Lao tzu reads well but if you accept reality (i do, you may not) then it is just clever word play. A pantheist does not believe in a personal god, so no salvation, no afterlife, no eternal justice etc, why bother? I'm not religious as they all make ridiculous and unfounded claims and i couldn't choose one over another.
@1empathy I certainly disagree that it is is "just clever word play". There are many excellent lessons there no matter what your beliefs. (religious or not) I don't take my pantheism much past the belief that *if* there is a god, he is the same as the universe and that everything is connected in some way. (See "quantum entanglement")
@jimmo42 Thanks for answering, i'm intrigued so feel free to PM me if you want/need more space.. I love the tao de ching and when i was younger i described myself as a "philosophical taoist" but it is not based on reality and although it contains wisdom it is not intrinsically wise. Please don't start on quantum entanglement as a justification for the supernatural but do tell me if you believe in a personal god and if you don't why do you bother with religion? Why "he"? for instance
All true corrections of historical errors on the part of the author(s) of the mentioned passages. But the Bible is not supposed to be seen as a 100% accurate historical document. Suppose I write a book on the character and nature of Abraham Lincoln. And all of my information is correct on him as a noble person. Knowing this purpose in my writing, would you get hung up if I mistakenly (not purposefully) said he was the 36th president and Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated him in his home?
@perichoresis7 You cannot always KNOW the intent and especially without knowing a LOT about where Mark (the first gospel) got his info from and what was going on in his day, when he wrote, etc. Who he was and was not. etc. Lots of learning and puzzle fitting b4 you could say you knew Mark's intent. As for history, if almost every detail of the gospel comes from OT stories/passages and Greek mythology, then it's not simply historically inacccurate. It's fiction.
@TeesByTruthSurge "Well, if you zoom into one detail,you can always claim..."
Absolutely! And if you and I were talking about this over a beer I wouldn't be so pendantic. However, we are dealing with a group of people (christian apologists) who will take a single mistake and build their counter arguments around that single mistake. Saying "proven" when it is only "obviously clear to someone of even average intelligence" opens you up.
@TeesByTruthSurge My "case" for perhaps implying the bible is "completely worthless" would be based on your post, not the video. Admittedly, that is a perception/opinion and I am not claiming it is a fact. In 500 characters it is hard to express thoughts as well in other contexts.
@TeesByTruthSurge"If someone said they killed all the firstborn in Egypt..."
That not appearing in any writings is a good indicator that it did not happened. 1) scribes of the time would have known 2) they would have most certainly reported it. However, I think it is a stretch to say we most certainly would have found archaeological evidence. As far as I know, Finkelstein and Silberman didn't adjust for likely errors in when it occured, ie.they found nothing just from that specific time period.
@TeesByTruthSurge "the section where archeology DISPROVED parts of the Bible"
Welcome to the wonderful world of historiography. You *seem* to be implying that since there are a few (many?) places where the bible got the history and geography wrong, then it is *completely* worthless. That is not only a cardinal sin for historians, but it is demonstrably false.
@TeesByTruthSurge "But it just seems that you are wanting to ignore the actual text as being evidence for or against. "
Strobel-esque argument: it is by no means black and white, plus you are once against jumping to wrong conclusions . The lack of any archaelogical evidence is a *good* argument that the Exodus did *not* happen. A single argument, particularly one that is "absence of evidence" is not going to prove someting. (Well at least I don't think it should)
@TeesByTruthSurge "So, you find nothing in the STORY of the Exodus in the Bible that could be presented as evidence AGAINST the exodus?"
Sure, the mere fact that the explanations for amazing events are always "gog dun it". Basically of Moses' interaction with pharoah is questionable, but evidence is not proof and when dealing with history, the line between evidence and supposition is often every thin.
@TeesByTruthSurge Where I draw the line? It depends on the context. In email, forum posts, etc. I am more likely to state things as absolutes. If I am presenting a class or writing an article, I am far more conservative with what I claim as fact, especially in cases like the Exodus where the only "evidence" is lack of evidence.
@TeesByTruthSurge Whether I can say I know that the story of Joesph Smith and Moroni is made up is irrelevant to your video. More Strobel-esque arguments. Sounds like a "Gish Gallop" to me. I personally can say, I do not believe, but to say it did not happen in video that pretends to present accurate information is being intellectually dishonest. You can say "there is no evidence other than Smith's claim", but that's the end of it.
@TeesByTruthSurge Fourth historiography lesson is that even in modern times, people will interpret the same text differently. An example of how you are "ignorant"? Well, you are demonstrably ignorant of how modern Christians interpet the bible. Most Christians are not bible literalists. The catholics are not and most european Christians are not. Therefore, in that context, there is no need to explain the talking snake. It is an allegory.
@TeesByTruthSurge Your third historiography lesson is that you need to take historical documents withing the context of the people writting as well as the intended audience. Seeing a red Nile, bronze age people might have interpreted it as blood and for them the "only" cause was supernatural. Your tooth fairy example is ludicrous if not down right childish. We "know", where the quarters under the pillow come from.
yet another Strobel-esque argument. Perhaps yours is, but the real-world is not black and white. (that's your second historiography lesson) In any discussion the framework needs to defined, in this case both historiographically and epistemologically. There are no naturalist explanations for talking snakes, so I can make a knowledge-claim about it. However, there are naturalistics causes to explain the red Nile, which appeared as "blood".
@TeesByTruthSurge I can read Finkelstein and Silverman. pg 61-64 go into some details about why the exodus is unlikely to have occured, including references to the towns that *should* have evidence of Hebrew settlements. However, they don't jump to conclusions like you do. You want a historiography lesson? An historian cannot say with with absolute ( or even 99.999999%) certainty. They can only make statements about what is most likely, like Finkelstein and Silverman do.
Yet another unsubstantiated claim from you. You have no evidence for that claim, just my comment that you are ignorant of historiography. What evidence do you have I am unwilling? None. Yet another example of you jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Strobel is another person who jumps to conclusions without evidence. Ironic that you make a video about him.
Yet more proof you argue like a fundie. We *both* know that number is made up. Making up facts is classical fundie arguments. Part of what you say is valid, some of what you say is made up. Sounds like your arguments have the same quality as the arguments in the bible. So are you saying YOU cannot be trusted?
@TeesByTruthSurge "So, you do think that Solomon had 300 wives and 600 concubines? and that donkeys talked? "
Again, You argue like a fundie I make a single statement about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and you once again jump to a wild conclusion that I believe everything in the bible. You have demonstrated *repeatedly* that your conclusions are not based on facts or even evidence.
@TeesByTruthSurge "At least archeology has proven to MY satisfaction, if not yours. "....
rant....rant....rant....rant....rant....
Please do let us know if you ever get to anything rational (that is, based on reason). I am not going to discount the bible as a useful historical an archaeological source simply because many parts of it are demonstrably false. Schliemann didn't believe the Iliad completely but was able to Troy because of it.
@TeesByTruthSurge "You'd merely say it was someone who was trying to rewrite history. Or you'd claim it was a forgery planted by atheists."
...facepsalm...
Based on my single post, you drew that conclusion? And exactly why do you feel that your method of "debating" is different from fundies? As far as I can tell, there isn't much difference.
@TeesByTruthSurge "So, since there is a HUGE and unarguable precedent in the Bible for hyperbole and inaccuracies, we would be wise to dismiss the fantastic altogether as well as the exaggerations. "
...facepalm...
Please do some reading on historiography. You seem to have no clue about it.
"To believe in the exodus w/o any evidence OUTSIDE the Bible to support it is to wave a flag and scream "I'm a biased religatard! Evidence? "
@TeesByTruthSurge "The Bible Unearthed"? You mean the Finkelstein/Silberman book? It's sitting on the shelg beside my desk, right next to Ken Millers. "Finding Darwin's God".
"You should, since you seem so sure that the exodus is a possible historic event"
WHAT?!??!? You most definitely argue like a fundie! Be right at all costs. Is that your motto? If you honestly got that from what I posted, you have some **serious** issues.
@TeesByTruthSurge "small desert area ". Apparently you don't know how big the region is. Further, although you statement "SOME trace" is valid, nomadic tribes are notoriously difficult to verify archaeologically. Things that are normally found in archaeological sites are their most prized possession, do you honestly believe that they would not take care enough to make sure they get packed?
@TeesByTruthSurge "are you completely ignorant that when there SHOULD be evidence of a thing and there isn't, "
And you are ingnorant of the basic principles of historiography. "Should" does not imply "must". Historians only talk about with what is *probably* not what 100% happened. Yes, the silence is suspicious, but that it not evidence of absense.
@TeesByTruthSurge "There is as much evidence for Jesus as the tooth fairy."
You argue like a fundie. That statement is patently false. While I don't agree with some claims "there is more evidence for Jesus than any other person in the 1st century", your claim is patently false and IMO demostrates a need to simply be right, regardless of the evidence.
@TeesByTruthSurge From a historiography perspective, your comparision is no less than absurd. We *can* monitor a child's room to test your theory that there is a tooth fairy. We *can* go to the north pole to disprove your theory santa claus exists. Further the implication in the video is that because there is no evidence for the exodus, it must *not* have happened, not that because there is nothing that dispoves the exodus, it must have happened. You've obviously gotten things backwards.
Careful! While Icertainly agree that it is unlikely that the exodus left no records, it is a clear case of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It could be that we are not looking in the right places.
Ah, a very convenient way to avoid answering my requests. I am not the one posting a video about something they have not studied. And yes, I did watch at least part one. Is there a reason I should continue to part two when from the outset we are given less than scholarly information? If you are an authority on the matter, then prove such to everyone here instead of accusing someone of being a "pseudo-intellectual". I need not prove anything for I am not making videos. Such is your burden.
@jimmo42 Well, for starters, Lee Strobel said, and I quote "It wasn't until I analyzed the bible thoroughly, that I concluded it must have a divine origin." The author of this video then states, and I quote "Here, Strobel admits that he never studied the bible thoroughly as an Atheist, only thoroughly after he became a Christian." This is what we call interpolating. It cannot be determined whether his conclusions were before or after he became a Christian... Shall I go on to the next point?
@Wunji1 I missed that. Your right. The video poster does seem to have a tendancy to interpolate a lot, as well as draw conclusions with little or no evidence. While I think Strobel is a intentionally dishonest in many of videos and books, that does not give non-believers a carte blanche to say and do whatever they want.
@jimmo42 Sorry for the delay. I cannot always respond expeditiously due to work :( Let me begin by saying that the "overall" tenor of the Old Testament is misunderstood. Further, ancient cultures are very disparate from modern cultures. A cursory glance at the Old Testament text would certainly produce the likes of such videos from which we are now engaged in dialogue. I will simply address one of the travesties at the beginning of the video, as the same could be done for all...
@Wunji1 Whether ancient culture were disparate or not is irrelevant.God is supposed to be timeless. God *could* have commanded "Thou shalt not own another human being", but he didn't. God supported slavery an ordered it. God *could* have also said "The shalt respect women and not force them to have sex", but he didn't. God supported rape and even ordered it. Shall I go on?
@jimmo42 Rape is another issue that has not been discussed here. The disparity between ancient and modern cultures is incredibly relevant. We don't bring our understanding of who God is to the bible, instead we draw our understanding of who He is from the same. Therefore, the imposition of your view of God is not tolerated by the bible. God did not "order" slavery, yet He approved. But again, you are bringing your "Western-modern" understanding of such to the table...
@Wunji1 "The disparity between ancient and modern cultures is incredibly relevant."
Wrong! Forcing a woman into sex and then simply paying a small fine to *her father* is immoral now and 3000 years ago. It is an absolute, object morality that say "thou shalt not harm others", unlike the obvious subjective morality you seem to believe in and what is obviously what the bible says.
So that would seem to say you believe it is OK for a japanese man to commit spousal rape because they are a non-Western culture. Is that correct? Genital mutliation in Africa is OK, right?
Because of my time in the army, and my last job, I have been in countries all over the world, I respect most aspect of the various cultures. So please come down from your high-horse.
@jimmo42 We are obviously approaching this issue from two completely different perspectives. No one can stop you from getting so heated, and completely missing the thrust of what is said. Your conclusion are expedient, and you are welcome to them...
@Wunji1. "No one can stop you from getting so heated, and completely missing the thrust of what is said."
You can certainly help by being honest and not waiving off relevent topics because they are uncomfortable or you have no plausible explaination. The "thrust" was your absurb claim that we should "consider slavery for a moment" and that the term was diachronic. The same things applies to both rape, genocide, infanticide, etc. However, they were and still are immoral.
@Wunji1 My defintion immoral is by no means expedient, unless you mean it is simply to demonstrate one can live by an absolute morality without the need for a fictious super-being. If so, I will freely admit that.
You want to stick to slavery? OK. The OT provided conditions where someone could own another human and beat him to *death* without any punishment. Now tell us you think that is morally acceptable in *any* culture.
@jimmo42 Here is MY point. Your very first question to me was *scroll* "Serious question: What do you believe to be untrue about the video?" I proceeded to explain what I thought was untrue. I gave you my first point to which you said "I missed that, you're right." Then I said, shall I go on... You said "Sure, why not". Then I simply was giving a position for the next point, and you blow up into this heated, face-palming, remonstrance....
@jimmo42 You then say that my claims were a "cop-out". My points are very defensible from what the bible says. The slavery in the old testament in very different from our modern experience. To say that it is not is to admit ignorance of every ancient culture that every existed. Further, and in light of what was just said, nowhere does it say that slavery is immoral. Your mind, and our culture has said "owning someone is immoral".
P2: God is outside of time and space, knowing past, present and future.
P3: God's morality (or god's laws based on that morality) have changed over time.
C: The god of the bible is not god.
I am not obligated to forgo my "god-given" intellect and reason, simply because someone else desperately needs to justify obviously immoral behaviour.
The closest I thing to anything that has a name is that I might call myself a taoist pantheist. However, as with many things, the more you try to define it, the further you get from what you are trying to describe.
@jimmo42 But again, this is based on our once removed generation from the slavery that crippled America. I showed that the slavery in the old testament was in once sense the "spoils of war." In another since, people gave themselves as slaves to pay a debt that was owed, et. al... Who decided that it was immoral to have a slave? If we were denizens of an ancient culture, we would think nothing of slavery the way we do now.
@jimmo42 Because of this, it is a logical fallacy to say 1. slavery is immoral 2. God permitted slavery 3. Therefore, God is immoral. If the premises are false, the conclusion cannot be correct. In other words, if you cannot prove that slavery is immoral from a biblical perspective, then you can't then say that God is immoral. Also, I am not avoiding the other issues (rape, genocide, etc...). I was simply taking each point in the video, which is what was set forth in the beginning...
@Wunji1 "If the premises are false, the conclusion cannot be correct."
Obviously.
"if you cannot prove that slavery is immoral from a biblical perspective, then you can't then say that God is immoral"
Wrong. Once again, typical christian "goal-post moving". Slavery is immoral at all times and in all cultures. Using the bible to prove it is moral is simply circular logic.
From a Nazi-pespective murdering millions of Jews was OK, therefore it is not immoral. Right?
@jimmo42 I have not been disrespectful to you, in any way. I was certainly sarcastic in my very first comment in response to this video, and that was certainly wrong. For this discussion however, I have no desire to slap back and forth. I wasn't saying that your definition of immoral was expedient. I was referring to the illogical conclusion drawn from the faulty premises - that's all, nothing more.
you made the false claim that I was "having a hard time sticking to the subject" despite the demonstrable fact that the discussion was about moral relativism. I'm not going to play word games about whether that was "disrespectful". That is what you have been doing and seems to be a common fundamentalist tactic, as the discussion up to this point demonstrates.
@jimmo42 If you believe slavery is immoral, then present an argument for that position. I will certainly grant that all the things that were done to the slaves in the 20th century were incredibly visceral, and immoral. But slavery in and of itself is not immoral in my view. So much so that I gave the references to how slaves were to be treated according to the law set forth in Deuteronomy. They were treated as hired workers, and with respect, including the ones captured from war...
@Wunji1 Self-determination is an inalienable. If I "sell" myself to pay off a debt, I would consider that acceptable. However, a daughter is not the fathers property and it is immoral to sell her off without her permission for any reason. Killing all of the males and older women in a city and taking the virgins as sex slaves, is a violation of that self-determination and is thus immoral.
"including the ones captured from war... " Wrong! Re-read the OT and then get back to us.
@jimmo42 I am not familiar with any law in the old testament that sanctioned someone to beat a slave to "death". If it exists, I simply have not read it....
@Wunji1 Exodus 21:20-21. As long as the slaves does not die right aways, the owner is not to be punished. It even says the slave is property. But, it's OK because god said it was. :-(
@jimmo42 Let's consider slavery for a moment. Most people have not studied the history of slavery in the world. I say this not as a "matter of fact" but evidenced by no shortage of the disinformation, such as contained in this video, and other outlets. Our current understanding of slavery is conditioned mostly by it's history as an established practice in U.S., though some may be familiar with the South African apartheid, or the slave trade in Britain, and elsewhere...
@jimmo42 Slavery has been one of diachrony. It is at best disingenuous to conflate our "modern" understanding of such, with that of the ancient world, and more specifically, that of the Israelites. Several facts should be noted at first. 1. Slavery is found in every ancient culture from Egypt to Rome. 2. In these ancient cultures, slavery was a mixture of (1) debt-slavery, punishment for a crime, slave by parturition, child abandonment, and the enslavement of prisoners of war.
@jimmo42 (1) W. V. Harris, "Demography, Geography and the Sources of Roman Slaves," The Journal of Roman Studies, 1999 - just so you no one thinks I am pulling these from my arse... 3. In light of 1 and 2, in the bible, God conditioned and gave prohibition on such. The truth regarding slavery in the bible is thus... 1. Slaves were to be treated as hired workers, not slaves (Lev 25:39-43). 2. All slaves were to be freed after six years (Ex 21:2, Dt 15:12).
@jimmo42 3. Freed slaves were to be liberally supplied with grain, wine and livestock (Dt 15:12-15). 4. Every fiftieth year (the year of jubilee), all Hebrew slaves were to be freed, even those owned by foreigners (Lev 25:10, 47-54). In some cases slaves could choose to remain with their masters should they desire (Dt 15:16-17). And lastly -
@jimmo42 If a Hebrew sold himself as a slave to a foreigner, he reserved the right to buy his freedom (Lev 25:47-49) and was still to be treated as a hired worker (Lev 25:53). In short, slavery in the ancient world is no more analogous to the our modern understanding than say rape, which I believe is the next point in the video. Failure to bring such significance to the surface leaves the rest suspect...
@Wunji1 Further God ordered the genocide of various tribes as well as the mass murder of prisoners of war. Since God is supposedly timeless, those acts were as immoral then as they are today. God was either unable or unwilling to make the appropriate commandments . Your claim that the culture was different is an extremely weak cop-out that I have heard for decades. Your pointing out versus that regulate immoral behaviour does not make it any less immoral. It is an invalid excuse.
@jimmo42 You are obviously having a hard time sticking to the subject. We are not talking about Rape, or genocide. If you want to talk about the nature of God as revealed in the bible, we can go there. but, my comments were specific to this video, and nothing else...
@Wunji1 You are obviously trying hard to deflect from the core issue by falsely accusing me. It doesn't matter if we are talking about rape, genocide or slavery, which was started by *you* saying "Let's consider slavery for a moment." The issue is your absurd claim that we have to look at the context of bronze-age culture when judging their immoral behavior. By your ridiculous you could say we need to consider the context of Nazi Germany, before we judge the holocaust.
@jimmo42 Perhaps, and more to the point, one could press the "female" aspect considered in this video. Fathers could sell their daughters as a maidservant and wife. Being married to their master, they obviously were not set free after six years, yet they were protected by the law (Ex. 21:8, Ex. 21:9, Ex. 21:10-11). Considering the "prisoners of war", if the captors chose to marry captures women, there were similar laws protecting these women (Dt. 21:13-14). I could go on and on...
@jimmo42 It is no secret that women were of lower class then, and this thought is still pervasive. Of course the old argument - "If God is completely beneficent, omniscient, etc... then why is there so much evil in the world, bad things happen, and such inequality?"- could be employed. God has had the opportunity to overhaul those ancient cultures and set them aright. This, however, opens Pandora's box, and would require a lengthy dissertation... lol
@Wunji1 "God has had the opportunity to overhaul those ancient cultures and set them aright. "
Excuse me?!?! Isn't God timeless and unchanging? When he tossed Adam and Eve out of the garden, he already knew what kind of culture would develop but decided to allow immoral cultures to develop. When he gave the ten commandments, he already knew what immoral behaviour would occur in 10,100,1000 years, but did nothing about it. You are simply provindg more evidence that God is not God.
@jimmo42 Again, you are imposing your understanding of God upon the biblical revelation about His nature, character, and dealing with man. Even here you are pulling this sentence out of context. I was simply saying that God "could" have corrected cultures all along the way, but didn't, and to ask "why" is opening the proverbial box. Of course God knew what would happen, but that does not obligate Him to keep it from happening. Such would be contrary to love, and free will...
@Wunji1 Saying that preventing rape, slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc "would be contrary to love" is absolutely PATHETIC!!! It is a cheap cop-out like "it's god's will" or "god moves in mysterious ways" whenever your mythlogical sky-daddy does anything that by his own law is immoral.
When information surfaces about an archaeological find which supposedly "discredits" the bible, I suppose you get all giddy on the inside. The result is the making of videos for youtube so that others like you can feel affirmed. Did you wet your pants when you learned what you thought was true about Cyrus? At what University did you study the ancient near east? Would you make a video documenting your study? Please show us all that you are an authority on this subject...
@Wunji1 and with this comment, I bid you.... fare well. You had your chance to highlight any error(s) you found in the four part series and you seem only to be able to post childish pseudo-intellectual comments. Feel free to keep doing so but you won't get any more replies from me.
Respect is given when respect is due, and since you claim the information is 100% accurate, I'm not sure what respect is requisite. There are more holes in your "100% accurate" video than what's beneath sponge bobs underpants. It is important, when claiming something, that you include all the pertinent information, especially from the source(s) from which you are siting, to wit, the bible. Did you even study the issue on Belshazzar? Apparently not...
@Wunji1 Did you even watch the video? All of this info can be verified by anyone with access to the Internet (and if you're watching this, I have to assume you do). Once again, you have not listed a specific error in my vid. That's typical of Christians. They love to yell "YOU'RE WRONG!" but when asked to SHOW how and where I'm wrong, they fling a lot of words and run off. Sad. So, I will give you another shot. What is inaccurate about the Belshazzar/Bel Shar Usar part?
Feel free to denigrate all you want. The information in this video is not accurate. But, most scholars don't waste their time watching feebly marshalled videos on youtube. I would suggest further investigation before making these assertions. Perhaps a little less Peter Jennings?
It would not surprise me if the next words in print from you are invective. As to the rest of us - unflappable...
so far ive giving only examples of the opposite. Why does the Israelites have to old these laws. Because God needs to protect them from evil because once Jesus will come from heaven as ultimate sacrifice. God itself is pissed with the misdeeds of the people see the reasoning of Sthephanus. Even tthe jews concider Jesus a man of peace because Werner Keller: He had almost the same teaching as Hillel of love. He Healed many sick. He died because he wanted to be a replacement in judgement.
Second the allknowing powers of GOD are forgotten. David makes an mistake but David has no good heir yet he need a warning before things go wrong. One life can safe many others. Weird it is to think that a wolf is terrorising the lands, the whelps wont be left in peace until they done something bad themself. Its your mortal judgement quistening something you dont even can slightly understand. Your just willing to speak a verdict instead of thinking it over.
You say innocent? were all decendants of Adam and Eve. You refuse that heritance. A chld is not born clean. There is circular reason if God doesnt excist its prolly a lie and you cant blame God. Or He excist then He knows more then you and there is no way He should be mistaken.
There's your problem. You can't get your mind around a god who would punish ME for what someone did thousands of years ago!
I also find that people who type "then" when they meant "than" usually have not done well in school and cannot comprehend the true meaning of what is being said to them. I've done all I can. Good luck!
Thats your opinion on the matter. The punishment of dead derives from sinn. Its mercytime we got. We have gotten free will, no freedom to live whatever way we want. We can chooce with or against him. For the grammar issue i'm not done learning. I was best at school on english. And if you only point at one mistake as disabling your comprehension of the matter while you submitted this subject is fallacious. Retreat is for the looser, so i challenge you to stay.
Facto in howfar is a judge to blame if he sends a man to jail who done something terrible and just to get out of the slums. people like excuses. Another example is sodomy inbreds are more likely to have a handicap.
HE sais himself to be like a potterymaker.
if it isnt nice looking he can throw it away. The difference between HIM and us is so great hE can see us as mud.
The son of Uriah was not just ill because of the sinn of others but for the sinn of their father. To witch Israel swore an oath with as penalty of breaking to results of sinn will come down on you and your children. Exodus 9:10 Let me alone, that may wrath may wax hot against them and that i may consume them; and I will make of thee a great nation. But Mozes did something. 1sr chronicles if He sees the repentence of the people He finds it enough. David 1 Chron 21:13 was right. Ez mercy again.
funny explanation. So someone bargains with god hundreds of years earlier and then someone else hundreds of years later has his kid killed because of a contract established by someone other than himself.
There's justice, for ya! It's no different! hahah your explanation does not remove the moral problem of punishing one for the sins (or decisions) of another. No kupie doll this time but feel free to try again. :)
Simple explanation, if you steal you have a chance of getting arrested. But your children are more likely to do the same, they not just learn your behaviour but are capable of copying it. There are sayings like on the fruit you know the tree. Or the fruit doesnt fall far from the tree; in Dutch, dunno if you are familiar with them.
There is more to it then you just said. Your twisting the story here. The problem is that if We sin, Jesus didnt have to die for it. there are exeptions on the matter.
You said i was flopping, i gave multiple explanations who are to be seen as whole there are many factors to make a decision. You were talking about someone bargaining with god? ''someone-himself''A natural law for inbreeding is not a contract. behaviourism and the capability of a kid to copy the parents is a natural thing. And for the many errors ive pointed out in this video. Your trying to force the truth so you can win.
No, YOU are having to argue against your own sense of right and wrong and that pisses you off because you KNOW god is a hateful bastard. No LOVING being would drown babies and then start over with another very sinful family (original sin, remember?). What did it accomplish but satisfying his lust to murder the innocent? He even killed Jesus (a supposedly innocent man). I want no part of your hateful and murderous god. I'm done. :)
I dont think anything is wrong with that. Where ever stood he had lust doing such things?
Your making up excuses by telling me how i think. But the mainproblem is you are making the claims that He is opposite to the loving righteous father. It isnt true because He is God itself and has the right to do it since it has meaning. Other then abortion what is murder. And if God doesnt excist then the mob would be guilty. In no way you can blame God. You can blame Its worshippers who are human.
The Friezen and the Greeks before the jews had a deadpenalty on cursing. Killing an upstanding son is understandable. As a teacher i see the children of today have no respect maners, as well as many adults alike. All Egyptians where slaves from the Paraoh. A Contract between you and your boss is a form of slavery. 1:00 raping? dont think so use KJV. And it continues because they have to marry and not to divorce ever. 50 shekels of silver isnt nothing btw.
heheh yeah, and the foreskin of Christ resides in several different monestaries! hahaha Must have been tough having 12 different penises but then, great way to SERVE his disciples - all at once! (oooh that was bad)
so is that the 2nd cumming of christ...or the 3rd, 4th, 5th...12th? when these people telll me that i should let christ come into my heart, i reach for a very thick COAT!
PS....also grab the biggest beach towel you can find. when he knocks on the "Door of their heart" to come into and they don't answer, the stuff can get all over the hallway.... very messy really. The least the bloke can do is clean up after himself - has "he' ever heard of "safe" salvation?
yes it does. like my marriage to a wife would require a woman,. ,the gall of these people to demand that we respect and even convert to something that is clearly made up, clearly non-existent and clearly annoying!
I read the Bible. that's the short answer. But I also read other people's insights on the Bible and related stuff. When your religion is based on a book and that book is shown false through and through, what does that do to your religion? :)
what a great video. Strobel is a dick. he acts as if he knows what he's talking about, especially science. I would tell him to stick with the bible but apparently he screws that up, too.
thanks. Yeah, I don't like his smug attitude, either. Prob what prompted me to do these vids. Smug, arrogant, cocksure and yet completely wrong about everything he claimed.
yes and they're hoping that the show of emotional "hubris" will silence any critics and people who don't know how to stand up to 'em. I always said the louder the message, the less substance to it
That's the whole point, isn't it? Ninevah was 3 miles across. Easily walked within an hour. Not 10 hours or even 30 hours or even 60 hours.
The text says that Nineveh was a very large city THEN it goes on to say it took 3 days to cross it. Sort of redundant to call it large twice and besides, why THREE? I'll tell you why. Because THREE was the "magic number" along with 7, 12 and 40. It's fiction.
atheists want to make bible" literal word of God" so they can disprove it more easily. Loking for magic where there is none. its called a straw man argument.
why would someone thought that there is a city that you need 3 days to cross over it in those times? its obvious that its not to be taken literary.
it's a its a phrase in Hebrew " 3 days walk". means reaaaaaaaaaaaaaly big.
why is it redundant , you never used more then one word in a sentence to emphasize something?
No, it's called examining the text from all angles and then choosing the best interpretation. Hyperbole, exaggeration, etc. is used in the Bible but this ain't one of them. To the writer of Jonah and to most people of those days, a town 3 miles long WAS huge but because the writer was apparently not familiar personally with it, hence the "3 days across" error.
actually it is hyperbole, and its not me saying its the foot notes in my bible with the newest translation , the " Jerusalem bible "
for the third time "3 day walk " meaning stronger then superlative.
i see you interpreting this only from one angle.
even if they did believe by some chance that there is a city 2 times the size of los angeles (no one is that ignorant) in their heads it would still mean reaaaaaaaaaaly big city and niniva is exactly that , a big city for that time.
I also see you have not explained HOW this is hyperbole. In fact, the writer probably was unaware of the actual size and just picked 3 days to fill in his fiction (as many did). It's fiction. If it said it took 2 hours to cross you'd claim hyperbole to maintain an error-free Bible.
Last time: HOW is this hyperbole and not a literal statement by the author?
i really dont know what to say anymore, bible is not error free we all know that, i gaved you a foot note from my bible.
yes alot of stuff they got wrong, the science stuff, they got it the best way they could considering science and knowledge then, but bible is not a science book, phew what a relief.
they did not take dictation from God, they were inspired to write what he wanted but they interpreted it the best way the could.
what is the point if God told them about equal rights for women or quantum gravity or equal rights for intelligent robots or that earth is ellipsoid. those statements would confuse them .
If you want your child to be a physicist do you teach him about quantum physics first or do you learn him how to count and add numbers?
that kind of bible in that time would be of no use to anyone.
and yes the probably did believe tower of babel could be done, but what is point of the story behind it whether its fiction or real? Jesus himself used parables to describe something.
and yes i must take almost all bible as metaphoric to take away the science nonsense. Not all bible is historical or science fact nor it claims to be. There are historical untruths but there are also historical facts within bible.
You miss the point entirely. If the Bible gets science wrong, historical "facts" wrong, contradicts itself between books on HUNDREDS of instances, creates the passion account of Jesus entirely out of OT snips from Psalms and Isaiah etc, makes wild claims of Jesus performing miracles....
How can we believe the supernatural parts when it can't even agree on the MUNDANE STUFF????
considering it was written through 1600 years its wonder how much consistency there is in the bible.
if the bible was perfect you would still not believe in it or God. bible on its own without God is pointless, and without God it is just a fairy tale, for most people this is reality. But for people that have met God its much much more.
No one has met god. Just like no one has met the tooth fairy or santa claus.
If an all-knowing god had ANYTHING to do with the Bible, we'd find evidence of that.
So, at MOST, all you can do is posit the existence of A god apart from any religious writings. There is no evidence for any gods, however. I choose to go with the most likely scenario instead of one invented by primitive people who didn't even know that outer space existed or that the earth was round.
And what we can infer from this is that the acct where one repents is the later incarnation. The story was always getting improved upon as time went by.
i think so. it's a kind of self correcting religion. like these
1. it's not a religion now - it's a "personal relationship"
2. god doesnt send us to hell..WE SEND OURSELVES
wait a few years and we'll hear that hell isn't a place of torment it's just a version of heaven that doesn't come with a coffemaker and dry roasted peanuts in a dish
Right. The ultimate irony is that while Christians fight evolution tooth and nail, they are, themselves, evolving their own religion! Forget what's in the book. Let's just make new theology up as we go to be more compatible with our more evolved sense of morality.
The ultimate irony is that while MOST Christians fight evolution tooth and nail, they are, themselves, evolving their own religion! Forget what's in the book. Let's just make new theology up as we go to be more compatible with our more evolved sense of morality.
Let's look at an example from the first century. The Pharisees, the major representative of claimed followers of God in the day, were getting it way wrong. This is shown by the sheer number of times Jesus confronts the Pharisees. Yet even those these many were getting it wrong, it did not mean that it was bad to follow God, of course not. Not matter who perverts something that is true, it will always remain true. Your allegations do not apply to me, and many that I know.
"This is shown by the sheer number of times Jesus confronts the Pharisees."
Are you aware that the gospels are anti-Jewish and pro-gentile Christian? You didn't know that, did you? Of COURSE the Christians are going to vilify the Jews for rejecting their belief system. duh.
You need to learn about how it went down. SOME Jews did convert (like Paul) but in general they rejected the gospel message and that is why Paul began preaching to the Genitles (one reason) and Gentile anti-semitism can be seen in the NT writings. The author of Mark was probably a Gentile Christian for many reasons. He doesn't know Palestine geography, he rips the Jews a new one for rejecting Jesus by actually implicating then in his death, and writes in Greek. more can be said.
Paul started preaching to the Gentiles, I agree with that. But when did this happen? This was quite a while after Jesus first began His ministry. There is no inaccuracy in Mark's Palestine geography, show some support to back your claims.
Greek was the trade language used back then, much like English was when the British Empire was at it's peak. Jews could understand it as much as Romans could. The gospels were written in Greek so that as many people as possible could read them.
Well evolution is basicly chance. So if you speak about the evolution of time noone sees an pauze but it keeps going on the same speed. Redemption is a change. And for the evolved sense of morale. I doubt it personally, caveman didnt have atomic bombs
"why would someone thought that there is a city that you need 3 days to cross over it in those times?"
Why would someone have thought that by building a tower they could actually reach heaven? Why would someone believe that the sun orbited the earth? Why would someone believe that the earth was flat?
The Bible was written by very ignorant people in very ignorant times and copied and copied and copied so that it's now a hodge podge even more contradictory than the originals.
tower was fiction, that story is a metaphor it means something else.
it looked like sun orbited the earth from earth and it looked that earth was flat from earth.
you see you need to put your "lets see what did writers really mean" cap and remove "haha its all fake , see ahhaha" cap. as real critical thinkers we are trying to discern what writers really wanted to say even in fiction parts.
And writers could not be so ignorant that they thought there existed a 3 day march city.
"tower was fiction, that story is a metaphor it means something else."
My, you are taking everything in the Bible and claiming that the authors intended it as a metaphor/symbol/allegory. And yet, are you unaware that these same Hebrews believed that God resided just above the earth, right above the firmament? THIS is why they wrote the tower of Babel story because they actually believed it COULD be done based on their own erroneous cosmological beliefs.
"it looked like sun orbited the earth from earth and it looked that earth was flat from earth."
And yet, the all-knowing God who MADE the sun and earth just couldn't bring himself to advise his authors of this so they wouldn't write down these falsehoods (among many others) in his message to everyone. Amazing.
As to writers and their ignorance, you obviously haven't read ANY of the early church fathers' writings.
Anyway, believe as you will. You have to believe that almost ALL the Bible is a metaphor or allegory to remove the scientific errors. I believe the more likely interpretation: the writers got it wrong and didn't know it.
I assume that "4 days walk" means reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally big?
Your problem is that you are arbitrarily saying it isn't to be taken literally but you do not show why that is the case. Claiming it and showing it are two different things.
I appreciate your approach, but the scholarship on the versus you quote are poorly understood because we do not see 1. the context, and 2 the fullness of Christ. Example: can Christians have tattoos? Poor OT scholarship would say no, however, the fullness of Christ's work, the heart of a matter deals with it. You need to reformulate context, and the work of Christ into the picture being painted in the OT.
sigh... "versus"? How about "verses"? You want to claim that context is missing but you what you haven't attempted to show me in your comment is HOW the context changes my interpretation (or, for that matter, even WHAT the context IS).
It's one thing to claim I'm wrong. Quite another to show how I'm wrong. If you are like 99% of the Christians I've seen post these types of comments, I won't be seeing an argument from you anytime soon. :)
Logic is simply verbal math. Without logic, many things could not have been discovered. Like medicines, successful surgeries, cell phones, televisions, flight and so on. These things were found to be logically possible, and then through investigation and experimentation, they were discovered. Many christians today enjoy the fruits of these logical explorations. They may pray all they like, and they may believe in that which fails logic...but they'll bring their loved ones to skilled doctors.
Yep. They certainly won't follow James' advice to pray to God and let the elders lay hands on the sick and anoint them with oil. James says that doing this will allow God to heal them. But in the back of their mind, they KNOW it isn't true or else they'd be doing it.
It's interesting how the "atheist" always trying to repudiate Christianity.What about Hinduism,Buddhism, Wicca,and Islam not to put Christianity on that same level, because true Christianity is not a religion at all.I have never seen an atheist ever go to "sacred writings"that govern those religions and try to repudiate them.
Lao tzu reads well but if you accept reality (i do, you may not) then it is just clever word play. A pantheist does not believe in a personal god, so no salvation, no afterlife, no eternal justice etc, why bother? I'm not religious as they all make ridiculous and unfounded claims and i couldn't choose one over another.
1empathy 1 week ago
@1empathy I certainly disagree that it is is "just clever word play". There are many excellent lessons there no matter what your beliefs. (religious or not) I don't take my pantheism much past the belief that *if* there is a god, he is the same as the universe and that everything is connected in some way. (See "quantum entanglement")
jimmo42 1 week ago
@jimmo42 Thanks for answering, i'm intrigued so feel free to PM me if you want/need more space.. I love the tao de ching and when i was younger i described myself as a "philosophical taoist" but it is not based on reality and although it contains wisdom it is not intrinsically wise. Please don't start on quantum entanglement as a justification for the supernatural but do tell me if you believe in a personal god and if you don't why do you bother with religion? Why "he"? for instance
1empathy 6 days ago
Lee strobel, puttting the "ass" in assertions.
1empathy 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1empathy "Lee strobel, puttting the "ass" in assertions."
ROTFLOL!!!! Thanks for making my day.
jimmo42 1 week ago
Comment removed
JungleMeta 1 week ago
All true corrections of historical errors on the part of the author(s) of the mentioned passages. But the Bible is not supposed to be seen as a 100% accurate historical document. Suppose I write a book on the character and nature of Abraham Lincoln. And all of my information is correct on him as a noble person. Knowing this purpose in my writing, would you get hung up if I mistakenly (not purposefully) said he was the 36th president and Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated him in his home?
perichoresis7 4 weeks ago
@perichoresis7 of course I would. Even moreso than "Daniel"'s errors. He didn't have databases and an Internet. You do. :)
TruthSurge 4 weeks ago
@TruthSurge But historical accuracy was not my focus. If the motive of the text is known, it should be read in that mindset.
perichoresis7 4 weeks ago
@perichoresis7 You cannot always KNOW the intent and especially without knowing a LOT about where Mark (the first gospel) got his info from and what was going on in his day, when he wrote, etc. Who he was and was not. etc. Lots of learning and puzzle fitting b4 you could say you knew Mark's intent. As for history, if almost every detail of the gospel comes from OT stories/passages and Greek mythology, then it's not simply historically inacccurate. It's fiction.
TruthSurge 4 weeks ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "Well, if you zoom into one detail,you can always claim..."
Absolutely! And if you and I were talking about this over a beer I wouldn't be so pendantic. However, we are dealing with a group of people (christian apologists) who will take a single mistake and build their counter arguments around that single mistake. Saying "proven" when it is only "obviously clear to someone of even average intelligence" opens you up.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge My "case" for perhaps implying the bible is "completely worthless" would be based on your post, not the video. Admittedly, that is a perception/opinion and I am not claiming it is a fact. In 500 characters it is hard to express thoughts as well in other contexts.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge"If someone said they killed all the firstborn in Egypt..."
That not appearing in any writings is a good indicator that it did not happened. 1) scribes of the time would have known 2) they would have most certainly reported it. However, I think it is a stretch to say we most certainly would have found archaeological evidence. As far as I know, Finkelstein and Silberman didn't adjust for likely errors in when it occured, ie.they found nothing just from that specific time period.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "the section where archeology DISPROVED parts of the Bible"
Welcome to the wonderful world of historiography. You *seem* to be implying that since there are a few (many?) places where the bible got the history and geography wrong, then it is *completely* worthless. That is not only a cardinal sin for historians, but it is demonstrably false.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "But it just seems that you are wanting to ignore the actual text as being evidence for or against. "
Strobel-esque argument: it is by no means black and white, plus you are once against jumping to wrong conclusions . The lack of any archaelogical evidence is a *good* argument that the Exodus did *not* happen. A single argument, particularly one that is "absence of evidence" is not going to prove someting. (Well at least I don't think it should)
jimmo42 8 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "So, you find nothing in the STORY of the Exodus in the Bible that could be presented as evidence AGAINST the exodus?"
Sure, the mere fact that the explanations for amazing events are always "gog dun it". Basically of Moses' interaction with pharoah is questionable, but evidence is not proof and when dealing with history, the line between evidence and supposition is often every thin.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge Where I draw the line? It depends on the context. In email, forum posts, etc. I am more likely to state things as absolutes. If I am presenting a class or writing an article, I am far more conservative with what I claim as fact, especially in cases like the Exodus where the only "evidence" is lack of evidence.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge Whether I can say I know that the story of Joesph Smith and Moroni is made up is irrelevant to your video. More Strobel-esque arguments. Sounds like a "Gish Gallop" to me. I personally can say, I do not believe, but to say it did not happen in video that pretends to present accurate information is being intellectually dishonest. You can say "there is no evidence other than Smith's claim", but that's the end of it.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge Fourth historiography lesson is that even in modern times, people will interpret the same text differently. An example of how you are "ignorant"? Well, you are demonstrably ignorant of how modern Christians interpet the bible. Most Christians are not bible literalists. The catholics are not and most european Christians are not. Therefore, in that context, there is no need to explain the talking snake. It is an allegory.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge Your third historiography lesson is that you need to take historical documents withing the context of the people writting as well as the intended audience. Seeing a red Nile, bronze age people might have interpreted it as blood and for them the "only" cause was supernatural. Your tooth fairy example is ludicrous if not down right childish. We "know", where the quarters under the pillow come from.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge
...facepalm...
yet another Strobel-esque argument. Perhaps yours is, but the real-world is not black and white. (that's your second historiography lesson) In any discussion the framework needs to defined, in this case both historiographically and epistemologically. There are no naturalist explanations for talking snakes, so I can make a knowledge-claim about it. However, there are naturalistics causes to explain the red Nile, which appeared as "blood".
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge I can read Finkelstein and Silverman. pg 61-64 go into some details about why the exodus is unlikely to have occured, including references to the towns that *should* have evidence of Hebrew settlements. However, they don't jump to conclusions like you do. You want a historiography lesson? An historian cannot say with with absolute ( or even 99.999999%) certainty. They can only make statements about what is most likely, like Finkelstein and Silverman do.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "(yet unwilling to educate me)"
Yet another unsubstantiated claim from you. You have no evidence for that claim, just my comment that you are ignorant of historiography. What evidence do you have I am unwilling? None. Yet another example of you jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Strobel is another person who jumps to conclusions without evidence. Ironic that you make a video about him.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "99.999999% ?"
Yet more proof you argue like a fundie. We *both* know that number is made up. Making up facts is classical fundie arguments. Part of what you say is valid, some of what you say is made up. Sounds like your arguments have the same quality as the arguments in the bible. So are you saying YOU cannot be trusted?
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "So, you do think that Solomon had 300 wives and 600 concubines? and that donkeys talked? "
Again, You argue like a fundie I make a single statement about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and you once again jump to a wild conclusion that I believe everything in the bible. You have demonstrated *repeatedly* that your conclusions are not based on facts or even evidence.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "At least archeology has proven to MY satisfaction, if not yours. "....
rant....rant....rant....rant....rant....
Please do let us know if you ever get to anything rational (that is, based on reason). I am not going to discount the bible as a useful historical an archaeological source simply because many parts of it are demonstrably false. Schliemann didn't believe the Iliad completely but was able to Troy because of it.
jimmo42 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TeesByTruthSurge "You'd merely say it was someone who was trying to rewrite history. Or you'd claim it was a forgery planted by atheists."
...facepsalm...
Based on my single post, you drew that conclusion? And exactly why do you feel that your method of "debating" is different from fundies? As far as I can tell, there isn't much difference.
jimmo42 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TeesByTruthSurge "Yet I'm sure you don't give one thought that they are"
Why is being so important to you that you need to read things into people's posts that are obviously not there? Are these videos all you have?
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "So, since there is a HUGE and unarguable precedent in the Bible for hyperbole and inaccuracies, we would be wise to dismiss the fantastic altogether as well as the exaggerations. "
...facepalm...
Please do some reading on historiography. You seem to have no clue about it.
"To believe in the exodus w/o any evidence OUTSIDE the Bible to support it is to wave a flag and scream "I'm a biased religatard! Evidence? "
And your point is what?
jimmo42 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TeesByTruthSurge "The Bible Unearthed"? You mean the Finkelstein/Silberman book? It's sitting on the shelg beside my desk, right next to Ken Millers. "Finding Darwin's God".
"You should, since you seem so sure that the exodus is a possible historic event"
WHAT?!??!? You most definitely argue like a fundie! Be right at all costs. Is that your motto? If you honestly got that from what I posted, you have some **serious** issues.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "small desert area ". Apparently you don't know how big the region is. Further, although you statement "SOME trace" is valid, nomadic tribes are notoriously difficult to verify archaeologically. Things that are normally found in archaeological sites are their most prized possession, do you honestly believe that they would not take care enough to make sure they get packed?
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "are you completely ignorant that when there SHOULD be evidence of a thing and there isn't, "
And you are ingnorant of the basic principles of historiography. "Should" does not imply "must". Historians only talk about with what is *probably* not what 100% happened. Yes, the silence is suspicious, but that it not evidence of absense.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge "There is as much evidence for Jesus as the tooth fairy."
You argue like a fundie. That statement is patently false. While I don't agree with some claims "there is more evidence for Jesus than any other person in the 1st century", your claim is patently false and IMO demostrates a need to simply be right, regardless of the evidence.
jimmo42 9 months ago
@TeesByTruthSurge From a historiography perspective, your comparision is no less than absurd. We *can* monitor a child's room to test your theory that there is a tooth fairy. We *can* go to the north pole to disprove your theory santa claus exists. Further the implication in the video is that because there is no evidence for the exodus, it must *not* have happened, not that because there is nothing that dispoves the exodus, it must have happened. You've obviously gotten things backwards.
jimmo42 9 months ago
Careful! While Icertainly agree that it is unlikely that the exodus left no records, it is a clear case of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It could be that we are not looking in the right places.
jimmo42 9 months ago
Ah, a very convenient way to avoid answering my requests. I am not the one posting a video about something they have not studied. And yes, I did watch at least part one. Is there a reason I should continue to part two when from the outset we are given less than scholarly information? If you are an authority on the matter, then prove such to everyone here instead of accusing someone of being a "pseudo-intellectual". I need not prove anything for I am not making videos. Such is your burden.
Wunji1 9 months ago
@Wunji1 Serious question: What do you believe to be untrue about the video?
jimmo42 9 months ago
@jimmo42 Well, for starters, Lee Strobel said, and I quote "It wasn't until I analyzed the bible thoroughly, that I concluded it must have a divine origin." The author of this video then states, and I quote "Here, Strobel admits that he never studied the bible thoroughly as an Atheist, only thoroughly after he became a Christian." This is what we call interpolating. It cannot be determined whether his conclusions were before or after he became a Christian... Shall I go on to the next point?
Wunji1 9 months ago
@Wunji1 I missed that. Your right. The video poster does seem to have a tendancy to interpolate a lot, as well as draw conclusions with little or no evidence. While I think Strobel is a intentionally dishonest in many of videos and books, that does not give non-believers a carte blanche to say and do whatever they want.
"Shall I go on to the next point?"
Sure, why not?
jimmo42 9 months ago
@jimmo42 Sorry for the delay. I cannot always respond expeditiously due to work :( Let me begin by saying that the "overall" tenor of the Old Testament is misunderstood. Further, ancient cultures are very disparate from modern cultures. A cursory glance at the Old Testament text would certainly produce the likes of such videos from which we are now engaged in dialogue. I will simply address one of the travesties at the beginning of the video, as the same could be done for all...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 Whether ancient culture were disparate or not is irrelevant.God is supposed to be timeless. God *could* have commanded "Thou shalt not own another human being", but he didn't. God supported slavery an ordered it. God *could* have also said "The shalt respect women and not force them to have sex", but he didn't. God supported rape and even ordered it. Shall I go on?
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 Rape is another issue that has not been discussed here. The disparity between ancient and modern cultures is incredibly relevant. We don't bring our understanding of who God is to the bible, instead we draw our understanding of who He is from the same. Therefore, the imposition of your view of God is not tolerated by the bible. God did not "order" slavery, yet He approved. But again, you are bringing your "Western-modern" understanding of such to the table...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 "The disparity between ancient and modern cultures is incredibly relevant."
Wrong! Forcing a woman into sex and then simply paying a small fine to *her father* is immoral now and 3000 years ago. It is an absolute, object morality that say "thou shalt not harm others", unlike the obvious subjective morality you seem to believe in and what is obviously what the bible says.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@Wunji1 "Western-modern" understanding?
..facepalm...
So that would seem to say you believe it is OK for a japanese man to commit spousal rape because they are a non-Western culture. Is that correct? Genital mutliation in Africa is OK, right?
Because of my time in the army, and my last job, I have been in countries all over the world, I respect most aspect of the various cultures. So please come down from your high-horse.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 We are obviously approaching this issue from two completely different perspectives. No one can stop you from getting so heated, and completely missing the thrust of what is said. Your conclusion are expedient, and you are welcome to them...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1. "No one can stop you from getting so heated, and completely missing the thrust of what is said."
You can certainly help by being honest and not waiving off relevent topics because they are uncomfortable or you have no plausible explaination. The "thrust" was your absurb claim that we should "consider slavery for a moment" and that the term was diachronic. The same things applies to both rape, genocide, infanticide, etc. However, they were and still are immoral.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@Wunji1 My defintion immoral is by no means expedient, unless you mean it is simply to demonstrate one can live by an absolute morality without the need for a fictious super-being. If so, I will freely admit that.
You want to stick to slavery? OK. The OT provided conditions where someone could own another human and beat him to *death* without any punishment. Now tell us you think that is morally acceptable in *any* culture.
jimmo42 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jimmo42 Here is MY point. Your very first question to me was *scroll* "Serious question: What do you believe to be untrue about the video?" I proceeded to explain what I thought was untrue. I gave you my first point to which you said "I missed that, you're right." Then I said, shall I go on... You said "Sure, why not". Then I simply was giving a position for the next point, and you blow up into this heated, face-palming, remonstrance....
Wunji1 8 months ago
@jimmo42 You then say that my claims were a "cop-out". My points are very defensible from what the bible says. The slavery in the old testament in very different from our modern experience. To say that it is not is to admit ignorance of every ancient culture that every existed. Further, and in light of what was just said, nowhere does it say that slavery is immoral. Your mind, and our culture has said "owning someone is immoral".
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 in other words..
"My points are very defensible from what "Mein Kampf" says. The gassing people in Nazi Germany in very different from our modern experience.
'Your mind, and our culture has said "owning someone is immoral".'
True. And it is also true that it is a self-evident law that self-determination is an inalienable human right.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@Wunji1
P1: God is eternal and unchanging.
P2: God is outside of time and space, knowing past, present and future.
P3: God's morality (or god's laws based on that morality) have changed over time.
C: The god of the bible is not god.
I am not obligated to forgo my "god-given" intellect and reason, simply because someone else desperately needs to justify obviously immoral behaviour.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 Your post suggests you are not a christian. What religion are you?
1empathy 1 week ago
@1empathy
None of the above. ;-)
The closest I thing to anything that has a name is that I might call myself a taoist pantheist. However, as with many things, the more you try to define it, the further you get from what you are trying to describe.
jimmo42 1 week ago
@jimmo42 But again, this is based on our once removed generation from the slavery that crippled America. I showed that the slavery in the old testament was in once sense the "spoils of war." In another since, people gave themselves as slaves to pay a debt that was owed, et. al... Who decided that it was immoral to have a slave? If we were denizens of an ancient culture, we would think nothing of slavery the way we do now.
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 wow, type-o's galore.... Should be "one sense", and "sense"...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 "If we were denizens of an ancient culture, we would think nothing of slavery the way we do now."
If we were denizens of Nazi Germany, we would think nothing of gassing Jews the way we do now.
...facepsalm...
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 Because of this, it is a logical fallacy to say 1. slavery is immoral 2. God permitted slavery 3. Therefore, God is immoral. If the premises are false, the conclusion cannot be correct. In other words, if you cannot prove that slavery is immoral from a biblical perspective, then you can't then say that God is immoral. Also, I am not avoiding the other issues (rape, genocide, etc...). I was simply taking each point in the video, which is what was set forth in the beginning...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 "If the premises are false, the conclusion cannot be correct."
Obviously.
"if you cannot prove that slavery is immoral from a biblical perspective, then you can't then say that God is immoral"
Wrong. Once again, typical christian "goal-post moving". Slavery is immoral at all times and in all cultures. Using the bible to prove it is moral is simply circular logic.
From a Nazi-pespective murdering millions of Jews was OK, therefore it is not immoral. Right?
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 I have not been disrespectful to you, in any way. I was certainly sarcastic in my very first comment in response to this video, and that was certainly wrong. For this discussion however, I have no desire to slap back and forth. I wasn't saying that your definition of immoral was expedient. I was referring to the illogical conclusion drawn from the faulty premises - that's all, nothing more.
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 "I have not been disrespectful to you,"
you made the false claim that I was "having a hard time sticking to the subject" despite the demonstrable fact that the discussion was about moral relativism. I'm not going to play word games about whether that was "disrespectful". That is what you have been doing and seems to be a common fundamentalist tactic, as the discussion up to this point demonstrates.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 If you believe slavery is immoral, then present an argument for that position. I will certainly grant that all the things that were done to the slaves in the 20th century were incredibly visceral, and immoral. But slavery in and of itself is not immoral in my view. So much so that I gave the references to how slaves were to be treated according to the law set forth in Deuteronomy. They were treated as hired workers, and with respect, including the ones captured from war...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 Self-determination is an inalienable. If I "sell" myself to pay off a debt, I would consider that acceptable. However, a daughter is not the fathers property and it is immoral to sell her off without her permission for any reason. Killing all of the males and older women in a city and taking the virgins as sex slaves, is a violation of that self-determination and is thus immoral.
"including the ones captured from war... " Wrong! Re-read the OT and then get back to us.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 I am not familiar with any law in the old testament that sanctioned someone to beat a slave to "death". If it exists, I simply have not read it....
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 Exodus 21:20-21. As long as the slaves does not die right aways, the owner is not to be punished. It even says the slave is property. But, it's OK because god said it was. :-(
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 Let's consider slavery for a moment. Most people have not studied the history of slavery in the world. I say this not as a "matter of fact" but evidenced by no shortage of the disinformation, such as contained in this video, and other outlets. Our current understanding of slavery is conditioned mostly by it's history as an established practice in U.S., though some may be familiar with the South African apartheid, or the slave trade in Britain, and elsewhere...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@jimmo42 Slavery has been one of diachrony. It is at best disingenuous to conflate our "modern" understanding of such, with that of the ancient world, and more specifically, that of the Israelites. Several facts should be noted at first. 1. Slavery is found in every ancient culture from Egypt to Rome. 2. In these ancient cultures, slavery was a mixture of (1) debt-slavery, punishment for a crime, slave by parturition, child abandonment, and the enslavement of prisoners of war.
Wunji1 8 months ago
@jimmo42 (1) W. V. Harris, "Demography, Geography and the Sources of Roman Slaves," The Journal of Roman Studies, 1999 - just so you no one thinks I am pulling these from my arse... 3. In light of 1 and 2, in the bible, God conditioned and gave prohibition on such. The truth regarding slavery in the bible is thus... 1. Slaves were to be treated as hired workers, not slaves (Lev 25:39-43). 2. All slaves were to be freed after six years (Ex 21:2, Dt 15:12).
Wunji1 8 months ago
@jimmo42 3. Freed slaves were to be liberally supplied with grain, wine and livestock (Dt 15:12-15). 4. Every fiftieth year (the year of jubilee), all Hebrew slaves were to be freed, even those owned by foreigners (Lev 25:10, 47-54). In some cases slaves could choose to remain with their masters should they desire (Dt 15:16-17). And lastly -
Wunji1 8 months ago
@jimmo42 If a Hebrew sold himself as a slave to a foreigner, he reserved the right to buy his freedom (Lev 25:47-49) and was still to be treated as a hired worker (Lev 25:53). In short, slavery in the ancient world is no more analogous to the our modern understanding than say rape, which I believe is the next point in the video. Failure to bring such significance to the surface leaves the rest suspect...
Shall I go on?
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 Further God ordered the genocide of various tribes as well as the mass murder of prisoners of war. Since God is supposedly timeless, those acts were as immoral then as they are today. God was either unable or unwilling to make the appropriate commandments . Your claim that the culture was different is an extremely weak cop-out that I have heard for decades. Your pointing out versus that regulate immoral behaviour does not make it any less immoral. It is an invalid excuse.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 You are obviously having a hard time sticking to the subject. We are not talking about Rape, or genocide. If you want to talk about the nature of God as revealed in the bible, we can go there. but, my comments were specific to this video, and nothing else...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 You are obviously trying hard to deflect from the core issue by falsely accusing me. It doesn't matter if we are talking about rape, genocide or slavery, which was started by *you* saying "Let's consider slavery for a moment." The issue is your absurd claim that we have to look at the context of bronze-age culture when judging their immoral behavior. By your ridiculous you could say we need to consider the context of Nazi Germany, before we judge the holocaust.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 Perhaps, and more to the point, one could press the "female" aspect considered in this video. Fathers could sell their daughters as a maidservant and wife. Being married to their master, they obviously were not set free after six years, yet they were protected by the law (Ex. 21:8, Ex. 21:9, Ex. 21:10-11). Considering the "prisoners of war", if the captors chose to marry captures women, there were similar laws protecting these women (Dt. 21:13-14). I could go on and on...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@jimmo42 It is no secret that women were of lower class then, and this thought is still pervasive. Of course the old argument - "If God is completely beneficent, omniscient, etc... then why is there so much evil in the world, bad things happen, and such inequality?"- could be employed. God has had the opportunity to overhaul those ancient cultures and set them aright. This, however, opens Pandora's box, and would require a lengthy dissertation... lol
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 "God has had the opportunity to overhaul those ancient cultures and set them aright. "
Excuse me?!?! Isn't God timeless and unchanging? When he tossed Adam and Eve out of the garden, he already knew what kind of culture would develop but decided to allow immoral cultures to develop. When he gave the ten commandments, he already knew what immoral behaviour would occur in 10,100,1000 years, but did nothing about it. You are simply provindg more evidence that God is not God.
jimmo42 8 months ago
@jimmo42 Again, you are imposing your understanding of God upon the biblical revelation about His nature, character, and dealing with man. Even here you are pulling this sentence out of context. I was simply saying that God "could" have corrected cultures all along the way, but didn't, and to ask "why" is opening the proverbial box. Of course God knew what would happen, but that does not obligate Him to keep it from happening. Such would be contrary to love, and free will...
Wunji1 8 months ago
@Wunji1 Saying that preventing rape, slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc "would be contrary to love" is absolutely PATHETIC!!! It is a cheap cop-out like "it's god's will" or "god moves in mysterious ways" whenever your mythlogical sky-daddy does anything that by his own law is immoral.
jimmo42 8 months ago
When information surfaces about an archaeological find which supposedly "discredits" the bible, I suppose you get all giddy on the inside. The result is the making of videos for youtube so that others like you can feel affirmed. Did you wet your pants when you learned what you thought was true about Cyrus? At what University did you study the ancient near east? Would you make a video documenting your study? Please show us all that you are an authority on this subject...
Wunji1 9 months ago
@Wunji1 and with this comment, I bid you.... fare well. You had your chance to highlight any error(s) you found in the four part series and you seem only to be able to post childish pseudo-intellectual comments. Feel free to keep doing so but you won't get any more replies from me.
TruthSurge 9 months ago
@TruthSurge why disable the rater ???
parsonman05 9 months ago
Respect is given when respect is due, and since you claim the information is 100% accurate, I'm not sure what respect is requisite. There are more holes in your "100% accurate" video than what's beneath sponge bobs underpants. It is important, when claiming something, that you include all the pertinent information, especially from the source(s) from which you are siting, to wit, the bible. Did you even study the issue on Belshazzar? Apparently not...
Wunji1 9 months ago
@Wunji1 Did you even watch the video? All of this info can be verified by anyone with access to the Internet (and if you're watching this, I have to assume you do). Once again, you have not listed a specific error in my vid. That's typical of Christians. They love to yell "YOU'RE WRONG!" but when asked to SHOW how and where I'm wrong, they fling a lot of words and run off. Sad. So, I will give you another shot. What is inaccurate about the Belshazzar/Bel Shar Usar part?
TruthSurge 9 months ago
Feel free to denigrate all you want. The information in this video is not accurate. But, most scholars don't waste their time watching feebly marshalled videos on youtube. I would suggest further investigation before making these assertions. Perhaps a little less Peter Jennings?
It would not surprise me if the next words in print from you are invective. As to the rest of us - unflappable...
Wunji1 9 months ago
Whew! Thankfully less than 3500 have seen this video - wahahahahaha
Wunji1 9 months ago
Comment removed
kennyloveland44 2 years ago
This secret footage took my BREATH AWAY!
youtube this...
bless u
SWAUVE4U 2 years ago
so far ive giving only examples of the opposite. Why does the Israelites have to old these laws. Because God needs to protect them from evil because once Jesus will come from heaven as ultimate sacrifice. God itself is pissed with the misdeeds of the people see the reasoning of Sthephanus. Even tthe jews concider Jesus a man of peace because Werner Keller: He had almost the same teaching as Hillel of love. He Healed many sick. He died because he wanted to be a replacement in judgement.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Second the allknowing powers of GOD are forgotten. David makes an mistake but David has no good heir yet he need a warning before things go wrong. One life can safe many others. Weird it is to think that a wolf is terrorising the lands, the whelps wont be left in peace until they done something bad themself. Its your mortal judgement quistening something you dont even can slightly understand. Your just willing to speak a verdict instead of thinking it over.
Eskon2 2 years ago
God murdered countless innocent babies if the OT is to be believed. If God's morality is no better than that, screw him.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
You say innocent? were all decendants of Adam and Eve. You refuse that heritance. A chld is not born clean. There is circular reason if God doesnt excist its prolly a lie and you cant blame God. Or He excist then He knows more then you and there is no way He should be mistaken.
Eskon2 2 years ago
There's your problem. You can't get your mind around a god who would punish ME for what someone did thousands of years ago!
I also find that people who type "then" when they meant "than" usually have not done well in school and cannot comprehend the true meaning of what is being said to them. I've done all I can. Good luck!
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Thats your opinion on the matter. The punishment of dead derives from sinn. Its mercytime we got. We have gotten free will, no freedom to live whatever way we want. We can chooce with or against him. For the grammar issue i'm not done learning. I was best at school on english. And if you only point at one mistake as disabling your comprehension of the matter while you submitted this subject is fallacious. Retreat is for the looser, so i challenge you to stay.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Facto in howfar is a judge to blame if he sends a man to jail who done something terrible and just to get out of the slums. people like excuses. Another example is sodomy inbreds are more likely to have a handicap.
HE sais himself to be like a potterymaker.
if it isnt nice looking he can throw it away. The difference between HIM and us is so great hE can see us as mud.
Eskon2 2 years ago
The son of Uriah was not just ill because of the sinn of others but for the sinn of their father. To witch Israel swore an oath with as penalty of breaking to results of sinn will come down on you and your children. Exodus 9:10 Let me alone, that may wrath may wax hot against them and that i may consume them; and I will make of thee a great nation. But Mozes did something. 1sr chronicles if He sees the repentence of the people He finds it enough. David 1 Chron 21:13 was right. Ez mercy again.
Eskon2 2 years ago
funny explanation. So someone bargains with god hundreds of years earlier and then someone else hundreds of years later has his kid killed because of a contract established by someone other than himself.
There's justice, for ya! It's no different! hahah your explanation does not remove the moral problem of punishing one for the sins (or decisions) of another. No kupie doll this time but feel free to try again. :)
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Simple explanation, if you steal you have a chance of getting arrested. But your children are more likely to do the same, they not just learn your behaviour but are capable of copying it. There are sayings like on the fruit you know the tree. Or the fruit doesnt fall far from the tree; in Dutch, dunno if you are familiar with them.
Eskon2 2 years ago
Now, you're flopping to another "explanation".
If person A sins, person B should NEVER be punished for it. Period.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
There is more to it then you just said. Your twisting the story here. The problem is that if We sin, Jesus didnt have to die for it. there are exeptions on the matter.
Eskon2 2 years ago
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
You said i was flopping, i gave multiple explanations who are to be seen as whole there are many factors to make a decision. You were talking about someone bargaining with god? ''someone-himself''A natural law for inbreeding is not a contract. behaviourism and the capability of a kid to copy the parents is a natural thing. And for the many errors ive pointed out in this video. Your trying to force the truth so you can win.
Eskon2 2 years ago
No, YOU are having to argue against your own sense of right and wrong and that pisses you off because you KNOW god is a hateful bastard. No LOVING being would drown babies and then start over with another very sinful family (original sin, remember?). What did it accomplish but satisfying his lust to murder the innocent? He even killed Jesus (a supposedly innocent man). I want no part of your hateful and murderous god. I'm done. :)
TruthSurge 2 years ago
I dont think anything is wrong with that. Where ever stood he had lust doing such things?
Your making up excuses by telling me how i think. But the mainproblem is you are making the claims that He is opposite to the loving righteous father. It isnt true because He is God itself and has the right to do it since it has meaning. Other then abortion what is murder. And if God doesnt excist then the mob would be guilty. In no way you can blame God. You can blame Its worshippers who are human.
Eskon2 2 years ago
1. To have right about our lives you better claim one of these. He didnt make us and doesnt own us.
2. He doesnt excist and why you can blame something not excisting.
3 that we are not sinners and or that the penalty on sin is not dead.
4. Propose a better option that not goes against His word.
So far i've seen you not explaining any of this.
So far you spewing hate and are twisting whatever you can to let seem you got a case. And i said no walking off or it is surrender and defeat.
Eskon2 2 years ago
The Friezen and the Greeks before the jews had a deadpenalty on cursing. Killing an upstanding son is understandable. As a teacher i see the children of today have no respect maners, as well as many adults alike. All Egyptians where slaves from the Paraoh. A Contract between you and your boss is a form of slavery. 1:00 raping? dont think so use KJV. And it continues because they have to marry and not to divorce ever. 50 shekels of silver isnt nothing btw.
Eskon2 2 years ago
when strobel loses the case for Christ, can we hopefully have "his" believers shut the hell up for good?!!
GodLessRant 3 years ago
:) :) :) :)
TruthSurge 3 years ago
one of the newest newfangled hoaxes xians are emitting is that noah's ark has been found, supposedly some wood on the top of a mountain.
GodLessRant 3 years ago
heheh yeah, and the foreskin of Christ resides in several different monestaries! hahaha Must have been tough having 12 different penises but then, great way to SERVE his disciples - all at once! (oooh that was bad)
TruthSurge 3 years ago
so is that the 2nd cumming of christ...or the 3rd, 4th, 5th...12th? when these people telll me that i should let christ come into my heart, i reach for a very thick COAT!
GodLessRant 3 years ago
haha JESUS IS COMING!!!!! LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS! GRAB YOUR NEAREST COAT! HE HAS BEEN KNOWN TO COME INTO PEOPLE'S HEARTS! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!
TruthSurge 3 years ago
PS....also grab the biggest beach towel you can find. when he knocks on the "Door of their heart" to come into and they don't answer, the stuff can get all over the hallway.... very messy really. The least the bloke can do is clean up after himself - has "he' ever heard of "safe" salvation?
GodLessRant 3 years ago
Salvation is a very messy ordeal. HEHEHE So many people asking Jesus into their hearts. No wonder so many are suffering from heart disease.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
and don't forget all the "personal relationships" that people ahve with their "Savior". can you imagine his BLACK BOOK?
GodLessRant 3 years ago
It is so crazy. A personal relationship requires a person, doesn't it? Not an invisible deity who doesn't have the decency to show up.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
yes it does. like my marriage to a wife would require a woman,. ,the gall of these people to demand that we respect and even convert to something that is clearly made up, clearly non-existent and clearly annoying!
GodLessRant 3 years ago
you say you are an x-christian. how did you become an atheist?
zmart4ever 3 years ago
I read the Bible. that's the short answer. But I also read other people's insights on the Bible and related stuff. When your religion is based on a book and that book is shown false through and through, what does that do to your religion? :)
TruthSurge 3 years ago
what a great video. Strobel is a dick. he acts as if he knows what he's talking about, especially science. I would tell him to stick with the bible but apparently he screws that up, too.
zmart4ever 3 years ago
thanks. Yeah, I don't like his smug attitude, either. Prob what prompted me to do these vids. Smug, arrogant, cocksure and yet completely wrong about everything he claimed.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
arrogance is what these cultsters do best.
GodLessRant 3 years ago
yep. they know that confidence makes them look "right" in the eyes of the ignorant sheeple.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
yes and they're hoping that the show of emotional "hubris" will silence any critics and people who don't know how to stand up to 'em. I always said the louder the message, the less substance to it
GodLessRant 3 years ago
true.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
the term "3 days walk" is used in Hebrew as something stronger that superlative. like mega super big city.
niinja2 3 years ago
That's the whole point, isn't it? Ninevah was 3 miles across. Easily walked within an hour. Not 10 hours or even 30 hours or even 60 hours.
The text says that Nineveh was a very large city THEN it goes on to say it took 3 days to cross it. Sort of redundant to call it large twice and besides, why THREE? I'll tell you why. Because THREE was the "magic number" along with 7, 12 and 40. It's fiction.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
atheists want to make bible" literal word of God" so they can disprove it more easily. Loking for magic where there is none. its called a straw man argument.
why would someone thought that there is a city that you need 3 days to cross over it in those times? its obvious that its not to be taken literary.
it's a its a phrase in Hebrew " 3 days walk". means reaaaaaaaaaaaaaly big.
why is it redundant , you never used more then one word in a sentence to emphasize something?
niinja2 3 years ago
No, it's called examining the text from all angles and then choosing the best interpretation. Hyperbole, exaggeration, etc. is used in the Bible but this ain't one of them. To the writer of Jonah and to most people of those days, a town 3 miles long WAS huge but because the writer was apparently not familiar personally with it, hence the "3 days across" error.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
actually it is hyperbole, and its not me saying its the foot notes in my bible with the newest translation , the " Jerusalem bible "
for the third time "3 day walk " meaning stronger then superlative.
i see you interpreting this only from one angle.
even if they did believe by some chance that there is a city 2 times the size of los angeles (no one is that ignorant) in their heads it would still mean reaaaaaaaaaaly big city and niniva is exactly that , a big city for that time.
niinja2 3 years ago
I also see you have not explained HOW this is hyperbole. In fact, the writer probably was unaware of the actual size and just picked 3 days to fill in his fiction (as many did). It's fiction. If it said it took 2 hours to cross you'd claim hyperbole to maintain an error-free Bible.
Last time: HOW is this hyperbole and not a literal statement by the author?
TruthSurge 3 years ago
i really dont know what to say anymore, bible is not error free we all know that, i gaved you a foot note from my bible.
yes alot of stuff they got wrong, the science stuff, they got it the best way they could considering science and knowledge then, but bible is not a science book, phew what a relief.
they did not take dictation from God, they were inspired to write what he wanted but they interpreted it the best way the could.
niinja2 3 years ago
what is the point if God told them about equal rights for women or quantum gravity or equal rights for intelligent robots or that earth is ellipsoid. those statements would confuse them .
If you want your child to be a physicist do you teach him about quantum physics first or do you learn him how to count and add numbers?
that kind of bible in that time would be of no use to anyone.
niinja2 3 years ago
and yes the probably did believe tower of babel could be done, but what is point of the story behind it whether its fiction or real? Jesus himself used parables to describe something.
and yes i must take almost all bible as metaphoric to take away the science nonsense. Not all bible is historical or science fact nor it claims to be. There are historical untruths but there are also historical facts within bible.
niinja2 3 years ago
You miss the point entirely. If the Bible gets science wrong, historical "facts" wrong, contradicts itself between books on HUNDREDS of instances, creates the passion account of Jesus entirely out of OT snips from Psalms and Isaiah etc, makes wild claims of Jesus performing miracles....
How can we believe the supernatural parts when it can't even agree on the MUNDANE STUFF????
Nice chatting with you tho. :)
TruthSurge 3 years ago
considering it was written through 1600 years its wonder how much consistency there is in the bible.
if the bible was perfect you would still not believe in it or God. bible on its own without God is pointless, and without God it is just a fairy tale, for most people this is reality. But for people that have met God its much much more.
niinja2 3 years ago
catholic church is giving up on some of supernatural stories like dividing the red sea and starting to consider it like a natural phenomenon.
supernatural parts are to be taken with caution in interpreting.
there are contradictions and historical mistakes and theologians know this. its because most of writers did not hold to much to historical facts.
But its important to see what parts are true. that way we are closer to truth and the meaning what writers really wanted to say.
niinja2 3 years ago
No one has met god. Just like no one has met the tooth fairy or santa claus.
If an all-knowing god had ANYTHING to do with the Bible, we'd find evidence of that.
So, at MOST, all you can do is posit the existence of A god apart from any religious writings. There is no evidence for any gods, however. I choose to go with the most likely scenario instead of one invented by primitive people who didn't even know that outer space existed or that the earth was round.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
noone has met "god". they've met others who told them "he" exists and sadly believe it.
the bible is a set of fairy tales and not good ones at that.
there's so many contradictions in there that is makes the book completely spurious, unless it was meant to be a book of humor.
i mean come on! for example: the thieves on the cross - in one account 1 mocks and 1 repents, and in another, they both mock christ!
GodLessRant 3 years ago
And what we can infer from this is that the acct where one repents is the later incarnation. The story was always getting improved upon as time went by.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
i think so. it's a kind of self correcting religion. like these
1. it's not a religion now - it's a "personal relationship"
2. god doesnt send us to hell..WE SEND OURSELVES
wait a few years and we'll hear that hell isn't a place of torment it's just a version of heaven that doesn't come with a coffemaker and dry roasted peanuts in a dish
GodLessRant 3 years ago
Right. The ultimate irony is that while Christians fight evolution tooth and nail, they are, themselves, evolving their own religion! Forget what's in the book. Let's just make new theology up as we go to be more compatible with our more evolved sense of morality.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
This is not the case. Some may, however this doesn't apply to me, and many people I know. Please do not generalize, it's sloppy.
theonewholovesjesus 2 years ago
Okay, how's this?
The ultimate irony is that while MOST Christians fight evolution tooth and nail, they are, themselves, evolving their own religion! Forget what's in the book. Let's just make new theology up as we go to be more compatible with our more evolved sense of morality.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Let's look at an example from the first century. The Pharisees, the major representative of claimed followers of God in the day, were getting it way wrong. This is shown by the sheer number of times Jesus confronts the Pharisees. Yet even those these many were getting it wrong, it did not mean that it was bad to follow God, of course not. Not matter who perverts something that is true, it will always remain true. Your allegations do not apply to me, and many that I know.
theonewholovesjesus 2 years ago
"This is shown by the sheer number of times Jesus confronts the Pharisees."
Are you aware that the gospels are anti-Jewish and pro-gentile Christian? You didn't know that, did you? Of COURSE the Christians are going to vilify the Jews for rejecting their belief system. duh.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Who do you think the first Christians were? Jesus came for God's people.
Mark 7:26b-27a (NLT)
Since she was a Gentile, born in Syrian Phoenicia, Jesus told her, First I should feed the children—my own family, the Jews."
theonewholovesjesus 2 years ago
You need to learn about how it went down. SOME Jews did convert (like Paul) but in general they rejected the gospel message and that is why Paul began preaching to the Genitles (one reason) and Gentile anti-semitism can be seen in the NT writings. The author of Mark was probably a Gentile Christian for many reasons. He doesn't know Palestine geography, he rips the Jews a new one for rejecting Jesus by actually implicating then in his death, and writes in Greek. more can be said.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Paul started preaching to the Gentiles, I agree with that. But when did this happen? This was quite a while after Jesus first began His ministry. There is no inaccuracy in Mark's Palestine geography, show some support to back your claims.
Greek was the trade language used back then, much like English was when the British Empire was at it's peak. Jews could understand it as much as Romans could. The gospels were written in Greek so that as many people as possible could read them.
theonewholovesjesus 2 years ago
Well evolution is basicly chance. So if you speak about the evolution of time noone sees an pauze but it keeps going on the same speed. Redemption is a change. And for the evolved sense of morale. I doubt it personally, caveman didnt have atomic bombs
Eskon2 2 years ago
"why would someone thought that there is a city that you need 3 days to cross over it in those times?"
Why would someone have thought that by building a tower they could actually reach heaven? Why would someone believe that the sun orbited the earth? Why would someone believe that the earth was flat?
The Bible was written by very ignorant people in very ignorant times and copied and copied and copied so that it's now a hodge podge even more contradictory than the originals.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
tower was fiction, that story is a metaphor it means something else.
it looked like sun orbited the earth from earth and it looked that earth was flat from earth.
you see you need to put your "lets see what did writers really mean" cap and remove "haha its all fake , see ahhaha" cap. as real critical thinkers we are trying to discern what writers really wanted to say even in fiction parts.
And writers could not be so ignorant that they thought there existed a 3 day march city.
niinja2 3 years ago
"tower was fiction, that story is a metaphor it means something else."
My, you are taking everything in the Bible and claiming that the authors intended it as a metaphor/symbol/allegory. And yet, are you unaware that these same Hebrews believed that God resided just above the earth, right above the firmament? THIS is why they wrote the tower of Babel story because they actually believed it COULD be done based on their own erroneous cosmological beliefs.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
"it looked like sun orbited the earth from earth and it looked that earth was flat from earth."
And yet, the all-knowing God who MADE the sun and earth just couldn't bring himself to advise his authors of this so they wouldn't write down these falsehoods (among many others) in his message to everyone. Amazing.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
As to writers and their ignorance, you obviously haven't read ANY of the early church fathers' writings.
Anyway, believe as you will. You have to believe that almost ALL the Bible is a metaphor or allegory to remove the scientific errors. I believe the more likely interpretation: the writers got it wrong and didn't know it.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
I assume that "4 days walk" means reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally big?
Your problem is that you are arbitrarily saying it isn't to be taken literally but you do not show why that is the case. Claiming it and showing it are two different things.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
Strobel just got served! Man, even when I was a Christian that dude annoyed the crap out of me.
RationalJunkie 3 years ago
Served up with a side order of blackened Strobelarse. HEHEHEHEHEH
Thanks, ya, they just seem to spit out the same exact sentences handed down from their apologist idols.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
I appreciate your approach, but the scholarship on the versus you quote are poorly understood because we do not see 1. the context, and 2 the fullness of Christ. Example: can Christians have tattoos? Poor OT scholarship would say no, however, the fullness of Christ's work, the heart of a matter deals with it. You need to reformulate context, and the work of Christ into the picture being painted in the OT.
abdbean 3 years ago
sigh... "versus"? How about "verses"? You want to claim that context is missing but you what you haven't attempted to show me in your comment is HOW the context changes my interpretation (or, for that matter, even WHAT the context IS).
It's one thing to claim I'm wrong. Quite another to show how I'm wrong. If you are like 99% of the Christians I've seen post these types of comments, I won't be seeing an argument from you anytime soon. :)
TruthSurge 3 years ago
Logic is simply verbal math. Without logic, many things could not have been discovered. Like medicines, successful surgeries, cell phones, televisions, flight and so on. These things were found to be logically possible, and then through investigation and experimentation, they were discovered. Many christians today enjoy the fruits of these logical explorations. They may pray all they like, and they may believe in that which fails logic...but they'll bring their loved ones to skilled doctors.
dropspin5678 3 years ago 3
Yep. They certainly won't follow James' advice to pray to God and let the elders lay hands on the sick and anoint them with oil. James says that doing this will allow God to heal them. But in the back of their mind, they KNOW it isn't true or else they'd be doing it.
TruthSurge 3 years ago
It's interesting how the "atheist" always trying to repudiate Christianity.What about Hinduism,Buddhism, Wicca,and Islam not to put Christianity on that same level, because true Christianity is not a religion at all.I have never seen an atheist ever go to "sacred writings"that govern those religions and try to repudiate them.
EnChristosEime