1051. Comment #43985 by Quetzalcoatl on May 23, 2007 at 6:06 am

Quetz: you're not in range, by any chance?

I am within a 50-60 mile radius I think. However, I'm afraid prior commitments mean I can't make it. Shame, I would try to make it if I could. Don't have much free time at the moment. I trust we'll get a report on the highlights?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1052. Comment #44156 by LeeC on May 23, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Hi Billy,

Sorry for this typo I think I had other things on my mind :-)

I know you are busty and have a lot to write about

Wink Wink - Say no more. say no more. Know what I mean, Know what I mean. Wink Wink.


Hi Mark,

As I said, take you time and good luck with the talk.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1053. Comment #44281 by LeeC on May 24, 2007 at 4:32 am

Hello again Mark,

See what you have done to me... it's all about the bible now.

I'm still trying not to judge the passage you gave me until you have the chance to respond in full. Not easy though…

However, since in your reply to JC you have touched upon some of my questions, (and JC has not responded yet) I will dive in and reply to those that concern me.

Question raised by JC

Please indicate the verse(s) that specifically and independently identify each of the following Tyrian attackers (sequential order not necessary) -

a) Alexander

Your reply

a) Alexander is not named in scripture, nor is it necessary that he should be. If he had been, then probably you'd either:

(1) ask for the name of his deputy as well, or someone else you deemed pertinent (after all, there could be many Alexanders – maybe Ezekiel just got lucky?), then if that was satisfied, you'd want the name of his wife (or his son), etc. etc.

or (2) you'd say that that his name got inserted in the text at some time later, after he did what he was prophesied to do.

How can I be sure you wouldn't? Note that (2) is exactly the sort of response I get when I point out that Cyrus is named in Isaiah, over 150 years before he came on the scene…

Lets break this down a little...

Alexander is not named in scripture, nor is it necessary that he should be.

Of course Alex does not need to be named... you can keep the prophecy nice and vague if you like so any old attack in the next 5,000 years could be pinned to this prophecy.

But such a prophecy is not worth the paper it is written on…

Lets try an example and see if it is helpful?: -

If I could produce a document that I really could prove was written 220 years ago (say 1790 for ease) that stated the following: -

"England will come under a great threat from overseas and its capital city will be attacked with innocent people will dying with great fires"

(I could have throw in some fine houses and walls falling down or something but you get the picture. )

So how good would this prophecy actually have been if written in 1790?

Now this is just an example of a prophecy I made up, but it seems rather a good prophecy as they go – and I will prove it?

Well, I said I could prove it was actually 220 years old, lets assume this is unquestionable - maybe it was written by my Great- Great-Great granddad or something

Do I have a great prophet in the family?

No of course not.

Since for one reason (the reason why I created this example) is that no name was mention and so I cannot place this prophecy to any single event and time. (So this seems to me to be rather similar to the bible prophecy you quoted.)

As for the event itself, what actually does it describe, what could it mean and specify?

Answer: Nothing really that precise I am sure you will agree?

But London has not been attacked from overseas for what – 700 years at the time of writing… so this in itself would make it a great prophecy

However, looking back from the 21st Century, what could we say of it?

It was written at a time between great wars - England has just been fighting America, and the French revolution has recently occurred and this starts all sorts of worries for the British government,

Worried in no small way that such a revolution may occur to their own establishment – add to this that history shows that the Napoleonic wars were just around the corner you can start to believe the worry the general public had.

So it was probably local events that were the basis of the prophecy, and the events prophesied would be for a "near future" in years or 10's of years.

However, London was not actually attacked in this period- so the prophecy is wrong?

But wait... I think my Great etc etc Granddad was a truly great prophet.

So I will give you evidence of his great prophesy being true… in a different time.

150 years after this prophecy was written the Germans were bombing the hell out of London - great fires all over the place - innocent people dying every day. (Walls and fine building falling…)

This was truly a great prophecy then, since this type of warfare never happened before right?

It must be this period, the 1940's... wow what a guy - what a prophecy... this is truly a major event and was prophesied 150 years before the times.

OK he did not mention the Germans or Hitler, but what the hell right - doing so is not necessary, as you have said?

But you should be now be saying, "What rubbish" as I am sure you are. (About the prophecy I hope, and not my argument? Erm – maybe both)

This prophecy was vague enough so I could fit also any event to it – given enough time...

I of course could have moved the event to the First World War - between 1914-1918 when the Germans were dropping bombs on London then. So why not this event?

Such a vague prophecy without names and times is pretty useless, unless of course what is being described is such a clear and precise event and it is then the event itself that can be used to "time-box" the prophecy.

And no, a vague description what you claim is a land bridge is not clear enough for me- although it is an unusual event in history, you have to twist the words to fit the historical events.

I read this verse before I knew about the land bridge and I did not see any mention of the bridge in the passage.

Even now "knowing" it is suppose to be describing a land bridge I still cannot see it, and would have thought any such description should have been clearer.

Conclusion:
Without a name, no time scale has been set – so given enough time, something is more than likely going to "fit the bill" so long as you are vague enough.

God could have given a name.

There may well have been many "Alexanders" as you put it, but I only know of one with the name of "Great". His deeds alone could have been described to make it clear.

This of course did not happen.

ask for the name of his deputy as well, or someone else you deemed pertinent (after all, there could be many Alexanders – maybe Ezekiel just got lucky?), then if that was satisfied, you'd want the name of his wife (or his son), etc. etc.

No... Someone as well known as Alexander the Great would be good enough.

You could describe this person pretty well even if god didn't remember his name by his deeds and where he came from.

Another example?

With the football prophecy that has been used before.

"A team in red from the north will win the FA Cup"

Would be greatly improved (more specific) with a single name like the manager (general) of the team. I do not need to know the whole coaching and playing staff for this improvement.

Of course, this on it's owned would not be good enough, since as it is this particular is still vague.

The more information, the more precise and specific the prophecy - the better the prophecy.

you'd say that that his name got inserted in the text at some time later, after he did what he was prophesied to do.

How can I be sure you wouldn't?

So simple… prove the date it was written, and a period that we know it could not have not been altered.
(An original document that still exists with the whole passage described, scientifically dated before the event is all I need.)

If you cannot prove the writing to be unaltered from a particular time and date, then the prophecy could just as well be a history essay – not prophecy.

This was my first fundamental requirement for prophecy.
We need evidence it was written before the date of the events described.

Without such evidence, the prophecy is like me describing the events of War World II - it would be nice history writing, but not prophecy.

So if you cannot prove the date, it is not then just be the name that would be an issue... but the WHOLE prophecy would be worthless.

because first Nebuchadrezzar, and then, rather later, Alexander & his coalition, completed the job described in those verses, in its entirety.

So if Alexander and his coalition "completed the job" in its entirety... then why is there further re-building on the site?

JC has pointed out several instances of re-building - do you have evidence or reason that none of these events took place? What are your reasons for ignoring such historic evidence?

By the way, I have recently found new and striking evidence in support of that assertion; I will talk about that in a later submission – you're just going to have to wait

I look forward to it... I guess this will answer the previous question.

For the simple reason that Tyre does not exist today at the city site that Nebuchadnezzar besieged and eventually entered. I will produce my evidence in support that, shortly.

So Tyre isn't Tyre anymore? So what was actually destroyed that was never to be rebuild? One of the fine houses?

I will just have to wait for the evidence I guess...

I don't think I'm alone in that: Richard Dawkins himself seems a trifle hesistant on it, in TGD (pp365-7): "most of us are too wimpish"

Wimpish on what?

Sorry I do not have my copy of the book to hand - spreading the gospel and all that.

For the record, since "faith" and "belief" is raised often in such discussions with a theist debating science, I have stated my position on both in the past – they seem reasonably to me.

I have "faith" in the scientific method...

I "believe" the method is the best we have.

To me though, both these words are just that… words.

A theist may have different meaning for them anyway – and I think this is what causes the problem.

My "faith" can be tested and replaced if a better method is found.

How about a faith of a theist?

Time to go.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1054. Comment #44285 by BillySands on May 24, 2007 at 5:07 am

Lee, you're a man of the world - nudge nugde....

There was a Guy called the Brahan seer who predicted this amongst other things:

He predicted that when there were five bridges over the River Ness in Inverness that there would be worldwide chaos. In August 1939 there were five bridges over the Ness and on September 1st the same year Hitler invaded Poland.

He said that when there were nine bridges that there would be fire, flood and calamity. The ninth bridge was built in 1987 and in 1988 the Piper Alpha disaster happened.

According to this prophecy, "The day will come when the MacKenzies of Fairburn shall lose their entire possessions; their castle will become uninhabited and a cow shall give birth to a calf in the uppermost chamber of the tower." This apparently heralded the demise of the MacKenzies of Kintail and Seaforth.

In 1851, the now-ruined tower was being used by a farmer to store hay, and a cow gave birth in the garret. It is believed that the animal, following a trail of hay, entered the tower, climbed to the top, and got stuck. Both the cow and the calf were taken down five days later, allowing enough time for people to come and see the prophecy fulfilled. This was one of four prophecies by the Seer regarding Fairburn, at least three of which are reputed to have been fulfilled.



Does Mark accept these prophecies, and if not, why not?

Other Comments by BillySands

1055. Comment #44388 by J.C. Samuelson on May 24, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Mark,

Hope your talk goes well, and I regret that I won't be able to attend. If it were otherwise, rest assured that I'd do my best not to be too disruptive during a Q & A afterwards. ;-)

Lee & Billy,

When you unleash your laser-enhanced, genetically modified gay fruit fly army, don't forget to make a little profit. Say, one million dollars?

I'll get back on track posting shortly. :)

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1056. Comment #44392 by LeeC on May 24, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Hi Billy

Thanks for this.

Well… I'm sold, sounds better than any prophecy I have heard from the bible.

You know of course if you fire enough prophecies the chances are one will hit the target.

Did the man claim god spoke to him? Was god mentioned anywhere in the prediction – be it the source of the information or the being taking the action?

Does the bible allow for other prophets after the bible?

I'm sure if we looked we could find lots of prophecies that turn out to be true… we will all forget the millions that were wrong.

Since the bible is collection of books over hundreds of years, it is of course possible a selection process occurred – remove the prophecies that were false (obviously not written by god) keep the ones that look good – obviously written by god.

Erm… do we have any evidence of such a selection process? It certainly happen for the NT, why not the OT?

Must go

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1057. Comment #44524 by Quetzalcoatl on May 25, 2007 at 3:38 am

LeeC, Billy, everyone- if you want a laugh, read the article "Heliocentrism is an atheist doctrine" that's been put up on the website today. Sometimes I despair of people.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1058. Comment #44535 by LeeC on May 25, 2007 at 4:06 am

Hi Q,

Thanks - will do right. I was getting bored and started talking to myself...

I will post any comments I have there.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1059. Comment #44979 by LeeC on May 25, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Hi Q,

Well it made me think.

I said I would post my comments there (and I did - it has to be a joke? No body is really sure), but since it quoted the bible... I wonder what the group thinks?

Looks like proof the Earth is the centre of the Universe and that it does not move? What more evidence does one need?

"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)

"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …" (Psalm 93:1)

"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)

"…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…" (Isaiah 45:18)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

Mark,

Do you have an opinion? Or are all the above quotes just taken out of context (or just plain rubbish). More questions I'm affraid - but only a short one.

Hi Billy,

Seems you were busy as well...

I like the site you posted to...

http://www.re-discovery.org/

I just feel hurt that the site does not give me 10 questions to ask my Physics teacher.

Are we not worthy? (Or more likely, they got bored when they reached 1001 questions to ask your Physics teacher...)

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1060. Comment #45132 by Mark Taunton on May 26, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Folks,

Something's come up and I'll not be posting here for a while. Sorry to keep everyone waiting.

Lee, in particular, I'm sorry: you put effort into responding to my challenge, and I've not come back to you on it. When I get back here, I'll make that a priority.

The talk went OK, bar an initial technical hitch [aka "user incompetence" - i.e. mine] with the projector.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

1061. Comment #45185 by LeeC on May 26, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Something's come up and I'll not be posting here for a while. Sorry to keep everyone waiting.

Nothing serious I hope.

Lee, in particular, I'm sorry: you put effort into responding to my challenge, and I've not come back to you on it. When I get back here, I'll make that a priority.

No worries, take your time…

At some point in the near future I will be changing my ISP, so will be out of action myself for 3 days!!

This is Australia and so it was suppose to be tomorrow, now they do not know - or why it should take 3 days!!! Not got the modem yet or anything!!! ARGH!!!

This is when I miss Old Blighty… things worked back there.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1062. Comment #47336 by LeeC on June 4, 2007 at 5:52 am

Back on the net, but nothing has changed.

Mark... come back all is forgiven?

JC,

I've been reading the passages you gave me.

Thanks, very interesting. Paul really had a thing about cutting the top of willies.

Anyway, it does seem to prove my earlier point.

It is Paul who said the OT should not be followed anymore, not Jesus. The views of Jesus seem to have been lost.

At least, I have not yet read where Jesus said the OT should not be followed.

Thanks

I get off now...

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1063. Comment #47339 by Quetzalcoatl on June 4, 2007 at 5:58 am

Lee, I thought Jesus said something like he wasn't here to get rid of the old commandments, but to complete them. Something like that, anyway.

It's very, very quiet now. Mark, are you out there?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1064. Comment #47607 by LeeC on June 5, 2007 at 4:12 am

Hi Q,

I thought along these lines as well.

This to me means that Christians are not following Jesus (as they claim) but Paul.

Strange indeed since no one has claimed Paul was the Son of God or anything.

Makes Jesus and the bible look rather silly.

So not only do we not have any proof that the bible is written by god, it also goes against the very person it claims to be the son of god?

Interesting stuff...

Just found this web site on the subject.

http://www.anatheist.com/Articles/paul_vs_jesus.html


Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1065. Comment #47611 by Quetzalcoatl on June 5, 2007 at 4:18 am

It'd be quite amusing if Jesus actually did come back. He'd probably say "What the hell are you doing? Why are you listening to that idiot Paul instead of me? You're all going to burn in hell for this. I'm going to save the atheists instead. That'll teach you!"

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1066. Comment #47619 by BillySands on June 5, 2007 at 4:38 am

Qhetz

Lee, I thought Jesus said something like he wasn't here to get rid of the old commandments, but to complete them. Something like that, anyway.

one of the verses you refer to is Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

Other Comments by BillySands

1067. Comment #47687 by J.C. Samuelson on June 5, 2007 at 9:40 am

Guys,

Been busy myself, so I haven't had time to write much of anything here. Glad you found the info useful, Lee.

Gotta run. Life, you know. :)

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

1068. Comment #48015 by shauntheboy on June 6, 2007 at 9:36 am

So, I do thank you, Theo, Shauntheboy (wherever he went)....

Oh I'm still here and reading...........I just went cold turkey on you! I had to stop posting for a bit, although I feel a little post coming on......maybe ;-)

Other Comments by shauntheboy

1069. Comment #48191 by LeeC on June 7, 2007 at 2:23 am

Come on Shaun, you know you want to.

Just try one more post, then you can stop again - anytime?

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1070. Comment #49660 by down_under on June 12, 2007 at 7:43 pm

A few reasons the Bible is nonesense and God is a big fat phoney

#1) To start with, I have personally never seen, heard, touched or felt God in any way, shape or form... and I once called myself a Christian.
#2) There is no evidence to show that God does exist... except for that crying Mary statue in Puerto Rico.
#3) The Bible doesn't make sense. From that fantastic talking snake in the beginning to our breath taking finally of horsemen, dragons and Philadelphia.
#4) Eternal paradise for the noble act of believing stories. So Heaven's gonna be all about who's the most gullible?
#5) How come God got tired on the sixth day? This is the same God who hears every prayer right?
#6) The Bible was written hundreds of years after Christ's death by people who'd heard the stories. Did you ever play that game "telephone" when you were a kid?
#7) 900 year old people? I'd love to see what that looks like! Yikes!
#8) Did God make every planet with "love" in mind? Like Mars. Is Mars all about love too?
#9) Why is it that God calls life a gift for us yet we are automatically destined for eternal suffering? Isn't He thinking this through? And the bastard's still making souls! What a prick.
#10) How come there isn't any evidence of the earth ever being entirely flooded over? And don't say "the Devil's mop". I'm sick of that answer.
#11) How do you have eternal paradise when your loved ones go to Hell? Is brainwashing involved?
#12) Why does God want us to worship Him again? We're all like so teeny tiny... like smaller than ants to Him, and I only command a small portion of the ants to worship me.
#13) Have you seen the faces of those guys who wrote the Bible? Yeesh! And Peee-uuuu... I bet.
#14) Did you know that when the Bible was written people didn't know which plants were food and which ones were severe mind altering poisons?
#15) Why didn't God make another place for us to go to besides Hell if we were just honestly being misled by Satan? He could've made that back when He made the heavens and the earth couldn't He have?
#16) Everything entirely based on faith? Come on. That's the mating call of a liar.
#17) Do you think that testing God is a sin because if it wasn't He'd fail that test?
#18) I think people would rather have eternal paradise instead of nothing. That says a lot.
#19) Why didn't God give Himself a whispery voice so at least we could get Him on record? That'd be a huge help and think of all the souls it'd save!
#20) If our planet would have been created when the Bible says it was then it'd be only 10,000 years old or so. I've heard some of those crazy scientists claim that the universe is billions of years old! Those crazy scientists.
#21) She turned into a pillar of salt? What kind of moron do you take me for?
#22) Okay, so we're all supposed to be impressed by God's sacrifice of His only begotten son. Does this mean that Jesus is stationed in a separate dimension away from his dad to keep this sacrifice valid?
#23) I think that the complete lack of scientific knowledge is the reason why the guys who wrote the Bible thought the world was flat and Columbus had to be the one to prove them all wrong. That's what I think.
#24) So there weren't ANY rainbows before Noah?
#25) Um, by the way, science explains evolution rather well.
#26) I think that God isn't looking out for our best interests. I think He should take a little bit more charge of things and stop being so selfish about needing everybody's love. I mean Christ, grow up!
#27) Do you feel lucky that you were born into the right religion? I mean, what are the chances?
#28) While we're at it, who was that Tree Of Life for anyhow?
#29) I think it's funny how people can't imagine their life just ending but we've no problem laying that destiny on ugly animals.
#30) Do you think that we just want answers to be waiting for us on the other side? I mean, it is our nature.
#31) I don't think God anticipated us one day digging up all of those dinosaur bones and finding out what a fibber He is.
#32) So there was once a time when the blood of sheep was enough to quench God's thirst of living sacrifices for sin?
#33) When that one guy saw that flaming bush talk to him was he ever given a drug test or anything?
#34) You know all of those giants that were walking around, like the one David knocked down with his sling shot? Have we ever dug up one of these huge guys? Hmmm?
#35) I think it's funny how Jesus fucked up and said that the mustard seed is the smallest seed in Mark 4:31. Uh duh! What about the South American orchid seed Mr. Messiah? What a bafoon Jesus was! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
#36) So no one else in the entire world had a boat besides Noah?
#37) God punished the snake for once getting possessed by Satan and now all the snakes must suffer?
#38) What's the effect sin has on our ever expanding universe again? And does that include little white lies to spare people's feelings too?

I rest my case, silly Bible, silly Christians.....this list was longer but i got tired! hahaha

Other Comments by down_under

1071. Comment #49801 by down_under on June 13, 2007 at 1:46 pm

I see Mark is still rambling on about his prophecies, some things never change

You know I all but disprooved his silly prophecie argument months ago but rather than defend himself he simply ignored what I had to say then continued merrily believing, how very Christian of him!

It also seems weird he puts so much faith on these vauge nostrodamus style writtings (though oddly not Nostradaumus himself) and just ignores all the other silly crap in the bible

Believing seems to involve alot of ignorance

Other Comments by down_under

1072. Comment #49862 by Philip1978 on June 14, 2007 at 12:43 am

Chaps, I have a few quick questions, I know you guys are still working hard on this so I will be kind!

King Herod, was he the king who said all first born should be slaughtered in order that his reign be longer and no other claimants could have it and thus the reason Joseph and Mary hot footed it elsewhere to have baby J? I was reading somewhere he died in 4 BC and baby J was born around 3 or 4 AD, (depending on who you ask),would the law have still been in place? My bible knowledge is rubbish but I am sure Herod was mentioned in the same time that baby J was born, am I right?

Keep up the good work, am enjoying this thread immensely,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1073. Comment #49917 by LeeC on June 14, 2007 at 4:52 am

Welcome Back Down_Under… are you back for good, or just passing through?

Only 38 reasons why the bible is wrong?

I'm sure the list is longer than that…

I tried to be open minded about the bible, I really have, but every time I pick it up to read I either have a passage that just makes no sense, or is plain wrong (in a scientific sense at least– probably wrong on historical as well but my knowledge is not great enough on the period).

Not having read the entire bible… I have kept my criticisms on the bible limited. The main reason being that disproving the bible does not disprove god.

However since it is the job of the theist to prove god, the bible is the Christian source for this, so I have, like you some questions that have never been answered.

The age of the universe (this is getting dull I have said it so many times)
Adam and Eve
Noah and the flood.
Tower of Babel
All the evil statements/actions by god in the Old Testament.
Is Christianity the word of Jesus or Paul?
Why do the gospels tell a different story to one another?
Why no books written at the time of Jesus?

Hey… and I've only just started – the more I read, the more questions as I have said.

Nothing adds up – it is suppose to be the word of god yet it is as if the bible is a collection of books written over a long period of time by people who knew very little about the universe around them… not a god – since any true good would not write such contradictions and lies.

Hi Philip,

A new face… hooray – only problem is that we are getting more atheists than theists so there is not much of a debate at the moment.

Mark needs some assistance.

Your bible question is a good one, but best answered by someone more knowledgeable than me. I know my limitations.

Keep up the good work

Work!!!! No one told me it was work!

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1074. Comment #49919 by Philip1978 on June 14, 2007 at 5:13 am

I could pretend to believe in god if you like!!

I only used the "w" word (apologies for my foul language!) because I see one of you has already had to resort to cold turkey from over posting!!

I have started to read a book by Kenneth Humprheys, Jesus Never Existed and it has some amazing facts in it but I don't simply want take his word for it. I just wanted to check my Herods as there might have been more than one, he did after all have about 10 wives and about 15 sons in his lifetime! (Lazy bugger!)
I was also challenged by David Robertson on another thread about the Roman Emperor Constantine and I have decided to go on a knowledge quest to find out the goings on in the Synod or Council of Nicaea in 325AD. Having done medieval history from about 1066 onwards I find all this stuff so very interesting.

Having said all this, I have just looked up the bible reference and then I was asked which bible translation I wanted:
* 1550 Stephanus New Testament (BibleGateway)
* 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament (BibleGateway)
* 1894 Scrivener New Testament (BibleGateway)
* 1934 Vietnamese Bible (BibleGateway)
* 21st Century King James Version (BibleGateway)
* Albanian Bible (BibleGateway)
* American Standard Version (BibleGateway)
* Amplified Bible (BibleGateway)
* Ang Salita ng Diyos (BibleGateway)
* Arabic Life Application Bible (BibleGateway)
* BibleBrowser.com
* BibleCommenter.com (BibleBrowser)
* Biblia Sacra Vulgata (BibleGateway)
* Biblia Tysiaclecia (BibleGateway)
* Biblia en Lenguaje Sencillo (BibleGateway)
* Bulgarian Bible (BibleGateway)
* Castillian (BibleGateway)
* Chinese Union Version (BibleGateway)
* Conferenza Episcopale Italiana (BibleGateway)
* Contemporary English Version (BibleGateway)
* Croatian Bible (BibleGateway)
* Darby Translation (BibleGateway)
* Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 (BibleGateway)
* Dette er Biblen p�.¥ dansk (BibleGateway)
* Dios Habla Hoy (BibleGateway)
* Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (BibleGateway)
* English Standard Version (BibleGateway)
* Greek audio of New Testament (greeklatinaudio.com)
* Haitian Creole Version (BibleGateway)
* Het Boek (BibleGateway)
* Hiligaynon Bible (BibleGateway)
* Holman Christian Standard Bible (BibleGateway)
* Hungarian K�.¡roli (BibleGateway)
* Icelandic Bible (BibleGateway)
* Il Nuovo Testamento in Lingua Moderna (BibleGateway)
* João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada (BibleGateway)
* King James Version (BibleGateway)
* Korean Bible (BibleGateway)
* La Bible du Semeur (BibleGateway)
* La Biblia de las Américas (BibleGateway)
* La Nuaova Diodati (BibleGateway)
* Latin audio of New Testament (greeklatinaudio.com)
* Levande Bibeln (BibleGateway)
* Louis Segond (BibleGateway)
* Luther Bibel 1545 (BibleGateway)
* Maori Bible (BibleGateway)
* New American Bible (USCCB)
* New American Standard Bible (BibleGateway)
* New International Reader's Version (BibleGateway)
* New International Version (BibleGateway)
* New International Version - UK (BibleGateway)
* New King James Version (BibleGateway)
* New Life Version (BibleGateway)
* New Living Translation (BibleGateway)
* New Revised Standard Version (Oremus)
* Nova Versão Internacional (BibleGateway)
* Nueva Versión Internacional (BibleGateway)
* Nádej pre kazdého (BibleGateway)
* O Livro (BibleGateway)
* Online Parallel Bible (bible.cc)
* Reimer 2001 (BibleGateway)
* Reina-Valera 1960 (BibleGateway)
* Reina-Valera 1995 (BibleGateway)
* Reina-Valera Antigua (BibleGateway)
* Romanian (BibleGateway)
* Romanian Cornilescu Version (BibleGateway)
* Russian Synodal Version (BibleGateway)
* ScriptureText.com multilingual (BibleBrowser)
* Slovo Zhizny (BibleGateway)
* Slovo na cestu (BibleGateway)
* Svenska 1917 (BibleGateway)
* Swahili New Testament (BibleGateway)
* The Message (BibleGateway)
* Worldwide English (New Testament) (BibleGateway)
* Wycliffe New Testament (BibleGateway)
* Young's Literal Translation (BibleGateway)
Bloody hell, there are a couple or so aren't there!

Right, K.B.O (Winston Churchill phrase Keep Buggering On!) catch you later,

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1075. Comment #49934 by BillySands on June 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Hi Philip,
Dont remember sideshow Dave challenging you. He deflected and ran more like.
It was Indeed Herod who ordered the command (although a different Herod appears later in the jesus story - the one who killed John the baptist - who according to the bible was the return of Elijah (matt3:1-2) who was to precede the messiah, although according to the bible, he wasn't(john 1:21-23)?????????)How ever, he did not fulfil the purpose of Elijah MKII: bring family harmony: Malachi 4:5-6 - so someones fibbing.
Anyway, as well as the fact the genealogies of Jesus in Matt 1 and Luke 3 wildly contradict each other, they give different times for the birth of Jesus. Herod died in 4BCE, Luke says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (cyreneus) This did not happen before 6CE. So if luke is right, the visit of the wise men and the slaughter of the innocents was made up (something historians have thought for a while. If Matt is right, then luke is wrong. The bible also contradicts itself on where jesus grew up, but that is another story. This is the so-called fulfillment of the travel to egypt prophecy

Matthew claimed that this fulfilled a prophecy that said "I have called my son out of Egypt" (Matt. 2:15). He also says that this fulfills another prophecy stating that "he will be called a Nazarine" (Matt. 2:23) because they moved to Nazareth. It is very important to note that Matthew himself states that both these stories fulfill genuine prophecies. It is not the case that some uninformed believer has come up with this idea by himself, and it has then worked its way into popular tradition. It is stated by a so called inspired writer of the bible. It is therefore considered by believers to be the true word of their god. Therefore, if any prophecies should be true, these two should be. The first one is taken from the book of Hosea, (11:1). It states "When Israel was a child, I loved him as a son, and I called my son out of Egypt". So, the "son" is a metaphor for the nation of Israel, and not Jesus (also note that God "called his son", he did not say that he will call his son). This verse is about the exodus that Moses lead out of Egypt, and even more importantly, this son is referred to as rebellious (Verse 2), unappreciative of God (verse 3) and because of this, the "son" will be punished (verse 5). The last time I read the bible, Jesus was the perfect example to us all. Therefore, this is yet another reason to doubt that this verse is about a future incident in the life of Jesus.
The Nazarene prophecy can not be found anywhere in the bible, so perhaps Matthew just made this up, to make Jesus sound more like the messiah. Some Christians claim that it refers to Judges 13:5 "You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and his hair must never be cut. For he will be dedicated to God as a Nazirite from birth. He will rescue Israel from the Philistines." Clearly, this is not about Jesus. It is about Samson. Furthermore, a Nazirite is not a Nazerene. A Nazirite is member of a Jewish sect that amongst other things must not drink wine (Lev.6:1-31). The fact that Jesus drank wine disqualifies him from this verse (Matt. 26:8) .This claim only goes to show that some Christians will grasp at anything to try and assert that the bible is always correct

Any way, if you can put up with it's length, this link discusses the time of jesus' birth http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html

I actually challenged David on this and he got abusive and ran off crying http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1197,Debate-between-Richard-Dawkins-and-Robert-Winston,Today-BBC,page5#47314

Welcome back down under

Other Comments by BillySands

1076. Comment #49941 by Philip1978 on June 14, 2007 at 7:34 am

Cheers tons Billy, most useful, I have come to the conclusion that Luke and Matthew must have had a heated discussion in a bar after drinking too much Egyptian imported beer(the 2500 year old recipe adds that extra kick!) and huffed off to write their own versions!

I used the word "challenge" when referring to young Wee Flea as a sort of euphemism, he used very much the same happy tone with me as he did with you in that link. There is no wonder David ran off crying, we seem to have kicked his arse so hard the bruising has formed itself into a rather amusing shade of tartan!

Right, I am off to investigate even more, just heard some scurrilous rumour there were 6 Jesus shaped people hanging around in Jerusalem around that period each having their own unique yet rather sticky end with the Rwomans (no, Romans! STWIKE HIM!)

Many thanks again, Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1077. Comment #49942 by BillySands on June 14, 2007 at 7:49 am

David ran off crying, we seem to have kicked his arse so hard the bruising has formed itself into a rather amusing shade of tartan!

Yes, that must have really hurt given his attitude to getting your ring bashed - I think Frankie Howard momentarily possessed me there.

just heard some scurrilous rumour there were 6 Jesus shaped people hanging around in Jerusalem around that period

I believe one was callefd Apollonius of Tyana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

He Wanks as highly as any messiah known in Wome you know. He was a bit of a Sillius Soddus you know

Other Comments by BillySands

1078. Comment #49944 by RabbitDynamite on June 14, 2007 at 7:53 am

Wow, this thread is so old it practically qualifies as a sacred text.

Other Comments by RabbitDynamite

1079. Comment #50109 by LeeC on June 15, 2007 at 5:27 am

Wow, this thread is so old it practically qualifies as a sacred text.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Other Comments by LeeC

1080. Comment #50449 by Theo on June 18, 2007 at 7:41 am

Hi Guys,

Just popping in to say that I still have a pulse.
I will be coming back shortly, just have some things to deal with first.

D.U. welcome back from your old nemesis Theo

Other Comments by Theo

1081. Comment #50453 by Quetzalcoatl on June 18, 2007 at 8:07 am

Hello Theo, glad to hear you're still alive! The thread's been rather quiet since Mark disappeared off somewhere.....

I think the last time I asked questions of you was comment 864, way back in March. I know you said in the meantime that you didn't want to start that debate then, but since time has passed and Mark is away, it might be good to get to grips with a new topic, and it would keep me and Lee occupied!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1082. Comment #50457 by BillySands on June 18, 2007 at 9:04 am

Hi Theo, thought you had become one of us.

I will be coming back shortly, just have some things to deal with first.

Hope you're not as late for your second comming as jesus is :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

1083. Comment #50508 by LeeC on June 18, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Welcome back Theo...

Q is right, it has not been the same without you.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1084. Comment #52584 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 11:09 am

Hello, people,

I'm not about to join in here - sadly I seem to have discovered the most reasonable and interesting thread on the website (thank you, Billy) at the same time as I've decided that the RD site is bad for me and I have to leave it alone.

But it's lovely to see theists and atheists playing together nicely. I hope this thread continues to buck the trend by producing more light than heat.

I have one question, though, which is a side issue, I suppose. Does anyone know of anyone who has actually converted or deconverted as a consequence of a discussion on this site? (Or, secondarily, any site?) I'd love to think that there might be one. Just one...

Other Comments by _J_

1085. Comment #52592 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 11:43 am

Hi J,

I'm sure there was domeone on DR troll site who said that he was helping them deconvert. You could try converts corner. It's at the top left of the page. There certainly have been plenty of folk who have said they reasoned themselves into athiesm. Myself and JC Samuelson on this thread are examples, so there is always hope. Mark is the only guy I've come across that tries to present positive evidence (oh and Shaun). Too many dogmatic theists with the intention of denying evolution or preaching visit this site.

How is everyone here anyway? All good I hope

Other Comments by BillySands

1086. Comment #52608 by Lauregon on June 27, 2007 at 1:11 pm

The science aspect is indisputably of great importance in the matter of theism and the Bible, but at a far more elemental level, it seems to me that True Believers are frantically trying to sell a broken down, rusted-out used car as an absolutely indispensble latest model luxury vehicle. Who can explain here why thinking people of the 21st century should be expected (let alone required) to venerate and worship an allegedly omniscient and omnipotent almighty deity whose temperment and behaviors far too often resemble those of a narcissistic, swaggering, organized- crime boss?

Other Comments by Lauregon

1087. Comment #52611 by Quetzalcoatl on June 27, 2007 at 1:51 pm

How is everyone here anyway? All good I hope

All is well and good as far as I'm concerned. Waiting impatiently for Theo and Mark to return and for the debate to restart! For me, too, there was an element of self-reasoning in my shift to atheism, although apathy as far as religion was concerned had a part to play.

Lauregon- I'm only young, so I predict that as I get older, religions will be forced to ditch more and more of the old beliefs in an attempt to still appeal to reasonable people. Soon they'll be nothing like they were.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1088. Comment #52615 by epeeist on June 27, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Comment #52592 by BillySands

How is everyone here anyway? All good I hope

Feeling smug at the moment, one pupil fencing for the British squad in Germany in August and another doing well at pentathlon.

You could always wander across to the Dawkins/McGrath thread if you want some entertainment. We have a follower of Plantinga on there who is quite fun. Rather more subtle than the wee flea or devolved, he is currently trying to debunk science by denying the existence of reality while simultaneously claiming the concreteness of mathematics.

Other Comments by epeeist

1089. Comment #52616 by Quetzalcoatl on June 27, 2007 at 2:11 pm

I've been following that, and I was commenting occasionally, but it's a little bit over my head right now! Easier to read from the sidelines. It's very educational!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1090. Comment #52617 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Good news about the students Epeeist. I used to work with someone who competed in the olympics - Elaine Kellet. Do you know her?

I might saunter on over and check this guy out. Might be entertaining :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

1091. Comment #52618 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Cheers, Billy,

Yeah, it's a while since I've looked at Converts' Corner. I reasoned out of the whole religion shabang too. In some respects, maybe I was never cut out for it. I've got the desire, alright, but even before I (temporarily) became a 'proper' Christian, I wondered whether I could intellectually accept the argument. I managed for as long as the 'God doesn't need evidence' dam held. About nine months. Then Carl Sagan, Douglas Adams and Richard Dawkins blew it out, probably for good.

I've spent far too much time the last couple of weeks trying a nicely-nicely, reason-out-every-point approach with Robertson on his own site. And it's futile. Unless it provokes a few of his own flock to think about it, at any rate.

Guess I'm just wondering whether these discussions are really any more than a zero sum game. In every debate I've witnessed, atheists build up the argumentational pressure on one side whilst theists circulate back to long-abandoned positions and demonstrate an essential unwillingness to entertain new perspectives on the other. This thread looks more reasonable.

But still, I'd love to see just one clear case to demonstrate that people aren't all solely committed to beefing up their own argument and maybe, just once in a while, change their mind.

Other Comments by _J_

1092. Comment #52619 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 2:23 pm

1244. Comment #52617 by BillySands

I might saunter on over and check this guy out. Might be entertaining :-)

You haven't met Dianelos? Good luck. I'm with Quetzalcoatl. His references are way beyond me and I try not to try anymore. I feel like I can see where the reasoning of it all goes awry, but I'm nowhere near learned enough to be very confident about it.

Other Comments by _J_

1093. Comment #52623 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Hi J

I get the impression that David tightly controls the site now. I thik I challenged some of to question why they believed what they did. I often pushed them to back up statements like "the bible was never meant to be a science text book" or think about whether messianic prophecies were actually about jesus. This was the thing that really blew it all appart for me. There were plenty of other reasons not to believe, but the MP's made me certain that it was all made up.

I do have one friend who is not affraid to be challenged (to an extent) He accepts there are problems in the bible at any rate, but still believes they must be resolvable. At least he is not an inerrantist. You generally find that the people who left the faith know more about the bible than many believers - probably because they honestly struggled to believe, but found they couldn't. I distinctly got the impression from DR on anther thread that he did not know the bible called homosexuality an abomination and worthy of stoning. I think I know what buttons to press with him now, but despite dangling the bait, I really hope he does some serious reflection.He is in a power of authority, and his church are well known for their bigoted attitudes and hell fire preaching. By denying it goes on, he is part of the problem.
Anyway, if you want to try some moderates, my friend has just started a blog, he says he wants an interactive forum (members of my old church read it, so I'm going to start posting on it too), so if you are both in agreement, I'll give you the URL

Other Comments by BillySands

1094. Comment #52624 by BillySands on June 27, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Lee and Theo
Concerning the flood, I read on a christian's blog a totally obvious question.Why did people with boats not survive?
Simple but devastating

Other Comments by BillySands

1095. Comment #52628 by Quetzalcoatl on June 27, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Hey Billy, is it okay if I have a read of this blog, and maybe leave a few comments of my own?

And re the flood- there must have been big ships around then as well (whenever it was). They would have had an even better chance.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1096. Comment #52630 by _J_ on June 27, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Billy,

Hellfire preaching from the Free Church, eh? They're losing my sympathy, now.

I don't think DR's ever seriously going to question his faith. I think he believes that he does (he got very offended when I suggested otherwise) but if so then he bounces back to the same old nonsense every time - in fact, he seems to come back more extreme. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Your friend's blog sounds great. But I really need to try to step away from all this. I may be becoming addicted to online discussion. A break is in order.

By the way:

Concerning the flood, I read on a christian's blog a totally obvious question.Why did people with boats not survive?

You'd need an Ark to fit in a food supply sufficient to last long enough. (No - rubbish, you'd just need a fishing rod.)

I suppose god's point is to kill everyone. If he chooses to arse about with a flood as a way of doing that, it's his business, but he's not going to let a few clever dicks with luxury galleons do him out of an apocalypse. Maybe this is why he invented the kraken. (No, wait...)

(Not an issue if you're a Pastafarian, by the way. Arr.)

Other Comments by _J_

1097. Comment #52769 by LeeC on June 28, 2007 at 3:41 am

Hi All,

What happen here?

One minute zero new posts, then 13 come along all at once???

Still no theist though?

Hi Billy

Concerning the flood, I read on a christian's blog a totally obvious question.Why did people with boats not survive?
Simple but devastating

I heard that one too quite recently… so many problems with the story though, this is just one of them, which is why Mark does not want to talk about it I think – it must be really difficult to twist the mind to fit all this nonsense in.

I think I can answer your boat point though as a theist: -

One could say that they may have had boats, but did not know to collect food before hand. It would be "water water everywhere but not a drop to drink" for sometime.

(So how did Noah store food and water for all the animals?)

Then of course these people in boats would need food afterwards and Noah has all the animals remember and all the plants will be dead after being under miles of water for months.

It is funny…

This is why the question is rarely answered by a theist.

The best they can say is it is only a story… but then of course, if the Noah story is wrong, I wonder what else could be wrong in the bible? When do the lies stop and the truth begin?

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

1098. Comment #52771 by Philip1978 on June 28, 2007 at 3:49 am

Simple thing would have been to allow the carnivorous animals to feed on the dead in the other boats! hehehehe

I have been following that Alistair McGrath thread, I stopped posting on it after I could not get my head around what exactly Dianelos's god actually is and what he believes in, very interesting though

As for DR, he also got a bit angry with me when I asked him what he meant by questioning his beliefs everyday, then I moved to history and he laughed at me, I think I will continue with the history it might mellow him! Plus I am convinced he thinks we are some sort of Dawkins cultists! David if you are reading this I promise you we are not!!

Oh well, I hope Theo and Mark return to this as I really have enjoyed this thread a lot, heck, I am even starting to learn stuff!
Cheers to you all,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1099. Comment #52779 by BillySands on June 28, 2007 at 4:10 am

quetz

I'm sending you a PM

J
I know what you mean about addiction

Other Comments by BillySands

1100. Comment #52781 by Quetzalcoatl on June 28, 2007 at 4:21 am

Got it, thanks Billy. Will try to pop over there later.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl