Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith debate (part 2 of 6)

The Case For / Against God, Greg Bahnsen vs George Smith radio debate. Part 2 of 6.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• dawkins
• god
• delusion
• apologetics
• atheism
• hitchens
• harris
• George
• H.
• Smith
• Gives
• Qualified
• Endorsement
• of
• Ron
• Paul
• 2008

[frightenedsoul]

@unprofessionalvids Notice how you just stereotyped every single atheist on here, whether or not they did these things.

[AOPrinciple]

@unprofessionalvids

Well said, if brief.

[unprofessionalvids]

notice all the atheists on this page can do is to misquote the bible and try to deceive the reader into thinking history to be false. They cannot deny that Dr Bahnsen's logic is impenetrable so they use cheap tactics like such

[templarsworld]

I couldn't find the contradiction of having Jesus born BOTH during Herod's reign and the Quirinius census but I know the excuses and they're pretty silly ranging from a fictitious earlier census to assertions that Quirinius sort of ruled in a similar place with a similar 'accounting'. Standard silly excuses that only a Christian would accept. A GREAT couple videos dispelling all the Quirinius excuses are "Quirinius where art thou 1& 2" by Prof MTH found here: watch?v=CmRd6OKwcR4

[templarsworld]

@Zupernova91 The excuse for the Mary lineage is all bald-faced assumption, assertion and guess work without even the slightest shred of evidence anywhere:

If it WAS Mary's lineage it would SAY it was Mary's lineage.

Lineage is NEVER through the mother.

The word between Joseph and Heli is the same as the word between David and Nathan.

Luke mentions Joseph's Davidic lineage twice 1:27, 2:24 while Mary's lineage is unmentioned BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER!

Only a Christian would accept this excuse.

[templarsworld]

@Zupernova91 Just go back to my Alaric example and you can write all the apologetics yourself: "He was taking a bath in a plane."

Re: Egypt. "It doesn't say he didn't go to Egypt."

Yes it implicitly does. There's no mention of an infant massacre or an angry king, just a census that occurs at least 8 years after the death of Herod. Jesus is cicumcised in Bethlehem and they go to Jerusalem after the purification period is over. Only a Christian can't see this as a contradiction.

[Zupernova91]

@templarsworld I have neither the time nor the patience to explain every claimed contradiction. Instead, I'll refer to someone who DID take their time to do just that:

philvaz(dot)com/apologetics/bi­ble(dot)htm

[templarsworld]

@Zupernova91 Okay, let's start here: NT, Nativity - Luke's genealogy contradicts Matthew's genealogy and NO, it's NOT Mary's lineage. Matthew has Jesus born during King Herod's reign whereas Luke has Jesus born during the Quirinius census which occurs at least 8 years after Herod's death. Matthew says they fled from Bethlehem to Egypt. Luke writes nothing of Herod or infant slaughter but instead writes that they went directly from Bethlehem to Jerusalem LK 2:22. Rationalize away.....

[Zupernova91]

@templarsworld "You've made 6 assertions which I believe are false."

You believing them to be false doesn't disprove them. Or are you perhaps saying that your belief is truth? If that's the case then there are as many truths in the world as there are people, which is obviously absurd. In fact you cannot prove or disprove anything as long as you use the atheistic world-view. Absolute truth exists.

[templarsworld]

@Zupernova91 It's impossible to falsify a religion to a believer aince the believer simply makes up an absurd rationalization for every problem encountered. "In this passage Alric is killed in a plane while in this passage hei's killed in a bathtub." "He was taking a bath in a plane." I should've written, "an impartial observer would accept that the Bible is falsified in the following ways:"

You've made 6 assertions which I believe are false. Which 1 do you want to begin with?