You're taking 16:5 completely out of context. Jesus says "None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’" in the middle of a passage about going to the father. Besides, wouldn't the question be "Where are WE going?" if it were physical?
@KayBeeEee1983 That it is in the middle of a passage about the Father does not change the fact that the are heading for physical destinations -- at the end of which Jesus would die (and eventually return to the Father).
Re "we" -- no, because it would be the disciples asking Jesus, as the one leading, where HE is going. That they are following is obvious and there is no reason semantically why it must be WE. Please don't try such desperate ideas to rescue Prof's obvious error.
@tektontv The obvious error is yours because Jesus is obviously talking about going to the father:
“the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. I did not tell you this from the beginning because I was with you, but now I am going to him who sent me..." (cont'd)...
@KayBeeEee1983 Read my rules -- no "continued" messages. And I already answered that idiot argument -- again: That it is in the middle of a passage about the Father does not change the fact that the are heading for physical destinations -- at the end of which Jesus would die (and eventually return to the Father).
If you're not bright enough to figure this out, I'd suggest a reading comprehension course.
@tektontv They likely already knew where they were going because they had been there many times, which is why Judas knows where they are and leads the authorities to them.
@KayBeeEee1983 Oh please. That's just another goofball rationalization to save Prof's stupid mistake. This was JERUSALEM -- there are many places they would have been many times in that city, including the Temple precincts, homes of disciples, etc.
Just let it die and save yourself further embarrassment. You're making the sort of excuses a fundamentalist would make.
@tektontv I'm just providing the evidence to support my case. You have given no evidence whatsoever to support your interpretation except the line "Get up, let us go." which occurs 2 chapters before "not one of you asks me, 'Where are you going?'"
@KayBeeEee1983 EVIDENCE??? You're not providing evidence of any sort; you're making patent rationalizations and adding whatever you want to the text (eg, "they knew where they were going") to excuse away Mitch's blatant error. The 2 chapters makes not a bit of difference -- it's all one speech, you moron, and chapters weren't added until centuries later!
Seriously -- quit drinking the ProfMTH Kool Aid. It's causing you brain damage.
@tektontv Yes, circumstantial evidence. Judas knew where they were going, so the other disciples probably knew where they were going too. Jesus says "Get up, let US go." so they would ask "Where are WE going?" not "Where are YOU going?"
@KayBeeEee1983 I already defeated those stupid notions and you're mindlessly repeating yourself at this point. There is no evidence Judas knew the final destination, or reason to think he did, and no reason to demand "we" instead of "you". Wipe the drool from your chin and try to come up with a new point that actually answers my rebuttals. If you just repeat yourself I will delete it.
@tektontv You're just dismissing evidence like all good Christians. You have no rebuttals. Your rebuttals are just insults. There is literally no reason to believe Jesus is talking about a physical destination. The entire paragraph is about him going to a spiritual destination.
@KayBeeEee1983 I'm sure that sort of excuse worked when you were a fundy. But the spiritual/physical dichotomy is an invention of modern rationalism and did not exist in the first century. FAIL.
I'm using evidence -- you're just making it up like a good brainwashed troll.
@tektontv This might surprise you but as an Atheist, I do like to get my facts right. There are hardliners on all sides, & some Atheists are fundies. I learnt my lesson this week, we may not agree but misrepresenting the facts is always bad.
@Nilsy1975 I've known a few atheists like that. In fact one of my cartoonist friends is such an atheist. However none I have known before have made YT videos. :)
@tektontv I think that the Internet has done that for a lot of people, not just you & I. We really are in a brave new world, & if the NWO stuff is true, we all (Atheists included) need to get used to it!
@Nilsy1975 ROFL...even w/o any NWO stuff, just speaking as an info professional who learned how to use Net-like databases before there was an Internet...it's a new world all right.
@tektontv Yeah here is the thing, I looked up your passage and I fail to see where it shows the dinner was over and they went into a garden. Now I'm sure there are exceptions but usually the ratings do a god job filtering out bogus claims. If you could be so kind to show me where in John 16, or any where in John said the dinner was over or they were in the garden, I'd like to clarify this.
@Boudiga The "let us go" signifies the dinner is over and the travel begins. They arrive at the garden in 18:1.
And were you actually going to rate before asking this?
If the ratings do a good job of filtering bogus claims, then please explain why 9/11 conspiracy vids here get so many positive ratings (in one case I saw, 4x as many ups as downs).
@tektontv I don't watch the 9/11 conspiracy videos. so I have no idea. I base my reasoning off of videos I watch, not the ones I don't watch. I find the rating system to work well with the ones I watch. Maybe they have a more honest audiences?
@Boudiga Or maybe the ratings system is statistically worthless. Especially since typically only 1-2% of viewers actually vote. As someone whose expertise is in information brokerage, I wouldn't give ratings here an ounce of credence.
@tektontv Have I said anything to give you that impression? I'm not judging you. I asked two questions and all you seem to do is question my sincerity when I've done nothing to promote said behavior. I've been rather nice polite.
With most of the videos I've see they tend to be rather on point. Not all of course. I've been watching lots of science videos, where I said again, they tend to have a more honest audiences. Why this even an issue?
@tektontv The ones that do care enough to vote, will vote honestly, at least for my videos that I watch a lot. Again why is this even an issue? I asked my question, was polite and you just seem to want to harp on me because I asked about the ratings? Seriously whats the big deal?
@Boudiga As I said...you first made an issue of it. :) You can stop any time you want.
But I'd be curious as to how you know only honest people are voting. Did you a) make a list of people who voted (that sure would have taken time!) and then b) do background checks on all of them (takes even longer)? You must have a good deal of spare time. Can I have some? My chronic manipulator is in the shop.
@tektontv I made an observation. I didn't think it would lead to an issue.
How know the voting is honest? Well I watch the video and look up its claims. I don't believe everything I"m told. I do ask questions. I find that with the videos I watch, the rating system works on honesty.
@Boudiga That doesn't prove the voting is honest at all. The motivations of voters are completely unknown unless you interview them or they state them. Reasons for voting "up" could be anything from "I like the music" to "it makes me feel better."
There's always an issue when statistics are used in a sloppy way. :)
@tektontv Again, I said I watch the video and confirm it with facts. So far for the most part I find the ratings to be effective. Often if the video is very good or bad it'll get a lot of ratings. You'd be surprised how often I find that to be case. Not always but the vast majority of the videos I watch, if the rating is neg. then its often, not always dishonest. Again that is my experiences.
@Boudiga You're evading the point that the ratings do nothing to define why people vote. :) Not only that, you're asking me to take your word that you have the knowledge to recognize honesty/dishonesty. Sorry....ECREE.
I'm going for lunch now. Try to get some education on statistics while I'm out, heh?
@tektontv So the whole point of this questioning was to find a reason to insult me? When I clarified my own experiences over your statistics. You can have a statistic about anything. Tis tis, I can't even be nice to christian without them trying to insult you. LOL Well not all christians. There are few who aren't as judgmental.
@tektontv I already think critically. I simply disagreed with you that the ratings are not useful. When someone doesn't agree with you, why must you insult them? Not one insult has come from me.
@Boudiga The reason you disagreed is because you didn't think critically about the usefulness and relevance of YT stats. Now if you can't answer my questions/points re unknown motivations for raters, etc then just admit you're beating a dead horse rather than trying in vain to ride it over the finish line. I'll ask again: 1) How do you know what the motivations of raters are? 2) Why are ratings useful when less than 5% and sometimes even less than 2% of viewers vote? Back tomorrow for an answer.
@tektontv I don't need to find the montives of the raters. I find that when I go to the video I look at, that those with high ratings, often but NOT always tend to be correct. Where ones with low ratings often have mistakes or sometimes just lying. I'm able to confirm this by doing research on said subjects at different sources. Am I comparing this to all YT videos? No. I simply am talking about a type of videos I watch. Why are you making a mountain out of a mole hill?
@Boudiga Because the mole needs a whacking. And at this point your drowning in your own equivocations and qualifications, and still asking me to blindly accept your expertise at your own word. You DO need motives, period, to determine if the ratings are useful; as it is, all you do is assume the motives are the same as your own, which is sloppy statistics and bad critical thinking.
That will be all. From here on, stick to the vid topic, all else will be deleted.
Atheists outnumber Christians by a long way on here. Add to this that many of the atheists on Youtube are aggressive while at the same time being extremely uncritcal, ignorant and not desirous of learning anything about Christianity and arguments for it. They just like listening to religion being bashed so even if the atheist in the video is spouting the most ignorant, misinformed nonsense out there, they will still get rated up. Ratings indicate what's popular, not what's true.
LOLL...brother Holding you're killing me, man. Most of the time I don't take certain atheists seriously. Even "Prof" I ignored for a long time, until he crossed the line with me with that Camping video. So, keep up the good and funny work. Hey, how about you let the warrior do some of that voice-over stuff like you have Nick over there? I can do lots of voices...LOL.
Even should the TEKTON FORGE delete this, @ least HE saw it, which is my primary goal with THIS comment. I have found ProfMTH 2 B not only THAT well-informed, or THAT thoroughly thought out (after all), but also pretty NASTY 2 a number of the people who comment on his OWN posts &/or even subscribe 2 his channel (though he does generally warn people when he is about 2 kick them off). Also, 4 a law professor, SOME of his OWN remarks & graphics in his very OWN videos seem quite unprofessional, 2.
A) TektonTV's videos R FAR more entertaining, on the whole, than ProfMTH's R (which, 2 B fair, IS saying something, but TektonTV STILL has the Professor beaten HANDS DOWN on that point, & I think I even saw some of MTH's fans saying this in a few places, eh?)
B) While I do not yet "C it" in ALL the TektonTV videos (& have not watched them all completely yet), I really DO have 2 agree with TektonTV that it's *ProfMTH* who ended up in an equivocational corner here, NOT TektonTV!
@bimboblacky Thanx. I do not know what any of his fans are saying but I imagine a lot of people prefer hand drawn art to what is probably mostly photos cobbled together from other sources.
The passage is still in the same vein as the previous questions, referring to where Jesus was going after he dies, not to where he was going in that moment.
He says, I'm going to the one who sent me. He's not referring to the garden.
@tektontv Sorry, the passage says, But now I am going to the one who sent me, not just somewhere else, like the garden. This going to the one who sent me is in the same vein as the previous passages.
If you can't see it, try harder. In other words, Jesus just told them where he was going, 'but now I am going to the one who sent me', and you are saying, the disciples said in effect, but where are you going now? Who cares where the disciples thought he was going then...spiritual relevancy?
@rovingdesertfox Um, goofball? Did the apostles KNOW when they were getting up from supper that that was where Jesus was going? No. This is ALL "new information" for them -- and it is, as I have said, an IRONY that on this most important trip, they do not ask, when they had asked twice before, and now is there a change in location when asking would have been more appropriate.
Sorry you're so frustrated, but it just won't work. The "now" shows the intent is contrast, and means there no error.
@rovingdesertfox The lack of sense problem is in your mirror, cornball. :D Try remedial reading classes -- they should be available for you at the state penitentiary you reside in.
Excellent video, nearly every atheist makes the same kind of mistake with every argument in the bible. The way you exposed ProfMTH's illiteracy was just much more hilarious than the usual debunk.
@aaronk1994 Thanks for the good word...I'd have to say though that for this one, he played the role too well to pass up the designation. Some of his stuff is better than that...but the "Bible Blunders" series is pretty much classic FA.
Between 14:31 and 16:5 there is no indication of time having passed. No indication that they were traveling en route to anywhere. No indication that they had left the location of the last supper. All Jesus said was that it was time to depart, but no where between those two verses did it say that they were departing. In fact Jesus doesn't stop talking from the first verse to the second one. There is zero indication that Jesus says "no one has asked me where I am going" while they are en route.
Do you really believe that they just sat there after Jesus said to depart? You're more than just a little confused, And there is a verse where it says that they were departing, John 14:31. Why would would it even be a problem that Jesus doesn't stop talking? It's not like people have to shut up while leaving a place is it? Or it could just have been writing constraints on Johns part. Jesus speak would be more important than stating the already obvious.
@HonestTechnoAtheist Chrawnus is right -- that's one of the most contrived responses I've ever seen. By any chance were you once a fundamentalist? Because it takes that kind of ignorance to suppose that after Jesus told them to go, they just all sat there like morons, and he didn't say diddly about it.
@tektontv Most everytime in the bible when a bit of time passes you can see the words, and it came to pass. These words do not indicate that any time passed, however this may not be the best blunder to use, seeing as how it is pretty vague, like most of the bible.
BTW, can you send me the links, in a PM, to where ProfMTH responded to these, I couldn't get them to work.
@HonestTechnoAtheist RU SERIOUS? You're confusing the Bible with the Book of Mormon, dude! THAT is the one that uses "it came to pass" ad nauseum. And that's a KJVism, not an artifact of Greek or Hebrew.
It's not vague at all -- you're just dense.
I do not know that Prof has responded yet. I checked yestewrday and saw nothing responding.
@tektontv I havn't read the book of mormon, but the bible use that phrase a lot. But many parts of the bible are so vague they can be defined to mean anything. This is particularly true when it comes to the prophecies.
I thought ProfMTH made comments in reply to this. It does say "for comments on profmths excuses made in reply to this".
@HonestTechnoAtheist The ENGLISH Bible uses it a lot. In the NT it is used to represent a word which is also represented as "done," "fulfilled," "arrived," etc. IOW it doesn't help your argument.
Again, it's not vague at all, you just need to study better.
The comments are here on my channel, made by Prof.
@tektontv Alright lets take a certain prophecy: they shall run too and fro and their knowledge shall increase. Who shall run to and fro? Anyone who can go from point A to point be can be taken to mean that anyone can run to and fro. Their knowledge shall increase. Whose? At any given time throughout history people's knowledge has increased. Still think that it isn't vague. Saying I need to study better is a cop out.
@HonestTechnoAtheist Next time provide a cite eh? Lucky I rec'd that as Dan. 12:4. The "many" contextually can only refer to those seeking knowledge concerning the subjects of the prophecy, which would mean members of the priestly/scribal class with the means/motive to seek the knowledge. Not vague at all if you know the world of the Bible. It's no cop out but a hard fact: You need to do some homework.
I had 4 vids on Prof and he commented on 3 including this one. 2 months ago.
@tektontv Sorry but I only read the bible once. You didn't show me at all how the verse wasn't vague. All you said was that it meant people will move around and seek knowledge.
ProfMTH hasn't made a single comment on this video, I checked them all. Can you give me some links to the other ones you mentioned?
@HonestTechnoAtheist I gave you an answer...can't help if you don't get it. As for Prof's comments, good grief -- they're all over the place here! How can you miss them??? I count at least 5 or 6 on this vid alone. You're not making a good impression as someone who pays close attention.
@tektontv I can't help it if you aren't giving me good answers. I state again that most time in the bible when time passes it will say so. Not so with this case.
I see Prof's comments this time. I had to click on the see all comments option.
@HonestTechnoAtheist Sorry it's over your head...try reading some scholarly literature on the social world of the Bible, it'll make sense then. (No, that's not stuff by Richie Dawkins.)
See my post today on my Tekton Forge blog, "Mitch Versus the Monster," for comments on ProfMTH's excuses that he didn't put 16:5 correctly NOT at the Last Supper because he was doing the story "quickly," and also for comments on his claim that the location is "irrelevant". It's a perfect example of how ProfMTH is actually a skilled rationalizer who will never admit even his simplest errors. And with 10K subscribers, how embarrassing would that be for him? ;)
@ProfMTH *sigh* No, that's not the point. Heed the monster's words: There is IRONY in the fact that none ask him the same question, even though the answer will be more mundane if it is asked this time ("we are going to Gethsemane" vs "going to my Father" or what have you).
Either way, it is time for you to admit your error in having 16:5 posed at the Last Supper.
@tektontv There's no error. I was telling the story in a quick way. Quite frankly, the location is utterly irrelevant. It's the same group of people on the same night talking about the same thing in a relatively short amount of time.
But, hey, any port in an apologetic storm, eh? Otherwise you guys would be out of business.
@ProfMTH Hum. "Telling the story in a quick way" sounds like an excuse used by a fundy to defend the Bible...wrong though. The location is critical to the point. Unless they're still eating at the table, your objection is dead. Same night irrelevant, short amount of time irrelevant. Different location -- big difference. :)
Take your lumps and be happy. You can always renumber the blunders series after removing all the bad ones. Though it is rather easy to count to zero, come to think of it.
@tektontv "The location is critical to the point."
No, it's not. As I said, same group of people, same night, talking about the same thing in a relatively short amount of time. If one evening, while a friend & I were in my apartment, I asked her a question & she answered it, and then a bit later that evening while we were walking down the street my friend complained that I wasn't asking her the same question I'd asked & she'd answered, the location wouldn't make her complaint any less odd.
@ProfMTH Oh dear. Reduced to repeating yourself already? Your analogy fails because the question is, "where are you going"? On that same night you can have different answers according to context of discussion: If you said priorly, "I need to buy some groceries" then "where are going" will have a different answer the same night if you first say, "I need to buy a new car". Your answer to both questions will generally not be the same...unless maybe you shop at one of those warehouse stores. :D
@tektontv "Reduced to repeating yourself already?"
I learned long ago as a teacher that repetition is sometimes necessary, especially when dealing with those less prone to pick things up the first time. As I said, same group of people on the same night talking about THE SAME THING in a relatively short amount of time. All of that is important here.
Now as much as I'd love to keep going around in circles with you, I have a final exam to finish writing. So I'll check back later.
@ProfMTH I pick up things very quickly...especially equivocation by someone in a corner. :) Again: Different location....big difference. End of story.
Good luck with that final exam...make sure you have enough popsicle sticks before you finish it off.
Really, this one point is the best you can do? ProfMTH has tons of videos refuting the bible and all you can accomplish is four minutes on one point? I guess everything else he claims must be true! Oh and the monster eating the atheist in the end. yeah that was real funn....childlike. You don't expect to be taken seriously with this critique do you.
@hwk1969 The old fundy atheist canard, in which you bring forth tons of material and hope that somebody doesn't notice you using a red herring? Tell you what hwk, bring forth a 'bible contradiction' and either post it here or on T web and I'll answer it, deal?
@lilangelofterror Sure I will take your bait although I am not sure how we came to this contradiction issue as I didn't bring it up in my comment? So although irrelevant to the post, why don't you explain the two creation stories in Genesis. That should be worthy of an explanation. I assume you are familiar with the two different accounts of creation in Genesis?
@hwk1969 You're the one that wanted to whine about 'contradictions', Anyway, the first view is that the creation account in Genesis 1, is a general account and Genesis 2, is specific to man. The second view is that the two accounts are written that way to make the reader have to think. Myself, I tend to take the less literal view of Genesis and believe Genesis is not so much a precise scientific understanding, but is more written to tell the reader that God is the creator of the universe.
@lilangelofterror Please point out in any of my comments where I mentioned, uttered or stated anything about contradictions? I think you are creating issues in your mind that don't exist. My whole point was that the four minute video really was unconvincing in comparison to the original argument. You made the challenge to bring up a contradiction so I offered one of probably hundreds available.
@lilangelofterror Your Genesis explanation is weak and totally ignores the fact that the creation chronology of the accounts are completely different. It would serve you better to just agree that they are contradictory accounts then to bury yourself in rhetoric that isn't true. Also saying "Genesis is not so much a precise scientific understanding"...is a gross understatement just as referring to the bible in anyway scientific would be. It is a book that tells a story...thats it.
@hwk1969 Try my article....though it is way more than 500 chars. And I'm still waiting for you to explain why the vid argument is "unconvincing". You seem good at saying "what" but bad at explaining "why".
@tektontv The vid argument is unconvincing because you come across as though ProfMTH must leave the internet or something because of a minor disagreement on the position of a person during a supposed group conversation. It is like finding a piece of green grass in a burnt field and claiming there was no fire. Second, the certainty of the position of Jesus is just funny. People act as though Jesus wore a GPS his whole life. Like all interpretations of the bible speculation runs a muck.
@hwk1969 Your assessment is overdone to the point of paranoia. All I say is that Prof needs to revise/take down this one film of his. Your comment re certainty is incoherent.
@tektontv The title of your clip certainly implies nothing about his one referred to video..."Its Time To Go" Sounds nothing like "Take down or correct your video".
@hwk1969 Correct, it does not. The title is an allusion to the critical saying of Jesus in John 14:31 in which he says, "Come, let us go." I have only indicated that he should remove/fix a video within comments, not in the film itself.
You'd do better to not exegete the films like a fundamentalist. ;)
@tektontv I did read your article, all I can say is that you are clearly and apologist and I am still clearly an atheist. The article is built of course on speculation, assumption and interpretation in order to try and give the contradiction some coherence. I find it hard to believe that anyone would find truth and belief in the divine while having to rigorously decode what is clearly printed. But of course, it is not divine, only man can make such a mess. Peace.
@hwk1969 In other words, you can't answer it so you merely apply labels like "speculation" to relieve yourself of the burden of an actual answer rooted in study and analysis. As I more or less expected. :)
@tektontv Now this is a joke right? Your are leaning on the bible as a document of fact that answer life's biggest questions and gives insight to our origins as a species? You can't honestly think that you are giving study and analysis to something that is real and factual. The whole dance of apologetics is nothing but poor scientific process to justify the current day mythology that is Christianity. You guys invented the "god of the gaps argument". Man from dirt...and a little magic.
@hwk1969 I don't deal in that issue of origins myself. I can live with any view but 100% materialist evolution. In any event, this is yet more of you using slogans and soundbites as a poor substitute for engaging arguments.
@tektontv Was thinking about your statement here: "I don't deal in that issue of origins myself" yet you write a paper in defense of the Genesis contradictions. So you are an apologist with no position of mans origins including the validity of Genesis? Is that correct?
@hwk1969 One can write something on the literary aspects of a document without commenting on the historical aspects of it. Your observation is something a fundamentalist would think.
I take a fidestic position which is essentially YEC (I write historical/exegetical articles for a leading creationist ministry) but can live with anything but wholly materialist evolution.
Now how about you answer the article and stop changing the subject? ;)
@tektontv There is nothing fundamental about my observation, critical yes, maybe. Your fundi title for atheists seems to be a nice catch phrase by your "students" as well. I really just asked a simple question as I found your position ironic. I also find it interesting you would take faith in YEC yet not identify yourself as a fundamentalist.
With that, materialist evolution has nothing to do with creation so why reference in this context makes no sense.
@hwk1969 It's an accurate description of a mindset of many of my opponents. They interpret the texts like fundies even as they profess atheism. Even Wikipedia's entry on fundamentalism recognizes the phenomenon of dogmatic atheism.
"Fundamentalism" properly defined means adhering to five historic fundamentals. I do not adhere to all of them so I am not a fundamentalist.
And no, you did not "address" the article at all. Belching at it is not "addressing" it. Do a DETAILED REFUTATION.
@hwk1969 That is just an assertion because what good do you think that a scientific account, would have done people living 5,000 or more years ago? None, so why would God go into details about an event they didn't need to know anything about?
@lilangelofterror Well I can at least agree with you here...yes, like the whole story of the Bible, it is an assertion. But to address you other question, what could would a scientific explanation have accomplished...tons!
@hwk1969 No where did I say that the Bible was an 'assertion', but nice try, too bad you fail again. Anyway, no dear, it wouldn't of done any good to people living 5,000 or so years ago or do you believe that the Bible was written to you personally, with your views in mind?
@lilangelofterror I didn't say you made the claim the bible was an assertion...I made the claim the whole story of the bible was an assertion. You claimed the Genesis accounts were assertions. Regarding scientific explanations, yes, as history proves, societies with better understandings to the nature of what is true typically are more advanced. So could scientific explanations have helped, of course. Finally, no the bible has nothing to do with my personal views and was not written as such.
@hwk1969 I claimed that the Genesis accounts were assertions? Wow, you really lack an understanding of basic reading comprehension, don't you? I know what I said and I did not say that, thus you are throwing up the last refuge in a storm, throwing up strawman! This isn't what I said, so respond to what I said instead of what you want to hear, ok?
@lilangelofterror Go back and read our dialog, I spend half of my response correcting the issues you create that were never part of the discussion in the first place. Your personal attack on reading comprehension is a childlike defense but not unexpected. I don't "want to hear" anything particular from you. This started with your challenge of a bible contradiction which you didn't explain other than it was "more written to tell the reader that God is the creator of the universe".
@hwk1969 Awe, classic fundy atheist, simply try to shove words down people's throats to make them say things they didn't say. You're the one that brought up the Genesis account and I told you what I thought of it and sorry... saying that it's not 'literal' doesn't make it an 'assertion'. Do you know what an assertion is or do you just like to make lots of dumb comments, that show you don't have any brains?
I only brought up the Genesis account because of your request for a Bible contradiction, that was my response true or false?
Go ahead enlighten me...say something smart this dumb atheist just cant grasp. Your emotional character attacks show your really are just enraged against atheists regardless of content. You can keep your fairy tale for yourself. Just continue to keep the faith and you will be fine...I don't care what you believe. Peace.
@hwk1969 A fundy atheist is often a person that is just as narrow minded with their interpretations of scripture, as fundy Christians are. Anyway it's not my fault that you are not well versed in the interpretations of Genesis and are not aware that several views and interpretations of Genesis exist. My view is that Genesis was written to remind Gods chosen people that God created the universe and not the pagan gods. I could go into more detail, but that requires more character space.
@lilangelofterror Ok, so your view is that Genesis was written for the Jews to remind them god created the universe. I am aware of the many books, edits and interpretations that did not make the bible. With that the variations of Genesis are irrelevant to me as the core principle is the fallacy. I would be interested to find out how you decide what pieces of the bible to take literally and which you don not if it is the word of god.
@hwk1969 Anyway, I'm far from 'enraged' and not upset at all. I can tell that you are losing your cool because it seems you now come out swinging. What's the problem, your assertions didn't work and you just discovered that not all Christians take Genesis to be word by word literal? You might want to widen your world view beyond YEC interpretations of Genesis, who knows, you might learn something!
@lilangelofterror Trust me my world view expands beyond what you are willing to even glance at. I am also well aware of the variations of Christian views, there are roughly 3800 different branches/denominations of Christianity alone which really speak volumes for universal truth.
You apparently missed the part in my last response where I told you I didn't care what you believe. I haven't had to resort to using "stupid" or "dumb" within my dialog. What you believe matters zero to me get it?
@hwk1969 Oh, I doubt that very much and that is simply because it seems you can't accept other views that are not YEC. Of course, you bring up the same canard about 'different denominations' as though that's an argument. Does the Bible say that Christians will walk in lock step? Nope. Third, I call you dumb or stupid because that is what you are and it seems you want to do nothing to solve your ignorance. Finally, I care for the truth and well... it seems you don't. Keep trying though.
@lilangelofterror You are about as dense as they come, I will repeat myself AGAIN because you clearly didn't read what I have already stated. YEC or not the premise is the problem. What part don't you get? If "magic" was used to explain existence, then there is a problem. I have "solved my ignorance" I left child like belief as a youth. Whats your excuse? Now, being that I must be dealing with a emotional teenage girl...you still have a chance to wise up when you mature.
@hwk1969 Of course I'm 'dense' I don't agree with you and your standard list of assertions. I explained Genesis to you and you seem to be unable to answer it, thus I must be 'dense'. Second, no dear, you didn't 'leave ignorance behind', instead you adopted another type of ignorance, fundy atheism. Finally, I'm 26 years old and quite emotionally mature. I'm in control of mine, you just don't list of assertions didn't work. Try again and this time, produce arguments, not psychoanalysis.
@lilangelofterror Your "explanation" of genesis was your personal interpretation, you made that clear it didn't require a rebuttal. You didn't ask me a question in response remember? Speaking of narrow views, your over run "fundy atheist" term is tiresome for which I have not even come close to displaying, I have not quoted nor referred to literal interpretation of the biblical text...not once.. Finally you keep saying my assertions didn't work. I haven't asserted anything. Goodbye already.
@hwk1969 It is? So you're telling me that there are not scholars that hold to that position? Lol, there's plenty of them or have you never heard of 'Theistic evolution'? Oh dear... quite ignorant indeed. And yes dear, you've asserted a lot, let me list them out:
1. You asserted that I said that Genesis was an assertion, yet where did I say that?
2. You asserted that this explanation is my 'personal interpretation' yet, you seem to be unaware that others hold to this view too.
@hwk1969 It's a lot more childish to expect instant answers to a hurled elephant, even if it is a dead one. But I issued three other vids at the same time on his stuff, and also have a ref to a link at the end with answers to all the Bible Blunders. As for more than that -- I may do some, but it's all old stuff I have refuted in my articles.
@tektontv "instant answers to a hurled elephant" isn't that exactly what religion and faith actually are. No thinking required, God did it....done deal. You have touched on the core issue between belief and non belief in your first sentence. Most people don't even study and or read the whole bible, and that is good enough to have answers to lifes biggest questions. Geography +Mythology+Magic=Good enough for the pious. Peace.
@hwk1969 Sorry, but if you want "no thinking" people you've come to the wrong channel. :) We're the sorts who do all the study and reading. If you're more the open-minded sort...we're glad to have you.
@hwk1969 By the way: I guess we should take ProfMTH more seriously with his use of stick figures with picture faces on them, huh? FYI the monster bit was a parody of the old monster movies/Frankenstein themes.
@hwk1969 "ProfMTH has tons of videos refuting the bible and all you can accomplish is four minutes on one point?"
tektontv has over 1500 articles defending the Bible and refuting arguments like the ones raised by ProfMTH, and all you can accomplish is a five-line whinefest on one point?
@fmu93 I don't get you guys, where is the Whinefest coming from? Second time it has been used? Read my earlier comments and maybe you will get where I am coming from...but doubtful. I get it, most of the people watching this video only require faith to believe what you do. I am finding little reason to use reason any longer. @lilandelofterror is a perfect examples of dodging every question I posed to him.
@tektontv How would like me to approach the issue of substance. I can't give substance to things that don't hold any truth. You on the other hand can live with yourself in doing so. I guess the term we would use for you is "delusional" since we apparently need to go down the issue of labeling. You would only be happy if I offered up some type of support for your position regardless of whether it is true or not.
You're taking 16:5 completely out of context. Jesus says "None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’" in the middle of a passage about going to the father. Besides, wouldn't the question be "Where are WE going?" if it were physical?
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 That it is in the middle of a passage about the Father does not change the fact that the are heading for physical destinations -- at the end of which Jesus would die (and eventually return to the Father).
Re "we" -- no, because it would be the disciples asking Jesus, as the one leading, where HE is going. That they are following is obvious and there is no reason semantically why it must be WE. Please don't try such desperate ideas to rescue Prof's obvious error.
tektontv 2 months ago
@tektontv The obvious error is yours because Jesus is obviously talking about going to the father:
“the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. I did not tell you this from the beginning because I was with you, but now I am going to him who sent me..." (cont'd)...
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Read my rules -- no "continued" messages. And I already answered that idiot argument -- again: That it is in the middle of a passage about the Father does not change the fact that the are heading for physical destinations -- at the end of which Jesus would die (and eventually return to the Father).
If you're not bright enough to figure this out, I'd suggest a reading comprehension course.
tektontv 2 months ago
@tektontv They likely already knew where they were going because they had been there many times, which is why Judas knows where they are and leads the authorities to them.
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 Oh please. That's just another goofball rationalization to save Prof's stupid mistake. This was JERUSALEM -- there are many places they would have been many times in that city, including the Temple precincts, homes of disciples, etc.
Just let it die and save yourself further embarrassment. You're making the sort of excuses a fundamentalist would make.
tektontv 2 months ago
@tektontv I'm just providing the evidence to support my case. You have given no evidence whatsoever to support your interpretation except the line "Get up, let us go." which occurs 2 chapters before "not one of you asks me, 'Where are you going?'"
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 EVIDENCE??? You're not providing evidence of any sort; you're making patent rationalizations and adding whatever you want to the text (eg, "they knew where they were going") to excuse away Mitch's blatant error. The 2 chapters makes not a bit of difference -- it's all one speech, you moron, and chapters weren't added until centuries later!
Seriously -- quit drinking the ProfMTH Kool Aid. It's causing you brain damage.
tektontv 2 months ago
@tektontv Yes, circumstantial evidence. Judas knew where they were going, so the other disciples probably knew where they were going too. Jesus says "Get up, let US go." so they would ask "Where are WE going?" not "Where are YOU going?"
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I already defeated those stupid notions and you're mindlessly repeating yourself at this point. There is no evidence Judas knew the final destination, or reason to think he did, and no reason to demand "we" instead of "you". Wipe the drool from your chin and try to come up with a new point that actually answers my rebuttals. If you just repeat yourself I will delete it.
tektontv 2 months ago
@tektontv You're just dismissing evidence like all good Christians. You have no rebuttals. Your rebuttals are just insults. There is literally no reason to believe Jesus is talking about a physical destination. The entire paragraph is about him going to a spiritual destination.
KayBeeEee1983 2 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 I'm sure that sort of excuse worked when you were a fundy. But the spiritual/physical dichotomy is an invention of modern rationalism and did not exist in the first century. FAIL.
I'm using evidence -- you're just making it up like a good brainwashed troll.
tektontv 2 months ago
Woo strawmen!
bobmuffins 3 months ago
@bobmuffins Woo non-answers!
tektontv 2 months ago
There should be an *Even" in my last sentence i.e, & even if.
& thank you for be polite, this might surprise you, but I am off to think & maybe pray a bit, so please pray for me :-(
Nilsy1975 6 months ago
@Nilsy1975 Will do. (My cartoonist friend once asked me to do that too...)
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv Thank you.
Nilsy1975 6 months ago
Darn it, I'm a Atheist, & I think you might be right on this one :-(
Nilsy1975 6 months ago
@Nilsy1975 I appreciate that you commented. But due credit, the answer comes from scholars I read. It's really a standard answer.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv This might surprise you but as an Atheist, I do like to get my facts right. There are hardliners on all sides, & some Atheists are fundies. I learnt my lesson this week, we may not agree but misrepresenting the facts is always bad.
Nilsy1975 6 months ago
@Nilsy1975 I've known a few atheists like that. In fact one of my cartoonist friends is such an atheist. However none I have known before have made YT videos. :)
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv I think that the Internet has done that for a lot of people, not just you & I. We really are in a brave new world, & if the NWO stuff is true, we all (Atheists included) need to get used to it!
Nilsy1975 6 months ago
@Nilsy1975 ROFL...even w/o any NWO stuff, just speaking as an info professional who learned how to use Net-like databases before there was an Internet...it's a new world all right.
tektontv 6 months ago
Noticed the ratings have been disabled for this video.
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga For all of them. They're just sales props for YT. Doesn't matter anyway -- they say nothing about the truth of a vid, now, do they?
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv Yeah here is the thing, I looked up your passage and I fail to see where it shows the dinner was over and they went into a garden. Now I'm sure there are exceptions but usually the ratings do a god job filtering out bogus claims. If you could be so kind to show me where in John 16, or any where in John said the dinner was over or they were in the garden, I'd like to clarify this.
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga The "let us go" signifies the dinner is over and the travel begins. They arrive at the garden in 18:1.
And were you actually going to rate before asking this?
If the ratings do a good job of filtering bogus claims, then please explain why 9/11 conspiracy vids here get so many positive ratings (in one case I saw, 4x as many ups as downs).
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv No I wanted to see the ratings of the video, not rate myself.
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga OK, then I'd still like to know why it matters, since 9/11 conspiracy vids get such good ratings here.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv I don't watch the 9/11 conspiracy videos. so I have no idea. I base my reasoning off of videos I watch, not the ones I don't watch. I find the rating system to work well with the ones I watch. Maybe they have a more honest audiences?
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga Or maybe the ratings system is statistically worthless. Especially since typically only 1-2% of viewers actually vote. As someone whose expertise is in information brokerage, I wouldn't give ratings here an ounce of credence.
Or of course, you could be biased too.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv Have I said anything to give you that impression? I'm not judging you. I asked two questions and all you seem to do is question my sincerity when I've done nothing to promote said behavior. I've been rather nice polite.
With most of the videos I've see they tend to be rather on point. Not all of course. I've been watching lots of science videos, where I said again, they tend to have a more honest audiences. Why this even an issue?
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga Because you brought it up first... :)
The audiences may be more honest...but if only 1-2% or even only 10% of them vote, that would still be statistically of no merit.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv The ones that do care enough to vote, will vote honestly, at least for my videos that I watch a lot. Again why is this even an issue? I asked my question, was polite and you just seem to want to harp on me because I asked about the ratings? Seriously whats the big deal?
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga As I said...you first made an issue of it. :) You can stop any time you want.
But I'd be curious as to how you know only honest people are voting. Did you a) make a list of people who voted (that sure would have taken time!) and then b) do background checks on all of them (takes even longer)? You must have a good deal of spare time. Can I have some? My chronic manipulator is in the shop.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv I made an observation. I didn't think it would lead to an issue.
How know the voting is honest? Well I watch the video and look up its claims. I don't believe everything I"m told. I do ask questions. I find that with the videos I watch, the rating system works on honesty.
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga That doesn't prove the voting is honest at all. The motivations of voters are completely unknown unless you interview them or they state them. Reasons for voting "up" could be anything from "I like the music" to "it makes me feel better."
There's always an issue when statistics are used in a sloppy way. :)
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv Again, I said I watch the video and confirm it with facts. So far for the most part I find the ratings to be effective. Often if the video is very good or bad it'll get a lot of ratings. You'd be surprised how often I find that to be case. Not always but the vast majority of the videos I watch, if the rating is neg. then its often, not always dishonest. Again that is my experiences.
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga You're evading the point that the ratings do nothing to define why people vote. :) Not only that, you're asking me to take your word that you have the knowledge to recognize honesty/dishonesty. Sorry....ECREE.
I'm going for lunch now. Try to get some education on statistics while I'm out, heh?
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv So the whole point of this questioning was to find a reason to insult me? When I clarified my own experiences over your statistics. You can have a statistic about anything. Tis tis, I can't even be nice to christian without them trying to insult you. LOL Well not all christians. There are few who aren't as judgmental.
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga Nope. The point was to get you to think critically. May I assume that's not a live option?
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv I already think critically. I simply disagreed with you that the ratings are not useful. When someone doesn't agree with you, why must you insult them? Not one insult has come from me.
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga The reason you disagreed is because you didn't think critically about the usefulness and relevance of YT stats. Now if you can't answer my questions/points re unknown motivations for raters, etc then just admit you're beating a dead horse rather than trying in vain to ride it over the finish line. I'll ask again: 1) How do you know what the motivations of raters are? 2) Why are ratings useful when less than 5% and sometimes even less than 2% of viewers vote? Back tomorrow for an answer.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv I don't need to find the montives of the raters. I find that when I go to the video I look at, that those with high ratings, often but NOT always tend to be correct. Where ones with low ratings often have mistakes or sometimes just lying. I'm able to confirm this by doing research on said subjects at different sources. Am I comparing this to all YT videos? No. I simply am talking about a type of videos I watch. Why are you making a mountain out of a mole hill?
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga Because the mole needs a whacking. And at this point your drowning in your own equivocations and qualifications, and still asking me to blindly accept your expertise at your own word. You DO need motives, period, to determine if the ratings are useful; as it is, all you do is assume the motives are the same as your own, which is sloppy statistics and bad critical thinking.
That will be all. From here on, stick to the vid topic, all else will be deleted.
tektontv 6 months ago
@tektontv No think your just making more of this than you need to. good bye.
Boudiga 6 months ago
@Boudiga If you were already thinking critically then surely you won't expect ratings to justify the contents of the video.
Furthermore, how is it an insult as far as telling it as it is?
Dante666 6 months ago
@Boudiga The problem, however, is that your experience is subjective and not objective.
Dante666 6 months ago
@Dante666 Not only so, he's missing that saying you can have a statistic about anything refutes his own advocacy of ratings as useful....
But hey, this is a guy who also didn't see a garden in John 18:1. :P
tektontv 6 months ago
@Boudiga
Atheists outnumber Christians by a long way on here. Add to this that many of the atheists on Youtube are aggressive while at the same time being extremely uncritcal, ignorant and not desirous of learning anything about Christianity and arguments for it. They just like listening to religion being bashed so even if the atheist in the video is spouting the most ignorant, misinformed nonsense out there, they will still get rated up. Ratings indicate what's popular, not what's true.
ukchristian28 6 months ago
Bad boy Ryakki. No profanity. And if you can't answer the argument, go whine somewhere else. If ratings mean truth, why aren't you a 9/11 truther?
tektontv 7 months ago
LOLL...brother Holding you're killing me, man. Most of the time I don't take certain atheists seriously. Even "Prof" I ignored for a long time, until he crossed the line with me with that Camping video. So, keep up the good and funny work. Hey, how about you let the warrior do some of that voice-over stuff like you have Nick over there? I can do lots of voices...LOL.
CRoadwarrior 7 months ago
@CRoadwarrior You bet! Send me some samples by email...I have some morph software now too, but it's sort of tinny at times. Live people are best.
tektontv 7 months ago
Even should the TEKTON FORGE delete this, @ least HE saw it, which is my primary goal with THIS comment. I have found ProfMTH 2 B not only THAT well-informed, or THAT thoroughly thought out (after all), but also pretty NASTY 2 a number of the people who comment on his OWN posts &/or even subscribe 2 his channel (though he does generally warn people when he is about 2 kick them off). Also, 4 a law professor, SOME of his OWN remarks & graphics in his very OWN videos seem quite unprofessional, 2.
bimboblacky 7 months ago
@bimboblacky I run the Forge...no worries, it's there to stay unless Google itself goes belly up.
tektontv 7 months ago
A) TektonTV's videos R FAR more entertaining, on the whole, than ProfMTH's R (which, 2 B fair, IS saying something, but TektonTV STILL has the Professor beaten HANDS DOWN on that point, & I think I even saw some of MTH's fans saying this in a few places, eh?)
B) While I do not yet "C it" in ALL the TektonTV videos (& have not watched them all completely yet), I really DO have 2 agree with TektonTV that it's *ProfMTH* who ended up in an equivocational corner here, NOT TektonTV!
bimboblacky 7 months ago
@bimboblacky Thanx. I do not know what any of his fans are saying but I imagine a lot of people prefer hand drawn art to what is probably mostly photos cobbled together from other sources.
tektontv 7 months ago
The passage is still in the same vein as the previous questions, referring to where Jesus was going after he dies, not to where he was going in that moment.
He says, I'm going to the one who sent me. He's not referring to the garden.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@rovingdesertfox The apostles only knew they were going somewhere else, which should have been sufficient to prompt a question.
tektontv 8 months ago
@tektontv Sorry, the passage says, But now I am going to the one who sent me, not just somewhere else, like the garden. This going to the one who sent me is in the same vein as the previous passages.
If you can't see it, try harder. In other words, Jesus just told them where he was going, 'but now I am going to the one who sent me', and you are saying, the disciples said in effect, but where are you going now? Who cares where the disciples thought he was going then...spiritual relevancy?
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@rovingdesertfox Um, goofball? Did the apostles KNOW when they were getting up from supper that that was where Jesus was going? No. This is ALL "new information" for them -- and it is, as I have said, an IRONY that on this most important trip, they do not ask, when they had asked twice before, and now is there a change in location when asking would have been more appropriate.
Sorry you're so frustrated, but it just won't work. The "now" shows the intent is contrast, and means there no error.
tektontv 8 months ago
@tektontv I'm frustrated? You're the one that made a video response to the Pro that doesn't make any sense. Unhappy christian bastard.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@rovingdesertfox The lack of sense problem is in your mirror, cornball. :D Try remedial reading classes -- they should be available for you at the state penitentiary you reside in.
tektontv 8 months ago
@tektontv Say anything you want; but you'll still be the mind controlled/brainwashed christian.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@rovingdesertfox It's nice to at least HAVE a mind/brain -- you ought to try it! :D
tektontv 8 months ago
@tektontv You are a tremendous beacon to others who long to be a christian. What an example.
rovingdesertfox 8 months ago
@rovingdesertfox You're a sorrowful whiner who has a wimpy view of Jesus. What a maroon.
That will be all. You've shown you can't answer the argument, so no more off topic posts will be approved.
tektontv 8 months ago
Comments hereafter will not be checked/answered. Thank you for watching!
tektontv 10 months ago
lol this made me laugh so hard but im not sure why because im really drunk.
AbusiveAntitheist 1 year ago
Excellent video, nearly every atheist makes the same kind of mistake with every argument in the bible. The way you exposed ProfMTH's illiteracy was just much more hilarious than the usual debunk.
Excellent!!
Krazie316 1 year ago 2
Good video JP. However, I have to disagree with one point: Prof is by no means a "fundie atheist".
aaronk1994 1 year ago
@aaronk1994 Thanks for the good word...I'd have to say though that for this one, he played the role too well to pass up the designation. Some of his stuff is better than that...but the "Bible Blunders" series is pretty much classic FA.
tektontv 1 year ago
Between 14:31 and 16:5 there is no indication of time having passed. No indication that they were traveling en route to anywhere. No indication that they had left the location of the last supper. All Jesus said was that it was time to depart, but no where between those two verses did it say that they were departing. In fact Jesus doesn't stop talking from the first verse to the second one. There is zero indication that Jesus says "no one has asked me where I am going" while they are en route.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Do you really believe that they just sat there after Jesus said to depart? You're more than just a little confused, And there is a verse where it says that they were departing, John 14:31. Why would would it even be a problem that Jesus doesn't stop talking? It's not like people have to shut up while leaving a place is it? Or it could just have been writing constraints on Johns part. Jesus speak would be more important than stating the already obvious.
Chrawnus 1 year ago
@Chrawnus Check my reply to tektontv.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist Chrawnus is right -- that's one of the most contrived responses I've ever seen. By any chance were you once a fundamentalist? Because it takes that kind of ignorance to suppose that after Jesus told them to go, they just all sat there like morons, and he didn't say diddly about it.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv Most everytime in the bible when a bit of time passes you can see the words, and it came to pass. These words do not indicate that any time passed, however this may not be the best blunder to use, seeing as how it is pretty vague, like most of the bible.
BTW, can you send me the links, in a PM, to where ProfMTH responded to these, I couldn't get them to work.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist RU SERIOUS? You're confusing the Bible with the Book of Mormon, dude! THAT is the one that uses "it came to pass" ad nauseum. And that's a KJVism, not an artifact of Greek or Hebrew.
It's not vague at all -- you're just dense.
I do not know that Prof has responded yet. I checked yestewrday and saw nothing responding.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv I havn't read the book of mormon, but the bible use that phrase a lot. But many parts of the bible are so vague they can be defined to mean anything. This is particularly true when it comes to the prophecies.
I thought ProfMTH made comments in reply to this. It does say "for comments on profmths excuses made in reply to this".
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist The ENGLISH Bible uses it a lot. In the NT it is used to represent a word which is also represented as "done," "fulfilled," "arrived," etc. IOW it doesn't help your argument.
Again, it's not vague at all, you just need to study better.
The comments are here on my channel, made by Prof.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv Alright lets take a certain prophecy: they shall run too and fro and their knowledge shall increase. Who shall run to and fro? Anyone who can go from point A to point be can be taken to mean that anyone can run to and fro. Their knowledge shall increase. Whose? At any given time throughout history people's knowledge has increased. Still think that it isn't vague. Saying I need to study better is a cop out.
There are no comments made by Prof that I saw.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist Next time provide a cite eh? Lucky I rec'd that as Dan. 12:4. The "many" contextually can only refer to those seeking knowledge concerning the subjects of the prophecy, which would mean members of the priestly/scribal class with the means/motive to seek the knowledge. Not vague at all if you know the world of the Bible. It's no cop out but a hard fact: You need to do some homework.
I had 4 vids on Prof and he commented on 3 including this one. 2 months ago.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv Sorry but I only read the bible once. You didn't show me at all how the verse wasn't vague. All you said was that it meant people will move around and seek knowledge.
ProfMTH hasn't made a single comment on this video, I checked them all. Can you give me some links to the other ones you mentioned?
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist I gave you an answer...can't help if you don't get it. As for Prof's comments, good grief -- they're all over the place here! How can you miss them??? I count at least 5 or 6 on this vid alone. You're not making a good impression as someone who pays close attention.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv I can't help it if you aren't giving me good answers. I state again that most time in the bible when time passes it will say so. Not so with this case.
I see Prof's comments this time. I had to click on the see all comments option.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist It's a good answer...one you simply can't reply to.
Good job figuring out the comments mystery!
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv If this is the best you have then I don't think I even need to watch the rest of your pathetic rebuttals to Prof's BBBs series.
Sometimes youtube acts screwy, I have seen comments there and then sometimes they dissapear. And vis versa.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
@HonestTechnoAtheist Sorry it's over your head...try reading some scholarly literature on the social world of the Bible, it'll make sense then. (No, that's not stuff by Richie Dawkins.)
tektontv 1 year ago
ProfMTH is at it again, with a new video on alleged contradictions between the infancy narratives.
LittleSn00py 1 year ago
@LittleSn00py Yeah I saw that...all old news. Funny how he also uses Ray Brown -- isn't that argument from authority?
I may do a vid on that issue sometime in the future.
tektontv 1 year ago
See my post today on my Tekton Forge blog, "Mitch Versus the Monster," for comments on ProfMTH's excuses that he didn't put 16:5 correctly NOT at the Last Supper because he was doing the story "quickly," and also for comments on his claim that the location is "irrelevant". It's a perfect example of how ProfMTH is actually a skilled rationalizer who will never admit even his simplest errors. And with 10K subscribers, how embarrassing would that be for him? ;)
tektontv 1 year ago
ProfMTH was so entertaining today that I posted an entry in my Tekton Forge blog on the experience, titled "Having Fun with Mitch!"
Congrats to the Prof for being one of fundiest (and funniest) fundy atheists we've seen in a while!
tektontv 1 year ago
Thanks for your response. Why would Jesus want them to continue to ask him a question that they had already asked and that he had already answered?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Um, because they are getting up and going somewhere, and he hasn't told them where. I made that quite clear.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv So he had *not* answered the question?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH *sigh* No, that's not the point. Heed the monster's words: There is IRONY in the fact that none ask him the same question, even though the answer will be more mundane if it is asked this time ("we are going to Gethsemane" vs "going to my Father" or what have you).
Either way, it is time for you to admit your error in having 16:5 posed at the Last Supper.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv There's no error. I was telling the story in a quick way. Quite frankly, the location is utterly irrelevant. It's the same group of people on the same night talking about the same thing in a relatively short amount of time.
But, hey, any port in an apologetic storm, eh? Otherwise you guys would be out of business.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Hum. "Telling the story in a quick way" sounds like an excuse used by a fundy to defend the Bible...wrong though. The location is critical to the point. Unless they're still eating at the table, your objection is dead. Same night irrelevant, short amount of time irrelevant. Different location -- big difference. :)
Take your lumps and be happy. You can always renumber the blunders series after removing all the bad ones. Though it is rather easy to count to zero, come to think of it.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "The location is critical to the point."
No, it's not. As I said, same group of people, same night, talking about the same thing in a relatively short amount of time. If one evening, while a friend & I were in my apartment, I asked her a question & she answered it, and then a bit later that evening while we were walking down the street my friend complained that I wasn't asking her the same question I'd asked & she'd answered, the location wouldn't make her complaint any less odd.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Oh dear. Reduced to repeating yourself already? Your analogy fails because the question is, "where are you going"? On that same night you can have different answers according to context of discussion: If you said priorly, "I need to buy some groceries" then "where are going" will have a different answer the same night if you first say, "I need to buy a new car". Your answer to both questions will generally not be the same...unless maybe you shop at one of those warehouse stores. :D
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "Reduced to repeating yourself already?"
I learned long ago as a teacher that repetition is sometimes necessary, especially when dealing with those less prone to pick things up the first time. As I said, same group of people on the same night talking about THE SAME THING in a relatively short amount of time. All of that is important here.
Now as much as I'd love to keep going around in circles with you, I have a final exam to finish writing. So I'll check back later.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I pick up things very quickly...especially equivocation by someone in a corner. :) Again: Different location....big difference. End of story.
Good luck with that final exam...make sure you have enough popsicle sticks before you finish it off.
tektontv 1 year ago
Really, this one point is the best you can do? ProfMTH has tons of videos refuting the bible and all you can accomplish is four minutes on one point? I guess everything else he claims must be true! Oh and the monster eating the atheist in the end. yeah that was real funn....childlike. You don't expect to be taken seriously with this critique do you.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 The old fundy atheist canard, in which you bring forth tons of material and hope that somebody doesn't notice you using a red herring? Tell you what hwk, bring forth a 'bible contradiction' and either post it here or on T web and I'll answer it, deal?
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror Sure I will take your bait although I am not sure how we came to this contradiction issue as I didn't bring it up in my comment? So although irrelevant to the post, why don't you explain the two creation stories in Genesis. That should be worthy of an explanation. I assume you are familiar with the two different accounts of creation in Genesis?
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 I answered that one a long time ago. Can't post a link but look for my article, "Are there two creation accounts?" on tektonics.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv This was a response to one of your disciples, not you but thanks anyway.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 I run the place, don't I? ;)
tektontv 1 year ago
@hwk1969 You're the one that wanted to whine about 'contradictions', Anyway, the first view is that the creation account in Genesis 1, is a general account and Genesis 2, is specific to man. The second view is that the two accounts are written that way to make the reader have to think. Myself, I tend to take the less literal view of Genesis and believe Genesis is not so much a precise scientific understanding, but is more written to tell the reader that God is the creator of the universe.
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror Please point out in any of my comments where I mentioned, uttered or stated anything about contradictions? I think you are creating issues in your mind that don't exist. My whole point was that the four minute video really was unconvincing in comparison to the original argument. You made the challenge to bring up a contradiction so I offered one of probably hundreds available.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror Your Genesis explanation is weak and totally ignores the fact that the creation chronology of the accounts are completely different. It would serve you better to just agree that they are contradictory accounts then to bury yourself in rhetoric that isn't true. Also saying "Genesis is not so much a precise scientific understanding"...is a gross understatement just as referring to the bible in anyway scientific would be. It is a book that tells a story...thats it.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 Try my article....though it is way more than 500 chars. And I'm still waiting for you to explain why the vid argument is "unconvincing". You seem good at saying "what" but bad at explaining "why".
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv The vid argument is unconvincing because you come across as though ProfMTH must leave the internet or something because of a minor disagreement on the position of a person during a supposed group conversation. It is like finding a piece of green grass in a burnt field and claiming there was no fire. Second, the certainty of the position of Jesus is just funny. People act as though Jesus wore a GPS his whole life. Like all interpretations of the bible speculation runs a muck.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 Your assessment is overdone to the point of paranoia. All I say is that Prof needs to revise/take down this one film of his. Your comment re certainty is incoherent.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv The title of your clip certainly implies nothing about his one referred to video..."Its Time To Go" Sounds nothing like "Take down or correct your video".
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 Correct, it does not. The title is an allusion to the critical saying of Jesus in John 14:31 in which he says, "Come, let us go." I have only indicated that he should remove/fix a video within comments, not in the film itself.
You'd do better to not exegete the films like a fundamentalist. ;)
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv I did read your article, all I can say is that you are clearly and apologist and I am still clearly an atheist. The article is built of course on speculation, assumption and interpretation in order to try and give the contradiction some coherence. I find it hard to believe that anyone would find truth and belief in the divine while having to rigorously decode what is clearly printed. But of course, it is not divine, only man can make such a mess. Peace.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 In other words, you can't answer it so you merely apply labels like "speculation" to relieve yourself of the burden of an actual answer rooted in study and analysis. As I more or less expected. :)
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv Now this is a joke right? Your are leaning on the bible as a document of fact that answer life's biggest questions and gives insight to our origins as a species? You can't honestly think that you are giving study and analysis to something that is real and factual. The whole dance of apologetics is nothing but poor scientific process to justify the current day mythology that is Christianity. You guys invented the "god of the gaps argument". Man from dirt...and a little magic.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 I don't deal in that issue of origins myself. I can live with any view but 100% materialist evolution. In any event, this is yet more of you using slogans and soundbites as a poor substitute for engaging arguments.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv Was thinking about your statement here: "I don't deal in that issue of origins myself" yet you write a paper in defense of the Genesis contradictions. So you are an apologist with no position of mans origins including the validity of Genesis? Is that correct?
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 One can write something on the literary aspects of a document without commenting on the historical aspects of it. Your observation is something a fundamentalist would think.
I take a fidestic position which is essentially YEC (I write historical/exegetical articles for a leading creationist ministry) but can live with anything but wholly materialist evolution.
Now how about you answer the article and stop changing the subject? ;)
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv There is nothing fundamental about my observation, critical yes, maybe. Your fundi title for atheists seems to be a nice catch phrase by your "students" as well. I really just asked a simple question as I found your position ironic. I also find it interesting you would take faith in YEC yet not identify yourself as a fundamentalist.
With that, materialist evolution has nothing to do with creation so why reference in this context makes no sense.
I did address your article BTW.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 It's an accurate description of a mindset of many of my opponents. They interpret the texts like fundies even as they profess atheism. Even Wikipedia's entry on fundamentalism recognizes the phenomenon of dogmatic atheism.
"Fundamentalism" properly defined means adhering to five historic fundamentals. I do not adhere to all of them so I am not a fundamentalist.
And no, you did not "address" the article at all. Belching at it is not "addressing" it. Do a DETAILED REFUTATION.
tektontv 1 year ago
@hwk1969 That is just an assertion because what good do you think that a scientific account, would have done people living 5,000 or more years ago? None, so why would God go into details about an event they didn't need to know anything about?
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror Well I can at least agree with you here...yes, like the whole story of the Bible, it is an assertion. But to address you other question, what could would a scientific explanation have accomplished...tons!
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 No where did I say that the Bible was an 'assertion', but nice try, too bad you fail again. Anyway, no dear, it wouldn't of done any good to people living 5,000 or so years ago or do you believe that the Bible was written to you personally, with your views in mind?
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror I didn't say you made the claim the bible was an assertion...I made the claim the whole story of the bible was an assertion. You claimed the Genesis accounts were assertions. Regarding scientific explanations, yes, as history proves, societies with better understandings to the nature of what is true typically are more advanced. So could scientific explanations have helped, of course. Finally, no the bible has nothing to do with my personal views and was not written as such.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 I claimed that the Genesis accounts were assertions? Wow, you really lack an understanding of basic reading comprehension, don't you? I know what I said and I did not say that, thus you are throwing up the last refuge in a storm, throwing up strawman! This isn't what I said, so respond to what I said instead of what you want to hear, ok?
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror Go back and read our dialog, I spend half of my response correcting the issues you create that were never part of the discussion in the first place. Your personal attack on reading comprehension is a childlike defense but not unexpected. I don't "want to hear" anything particular from you. This started with your challenge of a bible contradiction which you didn't explain other than it was "more written to tell the reader that God is the creator of the universe".
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 Awe, classic fundy atheist, simply try to shove words down people's throats to make them say things they didn't say. You're the one that brought up the Genesis account and I told you what I thought of it and sorry... saying that it's not 'literal' doesn't make it an 'assertion'. Do you know what an assertion is or do you just like to make lots of dumb comments, that show you don't have any brains?
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror What is a fundy atheist?
I only brought up the Genesis account because of your request for a Bible contradiction, that was my response true or false?
Go ahead enlighten me...say something smart this dumb atheist just cant grasp. Your emotional character attacks show your really are just enraged against atheists regardless of content. You can keep your fairy tale for yourself. Just continue to keep the faith and you will be fine...I don't care what you believe. Peace.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 A fundy atheist is often a person that is just as narrow minded with their interpretations of scripture, as fundy Christians are. Anyway it's not my fault that you are not well versed in the interpretations of Genesis and are not aware that several views and interpretations of Genesis exist. My view is that Genesis was written to remind Gods chosen people that God created the universe and not the pagan gods. I could go into more detail, but that requires more character space.
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror Ok, so your view is that Genesis was written for the Jews to remind them god created the universe. I am aware of the many books, edits and interpretations that did not make the bible. With that the variations of Genesis are irrelevant to me as the core principle is the fallacy. I would be interested to find out how you decide what pieces of the bible to take literally and which you don not if it is the word of god.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 Anyway, I'm far from 'enraged' and not upset at all. I can tell that you are losing your cool because it seems you now come out swinging. What's the problem, your assertions didn't work and you just discovered that not all Christians take Genesis to be word by word literal? You might want to widen your world view beyond YEC interpretations of Genesis, who knows, you might learn something!
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror Trust me my world view expands beyond what you are willing to even glance at. I am also well aware of the variations of Christian views, there are roughly 3800 different branches/denominations of Christianity alone which really speak volumes for universal truth.
You apparently missed the part in my last response where I told you I didn't care what you believe. I haven't had to resort to using "stupid" or "dumb" within my dialog. What you believe matters zero to me get it?
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 Oh, I doubt that very much and that is simply because it seems you can't accept other views that are not YEC. Of course, you bring up the same canard about 'different denominations' as though that's an argument. Does the Bible say that Christians will walk in lock step? Nope. Third, I call you dumb or stupid because that is what you are and it seems you want to do nothing to solve your ignorance. Finally, I care for the truth and well... it seems you don't. Keep trying though.
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror You are about as dense as they come, I will repeat myself AGAIN because you clearly didn't read what I have already stated. YEC or not the premise is the problem. What part don't you get? If "magic" was used to explain existence, then there is a problem. I have "solved my ignorance" I left child like belief as a youth. Whats your excuse? Now, being that I must be dealing with a emotional teenage girl...you still have a chance to wise up when you mature.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 Of course I'm 'dense' I don't agree with you and your standard list of assertions. I explained Genesis to you and you seem to be unable to answer it, thus I must be 'dense'. Second, no dear, you didn't 'leave ignorance behind', instead you adopted another type of ignorance, fundy atheism. Finally, I'm 26 years old and quite emotionally mature. I'm in control of mine, you just don't list of assertions didn't work. Try again and this time, produce arguments, not psychoanalysis.
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@lilangelofterror Your "explanation" of genesis was your personal interpretation, you made that clear it didn't require a rebuttal. You didn't ask me a question in response remember? Speaking of narrow views, your over run "fundy atheist" term is tiresome for which I have not even come close to displaying, I have not quoted nor referred to literal interpretation of the biblical text...not once.. Finally you keep saying my assertions didn't work. I haven't asserted anything. Goodbye already.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 It is? So you're telling me that there are not scholars that hold to that position? Lol, there's plenty of them or have you never heard of 'Theistic evolution'? Oh dear... quite ignorant indeed. And yes dear, you've asserted a lot, let me list them out:
1. You asserted that I said that Genesis was an assertion, yet where did I say that?
2. You asserted that this explanation is my 'personal interpretation' yet, you seem to be unaware that others hold to this view too.
Try again...
lilangelofterror 1 year ago
@hwk1969 That doesn't equate with 3800 completely different points of view...so don't hoist a large number as though it means anything.
tektontv 1 year ago
@hwk1969 It's a lot more childish to expect instant answers to a hurled elephant, even if it is a dead one. But I issued three other vids at the same time on his stuff, and also have a ref to a link at the end with answers to all the Bible Blunders. As for more than that -- I may do some, but it's all old stuff I have refuted in my articles.
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv "instant answers to a hurled elephant" isn't that exactly what religion and faith actually are. No thinking required, God did it....done deal. You have touched on the core issue between belief and non belief in your first sentence. Most people don't even study and or read the whole bible, and that is good enough to have answers to lifes biggest questions. Geography +Mythology+Magic=Good enough for the pious. Peace.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 Sorry, but if you want "no thinking" people you've come to the wrong channel. :) We're the sorts who do all the study and reading. If you're more the open-minded sort...we're glad to have you.
tektontv 1 year ago
@hwk1969 By the way: I guess we should take ProfMTH more seriously with his use of stick figures with picture faces on them, huh? FYI the monster bit was a parody of the old monster movies/Frankenstein themes.
tektontv 1 year ago
@hwk1969 "ProfMTH has tons of videos refuting the bible and all you can accomplish is four minutes on one point?"
tektontv has over 1500 articles defending the Bible and refuting arguments like the ones raised by ProfMTH, and all you can accomplish is a five-line whinefest on one point?
fmu93 1 year ago
@fmu93 I don't get you guys, where is the Whinefest coming from? Second time it has been used? Read my earlier comments and maybe you will get where I am coming from...but doubtful. I get it, most of the people watching this video only require faith to believe what you do. I am finding little reason to use reason any longer. @lilandelofterror is a perfect examples of dodging every question I posed to him.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 It's a term we use for folks like you who don't offer any substance. :)
tektontv 1 year ago
@tektontv How would like me to approach the issue of substance. I can't give substance to things that don't hold any truth. You on the other hand can live with yourself in doing so. I guess the term we would use for you is "delusional" since we apparently need to go down the issue of labeling. You would only be happy if I offered up some type of support for your position regardless of whether it is true or not.
hwk1969 1 year ago
@hwk1969 Another long-winded way of saying you have nothing of substance to offer and can't actually answer arguments.
tektontv 1 year ago
:)
pur3o3end 1 year ago
Too much awesomeness in one video!!! I was afraid you were going to make the screen explode with this video!! ^_^
thunderbolt94 1 year ago