It happens all the time. Religious hypocrites are usually the people who wear their faith on their sleeves and preach to others. The fact of the matter is that religion sells, and people exploit it. It's sad . . ‘’

 

 

 




 

 

 


  0ff~ish -- site ::

  ** Full day later   Edit :: ((Edit  added the following ,  See: Uploads )) --    The future's family .. well,  she always with all these unexpected surprises  I take it  . .

 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Yes.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes. That's exactly what I implied. All history is false! 

 

What I actually was getting at, was that you can't simply take a look at a writing and say "that's a historical account" if it isn't corroborated by other writings. The bible isn't. I'm glad that you've basically resorted to acting like a child, because it's more in line with your beliefs: childlike. 

no, I simply took the easy route to your explanation.  it worked.  if that's childsplay then I see the level you're at.

You're right, you can't simply  just look at a writing and say it's historical... you actually have to do homework on the subject. 

For example, The Bible is not "A" book, but 66 separate books.  There are more than 24000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament alone.  no not copies of the Bible, copies of the original scrolls.  Of those 24000 copies the variants are minimal.  Some of that information is from Earthlink.

Beyond that, the archaeological evidences of Bible stories is sufficient to validate the historocity of most of the stories.  There is a whole Bible out there dedicated to just that evidence, the Archaeological study Bible.  Most scholars don't question the historocity, rather some question the God aspect of the stories, not whether the stories actually happened. 

That's only part of it, but that alone make it the most documented book of the ancient times.  Despite the attempts over the thousands of years to discredit these very stories you seem to think you have more information about than the rest of the geniuses in human history who have failed to discredit it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Some don't do the homework AND try to be too technical? I'm not sure what you're getting at. There is no evidence even of the writers of the gospels being one of the seventy disciples that followed Jesus. Provide evidence to me, and I will change my tune. Until then, I will reject the claim. 

like what?  a name behind the information I just gave?  Basically it has to be one of the few based on writing style and verbiage as well as perspective writing... Honestly if you have evidence of another possible writer of the book, please present it. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your post indicating Peter as the author of 1 Peter says "hard to dispute that". Presenting two different sides to the argument shows that there indeed is a dispute regarding the authorship. Shooting yourself in the foot in two threads now.

based on likely insufficient evidence... how many toes do you have left?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your problem is highlighted in your last paragraph. You hold the bible as true until proven false. That is the opposite of what you should be doing. Either way, where the hell does it confirm that it was written by eyewitness accounts? The 3 layer hypothesis is something new to me as well, but it doesn't mean that the "personal experience of Jesus" was authentic in any way either. 

The evidence of eye-witness accounts is in the writing.  You can analyze the verbiage and perspective used to be written as if it was witnessed or being told by others.  One can argue that anyone can write as if they witnessed soemthing even though they didn't but we have no evidence to suggest the witness based writing wasn't just that. 

I hold the Bible as true until proven false becasue it has already been proven to me.  So of course I am... just as you're holding what the world is telling you as truth until it's proven false. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

That link does describe how particular it is. It doesn't really leave room for your model, that must be both particular, and not, simultaneously. If you're passing something down word for word, you will NOT get locations wrong in that way. 

...unless its' written hundreds of years later... most times locations are not as important as what happened.. that's not an uncommon error.. Not to confuse the error, the mistakes in location is not geological, it's only by name, as to what the "current" geological location was called at the time of documentation rather than the time fo the story. 

jabberwocky wrote:

I'm sorry I forgot a word there. I meant where did you get Hebrews 2:9 being related to Matthew 4:1-11 (the part about Jesus' temptation)? Where does it imply that? Show me chapter and verse please. 

The link is the temptation mentioned in Matthew and the fact that Hebrews mentions that Jesus was made a little lower than angels.  God cannot be tempted... It is understood that Jesus is equal to God and therefore could not have been tempted if He was not made lower than angels for that time.  This is reading in the context.. it's understanding the phases of Jesus' life and where He was at at what point... Hebrews clarifies how Jesus was able to be tempted at all and be going through temptations like a human would go through.  Otherwise, it would not make much sense. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Pasted links from wiki...right. You are bad at providing sources for your claims. 

yea, true... I've only sourced pretty much everything for you... I should have made sure literally everything was sourced... but then, i feel even that effort would be pointless with you.  I've even told you to ask for sources for specific peices of information that you claim I didn't source to make sure I can back it up and you still ignore sourcing...  

it's really all you have left to defend your understanding isn't it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

That aside, it's because the bible makes some extraordinary claims for things that could not possibly have gone unnoticed. To stick to the gospels here, Jesus starting a riot in the temple, raising people from the dead, other people rising from their graves during his crucifixion....these are not things that would have escaped the notice of historians. There is no possible way. While literacy levels were low back then, it is still a relatively well documented time and place in history. There were historians of various backgrounds (Jewish, Roman, Greek, etc.) writing things down constantly. They somehow didn't get a single bit of news until 30-40 years after the death of this guy? That is suspicious. 

Secondly, the bible to me is just another holy book. Just like the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Bhavagad Gita, it is a book that centers on a reiligious concept. These books are frequently mutually exclusive, hence can't all be true. They can all be false though. I dismiss them until the evidence to consider them arrives. Still waiting. 

except the book of Mormon, the Qu'ran both were written by one person during a single lifetime, not hundreds of people over 1500 years.  Haven't researched the Bhavagad Gita. 

It's also historical fact that authorities of the time would not publically at least document situations that would demote their stature and/or make them look bad in any way... evidences of this is in hyrogliphics in Egypt where some pharaohs wrote of obvious false outcomes of certain battles and one was found to have a false documentation written on an outer wall where everyone could see and the true outcome written on that same wall on the inside.  I don't remember whihc pharaoh that was, but I'm pretty sure that was a Nat Geo or Nova source.  Just happened to catch that one time... the rest of it can be easily googled. 

Bad sourcing?  it's common knowledge here, do you really need sources? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

In that same chapter, it says (verse 11) that Moses did exactly that. 33:20 in some translations implies (at least to me) that no longer will that be possible. However, there are 2 references in the gospel of John, one in 1 Timothy, and one in 1 John, that say that it NEVER happened. You have to at least concede that not all of the verses I have mentioned here can possibly be accurate, as they are in direct contradiction to one another, no?

Just as other wordings in scripture can make it sound like the two may have been looking at each other, there is no implication that Moses visually saw God, only that God would come down to meet him to talk...which if you read scripture God has never done with anyone else as scripture determines. 

To add to it, it is generally understood that Moses likely did not write the books of the OT as some assumed originally... with that said, ti's also said in scripture that when Moses went to talk to God, no one would go with Him, so no one would have known for sure that Moses actually saw God, only that Moses would go up a mountain to talk to God... From an outside perspective, that would seem like a face to face meeting. 

Also, with Moses' first meeting with God, Moses would prostrate himself on the ground when talking with God, which would mean [if he was doing it in the proper way] that he would be facing the ground in the presence of God and not necessarily looking up at Him... Considering the authority figure of God in the Bible, it would make sense that such a sign of respect would have continued to happen with Moses. 

it's helpful if you can give me specific verses so I can cross reference what you're talking about. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I think that gods require supernatural power. I believe that people can make a god out of a person in their minds (see: North Korea). I do not believe that a person could not be an actual god though. You believe that there exist many supernatural entities then, but you only pledge your allegiance to one, making you a monotheist? Do I have that right?

yes, you have that right...

jabberwocky wrote:

I haven't found any. Could you provide me a link? 

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

focus texts are "existence" and "other possibly historical elements" though the whole thing is interesting to read if you have the time.  There are other extra "wiki" sources if you want to explore... go to Bing and search "Historical Jesus"

Jabberwocky wrote:

I have no idea what that bolded part is about. You asserted that "what is known is what matters, that Jesus was born where HE was and where He lived in this part."

I stated that that exact part of your post is an assertion, based on no evidence. You keep telling me to wiki it. I have. Trust me. Not just wiki. Googled, read Christian websites, skeptic websites, all sorts. You ask me to wiki things a lot (instead of providing relevant links as I do most often in such a situation). Now do you know why Wikipedia is so trusted even though anyone can edit it? It's because Wikipedia's staff check edits made to pages (and put harder restrictions on things of high prominence, such as the existence of Jesus, his birth, etc.). At the bottom of every page (except perhaps a very small page) you find SOURCES. Just like when you write an essay in school, you must add sources to your info. In reading Christian websites, I found no sources. Nowhere have I found reliable sources discussing Jesus being born in Bethlehem. This seems to be limited to the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and nothing more. To me, that's not enough as the bible, to me, is not evidence but the claim. Can you provide me any other sources? 

well actually I tell you to wiki things because you have shown me time and time again that you rely on that source as a means of reasoning... I would otherwise use other sources... I like to try to use sources others think are accurate rather than what I think are accurate so as to avoid the credibility arguement.  

If you've found no sources on Christian websites then I question whether they're valid Christian websites or just extremist sites. 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes. That's exactly what I implied. All history is false! 

 

What I actually was getting at, was that you can't simply take a look at a writing and say "that's a historical account" if it isn't corroborated by other writings. The bible isn't. I'm glad that you've basically resorted to acting like a child, because it's more in line with your beliefs: childlike. 

no, I simply took the easy route to your explanation.  it worked.  if that's childsplay then I see the level you're at.

The "easy route to my explanation"? What does that even mean? Is English not your first language by chance? Because occasionally you say something like this, and it makes 0 sense to me whatsoever. Either way, you said that evidence is contained within the writings themselves that suggest their authenticity as a historical narrative (or something to that tune). Let's see what you say next.

caposkia wrote:

You're right, you can't simply  just look at a writing and say it's historical... you actually have to do homework on the subject. 

This is correct. 

caposkia wrote:

For example, The Bible is not "A" book, but 66 separate books.  There are more than 24000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament alone.  no not copies of the Bible, copies of the original scrolls.  Of those 24000 copies the variants are minimal.  Some of that information is from Earthlink.

I'm not sure if 24000 is the number, but I'm fine with accepting it for the sake of argument for now. What does that prove that there are 24000 copies of scrolls? It's a well known fact that these were texts that were copied on a massive scale. When you go back to earlier times, then of course you're going to see more copies of the original scrolls. So what does this prove?

caposkia wrote:

Beyond that, the archaeological evidences of Bible stories is sufficient to validate the historocity of most of the stories.  There is a whole Bible out there dedicated to just that evidence, the Archaeological study Bible.  Most scholars don't question the historocity, rather some question the God aspect of the stories, not whether the stories actually happened. 

I highly doubt that this archaeological study bible validates any significant percentage of the bible if it's not questioned by scholars. When Jewish archaeologists set out to prove the Exodus, they ended up accidentally disproving it, because they had integrity. You referenced this in the other thread too. I, however, won't read it unless someone wants to supply me a copy, as I'm not willing to spend money on that. 

caposkia wrote:

That's only part of it, but that alone make it the most documented book of the ancient times.  Despite the attempts over the thousands of years to discredit these very stories you seem to think you have more information about than the rest of the geniuses in human history who have failed to discredit it.

Failed to discredit it? As I said....Jewish archaeologists searching for evidence of the exodus found nothing. Absolutely 0 evidence, in a place where they would have to have found evidence had the event truly occurred. One major narrative, disproven. We've gone through this a million times. You simply plug your ears, and ignore the internal contradictions, the contradictions with science, etc. You're not a young earth creationist, but seem to refuse to believe that humans evolved from a common primate ancestor with chimpanzees (and I'm not sure that you accept that we ARE primates ourselves). You ignore the problem with the census I brought up. You ignore in an entire long thread evidence that make the flood seem impossible. You ignore conflicting genealogies of Jesus. I don't care how many geniuses believed in the bible. To bring that up is merely an argument from authority. Isaac Newton was a genius of his time. He also believed in the phlogistan theory if I recall correctly (A long since disproven theory about what makes certain objects flammable). To know something involves more than mere certainty. It requires justification. If you are unable to demonstrate why something is true, then you don't know it. 

Recently, when Ken Ham debated Bill Nye, Bill Nye compared disbelief in modern biology to people who think that the Earth is flat. Truly, the comparison is very appropriate. Ken Ham's response was to show a video (obviously sped up) of the round earth from space, rotating about its axis. However, the shape of the Earth (approximately anyhow) was confirmed long before we were able to photograph it from space. In fact, even you agree that the gospel writers probably thought that the Earth was flat (in our discussion re: Jesus seeing everything in the world from a tall mountain), hundreds of years before that, it was known in other parts of the world that it was indeed round. Eratosthenes even made measurements of the circumference. How accurate he is isn't exactly known since the standard of units used is in dispute, but it was likely between 1.6% and 16%. However, his method itself was sound. It was found that had he not made some bad assumptions, probably understandable for the time, he would have been within 0.16%. Remarkable for someone ~2300 years ago.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Some don't do the homework AND try to be too technical? I'm not sure what you're getting at. There is no evidence even of the writers of the gospels being one of the seventy disciples that followed Jesus. Provide evidence to me, and I will change my tune. Until then, I will reject the claim. 

like what?  a name behind the information I just gave?  Basically it has to be one of the few based on writing style and verbiage as well as perspective writing... Honestly if you have evidence of another possible writer of the book, please present it. 

 

Another possible writer? Some dude. There you go. A nameless dude nobody ever heard of, but was an early Christian who wrote it. 

The truth is, Paul IS a person in history, and historians agree on that. They also generally agree that some of his letters in the new testament attributed to him were actually written by this person. It is also understood that others were written by people claiming to be him. If you accept the analysis of writing style to determine this, then you should agree with historians on that. I'm sure you can find very specific details on this, as the bible is quite an extensively studied book. 

Historians also generally agree on a range of dates for the writing of the gospels. These dates do not work well if the writer was a witness to the events themselves. The evidence that Matthew and Luke drew from Mark, and a not yet found common source (Q, as we know and have discussed) suggests even more-so that eyewitnesses did not write these gospels. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your post indicating Peter as the author of 1 Peter says "hard to dispute that". Presenting two different sides to the argument shows that there indeed is a dispute regarding the authorship. Shooting yourself in the foot in two threads now.

based on likely insufficient evidence... how many toes do you have left?

I'm too tired to look this up this moment, but your response here, once again, is telling. "based on likely insufficient evidence". You simply assume that because someone disputes something you have decided is true, they must have not looked into it properly, or made an assertion without sufficient evidence.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your problem is highlighted in your last paragraph. You hold the bible as true until proven false. That is the opposite of what you should be doing. Either way, where the hell does it confirm that it was written by eyewitness accounts? The 3 layer hypothesis is something new to me as well, but it doesn't mean that the "personal experience of Jesus" was authentic in any way either. 

The evidence of eye-witness accounts is in the writing.  You can analyze the verbiage and perspective used to be written as if it was witnessed or being told by others.  One can argue that anyone can write as if they witnessed soemthing even though they didn't but we have no evidence to suggest the witness based writing wasn't just that. 

I hold the Bible as true until proven false becasue it has already been proven to me.  So of course I am... just as you're holding what the world is telling you as truth until it's proven false. 

Caposkia burden of proof shift #1234792. Are you suggesting that we should simply accept this book to have been written by eyewitnesses until proven otherwise? Wow. 

What "the world is telling (me)". Yes. I hold that as true until proven false. What the world tells me is all sorts of things. What I have to do is whittle all that down, and only accept those things for which there are evidence, aside from very basic presuppositions I need in order to properly function in reality (mainly, that reality is real, and that my senses and brain are reliable enough that I can trust them). Except I am looking at all experiences. You simply put full trust into one book. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That link does describe how particular it is. It doesn't really leave room for your model, that must be both particular, and not, simultaneously. If you're passing something down word for word, you will NOT get locations wrong in that way. 

...unless its' written hundreds of years later... most times locations are not as important as what happened.. that's not an uncommon error.. Not to confuse the error, the mistakes in location is not geological, it's only by name, as to what the "current" geological location was called at the time of documentation rather than the time fo the story. 

Nope, I'm sorry. So the soccer team I support has a song that the fans sing. It's a long one, about a fellow who goes to fight in a war. Any devoted fan knows it pretty much word for word, but there are 2 contentions. Was he under a Libyan sun, or under an Arabian one? Did he go to Anfield quite a lot, or did he get kicked out quite a lot? Now why doesn't this matter at the end of the day? Because the rest of the words are the same regardless of who sings it, and it is, as far as I know, not a tale based on an actual person. However, when it actually comes to the history of this club, about real events, people do get things right. (although for what it's worth, I've just read that "Libyan" is correct, hah)

Also, it wasn't written hundreds of years later. I think maybe 100 in the case of John, but not hundreds. 

Your argument here requires that something be accurate in just the right places, and blatantly wrong in others. It's just not very plausible that things would change in this way. Except weren't we talking about the census? So what of the story is true according to you? Mary and Joseph went to Joseph's home town of Bethlehem. Why? Census? Nope. No census recorded. A census never was recorded requiring anyone to  do that either. No such event occurred during the reign of Quirinius, or the governor at the actual time the story is said to have taken place. So all you're left with is "well it says they went to Bethlehem, so they did". So every other conceivable detail was mistaken? I don't buy it, and neither should you. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

I'm sorry I forgot a word there. I meant where did you get Hebrews 2:9 being related to Matthew 4:1-11 (the part about Jesus' temptation)? Where does it imply that? Show me chapter and verse please. 

The link is the temptation mentioned in Matthew and the fact that Hebrews mentions that Jesus was made a little lower than angels.  God cannot be tempted... It is understood that Jesus is equal to God and therefore could not have been tempted if He was not made lower than angels for that time.  This is reading in the context.. it's understanding the phases of Jesus' life and where He was at at what point... Hebrews clarifies how Jesus was able to be tempted at all and be going through temptations like a human would go through.  Otherwise, it would not make much sense. 

I asked you where the link was. You provided nothing, except that you seem to have made the connection yourself. So my question, namely, where does the bible suggest that those two are related, was answered with nothing of any substance. Hebrews 2:9 seems to talk specifically about his crucifixion, and makes no reference to his temptation whatsoever. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Pasted links from wiki...right. You are bad at providing sources for your claims. 

yea, true... I've only sourced pretty much everything for you... I should have made sure literally everything was sourced... but then, i feel even that effort would be pointless with you.  I've even told you to ask for sources for specific peices of information that you claim I didn't source to make sure I can back it up and you still ignore sourcing...  

it's really all you have left to defend your understanding isn't it.

Hahaha....sourced everything? So why write that you got the info from pasted wikipedia articles, without citing the articles themselves? That way I could look through it, and check the citations in the articles (which is really the important part). Otherwise, you are just making an argument from authority. Also, I read a post in another place on the internet about the article regarding the historicity of Jesus, and how Christians are attempting to take control of it, and claim more for the historicity than is actually verifiable. This is why you should provide me with the links, that I may check them myself. I have done that for you on multiple occasions. Is it that difficult for you? When you say "I've only sourced pretty much everything for you", it makes me think this is a troll job. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That aside, it's because the bible makes some extraordinary claims for things that could not possibly have gone unnoticed. To stick to the gospels here, Jesus starting a riot in the temple, raising people from the dead, other people rising from their graves during his crucifixion....these are not things that would have escaped the notice of historians. There is no possible way. While literacy levels were low back then, it is still a relatively well documented time and place in history. There were historians of various backgrounds (Jewish, Roman, Greek, etc.) writing things down constantly. They somehow didn't get a single bit of news until 30-40 years after the death of this guy? That is suspicious. 

Secondly, the bible to me is just another holy book. Just like the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Bhavagad Gita, it is a book that centers on a reiligious concept. These books are frequently mutually exclusive, hence can't all be true. They can all be false though. I dismiss them until the evidence to consider them arrives. Still waiting. 

except the book of Mormon, the Qu'ran both were written by one person during a single lifetime, not hundreds of people over 1500 years.  Haven't researched the Bhavagad Gita. 

It's also historical fact that authorities of the time would not publically at least document situations that would demote their stature and/or make them look bad in any way... evidences of this is in hyrogliphics in Egypt where some pharaohs wrote of obvious false outcomes of certain battles and one was found to have a false documentation written on an outer wall where everyone could see and the true outcome written on that same wall on the inside.  I don't remember whihc pharaoh that was, but I'm pretty sure that was a Nat Geo or Nova source.  Just happened to catch that one time... the rest of it can be easily googled. 

Bad sourcing?  it's common knowledge here, do you really need sources? 

Who cares how they were written, or by how many people? It doesn't matter a single lick. 

Historians of different backgrounds...that is one reason why the documents we find are deemed reliable. The diveristy of nationalities for the sources make it far less likely that modifying information for appearance's sake went on. It would be obvious if only Roman historians left out a certain event, or only Greek historians included another. 

Also, it's funny that you bring up the issue of the possibility of bias in sources. Then, you find nothing suspicious about only one of 4 gospels including mass zombie sightings in Jerusalem? You find that to be reliable even though it's not corroborated by anyone, and the writers of ALL of the books of the bible had to have either been believers themselves, or wanting to convince others to believe (AKA charlatans)? So you trust one absolutely uncorroborated source, but chalk it up to bias that actual historians of the time of various backgrounds wrote virtually none of those things down? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

In that same chapter, it says (verse 11) that Moses did exactly that. 33:20 in some translations implies (at least to me) that no longer will that be possible. However, there are 2 references in the gospel of John, one in 1 Timothy, and one in 1 John, that say that it NEVER happened. You have to at least concede that not all of the verses I have mentioned here can possibly be accurate, as they are in direct contradiction to one another, no?

Just as other wordings in scripture can make it sound like the two may have been looking at each other, there is no implication that Moses visually saw God, only that God would come down to meet him to talk...which if you read scripture God has never done with anyone else as scripture determines. 

To add to it, it is generally understood that Moses likely did not write the books of the OT as some assumed originally... with that said, ti's also said in scripture that when Moses went to talk to God, no one would go with Him, so no one would have known for sure that Moses actually saw God, only that Moses would go up a mountain to talk to God... From an outside perspective, that would seem like a face to face meeting. 

Also, with Moses' first meeting with God, Moses would prostrate himself on the ground when talking with God, which would mean [if he was doing it in the proper way] that he would be facing the ground in the presence of God and not necessarily looking up at Him... Considering the authority figure of God in the Bible, it would make sense that such a sign of respect would have continued to happen with Moses. 

it's helpful if you can give me specific verses so I can cross reference what you're talking about. 

Exodus 33:11, as I said. It says in at least a few translations (including the NASB which I believe was one of the 2 you cited as a good translation),  Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

So what say you about that?

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I think that gods require supernatural power. I believe that people can make a god out of a person in their minds (see: North Korea). I do not believe that a person could not be an actual god though. You believe that there exist many supernatural entities then, but you only pledge your allegiance to one, making you a monotheist? Do I have that right?

yes, you have that right...

If you believe that other gods exist (real ones), you are by definition not a monotheist. You pledge your allegiance to one god, but you believe that others exist. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

I haven't found any. Could you provide me a link? 

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

focus texts are "existence" and "other possibly historical elements" though the whole thing is interesting to read if you have the time.  There are other extra "wiki" sources if you want to explore... go to Bing and search "Historical Jesus"

I mentioned that article above. However, I'll sift through it all on a later day. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I have no idea what that bolded part is about. You asserted that "what is known is what matters, that Jesus was born where HE was and where He lived in this part."

I stated that that exact part of your post is an assertion, based on no evidence. You keep telling me to wiki it. I have. Trust me. Not just wiki. Googled, read Christian websites, skeptic websites, all sorts. You ask me to wiki things a lot (instead of providing relevant links as I do most often in such a situation). Now do you know why Wikipedia is so trusted even though anyone can edit it? It's because Wikipedia's staff check edits made to pages (and put harder restrictions on things of high prominence, such as the existence of Jesus, his birth, etc.). At the bottom of every page (except perhaps a very small page) you find SOURCES. Just like when you write an essay in school, you must add sources to your info. In reading Christian websites, I found no sources. Nowhere have I found reliable sources discussing Jesus being born in Bethlehem. This seems to be limited to the gospels of Matthew and Luke, and nothing more. To me, that's not enough as the bible, to me, is not evidence but the claim. Can you provide me any other sources? 

well actually I tell you to wiki things because you have shown me time and time again that you rely on that source as a means of reasoning... I would otherwise use other sources... I like to try to use sources others think are accurate rather than what I think are accurate so as to avoid the credibility arguement.  

If you've found no sources on Christian websites then I question whether they're valid Christian websites or just extremist sites. 

What? I don't rely on wikipedia as a "means of reasoning". I rely on it as a fairly reliable bank of information. It cites sources for much of its content (especially in higher profile articles) and the articles are well written, so it speeds up research significantly. So the answer to my question of you being able to provide any other sources iiiis......no. 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:I'm not

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not sure if 24000 is the number, but I'm fine with accepting it for the sake of argument for now. What does that prove that there are 24000 copies of scrolls? It's a well known fact that these were texts that were copied on a massive scale. When you go back to earlier times, then of course you're going to see more copies of the original scrolls. So what does this prove?

why copy something on a massive scale if it holds no truth?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Failed to discredit it? As I said....Jewish archaeologists searching for evidence of the exodus found nothing. Absolutely 0 evidence, in a place where they would have to have found evidence had the event truly occurred. One major narrative, disproven. We've gone through this a million times. You simply plug your ears, and ignore the internal contradictions, the contradictions with science, etc. You're not a young earth creationist, but seem to refuse to believe that humans evolved from a common primate ancestor with chimpanzees (and I'm not sure that you accept that we ARE primates ourselves). You ignore the problem with the census I brought up. You ignore in an entire long thread evidence that make the flood seem impossible. You ignore conflicting genealogies of Jesus. I don't care how many geniuses believed in the bible. To bring that up is merely an argument from authority. Isaac Newton was a genius of his time. He also believed in the phlogistan theory if I recall correctly (A long since disproven theory about what makes certain objects flammable). To know something involves more than mere certainty. It requires justification. If you are unable to demonstrate why something is true, then you don't know it. 

do you have a link so I can reference what you're referring to here?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Recently, when Ken Ham debated Bill Nye, Bill Nye compared disbelief in modern biology to people who think that the Earth is flat. Truly, the comparison is very appropriate. Ken Ham's response was to show a video (obviously sped up) of the round earth from space, rotating about its axis. However, the shape of the Earth (approximately anyhow) was confirmed long before we were able to photograph it from space. In fact, even you agree that the gospel writers probably thought that the Earth was flat (in our discussion re: Jesus seeing everything in the world from a tall mountain), hundreds of years before that, it was known in other parts of the world that it was indeed round. Eratosthenes even made measurements of the circumference. How accurate he is isn't exactly known since the standard of units used is in dispute, but it was likely between 1.6% and 16%. However, his method itself was sound. It was found that had he not made some bad assumptions, probably understandable for the time, he would have been within 0.16%. Remarkable for someone ~2300 years ago.

there was more to that part of the debate than a video shown, but beyond that, Bill Nye also mentioned many "mystries" as to which Ken Ham responded with "there's a book"...

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

You simply put full trust into one book. 

yea, it's just the book.. see where accepting what the world tells you gets you?  maybe start reading some of my posts before responding.

Jabberwocky wrote:

That link does describe how particular it is. It doesn't really leave room for your model, that must be both particular, and not, simultaneously. If you're passing something down word for word, you will NOT get locations wrong in that way. 

...unless its' written hundreds of years later... most times locations are not as important as what happened.. that's not an uncommon error.. Not to confuse the error, the mistakes in location is not geological, it's only by name, as to what the "current" geological location was called at the time of documentation rather than the time fo the story. 

Nope, I'm sorry. So the soccer team I support has a song that the fans sing. It's a long one, about a fellow who goes to fight in a war. Any devoted fan knows it pretty much word for word, but there are 2 contentions. Was he under a Libyan sun, or under an Arabian one? Did he go to Anfield quite a lot, or did he get kicked out quite a lot? Now why doesn't this matter at the end of the day? Because the rest of the words are the same regardless of who sings it, and it is, as far as I know, not a tale based on an actual person. However, when it actually comes to the history of this club, about real events, people do get things right. (although for what it's worth, I've just read that "Libyan" is correct, hah)

Also, it wasn't written hundreds of years later. I think maybe 100 in the case of John, but not hundreds. 

Your argument here requires that something be accurate in just the right places, and blatantly wrong in others. It's just not very plausible that things would change in this way. Except weren't we talking about the census? So what of the story is true according to you? Mary and Joseph went to Joseph's home town of Bethlehem. Why? Census? Nope. No census recorded. A census never was recorded requiring anyone to  do that either. No such event occurred during the reign of Quirinius, or the governor at the actual time the story is said to have taken place. So all you're left with is "well it says they went to Bethlehem, so they did". So every other conceivable detail was mistaken? I don't buy it, and neither should you. 

...but you haven't shown me reasoning to question it yet, other than your skepticism.. we've already been through why this isn't a big issue.. there's a consistency in all the writings with these types of things. 

jabberwocky wrote:

I asked you where the link was. You provided nothing, except that you seem to have made the connection yourself. So my question, namely, where does the bible suggest that those two are related, was answered with nothing of any substance. Hebrews 2:9 seems to talk specifically about his crucifixion, and makes no reference to his temptation whatsoever. 

The Bible doesn't usually make direct references to itself be it that it historically was never one Book as we discussed... why would you expect to find a direct reference or link in this case?  The connection is in the context... it's consistent... if I'm mistaken, please use the context to show me how.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Hahaha....sourced everything? So why write that you got the info from pasted wikipedia articles, without citing the articles themselves? That way I could look through it, and check the citations in the articles (which is really the important part). Otherwise, you are just making an argument from authority. Also, I read a post in another place on the internet about the article regarding the historicity of Jesus, and how Christians are attempting to take control of it, and claim more for the historicity than is actually verifiable. This is why you should provide me with the links, that I may check them myself. I have done that for you on multiple occasions. Is it that difficult for you? When you say "I've only sourced pretty much everything for you", it makes me think this is a troll job. 

if I were a troll what does that say about you talking to me as long as you have... stop coming up with excuses... if you're looking for article sources, I will try to remember to include them.  I figured wiki is easy enough to search by key word. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Who cares how they were written, or by how many people? It doesn't matter a single lick. 

Historians of different backgrounds...that is one reason why the documents we find are deemed reliable. The diveristy of nationalities for the sources make it far less likely that modifying information for appearance's sake went on. It would be obvious if only Roman historians left out a certain event, or only Greek historians included another. 

Also, it's funny that you bring up the issue of the possibility of bias in sources. Then, you find nothing suspicious about only one of 4 gospels including mass zombie sightings in Jerusalem? You find that to be reliable even though it's not corroborated by anyone, and the writers of ALL of the books of the bible had to have either been believers themselves, or wanting to convince others to believe (AKA charlatans)? So you trust one absolutely uncorroborated source, but chalk it up to bias that actual historians of the time of various backgrounds wrote virtually none of those things down? 

That's part of the synoptic problem and also context shows that's not the first time people were risen from the grave, granted in quantities as suggested haven't happened, but it is prophesied that such an occurance will happen again.  There's more to it than that... You are obviously ignorant of the compilation, the synoptic problem, Q and contextual reasoning. We would need to have a very extensive discussion on those topics to clarify your issues above.  Something I'm convinced at this piont you're not very capable of having. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Exodus 33:11, as I said. It says in at least a few translations (including the NASB which I believe was one of the 2 you cited as a good translation),  Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

So what say you about that?

I just addressed that in the previous post

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If you believe that other gods exist (real ones), you are by definition not a monotheist. You pledge your allegiance to one god, but you believe that others exist. 

I pledge my allegiance to The God of gods and Lord of lords, the Almighty, beginning and the End, all other gods are under His authority... so if those other gods are what you mean by [real ones], then label me however you want. 

jabberwocky wrote:

What? I don't rely on wikipedia as a "means of reasoning". I rely on it as a fairly reliable bank of information. It cites sources for much of its content (especially in higher profile articles) and the articles are well written, so it speeds up research significantly. So the answer to my question of you being able to provide any other sources iiiis......no. 

if that's what you want it to be... as far as I understood we were done talking right?  I mean anyone who takes the time to read either thread sees the ignorance in your statement.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not sure if 24000 is the number, but I'm fine with accepting it for the sake of argument for now. What does that prove that there are 24000 copies of scrolls? It's a well known fact that these were texts that were copied on a massive scale. When you go back to earlier times, then of course you're going to see more copies of the original scrolls. So what does this prove?

why copy something on a massive scale if it holds no truth?

For the majority, perhaps it wasn't optional. For the minority, perhaps it was useful. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Failed to discredit it? As I said....Jewish archaeologists searching for evidence of the exodus found nothing. Absolutely 0 evidence, in a place where they would have to have found evidence had the event truly occurred. One major narrative, disproven. We've gone through this a million times. You simply plug your ears, and ignore the internal contradictions, the contradictions with science, etc. You're not a young earth creationist, but seem to refuse to believe that humans evolved from a common primate ancestor with chimpanzees (and I'm not sure that you accept that we ARE primates ourselves). You ignore the problem with the census I brought up. You ignore in an entire long thread evidence that make the flood seem impossible. You ignore conflicting genealogies of Jesus. I don't care how many geniuses believed in the bible. To bring that up is merely an argument from authority. Isaac Newton was a genius of his time. He also believed in the phlogistan theory if I recall correctly (A long since disproven theory about what makes certain objects flammable). To know something involves more than mere certainty. It requires justification. If you are unable to demonstrate why something is true, then you don't know it. 

do you have a link so I can reference what you're referring to here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

That very part of the wikipedia article covers it well. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Recently, when Ken Ham debated Bill Nye, Bill Nye compared disbelief in modern biology to people who think that the Earth is flat. Truly, the comparison is very appropriate. Ken Ham's response was to show a video (obviously sped up) of the round earth from space, rotating about its axis. However, the shape of the Earth (approximately anyhow) was confirmed long before we were able to photograph it from space. In fact, even you agree that the gospel writers probably thought that the Earth was flat (in our discussion re: Jesus seeing everything in the world from a tall mountain), hundreds of years before that, it was known in other parts of the world that it was indeed round. Eratosthenes even made measurements of the circumference. How accurate he is isn't exactly known since the standard of units used is in dispute, but it was likely between 1.6% and 16%. However, his method itself was sound. It was found that had he not made some bad assumptions, probably understandable for the time, he would have been within 0.16%. Remarkable for someone ~2300 years ago.

there was more to that part of the debate than a video shown, but beyond that, Bill Nye also mentioned many "mystries" as to which Ken Ham responded with "there's a book"...

Do you see it as some sort of a victory that Ken Ham responded to those things with "there's a book"? I see it as asserting something you can't know. Bill Nye is not afraid to say "I don't know" because he is an intelectually honest man. Ken Ham is not. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

You simply put full trust into one book. 

yea, it's just the book.. see where accepting what the world tells you gets you?  maybe start reading some of my posts before responding.

I don't understand your response here whatsoever. Since you failed to provide any evidence that this book is reliable, you simply trust it based on no evidence. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

That link does describe how particular it is. It doesn't really leave room for your model, that must be both particular, and not, simultaneously. If you're passing something down word for word, you will NOT get locations wrong in that way. 

...unless its' written hundreds of years later... most times locations are not as important as what happened.. that's not an uncommon error.. Not to confuse the error, the mistakes in location is not geological, it's only by name, as to what the "current" geological location was called at the time of documentation rather than the time fo the story. 

So do the writers modify it themselves? Or is it modified when being orally passed down? If the information isn't accurate in certain parts, how do you deduce that it is in others? Also, how do you know the original information was even authentic? You simply don't. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Nope, I'm sorry. So the soccer team I support has a song that the fans sing. It's a long one, about a fellow who goes to fight in a war. Any devoted fan knows it pretty much word for word, but there are 2 contentions. Was he under a Libyan sun, or under an Arabian one? Did he go to Anfield quite a lot, or did he get kicked out quite a lot? Now why doesn't this matter at the end of the day? Because the rest of the words are the same regardless of who sings it, and it is, as far as I know, not a tale based on an actual person. However, when it actually comes to the history of this club, about real events, people do get things right. (although for what it's worth, I've just read that "Libyan" is correct, hah)

Also, it wasn't written hundreds of years later. I think maybe 100 in the case of John, but not hundreds. 

Your argument here requires that something be accurate in just the right places, and blatantly wrong in others. It's just not very plausible that things would change in this way. Except weren't we talking about the census? So what of the story is true according to you? Mary and Joseph went to Joseph's home town of Bethlehem. Why? Census? Nope. No census recorded. A census never was recorded requiring anyone to  do that either. No such event occurred during the reign of Quirinius, or the governor at the actual time the story is said to have taken place. So all you're left with is "well it says they went to Bethlehem, so they did". So every other conceivable detail was mistaken? I don't buy it, and neither should you. 

...but you haven't shown me reasoning to question it yet, other than your skepticism.. we've already been through why this isn't a big issue.. there's a consistency in all the writings with these types of things. 

So for you, a complete inconsistency with historical records isn't a reason to question it?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

I asked you where the link was. You provided nothing, except that you seem to have made the connection yourself. So my question, namely, where does the bible suggest that those two are related, was answered with nothing of any substance. Hebrews 2:9 seems to talk specifically about his crucifixion, and makes no reference to his temptation whatsoever. 

The Bible doesn't usually make direct references to itself be it that it historically was never one Book as we discussed... why would you expect to find a direct reference or link in this case?  The connection is in the context... it's consistent... if I'm mistaken, please use the context to show me how.

So are you implying that the verse in Hebrews 2:9 applies to his whole life? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Hahaha....sourced everything? So why write that you got the info from pasted wikipedia articles, without citing the articles themselves? That way I could look through it, and check the citations in the articles (which is really the important part). Otherwise, you are just making an argument from authority. Also, I read a post in another place on the internet about the article regarding the historicity of Jesus, and how Christians are attempting to take control of it, and claim more for the historicity than is actually verifiable. This is why you should provide me with the links, that I may check them myself. I have done that for you on multiple occasions. Is it that difficult for you? When you say "I've only sourced pretty much everything for you", it makes me think this is a troll job. 

if I were a troll what does that say about you talking to me as long as you have... stop coming up with excuses... if you're looking for article sources, I will try to remember to include them.  I figured wiki is easy enough to search by key word. 

Well, when you look up the sources yourself, do what I do and simply paste it for me. 

As far as what it says about me talking to you for so long if you're a troll, I can say that it involves enough boredom on my end. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Who cares how they were written, or by how many people? It doesn't matter a single lick. 

Historians of different backgrounds...that is one reason why the documents we find are deemed reliable. The diveristy of nationalities for the sources make it far less likely that modifying information for appearance's sake went on. It would be obvious if only Roman historians left out a certain event, or only Greek historians included another. 

Also, it's funny that you bring up the issue of the possibility of bias in sources. Then, you find nothing suspicious about only one of 4 gospels including mass zombie sightings in Jerusalem? You find that to be reliable even though it's not corroborated by anyone, and the writers of ALL of the books of the bible had to have either been believers themselves, or wanting to convince others to believe (AKA charlatans)? So you trust one absolutely uncorroborated source, but chalk it up to bias that actual historians of the time of various backgrounds wrote virtually none of those things down? 

That's part of the synoptic problem and also context shows that's not the first time people were risen from the grave, granted in quantities as suggested haven't happened, but it is prophesied that such an occurance will happen again.  There's more to it than that... You are obviously ignorant of the compilation, the synoptic problem, Q and contextual reasoning. We would need to have a very extensive discussion on those topics to clarify your issues above.  Something I'm convinced at this piont you're not very capable of having. 

We would? We would need to discuss the bible extensively in order to answer the question "Why did no historians write of these events?" I highly doubt that. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Exodus 33:11, as I said. It says in at least a few translations (including the NASB which I believe was one of the 2 you cited as a good translation),  Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

So what say you about that?

I just addressed that in the previous post

Not to my satisfaction. Basically, your response wasn't much more than asserting that the bible's specific words imply something different. If the bible is being vague, then you can perhaps interpret things differently. When it's being specific, as it is in Genesis 33:11, your only response is that the bible doesn't mean what it clearly says. If that's the case, then even I can say that the bible is 100% true. It just has all the wrong words in it. Were you to replace them with correct words, it would be true. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If you believe that other gods exist (real ones), you are by definition not a monotheist. You pledge your allegiance to one god, but you believe that others exist. 

I pledge my allegiance to The God of gods and Lord of lords, the Almighty, beginning and the End, all other gods are under His authority... so if those other gods are what you mean by [real ones], then label me however you want. 

Ok.

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

What? I don't rely on wikipedia as a "means of reasoning". I rely on it as a fairly reliable bank of information. It cites sources for much of its content (especially in higher profile articles) and the articles are well written, so it speeds up research significantly. So the answer to my question of you being able to provide any other sources iiiis......no. 

if that's what you want it to be... as far as I understood we were done talking right?  I mean anyone who takes the time to read either thread sees the ignorance in your statement.

Do they?

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:why copy

Jabberwocky wrote:

why copy something on a massive scale if it holds no truth?

For the majority, perhaps it wasn't optional. For the minority, perhaps it was useful. 

perhaps you don't have a good reason other than a basis of truth for the writing. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

That very part of the wikipedia article covers it well. 

ok.  This covers the first part of the statement you made, but not the rest.  Let's address it though.

Most historians don't consider the information about the Exodus recoverable.  Nowhere does it say "false".  There is only a question of relevance in Israel's history... as to which this article states that it is nearly impossible to accurately date and therefore we cannot determine where the relevance would apply. 

Beyond that, the article tries to analyze dating and numbers as to which we've already discussed how they might vary and why.  How does this support your blatent "false" claim?  We can go through it step by step if you want.   Kind of the same issue here as with the Noah story where dating is... you know a slight importance when determining its place in history. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do you see it as some sort of a victory that Ken Ham responded to those things with "there's a book"? I see it as asserting something you can't know. Bill Nye is not afraid to say "I don't know" because he is an intelectually honest man. Ken Ham is not. 

you see "there's a book' as a dishonest statement?    Basically Ken Ham saw answers in the Bible to each point that Bill seemed to think there was a "mystery".  Beyond that, to become a believer is to acknowledge that there's more that you "don't know" than you thought when you didn't believe.  However with that expanded realization of the absence of knowledge comes more answers to things you originally felt were "mysterious".. 

I don't see it a victory any more than Bill's statement that there are mysteries is a a victory for the other side.  In other words, it's not.   These types of debates don't have victories.. if they did, then it would be the final debate on the subject.   We both know this did not seal the emvelope on the subject. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't understand your response here whatsoever. Since you failed to provide any evidence that this book is reliable, you simply trust it based on no evidence. 

a 1500 year compilation surviving mellinia of skeptics, haters and nay-sayers yet it has no evidence for reliability...  I don't understand that.  Considering the opposition throughout its history, there should not be a single copy left in circulation if what you claim of it is true. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

So do the writers modify it themselves? Or is it modified when being orally passed down? If the information isn't accurate in certain parts, how do you deduce that it is in others? Also, how do you know the original information was even authentic? You simply don't. 

The writers wrote based on what they knew presently.  That present information likely did not apply at the time of the event, but they wouldn't know any different.  The tradition of orally passing can modify a writing a bit, people tend to inflate numbers or volumes of events to make the story more interesting and/or catchy so as to keep the interest of the audience. 

How do I kno the original information was authentic?  Congruency within scriptures and outside.  Basically if an event took place in town B, but the story says the event took place in Town A... which happens to geographically lie in the location of the original town B, and other stories acknolwedge the event within scripture or flow smoothly from the results of the event then it is logical to conclude the event could have taken place.  Why use other scripture?  Other scripture does have historical support.  Either it's all true or it's not. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

So for you, a complete inconsistency with historical records isn't a reason to question it?

there isn't a complete inconsistency with historical records.... unless you have something new to show me.  Lack of evidence isnt' inconsistency, it's lack... inconsistency to me is you finding an alternative timeline that takes the place of the timeline in question and results in the same known historical outcome.  Do you have a link for this newly discovered timeline?  A link that directly acknowledges the Biblical timeline in question and compares it to the historically suppported timeline taht takes its place would be very useful. 

 

jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The Bible doesn't usually make direct references to itself be it that it historically was never one Book as we discussed... why would you expect to find a direct reference or link in this case?  The connection is in the context... it's consistent... if I'm mistaken, please use the context to show me how.

So are you implying that the verse in Hebrews 2:9 applies to his whole life? 

I'm implying that the connection is in the context of the Bible and that the Bible would not necessarily directly reference itself nor woudl it need to to have a connection. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, when you look up the sources yourself, do what I do and simply paste it for me. 

As far as what it says about me talking to you for so long if you're a troll, I can say that it involves enough boredom on my end. 

I'll paste links, but if they're long I hope you understand why I wouldn't. 

If you're bored get a hobby. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

We would? We would need to discuss the bible extensively in order to answer the question "Why did no historians write of these events?" I highly doubt that. 

well sure... I mean did you forget to link me the source that shows that Q was NOT written by a historian?  Who wrote Q then and when was it written?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Not to my satisfaction. Basically, your response wasn't much more than asserting that the bible's specific words imply something different. If the bible is being vague, then you can perhaps interpret things differently. When it's being specific, as it is in Genesis 33:11, your only response is that the bible doesn't mean what it clearly says. If that's the case, then even I can say that the bible is 100% true. It just has all the wrong words in it. Were you to replace them with correct words, it would be true. 

If you're going to be as critical as you are with the scriptures, we would need to discuss them more directly despite your skepticism in doing so.  Basically here's my problem with your issue here.  The Bible makes it clear that no one was brave enough to go up the mountain with MOses to meet with God... which means NO ONE SAW THE INTERACTION WITH MOSES AND GOD which means any claim that Moses actually looked at God was speculation at best.  This is what is called using contextual clues.  The direct worded claim that Moses met with God face ot face as friends do is perspective based considering that Moses would go up a mountain to talk directly with God.  Considering further contextual clues in the Bible, there is nothing to suggest that Moses actually looked at God including the first interaction where Moses did not look and to further support the idea that Moses did not look at God and see Him in his interaction, the Bible explicitly states that anyone who sees the face of God will die and it is said repeatedly in the NT that no one has seen the face of God.  Considering the authors of the NT, they would have been very aware of the story of Moses and would have taken that into consideration when writing that.  [jn. 1:18, Ex. 13:20]

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do they?

yes


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

why copy something on a massive scale if it holds no truth?

For the majority, perhaps it wasn't optional. For the minority, perhaps it was useful. 

perhaps you don't have a good reason other than a basis of truth for the writing. 

No clue what you mean. None. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

That very part of the wikipedia article covers it well. 

ok.  This covers the first part of the statement you made, but not the rest.  Let's address it though.

Most historians don't consider the information about the Exodus recoverable.  Nowhere does it say "false".  There is only a question of relevance in Israel's history... as to which this article states that it is nearly impossible to accurately date and therefore we cannot determine where the relevance would apply. 

Beyond that, the article tries to analyze dating and numbers as to which we've already discussed how they might vary and why.  How does this support your blatent "false" claim?  We can go through it step by step if you want.   Kind of the same issue here as with the Noah story where dating is... you know a slight importance when determining its place in history. 

As usual, you read nothing more than the introduction of a link I provided (or in one case, quite hilariously, one that you provided), except this time you actually understood the definition of all of the words used (no hard words here like "monophyletic&quotEye-wink. The first sentence under the next minor heading:

wikipedia wrote:

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible

Not the consensus of evil atheist archaeologists. Not the consensus of RRS posters with "atheist" tags. Biblical scholars. They accept that it never happened in any way that resembled what was written. Hence, what was written can not possibly be considered accurate. So if it's inaccurate, how can you call it correct or true at the same time? If Jews weren't enslaved in Egypt in any meaningful numbers, and there is no way such a massive migration event happened, what part of the story is actually true? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do you see it as some sort of a victory that Ken Ham responded to those things with "there's a book"? I see it as asserting something you can't know. Bill Nye is not afraid to say "I don't know" because he is an intelectually honest man. Ken Ham is not. 

you see "there's a book' as a dishonest statement?    Basically Ken Ham saw answers in the Bible to each point that Bill seemed to think there was a "mystery".  Beyond that, to become a believer is to acknowledge that there's more that you "don't know" than you thought when you didn't believe.  However with that expanded realization of the absence of knowledge comes more answers to things you originally felt were "mysterious".. 

I don't see it a victory any more than Bill's statement that there are mysteries is a a victory for the other side.  In other words, it's not.   These types of debates don't have victories.. if they did, then it would be the final debate on the subject.   We both know this did not seal the emvelope on the subject. 

Yes. I see it as dishonest. To profess something as true, you must be able to justify it in some way. What does it mean to "know" something? Mere certainty isn't the only criteria. This is evident without even leaving the realm of Abrahamic religions, as there are Muslims as certain of Islam as you are of Christianity (and possibly even more-so). At least one of you have to be wrong (and both of you could be, but due to the mutual exclusivitiy, it's impossible for both of you to be right). Your entire first paragraph is an utter fucking train wreck here. If you don't know something...well, you don't know it. Ken Ham doesn't know how the Earth came about. He is certain that he does, but he doesn't, because he is unable to demonstrate this. It's also hilarious that you disagree with him (given your allowance, and even your insistence, that the Earth is at least a few million years old). I hate quoting prominent atheists at risk of making an argument for authority, but I fully agree with Aronra on this, and I like the way he phrases it because he possesses an ability for brevity I seldom have. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Simple and true. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't understand your response here whatsoever. Since you failed to provide any evidence that this book is reliable, you simply trust it based on no evidence. 

a 1500 year compilation surviving mellinia of skeptics, haters and nay-sayers yet it has no evidence for reliability...  I don't understand that.  Considering the opposition throughout its history, there should not be a single copy left in circulation if what you claim of it is true. 

By that logic, there should be nothing left of the Hindu Vedas either, yet there is. You assertion that it must be reliable because it continues to exist necessitates that one of the following 2 statements regarding the Vedas are true. 

1. There are no copies left in circulation (not true), or

2. The Vedas are just as true as the bible, if not more-so (as they have survived a few centuries longer than the old testament thus far). 

You must now see how bad this argument you just made was...right?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So do the writers modify it themselves? Or is it modified when being orally passed down? If the information isn't accurate in certain parts, how do you deduce that it is in others? Also, how do you know the original information was even authentic? You simply don't. 

The writers wrote based on what they knew presently.  That present information likely did not apply at the time of the event, but they wouldn't know any different.  The tradition of orally passing can modify a writing a bit, people tend to inflate numbers or volumes of events to make the story more interesting and/or catchy so as to keep the interest of the audience. 

How do I kno the original information was authentic?  Congruency within scriptures and outside.  Basically if an event took place in town B, but the story says the event took place in Town A... which happens to geographically lie in the location of the original town B, and other stories acknolwedge the event within scripture or flow smoothly from the results of the event then it is logical to conclude the event could have taken place.  Why use other scripture?  Other scripture does have historical support.  Either it's all true or it's not. 

So maybe the exageeration was, a flood happened in one town, and 3 people drowned, and it got inflated into everyone drowned but 8 people who built a giant floating fucking zoo. If you leave room for embellishment, you must explain how much is reasonable. 

Yes. And since the scriptures are internally contradictory in places, it's impossible for all to be true. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So for you, a complete inconsistency with historical records isn't a reason to question it?

there isn't a complete inconsistency with historical records.... unless you have something new to show me.  Lack of evidence isnt' inconsistency, it's lack... inconsistency to me is you finding an alternative timeline that takes the place of the timeline in question and results in the same known historical outcome.  Do you have a link for this newly discovered timeline?  A link that directly acknowledges the Biblical timeline in question and compares it to the historically suppported timeline taht takes its place would be very useful. 

 

Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria when the bible claimed he was. That is 100% an event that the bible claims happened, when we know it didn't. So even in your distorted idea of standards of evidence (the bible claim shall stand as true unless you can prove exactly what time and place the bible was referring to, and show that something else happened in place of the events of the biblical claims, which is an impossible standard of evidence to begin with, and one which you yourself wouldn't ever grant to the Qu'ran or the aforementioned Vedas, meaning you are engaging in special pleading)....even with your distorted standards of evidence and burden of proof, the bible's account is 100% inconsistent with historical records regarding who was in charge of that place at the time. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

The Bible doesn't usually make direct references to itself be it that it historically was never one Book as we discussed... why would you expect to find a direct reference or link in this case?  The connection is in the context... it's consistent... if I'm mistaken, please use the context to show me how.

So are you implying that the verse in Hebrews 2:9 applies to his whole life? 

I'm implying that the connection is in the context of the Bible and that the Bible would not necessarily directly reference itself nor woudl it need to to have a connection. 

Gibberish. I don't know what you are getting at. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, when you look up the sources yourself, do what I do and simply paste it for me. 

As far as what it says about me talking to you for so long if you're a troll, I can say that it involves enough boredom on my end. 

I'll paste links, but if they're long I hope you understand why I wouldn't. 

If you're bored get a hobby. 

I would read more than one paragraph, which seems to be what you do (and if I don't understand a word, I would look it up too! Novel concept, eh?...oops my Canadian is showing)

This is one of them. My hobby right now is desensitizing myself to how much cognitive dissonance people who aren't me can actually put up with. It might help my sanity if I ever meet someone like you in person. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

We would? We would need to discuss the bible extensively in order to answer the question "Why did no historians write of these events?" I highly doubt that. 

well sure... I mean did you forget to link me the source that shows that Q was NOT written by a historian?  Who wrote Q then and when was it written?

Q is an (justifiably) assumed shared source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are in the bible. The bible is not evidence. It is a claim. So why is the default position that a source for the claim was historic in nature, and it is up to me to prove otherwise? Also, since the assumed Q verses (which, as you know, are verses that exist in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark) mostly (if not exclusively) consisted of "sayings of Jesus" not descriptions of what he actually did, or about his life, it stands to reason that it almost certainly wasn't written by a historian. Historians don't tend to have careers as historians if their entire writings consist of "shit this one guy said". 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Not to my satisfaction. Basically, your response wasn't much more than asserting that the bible's specific words imply something different. If the bible is being vague, then you can perhaps interpret things differently. When it's being specific, as it is in Genesis 33:11, your only response is that the bible doesn't mean what it clearly says. If that's the case, then even I can say that the bible is 100% true. It just has all the wrong words in it. Were you to replace them with correct words, it would be true. 

If you're going to be as critical as you are with the scriptures, we would need to discuss them more directly despite your skepticism in doing so.  Basically here's my problem with your issue here.  The Bible makes it clear that no one was brave enough to go up the mountain with MOses to meet with God... which means NO ONE SAW THE INTERACTION WITH MOSES AND GOD which means any claim that Moses actually looked at God was speculation at best.  This is what is called using contextual clues.  The direct worded claim that Moses met with God face ot face as friends do is perspective based considering that Moses would go up a mountain to talk directly with God.  Considering further contextual clues in the Bible, there is nothing to suggest that Moses actually looked at God including the first interaction where Moses did not look and to further support the idea that Moses did not look at God and see Him in his interaction, the Bible explicitly states that anyone who sees the face of God will die and it is said repeatedly in the NT that no one has seen the face of God.  Considering the authors of the NT, they would have been very aware of the story of Moses and would have taken that into consideration when writing that.  [jn. 1:18, Ex. 13:20]

Why be specific if you don't know? I know it's sort of what religious people do (like your constant claims of certainty about things you can't possibly demonstrate), but it just makes it more fishy that way, no?

caposkia wrote:

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do they?

yes

My question was a challenge to show me where. Your response is an evasion of that challenge, meaning you can't actually demonstrate the accuracy of your assertion. 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

why copy something on a massive scale if it holds no truth?

For the majority, perhaps it wasn't optional. For the minority, perhaps it was useful. 

perhaps you don't have a good reason other than a basis of truth for the writing. 

No clue what you mean. None. 

basically your response above was reaching for an excuse.  Perhaps is not a sound means of debate and likely means you have nothing to go on... in other words, you have no good reason to hold onto your idea of truth. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

As usual, you read nothing more than the introduction of a link I provided (or in one case, quite hilariously, one that you provided), except this time you actually understood the definition of all of the words used (no hard words here like "monophyletic&quotEye-wink. The first sentence under the next minor heading:

wikipedia wrote:

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible

Not the consensus of evil atheist archaeologists. Not the consensus of RRS posters with "atheist" tags. Biblical scholars. They accept that it never happened in any way that resembled what was written. Hence, what was written can not possibly be considered accurate. So if it's inaccurate, how can you call it correct or true at the same time? If Jews weren't enslaved in Egypt in any meaningful numbers, and there is no way such a massive migration event happened, what part of the story is actually true? 

the question is "proportions".  the consensus as you just quoted is they say there ws never any exodus of the PROPORTIONS described... I've already addressed this.  The article goes on to talk about numbers... As I've said many times before, it is not uncommon for numbers to be different, usually inflated to bring emphasis to the story.  The number of people in an event doesn't matter as much as the event itself.  The point of the story are the events that took place, not whether 600 or 60000 people were involved.  The same goes with location names.  There we'd need to consider geographical location referenced rather than names. 

What's your next excuse?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes. I see it as dishonest. To profess something as true, you must be able to justify it in some way. What does it mean to "know" something? Mere certainty isn't the only criteria. This is evident without even leaving the realm of Abrahamic religions, as there are Muslims as certain of Islam as you are of Christianity (and possibly even more-so). At least one of you have to be wrong (and both of you could be, but due to the mutual exclusivitiy, it's impossible for both of you to be right). Your entire first paragraph is an utter fucking train wreck here. If you don't know something...well, you don't know it. Ken Ham doesn't know how the Earth came about. He is certain that he does, but he doesn't, because he is unable to demonstrate this. It's also hilarious that you disagree with him (given your allowance, and even your insistence, that the Earth is at least a few million years old). I hate quoting prominent atheists at risk of making an argument for authority, but I fully agree with Aronra on this, and I like the way he phrases it because he possesses an ability for brevity I seldom have. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Simple and true. 

I can't show you my grandfathers ability to make a really great spaghetti sauce because he's not capable of doing it anymore... that doesn't mean I don't know that he had the ability.  It was there in the past just as these events were... I cannot demonstrate an event that cannot be repeatable, but non-repeatable events do exist and have existed many times in the past... I cannot demonstrate anything that is beyond my ability... but just becuase I cannot demonstrate it doesn't mean it's not possible.  Unless of course you think I am the most powerful person in the world..  I guess I'll take that as a comliment then... thank you...

[sarcasm above, no I don't think you believe that about me just in case you were going to try to tangent with that]

Jabberwocky wrote:

By that logic, there should be nothing left of the Hindu Vedas either, yet there is. You assertion that it must be reliable because it continues to exist necessitates that one of the following 2 statements regarding the Vedas are true. 

1. There are no copies left in circulation (not true), or

2. The Vedas are just as true as the bible, if not more-so (as they have survived a few centuries longer than the old testament thus far). 

You must now see how bad this argument you just made was...right?

yes I do... I shouldn't have made the claim that there would be no copies left.. what I should have said is that it wouldn't be distributed to this day at the volume that it is.

Jabberwocky wrote:

So maybe the exageeration was, a flood happened in one town, and 3 people drowned, and it got inflated into everyone drowned but 8 people who built a giant floating fucking zoo. If you leave room for embellishment, you must explain how much is reasonable. 

Yes. And since the scriptures are internally contradictory in places, it's impossible for all to be true. 

the magnitude would have to be still much larger than your scenario above... and of all who have tried to point out contradictions in scripture, all have failed... So far all the alleged contradictions have been miscomprehensions of the scripture either based on an English rendering of the original language that is sub-par and/or taken out of context... which means they didn't do their homework before making a claim. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria when the bible claimed he was. That is 100% an event that the bible claims happened, when we know it didn't. So even in your distorted idea of standards of evidence (the bible claim shall stand as true unless you can prove exactly what time and place the bible was referring to, and show that something else happened in place of the events of the biblical claims, which is an impossible standard of evidence to begin with, and one which you yourself wouldn't ever grant to the Qu'ran or the aforementioned Vedas, meaning you are engaging in special pleading)....even with your distorted standards of evidence and burden of proof, the bible's account is 100% inconsistent with historical records regarding who was in charge of that place at the time. 

was he governor when the story claiming it was written?  Please reference the place too so I can cross reference..

jabberwocky wrote:

Gibberish. I don't know what you are getting at. 

just because you don't understand what I'm getting at doesn't make it gibberish... it just might be beyond your understanding.  The Bible is compiled through contextual evidence.  Each story is connected to another in some way or another or it wouldn't be there.  The connection is based on direct referencing and indirect referencing within each story.  There is a laundry list of evidences that need to be examined in order to determine its authenticity in scripture.  This starts with any reference to any persons in another authenticated book... From there, the accuracy of historical understanding is taken into consideration compared to the authenticated story and or events.  The list goes on. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I would read more than one paragraph, which seems to be what you do (and if I don't understand a word, I would look it up too! Novel concept, eh?...oops my Canadian is showing)

This is one of them. My hobby right now is desensitizing myself to how much cognitive dissonance people who aren't me can actually put up with. It might help my sanity if I ever meet someone like you in person. 

your assumption is based on ignorance of what you posted as exampled earlier in this post.  Ignoring a key word in a statement does not justify your comprehension of truth. 

It'd be fun to meet you in person.  I'd hope that we could sit down to a beer and enjoy each others company. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Q is an (justifiably) assumed shared source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are in the bible. The bible is not evidence. It is a claim. So why is the default position that a source for the claim was historic in nature, and it is up to me to prove otherwise? Also, since the assumed Q verses (which, as you know, are verses that exist in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark) mostly (if not exclusively) consisted of "sayings of Jesus" not descriptions of what he actually did, or about his life, it stands to reason that it almost certainly wasn't written by a historian. Historians don't tend to have careers as historians if their entire writings consist of "shit this one guy said". 

you're the one making the claim so of coures if you're absolutely sure a historian didn't write the events, then you must know all the sources that the Bible writers used to compile their manuscripts... either that or your'e just making an assertion.  Q is an assumed shared source... what is not assumed is that there is another unknown source that the books used becuase there are identical claims that are not in the writing style of either author. 

The Bible when comprehended for what it is does apply as a peice of evidence.  Remember it's not one book and it was not written by a group of friends over coffee. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Why be specific if you don't know? I know it's sort of what religious people do (like your constant claims of certainty about things you can't possibly demonstrate), but it just makes it more fishy that way, no?

dont' know what exactly?  with things that are not known, we need to look at what is known... about the writing itself... because that was the topic in this particular part... are you suggesting I don't know how the bible was compiled and the reasonings for certain methods of translatino?  I woudl questino your knowledge on this topic. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do they?

yes

My question was a challenge to show me where. Your response is an evasion of that challenge, meaning you can't actually demonstrate the accuracy of your assertion. 

I'm not going to repaste the majority of your posts..  I have directly addressed those parts in the posts in question. 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

perhaps you don't have a good reason other than a basis of truth for the writing. 

No clue what you mean. None. 

basically your response above was reaching for an excuse.  Perhaps is not a sound means of debate and likely means you have nothing to go on... in other words, you have no good reason to hold onto your idea of truth. 

Well, you tell me, then. If you're a dictator, what is more effective; Happy slaves or unhappy slaves? If you offer a reward for good work, people are more likely to do it. If your reward is imaginary (but they don't know that), you're better off still, no? If you have police watching, and killing all dissenters, that's great for you. If you can convince them that they're being watched around the clock (whether they are, or not) then you're better off as well. These are all ideas that religion can implant in your head. Once again, if you can say that Christianity is huge because it's true (and by extension, people were compelled to copy bibles because of that) then you must claim the same for Islam as well. I know that wasn't your argument. You asked why copy something on a large scale if it holds no truth. The Quran, in your estimation, holds corrupted truth and lies. Why copy either? The Quran wouldn't have survived either if it wasn't copied en masse constantly since its existence. Considering it was long after the Quran was first written that any method of copying other than manually was available, then you would have to say that it is also true if you want to keep using that same argument for the bible. Otherwise, it is....wait for it....special pleading (a concept you seem to fail to understand).

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

As usual, you read nothing more than the introduction of a link I provided (or in one case, quite hilariously, one that you provided), except this time you actually understood the definition of all of the words used (no hard words here like "monophyletic&quotEye-wink. The first sentence under the next minor heading:

wikipedia wrote:

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible

Not the consensus of evil atheist archaeologists. Not the consensus of RRS posters with "atheist" tags. Biblical scholars. They accept that it never happened in any way that resembled what was written. Hence, what was written can not possibly be considered accurate. So if it's inaccurate, how can you call it correct or true at the same time? If Jews weren't enslaved in Egypt in any meaningful numbers, and there is no way such a massive migration event happened, what part of the story is actually true? 

the question is "proportions".  the consensus as you just quoted is they say there ws never any exodus of the PROPORTIONS described... I've already addressed this.  The article goes on to talk about numbers... As I've said many times before, it is not uncommon for numbers to be different, usually inflated to bring emphasis to the story.  The number of people in an event doesn't matter as much as the event itself.  The point of the story are the events that took place, not whether 600 or 60000 people were involved.  The same goes with location names.  There we'd need to consider geographical location referenced rather than names. 

What's your next excuse?

And there is no evidence for them. That's not an excuse, that's a fact. There is no evidence for the Exodus, hence it shouldn't be believed until evidence becomes available. But you didn't answer my question, at all! If there is no evidence for any of it, and when examining the actual detailed claim (because the bible does go into it in detail), what part of that story (the Exodus) IS actually true? Are you able to tell me?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes. I see it as dishonest. To profess something as true, you must be able to justify it in some way. What does it mean to "know" something? Mere certainty isn't the only criteria. This is evident without even leaving the realm of Abrahamic religions, as there are Muslims as certain of Islam as you are of Christianity (and possibly even more-so). At least one of you have to be wrong (and both of you could be, but due to the mutual exclusivitiy, it's impossible for both of you to be right). Your entire first paragraph is an utter fucking train wreck here. If you don't know something...well, you don't know it. Ken Ham doesn't know how the Earth came about. He is certain that he does, but he doesn't, because he is unable to demonstrate this. It's also hilarious that you disagree with him (given your allowance, and even your insistence, that the Earth is at least a few million years old). I hate quoting prominent atheists at risk of making an argument for authority, but I fully agree with Aronra on this, and I like the way he phrases it because he possesses an ability for brevity I seldom have. "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Simple and true. 

I can't show you my grandfathers ability to make a really great spaghetti sauce because he's not capable of doing it anymore... that doesn't mean I don't know that he had the ability.  It was there in the past just as these events were... I cannot demonstrate an event that cannot be repeatable, but non-repeatable events do exist and have existed many times in the past... I cannot demonstrate anything that is beyond my ability... but just becuase I cannot demonstrate it doesn't mean it's not possible.  Unless of course you think I am the most powerful person in the world..  I guess I'll take that as a comliment then... thank you...

[sarcasm above, no I don't think you believe that about me just in case you were going to try to tangent with that]

You're comparing an ordinary claim with some evidence (I've experienced some top notch spaghetti sauce in my day made by humans, myself included), to an extraordinary claim with no evidence. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

By that logic, there should be nothing left of the Hindu Vedas either, yet there is. You assertion that it must be reliable because it continues to exist necessitates that one of the following 2 statements regarding the Vedas are true. 

1. There are no copies left in circulation (not true), or

2. The Vedas are just as true as the bible, if not more-so (as they have survived a few centuries longer than the old testament thus far). 

You must now see how bad this argument you just made was...right?

yes I do... I shouldn't have made the claim that there would be no copies left.. what I should have said is that it wouldn't be distributed to this day at the volume that it is.

Your claim hardly changes. You still imply that the truth of it is what allows it to be distributed in such high volumes. This same high volume distribution is also true of the Quran. Also, there are still 1.1 billion Hindus on earth, and you have to think that the Hindu holy texts have something to do with it. A large number of copies in circulation (some for longer than any part of your book) would be required too. So is Hinduism true as well?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

So maybe the exageeration was, a flood happened in one town, and 3 people drowned, and it got inflated into everyone drowned but 8 people who built a giant floating fucking zoo. If you leave room for embellishment, you must explain how much is reasonable. 

Yes. And since the scriptures are internally contradictory in places, it's impossible for all to be true. 

the magnitude would have to be still much larger than your scenario above... and of all who have tried to point out contradictions in scripture, all have failed... So far all the alleged contradictions have been miscomprehensions of the scripture either based on an English rendering of the original language that is sub-par and/or taken out of context... which means they didn't do their homework before making a claim. 

Wrong, and wrong. You refuse to discuss the magnitude in any detail, because you're afraid of being proven wrong. You know damn well that (as I've pointed out), the more vague you leave a claim, the more impossible it is to argue it (and not because it's a valid claim). It's called unfalsifiability. It's where you like to keep your claims. 

You do the same thing with the bible contradictions. You chalk it up to misunderstanding, even though I have read the translations you have suggested, and even translations into another language in which I'm fluent (since different languages may be more effective at explaining concepts than others). Your answer in another thread to god being seen is wholly unsatisfactory to me, and anyone who has paid attention to that issue (whether it's in me posting it, or elsewhere). It says it in plain English, or Polish, and it almost certainly would say just that in plain Hebrew, and Greek (the latter in the case of the gospels). You chalk it up to mistranslation, because it allows the issue to become vague and murky, even though the language in every translation is extremely concise. You think that all translations got it that wrong?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria when the bible claimed he was. That is 100% an event that the bible claims happened, when we know it didn't. So even in your distorted idea of standards of evidence (the bible claim shall stand as true unless you can prove exactly what time and place the bible was referring to, and show that something else happened in place of the events of the biblical claims, which is an impossible standard of evidence to begin with, and one which you yourself wouldn't ever grant to the Qu'ran or the aforementioned Vedas, meaning you are engaging in special pleading)....even with your distorted standards of evidence and burden of proof, the bible's account is 100% inconsistent with historical records regarding who was in charge of that place at the time. 

was he governor when the story claiming it was written?  Please reference the place too so I can cross reference..

I don't have time tonight. Just quote this here and I'll get to it another day. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Gibberish. I don't know what you are getting at. 

just because you don't understand what I'm getting at doesn't make it gibberish... it just might be beyond your understanding.  The Bible is compiled through contextual evidence.  Each story is connected to another in some way or another or it wouldn't be there.  The connection is based on direct referencing and indirect referencing within each story.  There is a laundry list of evidences that need to be examined in order to determine its authenticity in scripture.  This starts with any reference to any persons in another authenticated book... From there, the accuracy of historical understanding is taken into consideration compared to the authenticated story and or events.  The list goes on. 

No. I'm saying that your post makes no sense in any context whatsoever. The only reason it's beyond my understanding is because it's too imprecisely worded for me to understand it. 

Even when you've elaborated, it still makes little sense. As far as every story being connected to another....really? Does any other part of the bible reference Lot getting down with his daughters? Does the bible mention more than once all of the graves of Jerusalem opening up upon the execution of Jesus? Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not actually checking this. I'm just fairly sure. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I would read more than one paragraph, which seems to be what you do (and if I don't understand a word, I would look it up too! Novel concept, eh?...oops my Canadian is showing)

This is one of them. My hobby right now is desensitizing myself to how much cognitive dissonance people who aren't me can actually put up with. It might help my sanity if I ever meet someone like you in person. 

your assumption is based on ignorance of what you posted as exampled earlier in this post.  Ignoring a key word in a statement does not justify your comprehension of truth. 

It'd be fun to meet you in person.  I'd hope that we could sit down to a beer and enjoy each others company. 

What?

And no. I have to be blunt, I don't think that would be very enjoyable. I'm not saying this to be a dick either. I think it would be frustrating. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Q is an (justifiably) assumed shared source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke. The gospels of Matthew and Luke are in the bible. The bible is not evidence. It is a claim. So why is the default position that a source for the claim was historic in nature, and it is up to me to prove otherwise? Also, since the assumed Q verses (which, as you know, are verses that exist in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark) mostly (if not exclusively) consisted of "sayings of Jesus" not descriptions of what he actually did, or about his life, it stands to reason that it almost certainly wasn't written by a historian. Historians don't tend to have careers as historians if their entire writings consist of "shit this one guy said". 

you're the one making the claim so of coures if you're absolutely sure a historian didn't write the events, then you must know all the sources that the Bible writers used to compile their manuscripts... either that or your'e just making an assertion.  Q is an assumed shared source... what is not assumed is that there is another unknown source that the books used becuase there are identical claims that are not in the writing style of either author.

The Bible when comprehended for what it is does apply as a peice of evidence.  Remember it's not one book and it was not written by a group of friends over coffee. 

Once again, you are making a ridiculous shifting of the burden of proof. Did you read what I said? Historians do NOT write in the style that the non-Mark derived common verses between Matthew and Luke (the Q source verses some would say) were written. That is about as certain as one could be. No historians. Do I need more evidence for any reason? 

The bolded part is absurd as hell, as usual. You have basically said "Q is an assumed shared source... what is not assumed is that there is another unknown source (known as Q) that the books used....."

Q is not a person in history. Q is simply the label attached to this source. It stands for Quelle, German for source. Also, it's not writing style that is the issue. It's that verses in Matthew and Luke that were similar, but not derived from Mark were examined. It was found that they were typically sayings of Jesus, and some of them were very very close to being word for word.  This suggests that there was a shared source, known as Q. 

Once again, I must ask: Do you research ANYTHING before you actually post?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Why be specific if you don't know? I know it's sort of what religious people do (like your constant claims of certainty about things you can't possibly demonstrate), but it just makes it more fishy that way, no?

dont' know what exactly?  with things that are not known, we need to look at what is known... about the writing itself... because that was the topic in this particular part... are you suggesting I don't know how the bible was compiled and the reasonings for certain methods of translatino?  I woudl questino your knowledge on this topic. 

I was referring to whoever wrote it knowing, not you. Why would they make a specific claim when they actually don't know? There is very specific content of god being seen, and then later saying that from a certain point forth, no such thing will be possible again. Why not say "Moses went to hear god again" and provide nothing further? Why go so far as saying that Moses spoke to god face to face like a man speaks to another man, if they don't know? Why write later that god shortly after put a permanent ban on that in the future? This is why it's fishy. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

My question was a challenge to show me where. Your response is an evasion of that challenge, meaning you can't actually demonstrate the accuracy of your assertion. 

I'm not going to repaste the majority of your posts..  I have directly addressed those parts in the posts in question. 

No you didn't. We're going to get nowhere here, so we can probably ignore this part and let it stand on its own. 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Well, you

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, you tell me, then. If you're a dictator, what is more effective; Happy slaves or unhappy slaves? If you offer a reward for good work, people are more likely to do it. If your reward is imaginary (but they don't know that), you're better off still, no? If you have police watching, and killing all dissenters, that's great for you. If you can convince them that they're being watched around the clock (whether they are, or not) then you're better off as well. These are all ideas that religion can implant in your head. Once again, if you can say that Christianity is huge because it's true (and by extension, people were compelled to copy bibles because of that) then you must claim the same for Islam as well. I know that wasn't your argument. You asked why copy something on a large scale if it holds no truth. The Quran, in your estimation, holds corrupted truth and lies. Why copy either? The Quran wouldn't have survived either if it wasn't copied en masse constantly since its existence. Considering it was long after the Quran was first written that any method of copying other than manually was available, then you would have to say that it is also true if you want to keep using that same argument for the bible. Otherwise, it is....wait for it....special pleading (a concept you seem to fail to understand).

the difference between the Quran and the Bible is you have one book copied several times that started around 600 A.D.  and then you have a book that holds 66 separate books, compiled over the span of 1500 or so years each respectively copied and compiled a number of times that far exceeds that of the single book...  the second book's earliest writings predate the first books writings by thousands of years and not only that, but the first book was compiled using the second book as a resource.   which one seems to hold more credibility just from that information?

Jabberwocky wrote:

And there is no evidence for them. That's not an excuse, that's a fact. There is no evidence for the Exodus, hence it shouldn't be believed until evidence becomes available. But you didn't answer my question, at all! If there is no evidence for any of it, and when examining the actual detailed claim (because the bible does go into it in detail), what part of that story (the Exodus) IS actually true? Are you able to tell me?

based on your link, it's not evidence that lacks, it's the proportions thereof.  so what link do you have that further discusses that there is no reason to consider the Exodus as something that could have possibily had a place in history?

You ask me what part of Exodus is true, I would say all of it.  You say prove it, I ask what you're looking for... You say you want written documentation of the events that take place... I hand you a Bible, you say not credible... we're back to square one again.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

You're comparing an ordinary claim with some evidence (I've experienced some top notch spaghetti sauce in my day made by humans, myself included), to an extraordinary claim with no evidence. 

but the point is not everyone can make a top notch spaghetti sauce.  Are you suggesting that because you've experienced top notch spaghetti made by humans that you accept the claim that my grandfather could at one time make top notch spaghetti sauce?  How is that rational? 

This compared to an extraordinary claim with no evidence... just like my grandfather's ability... I have no evidence other than those others who have experienced it themselves.  I am not making a claim that humans are capable of making incredible spaghetti sauce, I'm claiming a specific person had at one time that capabilty.  Why do you see a difference?  becuase you experienced a human capability that equals it?  that is nonsense. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your claim hardly changes. You still imply that the truth of it is what allows it to be distributed in such high volumes. This same high volume distribution is also true of the Quran. Also, there are still 1.1 billion Hindus on earth, and you have to think that the Hindu holy texts have something to do with it. A large number of copies in circulation (some for longer than any part of your book) would be required too. So is Hinduism true as well?

The Bible has been documented to be the best selling book of all time exceeding the distributution of the Quran and book of Mormon which also are considered top sellers... exact numbers cannot be pinnned down but it's understood that the Bible is the only book that has ever sold Billions. 

We've talked about the truth of certain religions, they all have peices of their truth... the debate of credibility goes into a long tangent of comparison discussions. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Wrong, and wrong. You refuse to discuss the magnitude in any detail, because you're afraid of being proven wrong. You know damn well that (as I've pointed out), the more vague you leave a claim, the more impossible it is to argue it (and not because it's a valid claim). It's called unfalsifiability. It's where you like to keep your claims. 

or I just don't have the information... and no not wrong.. please do point the contradictions out... I'd love for you to finally reveil the mysterious contradictions that no one can seem to find.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You do the same thing with the bible contradictions. You chalk it up to misunderstanding, even though I have read the translations you have suggested, and even translations into another language in which I'm fluent (since different languages may be more effective at explaining concepts than others). Your answer in another thread to god being seen is wholly unsatisfactory to me, and anyone who has paid attention to that issue (whether it's in me posting it, or elsewhere). It says it in plain English, or Polish, and it almost certainly would say just that in plain Hebrew, and Greek (the latter in the case of the gospels). You chalk it up to mistranslation, because it allows the issue to become vague and murky, even though the language in every translation is extremely concise. You think that all translations got it that wrong?

show me how I was wrong.  Please use the Hebrew in your explanation as well as specific Bible references, that way I can double check my work. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Quote:

was he governor when the story claiming it was written?  Please reference the place too so I can cross reference..

I don't have time tonight. Just quote this here and I'll get to it another day. 

jabberwocky wrote:

Even when you've elaborated, it still makes little sense. As far as every story being connected to another....really? Does any other part of the bible reference Lot getting down with his daughters? Does the bible mention more than once all of the graves of Jerusalem opening up upon the execution of Jesus? Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not actually checking this. I'm just fairly sure. 

One gospel claims that graves opened up at Jesus' death... is that the point of the story?  Also, considering that several times throughout the Bible claims of the dead rising has happened, why would that be so incredible? 

I think there's one story that talks about Lot... there's a reason why there are several books... each has its own story.  Not to be repeated by others.  Why put two identical books into the compilation?  it's why we have so many English translations. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

And no. I have to be blunt, I don't think that would be very enjoyable. I'm not saying this to be a dick either. I think it would be frustrating. 

that's a shame... if we met in person, it doesn't mean we'd have to discuss religion... There are many other topics to discuss, like sports or other hobbies, you know, things that aren't so controversial... we can avoid the political route as well. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I was referring to whoever wrote it knowing, not you. Why would they make a specific claim when they actually don't know? There is very specific content of god being seen, and then later saying that from a certain point forth, no such thing will be possible again. Why not say "Moses went to hear god again" and provide nothing further? Why go so far as saying that Moses spoke to god face to face like a man speaks to another man, if they don't know? Why write later that god shortly after put a permanent ban on that in the future? This is why it's fishy. 

because Moses went up the mountain and came back glowing with Glory.  From their perspective, they must have been face to face.  They likely didn't undrestand that no one can see God and live. 

Point and case, no one has been witnessed looking at God and surviving, why would we assume any different here?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia

I am not going to quote & paste the previous post (912) but please use it has a reference. You are separating the Quran from the bible has if it were two different books, while at the same time pointing out (accurately) the many rewrites and reedits that both have gone through. They are NOT separate, the Quran is an update of the Christian bible; so says the prophet, and according to Muslims "The last prophet". Add in a few other existing writings and common-law customs and you have the Quran. There is very little of the Quran that was new or original even in the early 7th century.

Has for being the BEST selling book in History; I dispute that. It is the most PRINTED book in history, followed by the Quran. The Gideon Society alone prints millions of bibles, in their own printing shop, each year and they sell exactly ZERO!!!!! They're handed out free. Other bible society's do the same: has do Quran printers and their society's. Very few bibles or Qurans are actually bought & sold. Without the free handouts the sales numbers wouldn't change much.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:show me how I

caposkia wrote:

show me how I was wrong.  Please use the Hebrew in your explanation as well as specific Bible references, that way I can double check my work. 

Wow, all I asked for was a link and you demand that jabberwocky learns hebrew... your intellectual dishonesty stretches to even more ammazing levels.

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:caposkia

Beyond Saving wrote:

caposkia wrote:

show me how I was wrong.  Please use the Hebrew in your explanation as well as specific Bible references, that way I can double check my work. 

Wow, all I asked for was a link and you demand that jabberwocky learns hebrew... your intellectual dishonesty stretches to even more ammazing levels.

 

 

 

Of course. This is basically the Sye Ten Bruggencate defense without resorting to the brain in a vat argument. It just says "unless you are 100% certain, you can't know". For Cap's position to be valid, he would have to demonstrate that both the English AND Polish translations (which corroborate one another...you'll just have to take me at my word there) 

Biblia tysiąclecia wrote:

A Pan rozmawiał z Mojżeszem twarzą w twarz, jak się rozmawia z przyjacielem.

(and/but) (mr./the lord) spoke to Moses face (in/to) face, like (się rozmawia = one speaks) to a friend (Polish doesn't use articles like "a, an, the"....aside from this, everything is word for word, with multiple definitions/contexts in brackets). 

You yourself said that you studied Hebrew Cap, did you not? Why don't you provide me with a good translation of Exodus 11? Does it imply what I say it does? Or does it not?

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


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, you tell me, then. If you're a dictator, what is more effective; Happy slaves or unhappy slaves? If you offer a reward for good work, people are more likely to do it. If your reward is imaginary (but they don't know that), you're better off still, no? If you have police watching, and killing all dissenters, that's great for you. If you can convince them that they're being watched around the clock (whether they are, or not) then you're better off as well. These are all ideas that religion can implant in your head. Once again, if you can say that Christianity is huge because it's true (and by extension, people were compelled to copy bibles because of that) then you must claim the same for Islam as well. I know that wasn't your argument. You asked why copy something on a large scale if it holds no truth. The Quran, in your estimation, holds corrupted truth and lies. Why copy either? The Quran wouldn't have survived either if it wasn't copied en masse constantly since its existence. Considering it was long after the Quran was first written that any method of copying other than manually was available, then you would have to say that it is also true if you want to keep using that same argument for the bible. Otherwise, it is....wait for it....special pleading (a concept you seem to fail to understand).

the difference between the Quran and the Bible is you have one book copied several times that started around 600 A.D.  and then you have a book that holds 66 separate books, compiled over the span of 1500 or so years each respectively copied and compiled a number of times that far exceeds that of the single book...  the second book's earliest writings predate the first books writings by thousands of years and not only that, but the first book was compiled using the second book as a resource.   which one seems to hold more credibility just from that information?

Doesn't matter. Your question was "why copy something if it holds no truth". I answered you. I know the difference between the Quran and the bible. It has no bearing on the discussion that we were having. If your argument is that the books were copied individually in large volumes before compiled into one biblibcal canon, well then what of the ones that were copied in large numbers and didn't make it? The council of Nicaea compiled this basically by figuring out which books were read most frequently by priests. It boiled down to which ones they liked. So are you saying that there is also that much truth in the gospel of Thomas? The gospel of Judas? If so, why weren't they included? 

Also, the bible wasn't compiled over 1500 years. It was closer to 1000. From 800BCE to the first council of Nicaea in 325CE, you have 1125 years. Not a big deal, but it's good to have your information straight. 

As far as answering your question of "Which one seems to hold more credibility just from that information?" my answer is neither. The Hindu scriptures were fractured in the same way as Christian ones were before the bible was codified. Does that mean that they, too, hold a truth that important? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

And there is no evidence for them. That's not an excuse, that's a fact. There is no evidence for the Exodus, hence it shouldn't be believed until evidence becomes available. But you didn't answer my question, at all! If there is no evidence for any of it, and when examining the actual detailed claim (because the bible does go into it in detail), what part of that story (the Exodus) IS actually true? Are you able to tell me?

based on your link, it's not evidence that lacks, it's the proportions thereof.  so what link do you have that further discusses that there is no reason to consider the Exodus as something that could have possibily had a place in history?

You ask me what part of Exodus is true, I would say all of it.  You say prove it, I ask what you're looking for... You say you want written documentation of the events that take place... I hand you a Bible, you say not credible... we're back to square one again.  

Carefully see what I bolded in quoting you. If all of it is true, the proportions have to be accurate as well. There is no evidence for such an event, and something of that massive scale would have left archaeological evidence. So, is all of Exodus true in your opinion, or is all of Exodus true except for perhaps the proportions? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You're comparing an ordinary claim with some evidence (I've experienced some top notch spaghetti sauce in my day made by humans, myself included), to an extraordinary claim with no evidence. 

but the point is not everyone can make a top notch spaghetti sauce.  Are you suggesting that because you've experienced top notch spaghetti made by humans that you accept the claim that my grandfather could at one time make top notch spaghetti sauce?  How is that rational? 

This compared to an extraordinary claim with no evidence... just like my grandfather's ability... I have no evidence other than those others who have experienced it themselves.  I am not making a claim that humans are capable of making incredible spaghetti sauce, I'm claiming a specific person had at one time that capabilty.  Why do you see a difference?  becuase you experienced a human capability that equals it?  that is nonsense. 

I don't accept or reject the claim. I am willing to accept it, because it is a reasonable claim to make about a human being. You could be deliberatetly misleading me, and the only risk I take in accepting it if you are, is that I am misinformed about your grandfather's ability to make spaghetti sauce. Such things don't matter to me at all. If you ARE misleading me, I don't feel it problematic either, as it says more about you than it does about me. I tend to take peoples' word for things in general unless there is a risk to doing so. If I find you mislead me on all sorts of things (not related to the bible and Christianity, where I think you are more misleading yourself than me), then I cease trusting your word at all....and that second paragraph...it is an extraordinary claim to say that your grandfather made great spaghetti sauce? Right....

The whole thing here is that we are speaking of things that would leave physical evidence behind. Your grandfather's spaghetti sauce wouldn't, unless samples were frozen (and freezing could compromise the quality I suppose as well). The Exodus would, as would many other biblical stories (like that flood we're discussing elsewhere). Your god would know that rationalists who base what they accept as true on evidence would exist. He would know that leaving such evidence would convert them. So, did the Exodus not happen, or did God wipe the evidence so that people like myself would burn in hell? 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Your claim hardly changes. You still imply that the truth of it is what allows it to be distributed in such high volumes. This same high volume distribution is also true of the Quran. Also, there are still 1.1 billion Hindus on earth, and you have to think that the Hindu holy texts have something to do with it. A large number of copies in circulation (some for longer than any part of your book) would be required too. So is Hinduism true as well?

The Bible has been documented to be the best selling book of all time exceeding the distributution of the Quran and book of Mormon which also are considered top sellers... exact numbers cannot be pinnned down but it's understood that the Bible is the only book that has ever sold Billions. 

We've talked about the truth of certain religions, they all have peices of their truth... the debate of credibility goes into a long tangent of comparison discussions. 

As mentioned...not sold. Distributed. Gideons gives away fucktons for free every year. Even if it were true, an argument from popularity is not a good argument either. There is a lot of popular music that I don't like. It doesn't mean I'm wrong. The bible is popular. That is all. 

And no, religions do not have any truth in them, I'm sorry. Unless there is a religion that is based only upon evidence (depending on the definition of religion, that may be impossible) it just can't have any truth in it. There can be parts of the bible that are correct. However, the method by which the claims in the bible were made, and the conclusions in the bible were reached, are not based on evidence. As I said, if you can't demonstrate it, you can't know it. You countered with that ridiculous spaghetti thing. As I said, that claim can be deemed plausible, because people make good spaghetti sauce, and your grandfather was a person. People rising from their graves (during Jesus' alleged crucifixion for example) is something that we DON'T see. There is no precedent, and that claim is not plausible, because the mechanics of it include things that are impossible. As a hilarious picture I once saw said, "The good news Bible: Citations needed"

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Wrong, and wrong. You refuse to discuss the magnitude in any detail, because you're afraid of being proven wrong. You know damn well that (as I've pointed out), the more vague you leave a claim, the more impossible it is to argue it (and not because it's a valid claim). It's called unfalsifiability. It's where you like to keep your claims. 

or I just don't have the information... and no not wrong.. please do point the contradictions out... I'd love for you to finally reveil the mysterious contradictions that no one can seem to find.

Yes, but you said that the magnitude (of the flood) would have to have been bigger. It's true that it would have to have been bigger for the Genesis flood to actually be true. It wouldn't have to be bigger for someone to write (or concoct, before writing was a thing) a story about it that ended up being the Genesis flood story though. 

Exodus 33:11...as I'll discuss below. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You do the same thing with the bible contradictions. You chalk it up to misunderstanding, even though I have read the translations you have suggested, and even translations into another language in which I'm fluent (since different languages may be more effective at explaining concepts than others). Your answer in another thread to god being seen is wholly unsatisfactory to me, and anyone who has paid attention to that issue (whether it's in me posting it, or elsewhere). It says it in plain English, or Polish, and it almost certainly would say just that in plain Hebrew, and Greek (the latter in the case of the gospels). You chalk it up to mistranslation, because it allows the issue to become vague and murky, even though the language in every translation is extremely concise. You think that all translations got it that wrong?

show me how I was wrong.  Please use the Hebrew in your explanation as well as specific Bible references, that way I can double check my work. 

No. I showed you the two languages I do know. You claim to have studied Hebrew. Explain to me where I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting. To demand I learn Hebrew (as another poster mentioned) is preposterous.

You get more ridiculous on this point below. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

was he governor when the story claiming it was written?  Please reference the place too so I can cross reference..

I don't have time tonight. Just quote this here and I'll get to it another day. 

I'll still get to this. Maybe in a month though. Busy times. 

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Even when you've elaborated, it still makes little sense. As far as every story being connected to another....really? Does any other part of the bible reference Lot getting down with his daughters? Does the bible mention more than once all of the graves of Jerusalem opening up upon the execution of Jesus? Correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not actually checking this. I'm just fairly sure. 

One gospel claims that graves opened up at Jesus' death... is that the point of the story?  Also, considering that several times throughout the Bible claims of the dead rising has happened, why would that be so incredible? 

I think there's one story that talks about Lot... there's a reason why there are several books... each has its own story.  Not to be repeated by others.  Why put two identical books into the compilation?  it's why we have so many English translations. 

You said everything in the bible is connected and references other events. What does that verse have to do with anything is my question? I didn't ask if that was the point of the story. The dead rising thing is incredible because in that time and place, ONLY the bible makes those claims (And perhaps other Christian texts from the time that didn't make the canon). Are you suggesting that becuase the bible says more than one time that people rose from the dead, that it's indeed a mundane occurrence? That's fucking stupid. If it happened all the time, sure that would be mundane. However, it happens....well, never from what we can gather. You just tried to use the bible's reality to tell me that "oh people rising from the dead en masse....no big deal. Happened ALL The time back then in fact!" 

Yes, there's one story that talks about Lot. But you said all the stories get referenced all the time. I never heard more about that story. Hence your claim is invalid.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

And no. I have to be blunt, I don't think that would be very enjoyable. I'm not saying this to be a dick either. I think it would be frustrating. 

that's a shame... if we met in person, it doesn't mean we'd have to discuss religion... There are many other topics to discuss, like sports or other hobbies, you know, things that aren't so controversial... we can avoid the political route as well. 

You sound too irrational in general, honestly.

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I was referring to whoever wrote it knowing, not you. Why would they make a specific claim when they actually don't know? There is very specific content of god being seen, and then later saying that from a certain point forth, no such thing will be possible again. Why not say "Moses went to hear god again" and provide nothing further? Why go so far as saying that Moses spoke to god face to face like a man speaks to another man, if they don't know? Why write later that god shortly after put a permanent ban on that in the future? This is why it's fishy. 

because Moses went up the mountain and came back glowing with Glory.  From their perspective, they must have been face to face.  They likely didn't undrestand that no one can see God and live. 

Point and case, no one has been witnessed looking at God and surviving, why would we assume any different here?

As I asked, why clarify the point later in the same chapter that god was able to be seen up until that point, but can no longer? Why was that even included? Why be that specific about something for which you have no details? Also, has anyone witnessed someone looking at god and NOT surviving? Is that sort of a story included anywhere? 

This entire post also shows your dishonesty (and irrationality) in general. Why go on about translations, and asking me to learn Hebrew if my entire point didn't even matter? Here, you are implying that the people writing down the details got them wrong. So now you accept that the bible has incorrect details. However, then you also say that it's all true and there are no contradictions. This particular post by you contradicts itself very specifically, and you didn't even notice. So now, you're saying that you somehow know that a voluminous religious text is all consistent throughout internally? Give me a break! 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:
I am not going to quote & paste the previous post (912) but please use it has a reference. You are separating the Quran from the bible has if it were two different books, while at the same time pointing out (accurately) the many rewrites and reedits that both have gone through. They are NOT separate, the Quran is an update of the Christian bible; so says the prophet, and according to Muslims "The last prophet". Add in a few other existing writings and common-law customs and you have the Quran. There is very little of the Quran that was new or original even in the early 7th century. Has for being the BEST selling book in History; I dispute that. It is the most PRINTED book in history, followed by the Quran. The Gideon Society alone prints millions of bibles, in their own printing shop, each year and they sell exactly ZERO!!!!! They're handed out free. Other bible society's do the same: has do Quran printers and their society's. Very few bibles or Qurans are actually bought & sold. Without the free handouts the sales numbers wouldn't change much.

The Quran used the Bible as a source and based the following off the beginning.  As far as the sales, Churches and most other entities that hand out Bibles buy them first... very few entities that give out free Bibles actually print their own. 

The Quran has many many differences including as you pointed out a reference to the last true prophet... except that that last true prophet claimed to be the Son of God according to the Bible... that is contradictory to the teachings of the Quran.  The Bible teaches to love your enemy and the Quran teaches to cut them down.  One can argue that the teachings are a little more parallel, but in a contextual study of each, the differences are vast.  It's just that the author of the Quran grew up with Jewish text... and just like the Jews, tangents quite drastically when the NT comes into play. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote: Of

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Of course. This is basically the Sye Ten Bruggencate defense without resorting to the brain in a vat argument. It just says "unless you are 100% certain, you can't know". For Cap's position to be valid, he would have to demonstrate that both the English AND Polish translations (which corroborate one another...you'll just have to take me at my word there) 

Biblia tysiąclecia wrote:

A Pan rozmawiał z Mojżeszem twarzą w twarz, jak się rozmawia z przyjacielem.

(and/but) (mr./the lord) spoke to Moses face (in/to) face, like (się rozmawia = one speaks) to a friend (Polish doesn't use articles like "a, an, the"....aside from this, everything is word for word, with multiple definitions/contexts in brackets). 

You yourself said that you studied Hebrew Cap, did you not? Why don't you provide me with a good translation of Exodus 11? Does it imply what I say it does? Or does it not?

I thought I had posted that already.

ואדבר ה 'אל משה פנים אל פנים , כמו שאתה מדבר עם חבר .

Alright, the above translation is the literal Hebrew translation of what we see the English and the Polish saying.  Below is the literal scriptural translation.    I'm sure i don't need to go into explanation and you can take my word for it that it says nearly the same thing.  The implication as said is that the author understands that God and Moses spoke face to face.  Again, what they know is that Moses would go up a mountain BY HIMSELF to talk to God.  How they actually spoke is up for speculation... the author can claim that they both spoke to each other while embraced in a hug and it's all still speculation because based on that same book, no one ever followed Moses up the mountain to witness the interaction.  All other scripture in the Bible indicates that they weren't likely actually looking at each other.  If they literally were face to face and Moses was allowed to stand in the presence of God Almighty [I highly doubt] then He could have kept his eyes closed or looked away so as to survive the ordeal.  Again, speculation only becasue no one was there to witness... Scripture is quite specific to indicate that one one has lived and seen the face of God. 

the other more likely possibility is that God appeared in a form kind of like the burning bush and Moses talked to God's manifestation, which then would not be looking directly at God, but could still be seen as talking face to face.  Kind of like metaskype. 

I swear though i already posted all of this...

 

 

 

  וְדִבֶּ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה אֶל־ מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־ פָּנִ֔ים כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יְדַבֵּ֥ר אִ֖ישׁ אֶל־ רֵעֵ֑הוּ וְשָׁב֙


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Doesn't

Jabberwocky wrote:

Doesn't matter. Your question was "why copy something if it holds no truth". I answered you. I know the difference between the Quran and the bible. It has no bearing on the discussion that we were having. If your argument is that the books were copied individually in large volumes before compiled into one biblibcal canon, well then what of the ones that were copied in large numbers and didn't make it? The council of Nicaea compiled this basically by figuring out which books were read most frequently by priests. It boiled down to which ones they liked. So are you saying that there is also that much truth in the gospel of Thomas? The gospel of Judas? If so, why weren't they included? 

it doesn't matter... hahehheh... alright dude. 

I'd love to see the comparison to voulme of copies.  the ones that didn't make it and/or aren't in there now have many factors and reasons beyond "they didn't like them" for not being included in the compiled book we call the Bible.  Gospel of Judas for example has major questions of authenticity and they have found indications that the book was not likely written by the Judas we know from the Bible if it was written by a Judas at all.  There was a whole documentary on that book... I think it it was Nat Geo or NOVA. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Also, the bible wasn't compiled over 1500 years. It was closer to 1000. From 800BCE to the first council of Nicaea in 325CE, you have 1125 years. Not a big deal, but it's good to have your information straight. 

I'm pretty sure the 1500 years reference isn't just referring to the compilation, but literally the span of authorship and documentation.

Jabberwocky wrote:

As far as answering your question of "Which one seems to hold more credibility just from that information?" my answer is neither. The Hindu scriptures were fractured in the same way as Christian ones were before the bible was codified. Does that mean that they, too, hold a truth that important? 

So they're equally credible.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Carefully see what I bolded in quoting you. If all of it is true, the proportions have to be accurate as well. There is no evidence for such an event, and something of that massive scale would have left archaeological evidence. So, is all of Exodus true in your opinion, or is all of Exodus true except for perhaps the proportions?

how does an inflated number by one portrayal of the story that stuck eliminate the possibility of its truth?    The proportions do not have to be accurate for it to be true just as seen in many many instances throughout history.  News broadcasts do that today, they may later correct themselves, but it doens't make the story they reported any less true... or more false for that matter. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't accept or reject the claim. I am willing to accept it, because it is a reasonable claim to make about a human being. You could be deliberatetly misleading me, and the only risk I take in accepting it if you are, is that I am misinformed about your grandfather's ability to make spaghetti sauce. Such things don't matter to me at all. If you ARE misleading me, I don't feel it problematic either, as it says more about you than it does about me. I tend to take peoples' word for things in general unless there is a risk to doing so. If I find you mislead me on all sorts of things (not related to the bible and Christianity, where I think you are more misleading yourself than me), then I cease trusting your word at all....and that second paragraph...it is an extraordinary claim to say that your grandfather made great spaghetti sauce? Right....

The whole thing here is that we are speaking of things that would leave physical evidence behind. Your grandfather's spaghetti sauce wouldn't, unless samples were frozen (and freezing could compromise the quality I suppose as well). The Exodus would, as would many other biblical stories (like that flood we're discussing elsewhere). Your god would know that rationalists who base what they accept as true on evidence would exist. He would know that leaving such evidence would convert them. So, did the Exodus not happen, or did God wipe the evidence so that people like myself would burn in hell? 

I'm curious, based on your post here, what would you say the risk is of accepting the Bible as true?

To answer your second part... it is very possible that God could have errased the evidence of the event... it wouldn't be necessarily the first time of such an occurance.  is it so that you can burn in hell?  of course not... that's a very ignorant perspective of damnation anyway, but that's for another thread. 

The Almighty doesn't want people to "beleive in' Him... he wants people to "know Him".   If you don't care to get to know Him, God doesn't care that you believe in His existence either.  Many followers have had these discussions with non-believers and it comes down to this.  That God could  right now if He really wanted to, do something that would make the whole world "believe" in His existence.  What would that do for the following?  Would He gain more followers?  Probably,   but would the majority He gained from that act be faithful?  probably not, there would be fear followers, blind followers, radical followers, etc... granted smaller portions of those exist already, but why magnify the problems?  why not build a following that actually appropriately represents the Kingdom of God?  That would be why God doesn't want to just allow people to "believe in" Him. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

As mentioned...not sold. Distributed. Gideons gives away fucktons for free every year. Even if it were true, an argument from popularity is not a good argument either. There is a lot of popular music that I don't like. It doesn't mean I'm wrong. The bible is popular. That is all. 

and as mention, most entities don't get the Bibles they freely handout for free... they have to purchase them from the manufacturer. 

popularity is usually based on appeal.. The bible isn't exactly written in a way that would appeal to the masses, it's a little too graphic and well, portrays a God that expects you to bend to His ideals and will not bend to yours.  Would you say that the music you don't like doesn't exist?  if so, then you are wrong, but if it still exists you have a right to not like it... you have a right to believe in the Truth of the Bible and also not like that.  But to deny the very truth of it is wrong. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

And no, religions do not have any truth in them, I'm sorry. Unless there is a religion that is based only upon evidence (depending on the definition of religion, that may be impossible) it just can't have any truth in it. There can be parts of the bible that are correct. However, the method by which the claims in the bible were made, and the conclusions in the bible were reached, are not based on evidence. As I said, if you can't demonstrate it, you can't know it. You countered with that ridiculous spaghetti thing. As I said, that claim can be deemed plausible, because people make good spaghetti sauce, and your grandfather was a person. People rising from their graves (during Jesus' alleged crucifixion for example) is something that we DON'T see. There is no precedent, and that claim is not plausible, because the mechanics of it include things that are impossible. As a hilarious picture I once saw said, "The good news Bible: Citations needed"

per your statement; "if you can't demonstrate it, you can't know it" most of life's experiences are not knowable.  that narrows down the knowable information only to the repeatable events, therefore all weather events, all emotions, all history, all personal actions unless claimed by the person doing them, experiences etc.  are not knowable.  Let's put that into the definition of omnicience.    Based on this understanding, to be omniscient, all one needs to know is those things that are repeatable... that makes omniscience much easier to achieve.   Just a reminder that the definition of omniscience is knowing everything that there is to know... anything that can't be known isn't and therefore does not apply to the definition... do you see the paradox here? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

show me how I was wrong.  Please use the Hebrew in your explanation as well as specific Bible references, that way I can double check my work. 

No. I showed you the two languages I do know. You claim to have studied Hebrew. Explain to me where I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting. To demand I learn Hebrew (as another poster mentioned) is preposterous.

I asked you to show me I was wrong, you said no.  I rest my case.

I have tried to explain to you where you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting... you seem to claim to know more than I... which means you must understand the Hebrew already and have a better comprehension of the original text. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

You said everything in the bible is connected and references other events. What does that verse have to do with anything is my question? I didn't ask if that was the point of the story. The dead rising thing is incredible because in that time and place, ONLY the bible makes those claims (And perhaps other Christian texts from the time that didn't make the canon). Are you suggesting that becuase the bible says more than one time that people rose from the dead, that it's indeed a mundane occurrence? That's fucking stupid. If it happened all the time, sure that would be mundane. However, it happens....well, never from what we can gather. You just tried to use the bible's reality to tell me that "oh people rising from the dead en masse....no big deal. Happened ALL The time back then in fact!" 

Yes, there's one story that talks about Lot. But you said all the stories get referenced all the time. I never heard more about that story. Hence your claim is invalid.

It's not commonplace for non-believers,.. the reason is because only the one True God has the ability to raise people from the dead... that is one of the sure signs that the Almighty God is the True God and/or that Jesus is truly the son of God. 

Jesus Himself raised several people from the dead before that event.  There are in fact eight occurances written in the current compilation of scripture referencing to someone raising from the dead.  those who knew the scriptures at the time woudl have been quite shocked to see the dead rise, but would have seen it as another sure fire sign that Jesus was in fact the true son of God.  Here's a link to all the references in scripture:

https://bible.org/illustration/accounts-people-raised-dead

Jabberwocky wrote:

You sound too irrational in general, honestly.

yea, i can't see a reasonable conversation coming out of this really.  I'm only irrational to you because of the topic at hand, as to which you find irrational.  You seem quite irrational to me as well, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't be a good person to hang out with.  A lot of my friends are non-believers... in fact, most of them are.  many of them have very irratinoal reasons for not believing, but I don't like them any less for it.. it's their choice.  I love them just the same.  They tend to not want to talk about it and that's fine with me.  You tend to want to talk about it, that's fine with me too.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

As I asked, why clarify the point later in the same chapter that god was able to be seen up until that point, but can no longer? Why was that even included? Why be that specific about something for which you have no details? Also, has anyone witnessed someone looking at god and NOT surviving? Is that sort of a story included anywhere? 

God was not able to be seen up to that point.  Ex. 33:20.  "you cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live." 

No one has been witnessed seeing God period.  at least, not living to tell about it.  I don't believe there is any witness of someone actually daring to look at God then dying.  The point of including the verses that it can't happen anymore is to point out that Moses and God had a very unique relationship and that no man from thereon out would have such a relatinoship wtih God. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

This entire post also shows your dishonesty (and irrationality) in general. Why go on about translations, and asking me to learn Hebrew if my entire point didn't even matter? Here, you are implying that the people writing down the details got them wrong. So now you accept that the bible has incorrect details. However, then you also say that it's all true and there are no contradictions. This particular post by you contradicts itself very specifically, and you didn't even notice. So now, you're saying that you somehow know that a voluminous religious text is all consistent throughout internally? Give me a break! 

of course it does, let's see why you think so,

I never asked you to learn Hebrew, I assumed you must know it already and better understand teh original scripture than I if you claim that I'm wrong... ti's really the only way you can honestly claim I'm wrong... otherwise you are lying.

inflated numbers and misdirected naming has nothing to do with contradictions or truth in the story itself.  you must take into considerationt he people who were writing the stories and waht they knew of their history... not a whole lot... considering their ignorance of history, why is it so far fetched that they'd misname soemthing and/or inflate a number beyond what could have actually been possible? 

Again, I ask of you to show me the contradictions.  I am willing to investigate them. 

so this post shows your irrationality... and maybe dishonesty if you actually understand what you're claiming and are trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.  it seems again we're back to square one. 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Of course. This is basically the Sye Ten Bruggencate defense without resorting to the brain in a vat argument. It just says "unless you are 100% certain, you can't know". For Cap's position to be valid, he would have to demonstrate that both the English AND Polish translations (which corroborate one another...you'll just have to take me at my word there) 

Biblia tysiąclecia wrote:

A Pan rozmawiał z Mojżeszem twarzą w twarz, jak się rozmawia z przyjacielem.

(and/but) (mr./the lord) spoke to Moses face (in/to) face, like (się rozmawia = one speaks) to a friend (Polish doesn't use articles like "a, an, the"....aside from this, everything is word for word, with multiple definitions/contexts in brackets). 

You yourself said that you studied Hebrew Cap, did you not? Why don't you provide me with a good translation of Exodus 11? Does it imply what I say it does? Or does it not?

I thought I had posted that already.

ואדבר ה 'אל משה פנים אל פנים , כמו שאתה מדבר עם חבר .

Alright, the above translation is the literal Hebrew translation of what we see the English and the Polish saying.  Below is the literal scriptural translation.    I'm sure i don't need to go into explanation and you can take my word for it that it says nearly the same thing.  The implication as said is that the author understands that God and Moses spoke face to face.  Again, what they know is that Moses would go up a mountain BY HIMSELF to talk to God.  How they actually spoke is up for speculation... the author can claim that they both spoke to each other while embraced in a hug and it's all still speculation because based on that same book, no one ever followed Moses up the mountain to witness the interaction.  All other scripture in the Bible indicates that they weren't likely actually looking at each other.  If they literally were face to face and Moses was allowed to stand in the presence of God Almighty [I highly doubt] then He could have kept his eyes closed or looked away so as to survive the ordeal.  Again, speculation only becasue no one was there to witness... Scripture is quite specific to indicate that one one has lived and seen the face of God. 

the other more likely possibility is that God appeared in a form kind of like the burning bush and Moses talked to God's manifestation, which then would not be looking directly at God, but could still be seen as talking face to face.  Kind of like metaskype. 

I swear though i already posted all of this...

 

 

 

  וְדִבֶּ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה אֶל־ מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־ פָּנִ֔ים כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יְדַבֵּ֥ר אִ֖ישׁ אֶל־ רֵעֵ֑הוּ וְשָׁב֙

So if you leave room for author error (which you admit here) and different "proportions" of events than described, then you can not say (as you have also said in your discussions with me) that the entire bible is true. You simply can't. Until you concede this point, we're done (...perhaps, hah!)

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Of course. This is basically the Sye Ten Bruggencate defense without resorting to the brain in a vat argument. It just says "unless you are 100% certain, you can't know". For Cap's position to be valid, he would have to demonstrate that both the English AND Polish translations (which corroborate one another...you'll just have to take me at my word there) 

Biblia tysiąclecia wrote:

A Pan rozmawiał z Mojżeszem twarzą w twarz, jak się rozmawia z przyjacielem.

(and/but) (mr./the lord) spoke to Moses face (in/to) face, like (się rozmawia = one speaks) to a friend (Polish doesn't use articles like "a, an, the"....aside from this, everything is word for word, with multiple definitions/contexts in brackets). 

You yourself said that you studied Hebrew Cap, did you not? Why don't you provide me with a good translation of Exodus 11? Does it imply what I say it does? Or does it not?

I thought I had posted that already.

ואדבר ה 'אל משה פנים אל פנים , כמו שאתה מדבר עם חבר .

Alright, the above translation is the literal Hebrew translation of what we see the English and the Polish saying.  Below is the literal scriptural translation.    I'm sure i don't need to go into explanation and you can take my word for it that it says nearly the same thing.  The implication as said is that the author understands that God and Moses spoke face to face.  Again, what they know is that Moses would go up a mountain BY HIMSELF to talk to God.  How they actually spoke is up for speculation... the author can claim that they both spoke to each other while embraced in a hug and it's all still speculation because based on that same book, no one ever followed Moses up the mountain to witness the interaction.  All other scripture in the Bible indicates that they weren't likely actually looking at each other.  If they literally were face to face and Moses was allowed to stand in the presence of God Almighty [I highly doubt] then He could have kept his eyes closed or looked away so as to survive the ordeal.  Again, speculation only becasue no one was there to witness... Scripture is quite specific to indicate that one one has lived and seen the face of God. 

the other more likely possibility is that God appeared in a form kind of like the burning bush and Moses talked to God's manifestation, which then would not be looking directly at God, but could still be seen as talking face to face.  Kind of like metaskype. 

I swear though i already posted all of this...

 

 

 

  וְדִבֶּ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה אֶל־ מֹשֶׁה֙ פָּנִ֣ים אֶל־ פָּנִ֔ים כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יְדַבֵּ֥ר אִ֖ישׁ אֶל־ רֵעֵ֑הוּ וְשָׁב֙

So if you leave room for author error (which you admit here) and different "proportions" of events than described, then you can not say (as you have also said in your discussions with me) that the entire bible is true. You simply can't. Until you concede this point, we're done (...perhaps, hah!)

error or speculation was admitted here? 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: error or

caposkia wrote:

 

error or speculation was admitted here? 

Error. You have said many times in the bounds of this discussion between us (can god be seen by someone, with the person who saw him surviving), that you believe it to be the case that it is impossible, based on (at least) 2 verses in the gospel of John. If you believe that, then for your position to be consistent, you must concede that the author of Exodus 33:11 speculated (in ERROR) that Moses spoke to god face to face, in a manner no different than one person speaks to another face to face. Therefore, your position allows for the bible to contain human error. At the same time, you have said at least once (probably many more times) that none of the bible is untrue. This position is logically inconsistent, and therefore impossible. You have to pick one. Until you are able to do that, then this topic is impossible to actually discuss with you. 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

error or speculation was admitted here? 

Error. You have said many times in the bounds of this discussion between us (can god be seen by someone, with the person who saw him surviving), that you believe it to be the case that it is impossible, based on (at least) 2 verses in the gospel of John. If you believe that, then for your position to be consistent, you must concede that the author of Exodus 33:11 speculated (in ERROR) that Moses spoke to god face to face, in a manner no different than one person speaks to another face to face. Therefore, your position allows for the bible to contain human error. At the same time, you have said at least once (probably many more times) that none of the bible is untrue. This position is logically inconsistent, and therefore impossible. You have to pick one. Until you are able to do that, then this topic is impossible to actually discuss with you. 

thank you for admitting your assertion that my claim of "error".. was in error and that it is in fact speculation.  the conclusion of any speculation actually alligning with fact is not necessarily based on fact.  


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

 

error or speculation was admitted here? 

Error. You have said many times in the bounds of this discussion between us (can god be seen by someone, with the person who saw him surviving), that you believe it to be the case that it is impossible, based on (at least) 2 verses in the gospel of John. If you believe that, then for your position to be consistent, you must concede that the author of Exodus 33:11 speculated (in ERROR) that Moses spoke to god face to face, in a manner no different than one person speaks to another face to face. Therefore, your position allows for the bible to contain human error. At the same time, you have said at least once (probably many more times) that none of the bible is untrue. This position is logically inconsistent, and therefore impossible. You have to pick one. Until you are able to do that, then this topic is impossible to actually discuss with you. 

thank you for admitting your assertion that my claim of "error".. was in error and that it is in fact speculation.  the conclusion of any speculation actually alligning with fact is not necessarily based on fact.  

You have answered the question "is the entire bible true?" with yes (essentially). 

You also assert that the "proportions" of things in the bible may be inaccurate, AND you admit that the writers didn't see everything, so could have gotten details wrong. 

 

These two things are mutually exclusive. It can't be both. Your response is absolute gibberish again. So answer this question just to make sure:

Did Moses speak to god face to face like one man speaks to another as written in Exodus 33:11, or is the bible incorrect about that particular detail?

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It really puzzles me that

It really puzzles me that someone can be shown to be absolutely wrong on a wide variety of subjects, yet keep returning to argue despite being thoroughly defeated. In the world entire it makes a bit more sense, as even today one can pick up their stuff and move to a place that never heard of them, or even simply stop associating with the group that so thoroughly defeated them.

But in this case we have someone who constantly runs into a wall at full speed in front of an audience that never changed, though became less tolerant as the years went by. Even the biggest attention whores eventually stop when the majority of the audience belittles and heckles them. Even the biggest liars stop running for politics once the voters laugh them out of office.

But caposkia remains. Proven wrong on hundreds of different topics and sub topics, with evidence and logic thrown at him over and over. None of it reaches him. He doesn't understand that repeating bullshit doesn't make it less bullshit. He hasn't grasped that he will never convert anyone here, and that he actually assists in converting his own against him. Even the religion he purports to support has accepted the realities that science has shown us, but he continues to wallow in ignorance.

He has no humility, no shame. His arrogance is well beyond that of any I've encountered. It is so powerful that it actually has taken over his thought processes. He is so full of himself he can no longer process information. It's like I would be if I actually believed my egotistical statements were accurate instead of humourous and inflamatory. He has no concept of the divide between reality and his imagination.

It both saddens and amuses me to know that he'll never know what a waste his life was. How he actually worked against his beliefs instead of for them.

Unless he's right and there is a god. In which case he'll be thrown in hell for consistently and willfully breaking the laws of his own god. He bears false witness and worships false idols on a nearly daily basis here. One wonders how many more he breaks in his peronal life.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:You have

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have answered the question "is the entire bible true?" with yes (essentially). 

You also assert that the "proportions" of things in the bible may be inaccurate, AND you admit that the writers didn't see everything, so could have gotten details wrong. 

 

These two things are mutually exclusive. It can't be both. Your response is absolute gibberish again. So answer this question just to make sure:

Did Moses speak to god face to face like one man speaks to another as written in Exodus 33:11, or is the bible incorrect about that particular detail?

The Entire Bible can be true when it comes to the stories as a whole... when nitpicking of course you're going to find small speculative errors.  why? it was written by people, so that is expected... does that invalidate the story?  of course not... Did MOses look at God?  likely not... but did Moses go up a mountain by himself into a stormcloud and talk directly to God... yes. 

You're basing the validation of the whole Bible on where someone was looking during a conversation. 

He claimed that the suspect looked at the ground before he attacked...  but he didn't see the suspect look, he was speculating... therefore the suspect never attacked the victim.  Does that make any sense?  This is what this sounds like to me. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It really

Vastet wrote:
It really puzzles me that someone can be shown to be absolutely wrong on a wide variety of subjects, yet keep returning to argue despite being thoroughly defeated. In the world entire it makes a bit more sense, as even today one can pick up their stuff and move to a place that never heard of them, or even simply stop associating with the group that so thoroughly defeated them. But in this case we have someone who constantly runs into a wall at full speed in front of an audience that never changed, though became less tolerant as the years went by. Even the biggest attention whores eventually stop when the majority of the audience belittles and heckles them. Even the biggest liars stop running for politics once the voters laugh them out of office. But caposkia remains. Proven wrong on hundreds of different topics and sub topics, with evidence and logic thrown at him over and over. None of it reaches him. He doesn't understand that repeating bullshit doesn't make it less bullshit. He hasn't grasped that he will never convert anyone here, and that he actually assists in converting his own against him. Even the religion he purports to support has accepted the realities that science has shown us, but he continues to wallow in ignorance. He has no humility, no shame. His arrogance is well beyond that of any I've encountered. It is so powerful that it actually has taken over his thought processes. He is so full of himself he can no longer process information. It's like I would be if I actually believed my egotistical statements were accurate instead of humourous and inflamatory. He has no concept of the divide between reality and his imagination. It both saddens and amuses me to know that he'll never know what a waste his life was. How he actually worked against his beliefs instead of for them. Unless he's right and there is a god. In which case he'll be thrown in hell for consistently and willfully breaking the laws of his own god. He bears false witness and worships false idols on a nearly daily basis here. One wonders how many more he breaks in his peronal life.

So... you claim I've been shown to be absolutely wrong on a wide variety of subjects... yet you felt compelled to explain to the audience these things that should be self evident if what you claim is actually fact.  Are you sure this post applies to me? 

beyond that, I'm more focused on a bigger concern... I am curious how you see that i Have:

1. Broken the laws of my God

2. Bore false witness

3. worshiped idols

on a daily basis here.  Please do explain that.  I am truly sorry if that's what you feel I've done, but I need to see the Bible references and explanation so that I may better understand my errors in these focuses.

As far as I can tell I've followed the laws and the Great Commisson on this thread

I've only witnessed to the one True God, the Almighty Alpha and Omega.. maker of heaven and Earth and his Son Jesus Christ who is Lord of Lords and God of gods.  

...and I don't remember preaching a worship session on any of my posts period, let alone to an idol.   


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have answered the question "is the entire bible true?" with yes (essentially). 

You also assert that the "proportions" of things in the bible may be inaccurate, AND you admit that the writers didn't see everything, so could have gotten details wrong. 

 

These two things are mutually exclusive. It can't be both. Your response is absolute gibberish again. So answer this question just to make sure:

Did Moses speak to god face to face like one man speaks to another as written in Exodus 33:11, or is the bible incorrect about that particular detail?

The Entire Bible can be true when it comes to the stories as a whole... when nitpicking of course you're going to find small speculative errors.  why? it was written by people, so that is expected... does that invalidate the story?  of course not... Did MOses look at God?  likely not... but did Moses go up a mountain by himself into a stormcloud and talk directly to God... yes. 

You're basing the validation of the whole Bible on where someone was looking during a conversation. 

He claimed that the suspect looked at the ground before he attacked...  but he didn't see the suspect look, he was speculating... therefore the suspect never attacked the victim.  Does that make any sense?  This is what this sounds like to me. 

So how do you determine which specifics in the bible are accurate, and which ones aren't?

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:caposkia

Jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have answered the question "is the entire bible true?" with yes (essentially). 

You also assert that the "proportions" of things in the bible may be inaccurate, AND you admit that the writers didn't see everything, so could have gotten details wrong. 

 

These two things are mutually exclusive. It can't be both. Your response is absolute gibberish again. So answer this question just to make sure:

Did Moses speak to god face to face like one man speaks to another as written in Exodus 33:11, or is the bible incorrect about that particular detail?

The Entire Bible can be true when it comes to the stories as a whole... when nitpicking of course you're going to find small speculative errors.  why? it was written by people, so that is expected... does that invalidate the story?  of course not... Did MOses look at God?  likely not... but did Moses go up a mountain by himself into a stormcloud and talk directly to God... yes. 

You're basing the validation of the whole Bible on where someone was looking during a conversation. 

He claimed that the suspect looked at the ground before he attacked...  but he didn't see the suspect look, he was speculating... therefore the suspect never attacked the victim.  Does that make any sense?  This is what this sounds like to me. 

So how do you determine which specifics in the bible are accurate, and which ones aren't?

context


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Vastet

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
It really puzzles me that someone can be shown to be absolutely wrong on a wide variety of subjects, yet keep returning to argue despite being thoroughly defeated. In the world entire it makes a bit more sense, as even today one can pick up their stuff and move to a place that never heard of them, or even simply stop associating with the group that so thoroughly defeated them. But in this case we have someone who constantly runs into a wall at full speed in front of an audience that never changed, though became less tolerant as the years went by. Even the biggest attention whores eventually stop when the majority of the audience belittles and heckles them. Even the biggest liars stop running for politics once the voters laugh them out of office. But caposkia remains. Proven wrong on hundreds of different topics and sub topics, with evidence and logic thrown at him over and over. None of it reaches him. He doesn't understand that repeating bullshit doesn't make it less bullshit. He hasn't grasped that he will never convert anyone here, and that he actually assists in converting his own against him. Even the religion he purports to support has accepted the realities that science has shown us, but he continues to wallow in ignorance. He has no humility, no shame. His arrogance is well beyond that of any I've encountered. It is so powerful that it actually has taken over his thought processes. He is so full of himself he can no longer process information. It's like I would be if I actually believed my egotistical statements were accurate instead of humourous and inflamatory. He has no concept of the divide between reality and his imagination. It both saddens and amuses me to know that he'll never know what a waste his life was. How he actually worked against his beliefs instead of for them. Unless he's right and there is a god. In which case he'll be thrown in hell for consistently and willfully breaking the laws of his own god. He bears false witness and worships false idols on a nearly daily basis here. One wonders how many more he breaks in his peronal life.

So... you claim I've been shown to be absolutely wrong on a wide variety of subjects... yet you felt compelled to explain to the audience these things that should be self evident if what you claim is actually fact.  Are you sure this post applies to me? 

beyond that, I'm more focused on a bigger concern... I am curious how you see that i Have:

1. Broken the laws of my God

2. Bore false witness

3. worshiped idols

on a daily basis here.  Please do explain that.  I am truly sorry if that's what you feel I've done, but I need to see the Bible references and explanation so that I may better understand my errors in these focuses.

As far as I can tell I've followed the laws and the Great Commisson on this thread

I've only witnessed to the one True God, the Almighty Alpha and Omega.. maker of heaven and Earth and his Son Jesus Christ who is Lord of Lords and God of gods.  

...and I don't remember preaching a worship session on any of my posts period, let alone to an idol.   

I'm not having a discussion with you, I made an observation. You are incapable of rational thought, and therefore the only value in discussion with you is for the audience. I don't care that you choose to remain ignorant, and have no interest in proving to you that you are wrong. I've done so literally more than a dozen times and you still pretend otherwise. I'd have to be as irrational as you are to keep trying.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I'm not

Vastet wrote:
I'm not having a discussion with you, I made an observation. You are incapable of rational thought, and therefore the only value in discussion with you is for the audience. I don't care that you choose to remain ignorant, and have no interest in proving to you that you are wrong. I've done so literally more than a dozen times and you still pretend otherwise. I'd have to be as irrational as you are to keep trying.

yet here you are... you have failed at every attempt... and when backed into the corner you resort to these passive agressive commentary approaches that again would not be necessary to mention if what you say is actually fact. 

i mean do I actually have to say to you; look into a mirror?  i wish honesty was a reqirement on these threads


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
I was thinking about the

I was thinking about the whole Moses meeting God face to face statement a bit... I think we're trying to overanalyze the statement.  I can understand that statement as true without changing what it says as well... I mean the statement is that Moses meets with God as friends do face to face... How does that suggest that Moses actually visualized God?  Is it a requirement to actually see the person you meet with face to face?  Granted that is what we would typically think.  Then again, if it is a requirement for someone to meet face to face and visualize the other, is it then impossible for a blind person to have such an interaction?  I think the knee jerk implication would be that they were looking at each other, but considering; as I said 'context'  earlier in the story it is mentioned that "NO ONE" sees the face of God.  So that would then imply that though they likely did meet face to face, Moses did not look at God and this statement can still hold true as is.  

Also we have to consider the point of making that statement in the story in the first place.  Why mention that at all?  Well, it's because no one meets with God like friends would meet.  Yet Moses was doing just that.  The point of the statement was to make clear that Moses had a very special relationship with God.  Unlike anyone else ever has or likely will. 

I picture God reading our back and forth conversation on the statement and shaking His head saying, 'you've missed the point'.  Every statement made in the Bible was made to make a point.  Literal or not, the point is still made and the context helps us understand that point. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Vastet wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I'm not having a discussion with you, I made an observation. You are incapable of rational thought, and therefore the only value in discussion with you is for the audience. I don't care that you choose to remain ignorant, and have no interest in proving to you that you are wrong. I've done so literally more than a dozen times and you still pretend otherwise. I'd have to be as irrational as you are to keep trying.

yet here you are... you have failed at every attempt... and when backed into the corner you resort to these passive agressive commentary approaches that again would not be necessary to mention if what you say is actually fact. 

i mean do I actually have to say to you; look into a mirror?  i wish honesty was a reqirement on these threads

Being unwilling to waste time on you does not prevent me from making observations and other comments based on your behaviour and claims.

If honesty were required here, you'd have been banned years ago. Food for thought.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:I was

caposkia wrote:

I was thinking about the whole Moses meeting God face to face statement a bit... I think we're trying to overanalyze the statement.  I can understand that statement as true without changing what it says as well... I mean the statement is that Moses meets with God as friends do face to face... How does that suggest that Moses actually visualized God?  Is it a requirement to actually see the person you meet with face to face?  Granted that is what we would typically think.  Then again, if it is a requirement for someone to meet face to face and visualize the other, is it then impossible for a blind person to have such an interaction?  I think the knee jerk implication would be that they were looking at each other, but considering; as I said 'context'  earlier in the story it is mentioned that "NO ONE" sees the face of God.  So that would then imply that though they likely did meet face to face, Moses did not look at God and this statement can still hold true as is.  

Also we have to consider the point of making that statement in the story in the first place.  Why mention that at all?  Well, it's because no one meets with God like friends would meet.  Yet Moses was doing just that.  The point of the statement was to make clear that Moses had a very special relationship with God.  Unlike anyone else ever has or likely will. 

I picture God reading our back and forth conversation on the statement and shaking His head saying, 'you've missed the point'.  Every statement made in the Bible was made to make a point.  Literal or not, the point is still made and the context helps us understand that point. 

 

Where before Exodus 33:11 does it say that nobody sees the face of god? I only remember reading it in verses after Exodus 33:11. Basically, until Exodus 33:20, there seems to be no mention of any such thing (the impossibility of seeing god). Then Exodus 33:20 says that it's no longer possible. Then in the new testament, you have it said twice in the gospel of John, once in 1 John, and once in 1 Timothy that nobody has ever seen him, nor will they ever. 

If anyone is trying to overanalyze this, it is you. I am simply taking the words as written, and deducing from that "Hey! This is a clear contradiction that 100% of people would agree with if you took out the names "Moses" and "god" and replaced them with something else. You, however, are unable to accept that the bible contains a contradiction, even though it's very clearly obvious. In light of that, you are attempting to bend the meanings of words, attribute it to writer error 
(while still going on to say that the writers were right about the general story) or say it's because I don't understand the Hebrew (a terrible argument which, to your credit, you have stopped using as of late since you conceded that the translation is indeed pretty accurate). You are overanalyzing the entire bible where it comes to whether or not god can be seen, because there is a clear contradiction. What the bible doesn't contradict itself on is that Jesus lived, and was crucified. That is why I have not brought that up as an internal contradiction, hence you don't have to "overanalyze" it, and bend everything to fit. That narrative is at least internally consistent (as long as you ignore the details).

The reason I don't care what the point of the story is, is because I don't believe the bible to be true, so I don't think there is some wise great moral to any of it. We are discussing the authenticity of the bible. A document can not possibly be 100% true if it contradicts itself internally. The bible does, both in minor details, and major ones (such as the one up for discussion here). Your blind man comparison is stupid, as Moses was never written as a blind man, was he? The bible contains other writings of blind men, so the concept wasn't beyond the writers. They would have mentioned some such thing were it the case. Or they would have mentioned that god can't be seen. Nowhere in the old testament does it ever imply that god HAS never been seen. It implies that he can't, but only after Exodus 33:20, which describes that it's no longer possible. There is even reference to Moses having done that again later (Deuteronomy 34:10)! Only in the new testament does it imply that such a thing was NEVER possible. This was simply a gaffe made (or a deliberate thing, as it wasn't necessarily written to be 100% compatible with the old texts, and may have been written with superseding them entirely in mind, much like the Qu'ran). 

 

So once again, the only one overanalyzing is you. I am taking the words as written to mean what they imply. You are attempting to interpret it in a way that eliminates the obvious contradiction, because the inerrancy of this book is mandatory for your position. You would not analyze any other book in this way if it contained similar contradictions. I think that you probably agree with the guy who said "if the bible said that 2+2=3, I would accept that and find a way to reconcile my worldview to fit that". That is basically the level of cognitive dissonance required to believe that the bible is inerrant. Your answer to the question "what would change your mind?" is clearly "nothing"

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I'm not having a discussion with you, I made an observation. You are incapable of rational thought, and therefore the only value in discussion with you is for the audience. I don't care that you choose to remain ignorant, and have no interest in proving to you that you are wrong. I've done so literally more than a dozen times and you still pretend otherwise. I'd have to be as irrational as you are to keep trying.

yet here you are... you have failed at every attempt... and when backed into the corner you resort to these passive agressive commentary approaches that again would not be necessary to mention if what you say is actually fact. 

i mean do I actually have to say to you; look into a mirror?  i wish honesty was a reqirement on these threads

Being unwilling to waste time on you does not prevent me from making observations and other comments based on your behaviour and claims. If honesty were required here, you'd have been banned years ago. Food for thought.

well no, I've never lied... I may have been mistaken about a fact here and there, but I have faced all of those mistakes head on.  Ignorance does not excuse you from falsely accusing someone of something they have not done


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:\Where

Jabberwocky wrote:
\

Where before Exodus 33:11 does it say that nobody sees the face of god? I only remember reading it in verses after Exodus 33:11. Basically, until Exodus 33:20, there seems to be no mention of any such thing (the impossibility of seeing god). Then Exodus 33:20 says that it's no longer possible. Then in the new testament, you have it said twice in the gospel of John, once in 1 John, and once in 1 Timothy that nobody has ever seen him, nor will they ever. 

You know what?  you're right... I was thinking of something else.  But Ex. 33:20 doesn't say; "no longer"  it says; "...you cannot see my face, for no one can see my face and live".  This is after Moses asked God to "show me your Glory" in vs. eighteen which is Moses pretty much asking God to show himself to Him.  Basicaly this being mentioned and Moses' request is a direct indication that Moses was never looking at God during any of their meetings. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If anyone is trying to overanalyze this, it is you. I am simply taking the words as written, and deducing from that "Hey! This is a clear contradiction that 100% of people would agree with if you took out the names "Moses" and "god" and replaced them with something else. You, however, are unable to accept that the bible contains a contradiction, even though it's very clearly obvious.

except when you read it in context... and you also have to take into consideration that this is not a 20th century conversation, but a conversation taken place thousands of years ago... That means the dialect, grammar, and understanding is likely completely different than how we would understand it today...  Even if it was the same, the context again implies otherwise. 

Are you suggesting you take the word of someone who assumes rather than the source? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

In light of that, you are attempting to bend the meanings of words, attribute it to writer error 
(while still going on to say that the writers were right about the general story) or say it's because I don't understand the Hebrew (a terrible argument which, to your credit, you have stopped using as of late since you conceded that the translation is indeed pretty accurate). You are overanalyzing the entire bible where it comes to whether or not god can be seen, because there is a clear contradiction. What the bible doesn't contradict itself on is that Jesus lived, and was crucified. That is why I have not brought that up as an internal contradiction, hence you don't have to "overanalyze" it, and bend everything to fit. That narrative is at least internally consistent (as long as you ignore the details).

actually, this post you're replying to suggests I did decide it was possible to take the literal meaning of the words and understand them as is without still seeing God.

I still use the Hebrew to better understand it... but did you read the part about missing the point?  I have been consistent in my understanding... I'm trying to comprehend what you're seeing in scripture... when looking at it in context of the story itself... especially the verses you brought up earlier, it's hard to argue the point.

Jabberwocky wrote:

The reason I don't care what the point of the story is, is because I don't believe the bible to be true, so I don't think there is some wise great moral to any of it. We are discussing the authenticity of the bible. A document can not possibly be 100% true if it contradicts itself internally. The bible does, both in minor details, and major ones (such as the one up for discussion here). Your blind man comparison is stupid, as Moses was never written as a blind man, was he? The bible contains other writings of blind men, so the concept wasn't beyond the writers. They would have mentioned some such thing were it the case. Or they would have mentioned that god can't be seen. Nowhere in the old testament does it ever imply that god HAS never been seen. It implies that he can't, but only after Exodus 33:20, which describes that it's no longer possible. There is even reference to Moses having done that again later (Deuteronomy 34:10)! Only in the new testament does it imply that such a thing was NEVER possible. This was simply a gaffe made (or a deliberate thing, as it wasn't necessarily written to be 100% compatible with the old texts, and may have been written with superseding them entirely in mind, much like the Qu'ran). 

If you don't care about the point of the story than there is no point to you arguing about the details be it that the specifics would have to do with the point of the story... so either you really do care about the point [even if that means the point was to decieve people] or you're a troll.

I still don't see the contradiction you seem to be trying so hard to bring up... Again are you suggesting a blind person is unable to have such an interaction as this?  Whether Moses was blind or not doesn't matter.  I'm talking strictly meaning and context here... is it possible that this statement could apply to a blind person?  If it can, then you must conceed that it is also possible that the context of this story holds water that Moses could have the interaction wtih God without actually seeing Him.... and they did mention several times that God cannot be seen by a person and have that person still live.

The rest of your post completely ignores the complexity of the Bible and the fact that the NT and Ot were written hundreds to thousands of years apart by several people who had no particular relation to each other... the Qu'ran was written by one person.  Granted still based off of the OT, but not past Genesis. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

So once again, the only one overanalyzing is you. I am taking the words as written to mean what they imply. You are attempting to interpret it in a way that eliminates the obvious contradiction, because the inerrancy of this book is mandatory for your position. You would not analyze any other book in this way if it contained similar contradictions. I think that you probably agree with the guy who said "if the bible said that 2+2=3, I would accept that and find a way to reconcile my worldview to fit that". That is basically the level of cognitive dissonance required to believe that the bible is inerrant. Your answer to the question "what would change your mind?" is clearly "nothing"

I have followed your lead... if you see me overanalyzing it is only because you are asking me to.  You are taking the words as is without looking at the context and sourcing as well as intention and purpose of stating.  I am attempting to interpret in a way that considers the context and intent of the story... you see it as purposefully eliminating the obvious contradiction that... well... obviously doesn't exist at this point.  If you actually found a contextual contradiction in the Bible, I would have to accept that and reconsider my understanding of all of it... but this is not a contradiction.  I can pull many many statements from scripture and make them say something when read literally that they aren't really saying... does that make them contradictory?  no, that just makes me ignorant of the context and intent of the statement. 

To reiterate, if Moses had been seeing God as we are taking the statement now, it would be non sensical for Moses to after ask for God to show himself to Him..  It just doesn't make sense in the way you're trying to interpret it.  This not even taking the statement from God into consideration that no one can see Him and live.  In order to accurately claim this as a contradiction, we would have to assume that somehow the statement made in vs. eleven and the statement made in vs. eighteen must always be mutually exclusive... which if Moses was meeting with God as said, is not what is happening contextually.  You can argue all you want that the statement says that Moses is looking at God, but you must admit that it is only talking about the relationship and how they meet, not what Moses was looking at. 

If you can show me in the context that Moses was actually looking at God up to a certain point, i will stand corrected. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:well no, I've

caposkia wrote:
well no, I've never lied...

That is a lie. Best ask forgiveness.

caposkia wrote:
I may have been mistaken about a fact here and there, but I have faced all of those mistakes head on.

Being mistaken isn't the problem. Wilfully denying being mistaken despite absolute proof of being mistaken is the problem.

caposkia wrote:
Ignorance does not excuse you from falsely accusing someone of something they have not done.

Ignorance is your specialty. I avoid subjects I'm ignorant of. You embrace subjects you're ignorant of.
All my accusations are true and verifiable. Should anyone ask for a demonstration, I shall provide it. Except you. I already provided it to you. Multiple times. It just made you lie even more.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Where before Exodus 33:11 does it say that nobody sees the face of god? I only remember reading it in verses after Exodus 33:11. Basically, until Exodus 33:20, there seems to be no mention of any such thing (the impossibility of seeing god). Then Exodus 33:20 says that it's no longer possible. Then in the new testament, you have it said twice in the gospel of John, once in 1 John, and once in 1 Timothy that nobody has ever seen him, nor will they ever. 

You know what?  you're right... I was thinking of something else.  But Ex. 33:20 doesn't say; "no longer"  it says; "...you cannot see my face, for no one can see my face and live".  This is after Moses asked God to "show me your Glory" in vs. eighteen which is Moses pretty much asking God to show himself to Him.  Basicaly this being mentioned and Moses' request is a direct indication that Moses was never looking at God during any of their meetings. 

Yes, but the verse in Ex. 33:11 does says that he did exactly that. Exodus 33:20 doesn't say that it was NEVER impossible. Jacob said he saw god face to face. God is said to have appeared to Abra(ha)m as well, although no "Face-to-face" reference is mentioned. Moses and Jacob are said to have experienced god in exactly that fashion. Moses asking to see god's glory isn't any indication that he had never seen him at all. Certainly if you're referring to the mere sight of someone/something as glory, of course you're going to want to see it again. If you didn't see it in the first place, how would you know to call it glorious?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

If anyone is trying to overanalyze this, it is you. I am simply taking the words as written, and deducing from that "Hey! This is a clear contradiction that 100% of people would agree with if you took out the names "Moses" and "god" and replaced them with something else. You, however, are unable to accept that the bible contains a contradiction, even though it's very clearly obvious.

except when you read it in context... and you also have to take into consideration that this is not a 20th century conversation, but a conversation taken place thousands of years ago... That means the dialect, grammar, and understanding is likely completely different than how we would understand it today...  Even if it was the same, the context again implies otherwise. 

Are you suggesting you take the word of someone who assumes rather than the source? 

I am reading it in context. You are not. You are picking a side of this contradiction (god can NOT be seen), most probably because Christians tend to lend more credibility to the new testament than the old where there are..."problems"...and since it's in a gospel to boot, you have put your chips on the side of the fence that god can not, has not, and never will be seen (at least perhaps not on earth). I'm even conceding that the majority of such references are vague enough where your argument (as weak as it is in the first place) could be made. However, when Exodus 33:11 and Genesis 32:30 both mention, specifically, that two people have indeed seen god face to face, you have two choices; be honest and admit the contradiction with the new testament verses, or simply pretend that it says something else. As I said...if it said 2+2=3, you would probably find a way to reconcile it when it clearly can't be so. Exodus 33:11 and Genesis 32:30 can work if Exodus 33:20 says that god can no longer be seen (or would, if later books didn't mention such things too, albeit less specifically). However, either Ex33:11 and Ge32:30 are both wrong, or John 1:18 and John 6:46 are wrong. If you don't accept that those are the only two options, then you are allowing yourself to believe a logically impossible proposition in order to uphold your belief that the bible is true and god breathed. If you don't accept those as the only 2 options, then we are done on this point, as we won't get anywhere if you simply dump logic. 

It reminds me of Sye Ten Bruggencate giving what he probably thinks is a brilliant and brief disproof of Islam. He says that the Quran says that scripture can't be wrong, says that the bible is scripture, and says that the bible is wrong. I haven't looked it up if the Quran says that or even implies it, but I'm willing to take his word for it....yeah....I'm willing to take Sye Ten Bruggencate's word for something....wow. I know that the Quran comments on Jesus and calls him a prophet although not the son of god, still says that he was born a virgin, but that someone else was crucified in his place. That is enough for me to accept that the Quran calls the bible false, as it contradicts a central theme. The thing with people like you and STB, is that you are completely willing to apply logic to disprove any other scripture, but when your own book contains an internal error like the one we're discussing, you do this pathetic dance, trying to somehow say that the bible is all true, even when it's logically impossible. You say it might be off on proportion, but is somehow true. You say the writer(s) of Ex. might have erroneously interpreted Moses' meeting in 33:11 as face to face, but then also somehow gotten verse 20 right that he can't be seen. You don't drop logic elsewhere in your life, do you? Why do it for the bible?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

In light of that, you are attempting to bend the meanings of words, attribute it to writer error 
(while still going on to say that the writers were right about the general story) or say it's because I don't understand the Hebrew (a terrible argument which, to your credit, you have stopped using as of late since you conceded that the translation is indeed pretty accurate). You are overanalyzing the entire bible where it comes to whether or not god can be seen, because there is a clear contradiction. What the bible doesn't contradict itself on is that Jesus lived, and was crucified. That is why I have not brought that up as an internal contradiction, hence you don't have to "overanalyze" it, and bend everything to fit. That narrative is at least internally consistent (as long as you ignore the details).

actually, this post you're replying to suggests I did decide it was possible to take the literal meaning of the words and understand them as is without still seeing God.

I still use the Hebrew to better understand it... but did you read the part about missing the point?  I have been consistent in my understanding... I'm trying to comprehend what you're seeing in scripture... when looking at it in context of the story itself... especially the verses you brought up earlier, it's hard to argue the point.

You're right. You did decide it's possible to take the literal meaning of the words and understand them as is without still seeing god. However, what you fail to admit is that you have to figuratively put your fingers in your ears, and sing a song in your head. From one of your preferred translations (the NASB)

Quote:
Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

*Thus Bill used to speak to his nemesis, Fred, face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.* 

What's going on in this statement I typed? There is quite literally no way to interpret this, except that Bill is talking to a man he is not friends with, and having a normal civil conversation with him (for one reason or another), instead of being hostile. I added the nemesis reference, as the last part of the sentence makes no sense (or at least less sense) without it. You would never, reading this sentence, think that Fred didn't see Bill during this conversation, (unless some additional information is provided, like your earlier example of one being blind, or something of the sort). Let's establish that neither Bill nor Fred are blind. An omnipotent god can't be blind, and I don't think it's reasonable for Moses to have done the things he is said to have done in the bible were he blind himself. To imply anything other than Fred having seen Bill in the sentence I wrote above, is to say *I have read a sentence that has been concisely communicated to me. I will now figuratively shit on it, and pretend that for some reason, Fred never saw Bill here*. It's absurd, and you know it's absurd. You would not make that implication if you replaced the characters in the sentence, because it would be stupid. Why is it appropriate to make it when reading Exodus 33:11?

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

The reason I don't care what the point of the story is, is because I don't believe the bible to be true, so I don't think there is some wise great moral to any of it. We are discussing the authenticity of the bible. A document can not possibly be 100% true if it contradicts itself internally. The bible does, both in minor details, and major ones (such as the one up for discussion here). Your blind man comparison is stupid, as Moses was never written as a blind man, was he? The bible contains other writings of blind men, so the concept wasn't beyond the writers. They would have mentioned some such thing were it the case. Or they would have mentioned that god can't be seen. Nowhere in the old testament does it ever imply that god HAS never been seen. It implies that he can't, but only after Exodus 33:20, which describes that it's no longer possible. There is even reference to Moses having done that again later (Deuteronomy 34:10)! Only in the new testament does it imply that such a thing was NEVER possible. This was simply a gaffe made (or a deliberate thing, as it wasn't necessarily written to be 100% compatible with the old texts, and may have been written with superseding them entirely in mind, much like the Qu'ran). 

If you don't care about the point of the story than there is no point to you arguing about the details be it that the specifics would have to do with the point of the story... so either you really do care about the point [even if that means the point was to decieve people] or you're a troll.

Hah. Accusing me of being a troll....that's hilarious.

I don't care about the point of the bible, because I find it un-entertaining. However, I believe many people mis-classify it as fact, when it is indeed fiction. Of course, book discussing facts can contain errors. However, it's extraordinarily rare for them to include internal errors, because they are typically proofread. Books of fiction, on the other hand, can contain errors (as can movies, TV shows, etc.). I can enjoy Star Wars (at least episodes 4-6...hopefully 7...) despite knowing that parsecs are a measure of distance and not time (and I think the explaining away by very overzealous fans that say the Kessel run can be cut down on distance by going through an asteroid field, hence cutting down distance is a STUPID one), and despite the fact that ObiWan implies that Storm Troopers are brilliant marksmen (they are shown to be the opposite throughout the movies). This is ok, as it's fiction. I can deal with bad English in Final Fantasy VII. I can deal with all sorts of ridiculous paranormal things in X-Files (and the fact that the skeptic is routinely proven wrong by ol' Spooky Mulder). However, you are claiming that the entire bible is true. That isn't true by default if it contains 0 contradictions, but containing 0 internal contradictions is the very minimum requirement for your assertion to be true. You are simply pretending that the contradictions staring you in the face are not there, because you have been taught to do that (whether by yourself or other people). The bible has failed the minimum requirement to be 100% true, therefore the point is moot! It's readable as fiction in that case if you enjoy it, but it is impossible for the bible to be all true, because it contains these contradictions. 

caposkia wrote:
 

 

I still don't see the contradiction you seem to be trying so hard to bring up... Again are you suggesting a blind person is unable to have such an interaction as this?  Whether Moses was blind or not doesn't matter.  I'm talking strictly meaning and context here... is it possible that this statement could apply to a blind person?  If it can, then you must conceed that it is also possible that the context of this story holds water that Moses could have the interaction wtih God without actually seeing Him.... and they did mention several times that God cannot be seen by a person and have that person still live.

Nope. When a blind person speaks to someone, it is implied that he doesn't see them because....he's blind. If I say that I have a conversation with a deaf person as I do with one who isn't deaf, the implication is that the deaf person is a very good lip reader (let's pretend for the sake of this argument that they are 100% deaf). The reason I add "as I do with one who isn't deaf" to that sentence, is because when you typically mention a conversation with a deaf person, sign language is at least implied as a possibility. If god routinely communicates with people by other means (which is implied often, whether it's through angels, by just speaking but not appearing, etc.) then merely saying "Blank talked to god" does not mean that Blank saw god. If, on the other hand, more information is added to the sentence, then it is immediately implied that the nature of the conversation took place in exactly the manner that two humans speaking have a conversation. You can ignore it all you want. That's what it says. The gospel of John is wrong about this, (twice) or Exodus 33 is wrong about it. As I said, if you don't believe that those are the only 2 options, you are shitting on logic to support your belief. That means you are extraordinarily illogical in all your endeavors, or you are making a special exception in this one case. Either way, it's not a good thing. 

caposkia wrote:

The rest of your post completely ignores the complexity of the Bible and the fact that the NT and Ot were written hundreds to thousands of years apart by several people who had no particular relation to each other... the Qu'ran was written by one person.  Granted still based off of the OT, but not past Genesis. 

Not past Genesis? The Quran mentions Jesus....

Anyway, I'm not ignoring the complexity of the bible. I am simply highlighting verses that are mutually exclusive to one another, both in context, or on their own. This means that the bible fails the minimum pre-requisite for the whole book to be true, and therefore at the VERY least, one side of each contradictory part must be incorrect. It's simple logic. 

capoksia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

So once again, the only one overanalyzing is you. I am taking the words as written to mean what they imply. You are attempting to interpret it in a way that eliminates the obvious contradiction, because the inerrancy of this book is mandatory for your position. You would not analyze any other book in this way if it contained similar contradictions. I think that you probably agree with the guy who said "if the bible said that 2+2=3, I would accept that and find a way to reconcile my worldview to fit that". That is basically the level of cognitive dissonance required to believe that the bible is inerrant. Your answer to the question "what would change your mind?" is clearly "nothing"

I have followed your lead... if you see me overanalyzing it is only because you are asking me to.  You are taking the words as is without looking at the context and sourcing as well as intention and purpose of stating.  I am attempting to interpret in a way that considers the context and intent of the story... you see it as purposefully eliminating the obvious contradiction that... well... obviously doesn't exist at this point.  If you actually found a contextual contradiction in the Bible, I would have to accept that and reconsider my understanding of all of it... but this is not a contradiction.  I can pull many many statements from scripture and make them say something when read literally that they aren't really saying... does that make them contradictory?  no, that just makes me ignorant of the context and intent of the statement.

Contextual contradiction...I found a literal contradiction. You're ignoring it. This is getting stupid. You claim that you would re-evaluate given a contradiction. You are given one, and you don't. So you are either deluding yourself, or lying to me. 

caposkia wrote:

To reiterate, if Moses had been seeing God as we are taking the statement now, it would be non sensical for Moses to after ask for God to show himself to Him..  It just doesn't make sense in the way you're trying to interpret it.  This not even taking the statement from God into consideration that no one can see Him and live.  In order to accurately claim this as a contradiction, we would have to assume that somehow the statement made in vs. eleven and the statement made in vs. eighteen must always be mutually exclusive... which if Moses was meeting with God as said, is not what is happening contextually.  You can argue all you want that the statement says that Moses is looking at God, but you must admit that it is only talking about the relationship and how they meet, not what Moses was looking at. 

If you can show me in the context that Moses was actually looking at God up to a certain point, i will stand corrected. 

I don't believe that there was any mention in the bible before Ex 33:20 that says or even implies that seeing god's face results in death. The most logical conclusion based on that (given, also, that many times before, people seeing god has been said concisely, or at least implied), is that this is a new rule implemented by god in Exodus 33:20, and Moses was simply the last one to see him just 9 verses earlier. If you cut it off at Exodus (and back, or backparts don't count, as that is what 33:23 says Moses WILL see) then one can say that the face of god was seen and could be seen up until that point, and that would still be a consistent interpretation. Once it's later said in the gospel of John that it isn't possible, and WAS never possible, means that one of these statements is incorrect. I can't believe I have to repeat and rephrase this this many times.

 

In short, I am unable to believe that logical contradictions are possible. You seem to have that ability. 

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


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:caposkia

Vastet wrote:
caposkia wrote:
well no, I've never lied...
That is a lie. Best ask forgiveness.

That statement was directly in reference to this thread, which is true that I never lied here... I guess to appease your need to pull statements out of context and apply them to the general I should have stated; "I have never lied on this thread"  

Vastet wrote:

Being mistaken isn't the problem. Wilfully denying being mistaken despite absolute proof of being mistaken is the problem.

You realize that direclty applies to you right?  NO??? do you see where the error lies in your statement then? 

Vastet wrote:

Ignorance is your specialty. I avoid subjects I'm ignorant of. You embrace subjects you're ignorant of. All my accusations are true and verifiable. Should anyone ask for a demonstration, I shall provide it. Except you. I already provided it to you. Multiple times. It just made you lie even more.

Ignorance is usually not self proclaimed or sometimes even self evident... It would be dishonest of you to claim that you avoid subjects you are ignorant of especially if you're ignorant of your ignorance, like in this case. 

You're convinced I lie... yet you have not been very truthful about your own knowledge.  Dishonesty is assumed always by those who are dishonest.  Honesty is assumed by few regardless of their own state of truthfulness. 

You jump to the conclusion when things don't go your way that I lie... that shows me you're a very dishonest person.  You'd rather call someone out in a lie before admitting that you might be mistaken yourself. 

Every time I've asked you to show me how I've lied, you've shown me either a misunderstood statement by you or maybe... I'd have to look, a situation I may have actually been mistaken in... I have been careful not to be dishonest... sorry to disappoint.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Yes, but

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but the verse in Ex. 33:11 does says that he did exactly that. Exodus 33:20 doesn't say that it was NEVER impossible. Jacob said he saw god face to face. God is said to have appeared to Abra(ha)m as well, although no "Face-to-face" reference is mentioned. Moses and Jacob are said to have experienced god in exactly that fashion. Moses asking to see god's glory isn't any indication that he had never seen him at all. Certainly if you're referring to the mere sight of someone/something as glory, of course you're going to want to see it again. If you didn't see it in the first place, how would you know to call it glorious?

face to face is a description of an interaction, not a description of what was actually seen. 

Moses asked to see "all" of God's glory, not just His glory.  He knows to call God glorious because God is himself glorious. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I am reading it in context. You are not. You are picking a side of this contradiction (god can NOT be seen), most probably because Christians tend to lend more credibility to the new testament than the old where there are..."problems"...and since it's in a gospel to boot, you have put your chips on the side of the fence that god can not, has not, and never will be seen (at least perhaps not on earth). I'm even conceding that the majority of such references are vague enough where your argument (as weak as it is in the first place) could be made. However, when Exodus 33:11 and Genesis 32:30 both mention, specifically, that two people have indeed seen god face to face, you have two choices; be honest and admit the contradiction with the new testament verses, or simply pretend that it says something else. As I said...if it said 2+2=3, you would probably find a way to reconcile it when it clearly can't be so. Exodus 33:11 and Genesis 32:30 can work if Exodus 33:20 says that god can no longer be seen (or would, if later books didn't mention such things too, albeit less specifically). However, either Ex33:11 and Ge32:30 are both wrong, or John 1:18 and John 6:46 are wrong. If you don't accept that those are the only two options, then you are allowing yourself to believe a logically impossible proposition in order to uphold your belief that the bible is true and god breathed. If you don't accept those as the only 2 options, then we are done on this point, as we won't get anywhere if you simply dump logic. 

the context repeatedly explicity states that God cannot be seen by a living person.. how am I not reading it in context? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

It reminds me of Sye Ten Bruggencate giving what he probably thinks is a brilliant and brief disproof of Islam. He says that the Quran says that scripture can't be wrong, says that the bible is scripture, and says that the bible is wrong. I haven't looked it up if the Quran says that or even implies it, but I'm willing to take his word for it....yeah....I'm willing to take Sye Ten Bruggencate's word for something....wow. I know that the Quran comments on Jesus and calls him a prophet although not the son of god, still says that he was born a virgin, but that someone else was crucified in his place. That is enough for me to accept that the Quran calls the bible false, as it contradicts a central theme. The thing with people like you and STB, is that you are completely willing to apply logic to disprove any other scripture, but when your own book contains an internal error like the one we're discussing, you do this pathetic dance, trying to somehow say that the bible is all true, even when it's logically impossible. You say it might be off on proportion, but is somehow true. You say the writer(s) of Ex. might have erroneously interpreted Moses' meeting in 33:11 as face to face, but then also somehow gotten verse 20 right that he can't be seen. You don't drop logic elsewhere in your life, do you? Why do it for the bible?

From what i've read of the Q'uran, it does say scripture can't be wrong, but does not defend the Bible by any means.   Granted I haven't read every word, but have read a good chunk of it. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

You're right. You did decide it's possible to take the literal meaning of the words and understand them as is without still seeing god. However, what you fail to admit is that you have to figuratively put your fingers in your ears, and sing a song in your head. From one of your preferred translations (the NASB)

Quote:
Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

*Thus Bill used to speak to his nemesis, Fred, face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.* 

What's going on in this statement I typed? There is quite literally no way to interpret this, except that Bill is talking to a man he is not friends with, and having a normal civil conversation with him (for one reason or another), instead of being hostile. I added the nemesis reference, as the last part of the sentence makes no sense (or at least less sense) without it. You would never, reading this sentence, think that Fred didn't see Bill during this conversation, (unless some additional information is provided, like your earlier example of one being blind, or something of the sort). Let's establish that neither Bill nor Fred are blind. An omnipotent god can't be blind, and I don't think it's reasonable for Moses to have done the things he is said to have done in the bible were he blind himself. To imply anything other than Fred having seen Bill in the sentence I wrote above, is to say *I have read a sentence that has been concisely communicated to me. I will now figuratively shit on it, and pretend that for some reason, Fred never saw Bill here*. It's absurd, and you know it's absurd. You would not make that implication if you replaced the characters in the sentence, because it would be stupid. Why is it appropriate to make it when reading Exodus 33:11?

So you do take the word of a bystander over the source. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah. Accusing me of being a troll....that's hilarious.

well... you just accused yourself.. I said you're either. or... so you are a troll???  again, I'm questioning your admission here, not accusing.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't care about the point of the bible, because I find it un-entertaining. However, I believe many people mis-classify it as fact, when it is indeed fiction. Of course, book discussing facts can contain errors. However, it's extraordinarily rare for them to include internal errors, because they are typically proofread. Books of fiction, on the other hand, can contain errors (as can movies, TV shows, etc.). I can enjoy Star Wars (at least episodes 4-6...hopefully 7...) despite knowing that parsecs are a measure of distance and not time (and I think the explaining away by very overzealous fans that say the Kessel run can be cut down on distance by going through an asteroid field, hence cutting down distance is a STUPID one), and despite the fact that ObiWan implies that Storm Troopers are brilliant marksmen (they are shown to be the opposite throughout the movies). This is ok, as it's fiction. I can deal with bad English in Final Fantasy VII. I can deal with all sorts of ridiculous paranormal things in X-Files (and the fact that the skeptic is routinely proven wrong by ol' Spooky Mulder). However, you are claiming that the entire bible is true. That isn't true by default if it contains 0 contradictions, but containing 0 internal contradictions is the very minimum requirement for your assertion to be true. You are simply pretending that the contradictions staring you in the face are not there, because you have been taught to do that (whether by yourself or other people). The bible has failed the minimum requirement to be 100% true, therefore the point is moot! It's readable as fiction in that case if you enjoy it, but it is impossible for the bible to be all true, because it contains these contradictions. 

that you have yet to really support beyond random banter. 

YOu talk about proof reading... There are scriptures that you are putting in question that have survived thousands of years of skeptics... and somehow you seem to think you've figured it out because... well... proof reading would assure there were no internal errors and so the Bible must be a writing of fiction. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nope. When a blind person speaks to someone, it is implied that he doesn't see them because....he's blind. If I say that I have a conversation with a deaf person as I do with one who isn't deaf, the implication is that the deaf person is a very good lip reader (let's pretend for the sake of this argument that they are 100% deaf). The reason I add "as I do with one who isn't deaf" to that sentence, is because when you typically mention a conversation with a deaf person, sign language is at least implied as a possibility. If god routinely communicates with people by other means (which is implied often, whether it's through angels, by just speaking but not appearing, etc.) then merely saying "Blank talked to god" does not mean that Blank saw god. If, on the other hand, more information is added to the sentence, then it is immediately implied that the nature of the conversation took place in exactly the manner that two humans speaking have a conversation. You can ignore it all you want. That's what it says. The gospel of John is wrong about this, (twice) or Exodus 33 is wrong about it. As I said, if you don't believe that those are the only 2 options, you are shitting on logic to support your belief. That means you are extraordinarily illogical in all your endeavors, or you are making a special exception in this one case. Either way, it's not a good thing. 

So ultimately, a blind person is incapable of a face to face interaction.  ok then, thank you for clarifying your perspective.  By this understanding, the author/observer would have to be claiming that Moses actually looked at Gods face..

So now to address the understanding that no one actually witnessed the interaction, how reliable would you say this assumption is on the actual interaction between Moses and God assuming this actually happened?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Not past Genesis? The Quran mentions Jesus....

Anyway, I'm not ignoring the complexity of the bible. I am simply highlighting verses that are mutually exclusive to one another, both in context, or on their own. This means that the bible fails the minimum pre-requisite for the whole book to be true, and therefore at the VERY least, one side of each contradictory part must be incorrect. It's simple logic. 

Q'uran mentions Jesus, but it is not congruent past Genesis.  Jesus would be a random fact mentioned and does not imply any other congruency.. what they mention of Jesus is quite contrary to the Bible. 

Anyway

based on a bystander's claim...

Jabberwocky wrote:

Contextual contradiction...I found a literal contradiction. You're ignoring it. This is getting stupid. You claim that you would re-evaluate given a contradiction. You are given one, and you don't. So you are either deluding yourself, or lying to me. 

Just because I don't immediately submit to your blind assumption doesn't mean I"m not willing to re-evaluate something.  You have not given me one, you have given me your assumption that one is there.  I have looked into it.  I have explained to you in a few different ways why it isn't a contradiction... you have ignored it.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't believe that there was any mention in the bible before Ex 33:20 that says or even implies that seeing god's face results in death. The most logical conclusion based on that (given, also, that many times before, people seeing god has been said concisely, or at least implied), is that this is a new rule implemented by god in Exodus 33:20, and Moses was simply the last one to see him just 9 verses earlier. If you cut it off at Exodus (and back, or backparts don't count, as that is what 33:23 says Moses WILL see) then one can say that the face of god was seen and could be seen up until that point, and that would still be a consistent interpretation. Once it's later said in the gospel of John that it isn't possible, and WAS never possible, means that one of these statements is incorrect. I can't believe I have to repeat and rephrase this this many times.

 

In short, I am unable to believe that logical contradictions are possible. You seem to have that ability. 

Contradictions are not possible... period. 

I'm not sure that there is anything mentioned before either... as the Bible is compiled... but are you assuming that Genesis is the oldest book and that each book in the order they have been put in the Bible are chronologically aged????  that is a common misconception.

Going back to the Hebrew.. EX. 33:20 is written in a way to explain that God's face could never have been seen by a person and have that person survived the interaction.  The Hebrew didn't typically use past tense to explain a universal constant, but rather neuter or present... In this verse  "יִרְאַ֥נִי" is present neutral and is in reference to all time.  that would be the root "ra'ah" which is the word "see".  The Hebrew here is suggesting that it was never possible in the text regardless if any text before or after ever claimed it. 




Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Jabberwocky

EDIT - forgot a few words

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but the verse in Ex. 33:11 does says that he did exactly that. Exodus 33:20 doesn't say that it was NEVER impossible. Jacob said he saw god face to face. God is said to have appeared to Abra(ha)m as well, although no "Face-to-face" reference is mentioned. Moses and Jacob are said to have experienced god in exactly that fashion. Moses asking to see god's glory isn't any indication that he had never seen him at all. Certainly if you're referring to the mere sight of someone/something as glory, of course you're going to want to see it again. If you didn't see it in the first place, how would you know to call it glorious?

face to face is a description of an interaction, not a description of what was actually seen. 

Moses asked to see "all" of God's glory, not just His glory.  He knows to call God glorious because God is himself glorious. 

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I am reading it in context. You are not. You are picking a side of this contradiction (god can NOT be seen), most probably because Christians tend to lend more credibility to the new testament than the old where there are..."problems"...and since it's in a gospel to boot, you have put your chips on the side of the fence that god can not, has not, and never will be seen (at least perhaps not on earth). I'm even conceding that the majority of such references are vague enough where your argument (as weak as it is in the first place) could be made. However, when Exodus 33:11 and Genesis 32:30 both mention, specifically, that two people have indeed seen god face to face, you have two choices; be honest and admit the contradiction with the new testament verses, or simply pretend that it says something else. As I said...if it said 2+2=3, you would probably find a way to reconcile it when it clearly can't be so. Exodus 33:11 and Genesis 32:30 can work if Exodus 33:20 says that god can no longer be seen (or would, if later books didn't mention such things too, albeit less specifically). However, either Ex33:11 and Ge32:30 are both wrong, or John 1:18 and John 6:46 are wrong. If you don't accept that those are the only two options, then you are allowing yourself to believe a logically impossible proposition in order to uphold your belief that the bible is true and god breathed. If you don't accept those as the only 2 options, then we are done on this point, as we won't get anywhere if you simply dump logic. 

the context repeatedly explicity states that God cannot be seen by a living person.. how am I not reading it in context? 

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

It reminds me of Sye Ten Bruggencate giving what he probably thinks is a brilliant and brief disproof of Islam. He says that the Quran says that scripture can't be wrong, says that the bible is scripture, and says that the bible is wrong. I haven't looked it up if the Quran says that or even implies it, but I'm willing to take his word for it....yeah....I'm willing to take Sye Ten Bruggencate's word for something....wow. I know that the Quran comments on Jesus and calls him a prophet although not the son of god, still says that he was born a virgin, but that someone else was crucified in his place. That is enough for me to accept that the Quran calls the bible false, as it contradicts a central theme. The thing with people like you and STB, is that you are completely willing to apply logic to disprove any other scripture, but when your own book contains an internal error like the one we're discussing, you do this pathetic dance, trying to somehow say that the bible is all true, even when it's logically impossible. You say it might be off on proportion, but is somehow true. You say the writer(s) of Ex. might have erroneously interpreted Moses' meeting in 33:11 as face to face, but then also somehow gotten verse 20 right that he can't be seen. You don't drop logic elsewhere in your life, do you? Why do it for the bible?

From what i've read of the Q'uran, it does say scripture can't be wrong, but does not defend the Bible by any means.   Granted I haven't read every word, but have read a good chunk of it. 

I wouldn't say that it defends the bible either. I didn't imply that it did. I was providing an example of faulty logic applied by a popular (yet exceptionally stupid) apologist. However, I was saying that he made 3 points essentially about the Qu'ran. (scripture can't be wrong, bible is scripture, the bible is wrong) I know that the Qu'ran either says literally, or implies heavily enough to the same effect that the bible is inaccurate. Hence it's only the first 2 points I feel I must check now. If it indeed makes those implications, than someone who believes the bible is literally true (even more-so than you, because this person believes that there is no proportional discrpenancy, and that the Earth and Universe are indeed 6018-6019 years old) is able to make a logical argument regarding other books that logically actually does disprove the Qu'ran. However, this same person is able to ignore any such contradiction in the bible (like the one we are discussing which is obvious to anyone for whom the bible being enitrely true has no emotional implications) for bad reasons. This is special pleading (I won't bother explaining it to you again, because you either don't understand waht it is, or pretend not to). 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

You're right. You did decide it's possible to take the literal meaning of the words and understand them as is without still seeing god. However, what you fail to admit is that you have to figuratively put your fingers in your ears, and sing a song in your head. From one of your preferred translations (the NASB)

Quote:
Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.

*Thus Bill used to speak to his nemesis, Fred, face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.* 

What's going on in this statement I typed? There is quite literally no way to interpret this, except that Bill is talking to a man he is not friends with, and having a normal civil conversation with him (for one reason or another), instead of being hostile. I added the nemesis reference, as the last part of the sentence makes no sense (or at least less sense) without it. You would never, reading this sentence, think that Fred didn't see Bill during this conversation, (unless some additional information is provided, like your earlier example of one being blind, or something of the sort). Let's establish that neither Bill nor Fred are blind. An omnipotent god can't be blind, and I don't think it's reasonable for Moses to have done the things he is said to have done in the bible were he blind himself. To imply anything other than Fred having seen Bill in the sentence I wrote above, is to say *I have read a sentence that has been concisely communicated to me. I will now figuratively shit on it, and pretend that for some reason, Fred never saw Bill here*. It's absurd, and you know it's absurd. You would not make that implication if you replaced the characters in the sentence, because it would be stupid. Why is it appropriate to make it when reading Exodus 33:11?

So you do take the word of a bystander over the source. 

I have no idea what you mean, and I doubt anyone else reading this does. 

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hah. Accusing me of being a troll....that's hilarious.

well... you just accused yourself.. I said you're either. or... so you are a troll???  again, I'm questioning your admission here, not accusing.

No I didn't. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't care about the point of the bible, because I find it un-entertaining. However, I believe many people mis-classify it as fact, when it is indeed fiction. Of course, book discussing facts can contain errors. However, it's extraordinarily rare for them to include internal errors, because they are typically proofread. Books of fiction, on the other hand, can contain errors (as can movies, TV shows, etc.). I can enjoy Star Wars (at least episodes 4-6...hopefully 7...) despite knowing that parsecs are a measure of distance and not time (and I think the explaining away by very overzealous fans that say the Kessel run can be cut down on distance by going through an asteroid field, hence cutting down distance is a STUPID one), and despite the fact that ObiWan implies that Storm Troopers are brilliant marksmen (they are shown to be the opposite throughout the movies). This is ok, as it's fiction. I can deal with bad English in Final Fantasy VII. I can deal with all sorts of ridiculous paranormal things in X-Files (and the fact that the skeptic is routinely proven wrong by ol' Spooky Mulder). However, you are claiming that the entire bible is true. That isn't true by default if it contains 0 contradictions, but containing 0 internal contradictions is the very minimum requirement for your assertion to be true. You are simply pretending that the contradictions staring you in the face are not there, because you have been taught to do that (whether by yourself or other people). The bible has failed the minimum requirement to be 100% true, therefore the point is moot! It's readable as fiction in that case if you enjoy it, but it is impossible for the bible to be all true, because it contains these contradictions. 

that you have yet to really support beyond random banter. 

YOu talk about proof reading... There are scriptures that you are putting in question that have survived thousands of years of skeptics... and somehow you seem to think you've figured it out because... well... proof reading would assure there were no internal errors and so the Bible must be a writing of fiction. 

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Nope. When a blind person speaks to someone, it is implied that he doesn't see them because....he's blind. If I say that I have a conversation with a deaf person as I do with one who isn't deaf, the implication is that the deaf person is a very good lip reader (let's pretend for the sake of this argument that they are 100% deaf). The reason I add "as I do with one who isn't deaf" to that sentence, is because when you typically mention a conversation with a deaf person, sign language is at least implied as a possibility. If god routinely communicates with people by other means (which is implied often, whether it's through angels, by just speaking but not appearing, etc.) then merely saying "Blank talked to god" does not mean that Blank saw god. If, on the other hand, more information is added to the sentence, then it is immediately implied that the nature of the conversation took place in exactly the manner that two humans speaking have a conversation. You can ignore it all you want. That's what it says. The gospel of John is wrong about this, (twice) or Exodus 33 is wrong about it. As I said, if you don't believe that those are the only 2 options, you are shitting on logic to support your belief. That means you are extraordinarily illogical in all your endeavors, or you are making a special exception in this one case. Either way, it's not a good thing. 

So ultimately, a blind person is incapable of a face to face interaction.  ok then, thank you for clarifying your perspective.  By this understanding, the author/observer would have to be claiming that Moses actually looked at Gods face..

So now to address the understanding that no one actually witnessed the interaction, how reliable would you say this assumption is on the actual interaction between Moses and God assuming this actually happened?

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Not past Genesis? The Quran mentions Jesus....

Anyway, I'm not ignoring the complexity of the bible. I am simply highlighting verses that are mutually exclusive to one another, both in context, or on their own. This means that the bible fails the minimum pre-requisite for the whole book to be true, and therefore at the VERY least, one side of each contradictory part must be incorrect. It's simple logic. 

Q'uran mentions Jesus, but it is not congruent past Genesis.  Jesus would be a random fact mentioned and does not imply any other congruency.. what they mention of Jesus is quite contrary to the Bible. 

Anyway

based on a bystander's claim...

So the Qu'ran's comments on Genesis are always 100% accurate, but not beyond? 

caposkia wrote:

quote=Jabberwocky]

Contextual contradiction...I found a literal contradiction. You're ignoring it. This is getting stupid. You claim that you would re-evaluate given a contradiction. You are given one, and you don't. So you are either deluding yourself, or lying to me. 

Just because I don't immediately submit to your blind assumption doesn't mean I"m not willing to re-evaluate something.  You have not given me one, you have given me your assumption that one is there.  I have looked into it.  I have explained to you in a few different ways why it isn't a contradiction... you have ignored it.  

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't believe that there was any mention in the bible before Ex 33:20 that says or even implies that seeing god's face results in death. The most logical conclusion based on that (given, also, that many times before, people seeing god has been said concisely, or at least implied), is that this is a new rule implemented by god in Exodus 33:20, and Moses was simply the last one to see him just 9 verses earlier. If you cut it off at Exodus (and back, or backparts don't count, as that is what 33:23 says Moses WILL see) then one can say that the face of god was seen and could be seen up until that point, and that would still be a consistent interpretation. Once it's later said in the gospel of John that it isn't possible, and WAS never possible, means that one of these statements is incorrect. I can't believe I have to repeat and rephrase this this many times.

 

In short, I am unable to believe that logical contradictions are possible. You seem to have that ability. 

Contradictions are not possible... period. 

I'm not sure that there is anything mentioned before either... as the Bible is compiled... but are you assuming that Genesis is the oldest book and that each book in the order they have been put in the Bible are chronologically aged????  that is a common misconception.

Going back to the Hebrew.. EX. 33:20 is written in a way to explain that God's face could never have been seen by a person and have that person survived the interaction.  The Hebrew didn't typically use past tense to explain a universal constant, but rather neuter or present... In this verse  "יִרְאַ֥נִי" is present neutral and is in reference to all time.  that would be the root "ra'ah" which is the word "see".  The Hebrew here is suggesting that it was never possible in the text regardless if any text before or after ever claimed it. 



I never implied that the books in the bible are chronological in nature. However, the pentateuch at least can only be read that way. It's known that the book of Job is the oldest written work in the Tanakh, or the Old Testament. 

So if 33:20 said it was never possible, why does 33:11 say that it happened? You even admitted it! If it did, then you concede that it's not all true. This is why the majority of my responses here were the same thing copied and pasted. You are dishonest. The. Fucking. End. 

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Caposkia wrote: YOu talk

Caposkia wrote:
 YOu talk about proof reading... There are scriptures that you are putting in question that have survived thousands of years of skeptics... and somehow you seem to think you've figured it out because... well... proof reading would assure there were no internal errors and so the Bible must be a writing of fiction.

Religion survives through marketing, not scientific testing and falsification and peer review. It is a book of myth, written over 1.000 year period with books left out, and none of the gosphels were written during the alleged time of the alleged character Jesus's alleged life time.

And it still would not matter if a man with that name existed. Men do not magiclaly pop out of dirt, women do not come from mens ribs. Donkeys and bushes and snakes do not talk. You cannot cure blindness with spit or mud. Men do not magically turn water into wine. It takes two sets of DNA to make a baby and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. 

And there are plenty of contradictory stories from the OT to the NT and even discrepancies between the gospel writers.

It was understandable when people believed that crap back then. It reflected a very patriarchal fuedal time and a very scientifically ignorant time. Gods in monotheism and polytheism reflected the societies of those times. 

The fact is the earth is 4 billion years old, no religion was around back then. The universe is 14 billion years old, and again, no religion existed back then. In billions of years from now our species will be extinct, and eventually the core of our planet will burn out and the planet will die itself. Our sun as well has a life span and it too will die. None of what you typed or what i am responding to will be of any record to the future. The universe will go on without us or any care of us.

That is the reality you do not want to face. There is no super hero in the sky by any name and there never was. There are simply humans who believe because it feels good and or are afraid of their finite existence. The only thing religions by any name prove is our species imagination. Hardly impressive and unfortunately quite mundane in our species.

 

"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Biblical

Jabberwocky wrote:

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

it is what it is.  If you seeing me as a liar helps you sleep better at night, so be it. 

"The truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it." - The Passion

Jabberwocky wrote:

I wouldn't say that it defends the bible either. I didn't imply that it did. I was providing an example of faulty logic applied by a popular (yet exceptionally stupid) apologist. However, I was saying that he made 3 points essentially about the Qu'ran. (scripture can't be wrong, bible is scripture, the bible is wrong) I know that the Qu'ran either says literally, or implies heavily enough to the same effect that the bible is inaccurate. Hence it's only the first 2 points I feel I must check now. If it indeed makes those implications, than someone who believes the bible is literally true (even more-so than you, because this person believes that there is no proportional discrpenancy, and that the Earth and Universe are indeed 6018-6019 years old) is able to make a logical argument regarding other books that logically actually does disprove the Qu'ran. However, this same person is able to ignore any such contradiction in the bible (like the one we are discussing which is obvious to anyone for whom the bible being enitrely true has no emotional implications) for bad reasons. This is special pleading (I won't bother explaining it to you again, because you either don't understand waht it is, or pretend not to). 

makes sense... I'm guessing the Q'uran implies that the Bible might not be accurate be it that at the writing of the Q'uran the Bible didn't exist as a compilation yet... though it might make references to individual books of the time. 

The special pleading I believe is coming from you.  I have made it clear that it is obvious the writer is speculating... we've gone through what that can mean and at this point are only assuming the writer somehow knew that there was an actual face to face interaction which then would need to be specified further as to what that actually might mean... I still stick by the point that the writer was only speculating and that we can't find any other examples of anyone actually seeing the face of God and living to tell the tale. 

Just in case you're going to try to pull something else out as an excuse, this perspective goes back quite a few posts.

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

You're right. You did decide it's possible to take the literal meaning of the words and understand them as is without still seeing god. However, what you fail to admit is that you have to figuratively put your fingers in your ears, and sing a song in your head. From one of your preferred translations (the NASB)

you mean the translation I was using to come up with that literal meaning without still seeing God??? and I was actually referencing to the Hebrew to be absolutely sure

Jabberwocky wrote:

*Thus Bill used to speak to his nemesis, Fred, face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.* 

What's going on in this statement I typed? There is quite literally no way to interpret this, except that Bill is talking to a man he is not friends with, and having a normal civil conversation with him (for one reason or another), instead of being hostile. I added the nemesis reference, as the last part of the sentence makes no sense (or at least less sense) without it. You would never, reading this sentence, think that Fred didn't see Bill during this conversation, (unless some additional information is provided, like your earlier example of one being blind, or something of the sort). Let's establish that neither Bill nor Fred are blind. An omnipotent god can't be blind, and I don't think it's reasonable for Moses to have done the things he is said to have done in the bible were he blind himself. To imply anything other than Fred having seen Bill in the sentence I wrote above, is to say *I have read a sentence that has been concisely communicated to me. I will now figuratively shit on it, and pretend that for some reason, Fred never saw Bill here*. It's absurd, and you know it's absurd. You would not make that implication if you replaced the characters in the sentence, because it would be stupid. Why is it appropriate to make it when reading Exodus 33:11

You take examples I present to better understand the comprehension of the quote and turn it into a claim that someone in scriputre was blind????  c'mon I literally asked you if a blind person was capable of having such a "face to face" interaction... most English speaking people would answer with a simple "yes" because it is a figure of speech that when talking about one human to another is considered literally faceing each other and looking at each other... a blind person can have a face to face interaction with someone... the sight part is just an exception in their case.  

Considering that the interaction we're talking about in scripture isn't between one human and another human, other exceptions are considered... namely that no one can see the face of God and survive... therefore a "face to face" interaction must have been a little different like when a blind person has a face to face with another human... so maybe Moses and God stood face to face, but either Moses was averting His eyes or God was hiding His face, either way Moses was most likely not looking at God..

what's the point of the verse?  That Moses had a relationship wtih God that no one else has.  No one has a face to face with God yet Moses was considered significant enough to have this very personal interaction with the Almighty.... Does it really matter if Moses saw God or not in his face to face interaction?  no... it really doesn't... In context of the whole Bible, it does, but it really doesn't for this story and to get stuck on this is really ignorant. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you do take the word of a bystander over the source. 

I have no idea what you mean, and I doubt anyone else reading this does. 

ask

Jabberwocky wrote:

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

it is what it is.

"the truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it"  = The Passion

Jabberwocky wrote:

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

it is what it is

"The truth cannot be told to you unless you're willing to hear it"  - the Passion

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Biblical errancy is something I will no longer discuss with you, as this post shows that you can't be honest about it without any further comment from me. 

It is what it is

"the truth...'  yea  this is kind of childish don't you think?  I mean if what you were saying is actually true, you wouldn't have to state it, others would have already called me out on it... and I don't mean one other..

If there's anything I've learned from my years on this site, it's that when a theist says something that is obviously dishonest, wrong or inaccurate, people come out of the woodwork to call them out on it... yea, sorry.  it's not happening here.

Jabberwocky wrote:

So the Qu'ran's comments on Genesis are always 100% accurate, but not beyond? 

considering how you're just sitting drooling on the sidelines waiting to pull out that word/phrase/verse etc that contradicts something in Genesis, let's just point out that the road forks at Abrahams children.   From what I can remember at this point the information beforehand is pretty congruent.   that is a very small chunk of the Bible and the Q'uran

quote=Jabberwocky]

 

I never implied that the books in the bible are chronological in nature. However, the pentateuch at least can only be read that way. It's known that the book of Job is the oldest written work in the Tanakh, or the Old Testament. 

So if 33:20 said it was never possible, why does 33:11 say that it happened? You even admitted it! If it did, then you concede that it's not all true. This is why the majority of my responses here were the same thing copied and pasted. You are dishonest. The. Fucking. End. 

Same here.... speculation my friend.. this is where I was asking you if you take the word of a bystander over the source... the writer is the bystander and you're taking their word over the source.... God. 

You do realize by calling me dishonest you dig yourself deeper into a hole... I have been nothing but honest with you.  Again, if you sleep better at night, I'm glad you can think blindly. 

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Caposkia

Brian37 wrote:

Caposkia wrote:
 YOu talk about proof reading... There are scriptures that you are putting in question that have survived thousands of years of skeptics... and somehow you seem to think you've figured it out because... well... proof reading would assure there were no internal errors and so the Bible must be a writing of fiction.

Religion survives through marketing, not scientific testing and falsification and peer review. It is a book of myth, written over 1.000 year period with books left out, and none of the gosphels were written during the alleged time of the alleged character Jesus's alleged life time.

And it still would not matter if a man with that name existed. Men do not magiclaly pop out of dirt, women do not come from mens ribs. Donkeys and bushes and snakes do not talk. You cannot cure blindness with spit or mud. Men do not magically turn water into wine. It takes two sets of DNA to make a baby and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. 

And there are plenty of contradictory stories from the OT to the NT and even discrepancies between the gospel writers.

It was understandable when people believed that crap back then. It reflected a very patriarchal fuedal time and a very scientifically ignorant time. Gods in monotheism and polytheism reflected the societies of those times. 

The fact is the earth is 4 billion years old, no religion was around back then. The universe is 14 billion years old, and again, no religion existed back then. In billions of years from now our species will be extinct, and eventually the core of our planet will burn out and the planet will die itself. Our sun as well has a life span and it too will die. None of what you typed or what i am responding to will be of any record to the future. The universe will go on without us or any care of us.

That is the reality you do not want to face. There is no super hero in the sky by any name and there never was. There are simply humans who believe because it feels good and or are afraid of their finite existence. The only thing religions by any name prove is our species imagination. Hardly impressive and unfortunately quite mundane in our species.

 

Brian I love how you give your 2 cents and run.  Stick around for a bit this time..  I've enjoyed our conversations in the past... you were great comic releif on the mega-thread.  I need some here.  

I mean your blind faith in people astounds me.   It's like you believe we have it all figured out now.  If you're looking for a superhero in the sky Brian look for a big S on his chest.  

So, are you back because you're afraid people might forget to think for themselves or do you actually have something new for me?

IF anything you've got one thing right... we are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:IF anything

caposkia wrote:

IF anything you've got one thing right... we are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

          I could never worship a god that thought creating the human race was a good idea. 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Same

caposkia wrote:

 

Same here.... speculation my friend.. this is where I was asking you if you take the word of a bystander over the source... the writer is the bystander and you're taking their word over the source.... God. 

You do realize by calling me dishonest you dig yourself deeper into a hole... I have been nothing but honest with you.  Again, if you sleep better at night, I'm glad you can think blindly. 

 

If you've been honest, then you are deluding yourself. 

You can't say, being intellectually honest, that you know that god is the source of that story, but that you also know that god (via the angel Gabriel) isn't the source for the Qu'ran. 

You have said that you believe that it is impossible for the face of god to be seen, and always has. You probably based that on things the bible says(the verses in John, 1 John and 1 Timothy that I have brought up). You take those verses as 100% accurate ones. Then, you take the words of other parts of the book that directly contradict it, and say that they are in error. Then, you will cite stories from the same books (Genesis and Exodus) and claim that they must be true (like the flood, the Tower of Babel, and the Exodus from Egypt). You have said specifically that these books are subject to errors, but then also must be correct. You have not provided any method by deducing what in the bible is definitely true, and what is only somewhat true, even though your position requires that to be the case. Then in other points, you say it is all true. I don't see how you can possibly call your position consistent in any way shape or form. Since you have also said that god can not do what is logically impossible, you have bound everyone and everything (even god) to the laws of logic. Your position regarding biblical errancy contradicts that. You also say that you are being honest. That leaves one possibility; you are deluded. It logically follows 100% with our conversations in both of these threads we have been responding to one another in often. Every time I have called you on this, you respond with more vague bullshit. If you can't even organize your thoughts enough to explain what parts of the bible are to be taken literally word for word, which are not, and why, then there is nothing further to discuss. 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Caposkia wrote:
 YOu talk about proof reading... There are scriptures that you are putting in question that have survived thousands of years of skeptics... and somehow you seem to think you've figured it out because... well... proof reading would assure there were no internal errors and so the Bible must be a writing of fiction.

Religion survives through marketing, not scientific testing and falsification and peer review. It is a book of myth, written over 1.000 year period with books left out, and none of the gosphels were written during the alleged time of the alleged character Jesus's alleged life time.

And it still would not matter if a man with that name existed. Men do not magiclaly pop out of dirt, women do not come from mens ribs. Donkeys and bushes and snakes do not talk. You cannot cure blindness with spit or mud. Men do not magically turn water into wine. It takes two sets of DNA to make a baby and human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. 

And there are plenty of contradictory stories from the OT to the NT and even discrepancies between the gospel writers.

It was understandable when people believed that crap back then. It reflected a very patriarchal fuedal time and a very scientifically ignorant time. Gods in monotheism and polytheism reflected the societies of those times. 

The fact is the earth is 4 billion years old, no religion was around back then. The universe is 14 billion years old, and again, no religion existed back then. In billions of years from now our species will be extinct, and eventually the core of our planet will burn out and the planet will die itself. Our sun as well has a life span and it too will die. None of what you typed or what i am responding to will be of any record to the future. The universe will go on without us or any care of us.

That is the reality you do not want to face. There is no super hero in the sky by any name and there never was. There are simply humans who believe because it feels good and or are afraid of their finite existence. The only thing religions by any name prove is our species imagination. Hardly impressive and unfortunately quite mundane in our species.

 

Brian I love how you give your 2 cents and run.  Stick around for a bit this time..  I've enjoyed our conversations in the past... you were great comic releif on the mega-thread.  I need some here.  

I mean your blind faith in people astounds me.   It's like you believe we have it all figured out now.  If you're looking for a superhero in the sky Brian look for a big S on his chest.  

So, are you back because you're afraid people might forget to think for themselves or do you actually have something new for me?

IF anything you've got one thing right... we are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Who is running? I am sorry if my bluntness and shortness bothers you, but it really does not take that long to read crap to know it is crap. You might have believed in Santa for a while, but you grew up on that topic.

If any god claim in human history were more than their own wishful thinking, any religion could prove their god as easily as proving your computer exists. So I really am not a fan of walking down the yellow brick road of comic books of mythology. I put the same challenge to you that I do any other religion or god claimant. Get your claim confirmed in a neutral lab with testing and falsification and peer review. If you do that, you can beat everyone to the patent office and even win a Nobel Prize in "god theory".

 

But I hate to burst your bubble, but you will find as much luck with that as those who believed the sun had a god, or that Thor made lightening, or that Allah is real. You really would like to think you are not standing in the DMV trying to pass off fiction to get your drivers licence to the unfortanite sane employee who knows they will get bitched out even though you could not read the eye chart and ran people over in the road test. 

If you really think you got the one true god, you are a fool. Humans make up gods and always have. So I will tell you what I tell Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Rastafarians, Muslims ect ect ect ect. Just like at the DMV "Get in line and take a number".

"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:That

caposkia wrote:
That statement was directly in reference to this thread, which is true that I never lied here.

In this topic alone you've lied in both your most recent posts directed at me. You have lied here so many times it's a wonder your nose hasn't speared the moon by now.

caposkia wrote:
You realize that direclty applies to you right?  NO??? do you see where the error lies in your statement then?

Another lie.

caposkia wrote:
Ignorance is usually not self proclaimed or sometimes even self evident.

I'm sure it's very hard for a habitual liar to understand honest discussion, thus you can delude yourself. But you can't delude anyone else here.

caposkia wrote:
It would be dishonest of you to claim that you avoid subjects you are ignorant of especially if you're ignorant of your ignorance, like in this case.

Unfortunately for you I'm not ignorant of my ignorance. Even more unfortunately for you, ignorance of ignorance isn't even a topic of discussion, so your assertions are another demonstration of your dishonesty.

caposkia wrote:
You're convinced I lie.

Proof is rather convincing.

caposkia wrote:
yet you have not been very truthful about your own knowledge

Another lie.

caposkia wrote:
Dishonesty is assumed always by those who are dishonest.

Irrelevant, you are a proven liar. It doesn't require a liar to uncover a liar.

caposkia wrote:
You jump to the conclusion when things don't go your way that I lie.

Another lie.

caposkia wrote:
that shows me you're a very dishonest person

When a liar calls me a liar, it is actually a compliment on my honesty. Thanks.

caposkia wrote:

You'd rather call someone out in a lie before admitting that you might be mistaken yourself. 

Quite likely so, but you can't prove I lied about anything so this is just a desperate attempt to deflect attention from your lies.

caposkia wrote:
Every time I've asked you to show me how I've lied, you've shown me either a misunderstood statement by you or maybe... I'd have to look, a situation I may have actually been mistaken in... I have been careful not to be dishonest... sorry to disappoint.

Another lie.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

caposkia wrote:

IF anything you've got one thing right... we are quite insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

 

 

          I could never worship a god that thought creating the human race was a good idea. 

Genesis does say He did regret the decision. 

in another angle, this would mean parents should be viewed the same for having kids... continuing the race.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2701
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:If you've

Jabberwocky wrote:

If you've been honest, then you are deluding yourself. 

You can't say, being intellectually honest, that you know that god is the source of that story, but that you also know that god (via the angel Gabriel) isn't the source for the Qu'ran. 

I can say that the story was 'inspired" by God... not the author... the author is the speculator... God stated in many other parts that no one can see his face and survive.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have said that you believe that it is impossible for the face of god to be seen, and always has. You probably based that on things the bible says(the verses in John, 1 John and 1 Timothy that I have brought up). You take those verses as 100% accurate ones. Then, you take the words of other parts of the book that directly contradict it, and say that they are in error. Then, you will cite stories from the same books (Genesis and Exodus) and claim that they must be true (like the flood, the Tower of Babel, and the Exodus from Egypt). You have said specifically that these books are subject to errors, but then also must be correct. You have not provided any method by deducing what in the bible is definitely true, and what is only somewhat true, even though your position requires that to be the case. Then in other points, you say it is all true. I don't see how you can possibly call your position consistent in any way shape or form. Since you have also said that god can not do what is logically impossible, you have bound everyone and everything (even god) to the laws of logic. Your position regarding biblical errancy contradicts that. You also say that you are being honest. That leaves one possibility; you are deluded. It logically follows 100% with our conversations in both of these threads we have been responding to one another in often. Every time I have called you on this, you respond with more vague bullshit. If you can't even organize your thoughts enough to explain what parts of the bible are to be taken literally word for word, which are not, and why, then there is nothing further to discuss. 

you're comparing specifics to generalities....

e.g.  the flood was a whole story, the claim of seeing Gods face is a specific verse here and there.  Tower of Babel is also a whole story as well as the Exodus...  The specifics are based on context... it is understood that the stories as a whole are true. 

If you want to question my logic or understanding on something you think I'm contradicting myself on or the Bible for that matter, please specify the two so we can compare.  If you say I believe the exodus is true, but then pull out  a random verse and ask why I don't claim the same matter of fact understanding, then you're comparing apples to oranges.  The Exodus I believe is true... do I think that every single statement within the story of the Exodus should be taken absolutely literally??? probably not... I can't think of an example now, but I'm sure you could find one if you wanted.  

I will give specific reasoning if I don't take it literally and it always applies to the context.  e.g., I'v pointed out how the "face to face" statement can be taken in many different ways despite how many on here want to deny that, thus you can't claim that visual observations were taken of God from that single statement.