251. Comment #12959 by Joadist on December 14, 2006 at 4:05 pm

Mark Taunton,

My wife prophesied that I would win the lottery.
I spent months waiting for my winnings. They never arrived.

I finally decided that her prophecy would never come true. So, I went out and bought a ticket. Now I am enjoying the winnings.

A real prophecy would have read: It would be nice if Isreal had a homeland. Perhaps, someday, a powerful leader will like that idea, and he will use his power to implement it.

Other Comments by Joadist

252. Comment #13006 by BillySands on December 15, 2006 at 3:08 am

Mark,

All those events have happend numerous times throughout the history of israel. They have been exiled and returned home only to be exiled again to return home again to be exiled ... you get the point. Also, other than the bible where is the evidence for cannabalism (which incedentally god forces people into). Deuteronomy was probably written around the time of the babylonian exile and return, and expresses the hopes of a nation in captivity. Besides all the arcaheological evidence to back this up, do you not think it was a bit strange that the law of moses was suddenly discovered upon the return to jerusalem, where it got its firsy public reading?

Other Comments by BillySands

253. Comment #13083 by down_under on December 15, 2006 at 9:46 am

Mark...........

The bible is not credibal for several reasons, read the quote below to note just a few...

""In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."
It's an oral history. It was passed down, word-of-mouth, father to son, from Adam to Seth, from Seth to Enos, from Enos to Cainan, for 40 generations, a growing, changing, story, it was handed down, word-of-mouth, father to son. Until Moses finally gets it down on lambskin. But lambskins wear out, and need to be recopied. Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.
From Hebrew it's translated into Arabic, from Arabic to Latin, from Latin to Greek, from Greek to Russian, from Russian to German, from German to an old form of English that you could not read. Through 400 years of evolution of the English language to the book we have today, which is: a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.
You can't put a grocery list through that many translations, copies, and re-telling, and not expect to have some big changes in the dinner menu when the kids make it back from Kroger's.
And yet people are killing each other over this written word"


now not only that but you are basing the excistance of God solely on the bibles credibility and the bibles credibility solely on its "prohpecies"

may i just say that "ANYONE" can predict a prophecy and have it eventually come true, especially prophicies that at the time were obvious and many are self-fulfiling anyway!!
care to list the bible prophecies that HAVN'T come true???

Not only that but apparatnly Nostradaumus has gotten ALOT of phrophecies right, so does this mean Nostradaumus is God???

If you still arent convinced after reading that then im sorry but you are beyond hope and you are blind to reason (like alot of people who have blind faith)

Other Comments by down_under

254. Comment #13084 by down_under on December 15, 2006 at 9:48 am

Hey the weather man predicted the weather right!!!! i must bow down and worship him for he is our lord

Other Comments by down_under

255. Comment #13185 by BillySands on December 16, 2006 at 4:35 am

Down_under,
Here is a bible prophecy that did not or can not come true Jeremiah 36:30
"Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah, he shall have none to sit on the throne of David."

How do we know this? Well, history AND another passage in the Bible: II Kings 24:6
"So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead."

Other Comments by BillySands

256. Comment #13189 by down_under on December 16, 2006 at 4:51 am

Thank you Billysands

I knew there had to be at least one prophecy that hadnt come true

my point was Mark was merely pointing out that ones that (apparantly) had come true simply ignoring the ones that havnt

Other Comments by down_under

257. Comment #13191 by BillySands on December 16, 2006 at 4:56 am

Hi Down_under,
With out being disrespectful to mark, I think he sees what he wants to see. There are plenty of other unfulfilled prophecies too.

Other Comments by BillySands

258. Comment #13192 by Theo on December 16, 2006 at 4:58 am

down_under,

damn! i wasted so much time studying copies of copies of history books (and translations too), better tell those in history class that they're wasting time.

And yup, anyone can predict a prophecy.When they found hard evidence of the exodus I predicted that skeptics would scamper to make up an explanation...i was not disappointed.

I was however disapointed that people didn't regard me as God...I wonder why?

Other Comments by Theo

259. Comment #13223 by down_under on December 16, 2006 at 9:27 am

Theo -

Im not sure what hard evidence of exodus you talk of, please show this evidence rather than just mentioning it
As for "skeptics" finding an explanation, they probably foudn an explanation because there was an explanation there to be found, we use science therefore cannot be wrong

As for histroy books being copies of translations etc etc

Well thats a completley diffeent issue, history is bias anyway and therefore not always 100% accurate
Plus the history references are HARD ORIGINAL copies normally stored in places such as Rome or London, please show where the HARD ORIGINAL copy of the bible is......
Not only all of this but history is constantly recorded by councils and people reporting what they see, dated, stored etc etc and do not start life as oral stories as the bible did
furthermore history does not try to explain
the creation of the universe
the start of mankind
the start of life
etc etc (you get the idea) hence why these subjects are called "PRE-HISTROY"

Pre-Histroy is studied by science

In the debate of the existance of God it is Science vs relgion NOT History, and Science has an overwhelming advantage

If it was History vs the bible....then i'l admit you (almost) have a point, as i admitted history is not 100% accurate, however for the reasons listed i still KNOW (not belive i will point out) that the written history by offcially recognised people, is more accurate than the bible

please see reason, i honestly laugh at the statements some theists make, i wonder how your mind works because it is certainly very closed

Other Comments by down_under

260. Comment #13226 by down_under on December 16, 2006 at 9:31 am

Note:

Why do no official Ancient Egyptian Records mention Moses or the Jews?

Why do no official Ancient Roman records mention Jesus?

The Egyptians and the Romans are renowned for recording everything that happened in their civiliations, you'd think the parting of water or the son of God would atlease get a Sub-heading

Other Comments by down_under

261. Comment #13231 by BillySands on December 16, 2006 at 9:58 am

Typical christian evidence is something like we found a town in the right place, therefore it is true. It's a bit like saying Jerusalem exists, therefore god is real. It all get quite embarrasing for them when you consider the anachronisms and the innaccuracies in the capture of cannan. Jerico had no wall at the time, and Ai was already a ruin. The Egeptians were also present in the area at the time, no the cananites. Evidence strongly suggests that the cananites and the israelites were one and the same. There are no egyptian records of hebrew slaves, and some claim that an obscure group called the apiru were the hebrews. They however dont seem to fit the bill

Other Comments by BillySands

262. Comment #13290 by Theo on December 16, 2006 at 8:51 pm

They found an Egyptian tablet portraying water cut by two knives, Egyptian chariots on one side and people on foot on the other (check historychannel.com under "Exodus Decoded"). secular scientists, interpreting this as the exodus offered some explanations.it would be quite lengthy to go into detail so i really suggest you visit the site.

Other Comments by Theo

263. Comment #13326 by BillySands on December 17, 2006 at 4:29 am

Theo, I'm not paying for that video, but do you mean the ahmose stele? That is not a picture and has an reference to parting water (according to biblicsts) It is however a mistranslation, and should read wine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_Decoded

Other Comments by BillySands

264. Comment #13329 by down_under on December 17, 2006 at 5:00 am

Theo

1 Egyptian tablet of a knife cutting water is hardley evidence of Moses and the Jews (the statement you just made is another one of those times i was telling you about where i physically laugh)

And i am still awaiting you hard proof of exodus
and the romans mentioning Jesus

you seem to ignore alot of statements that go against your belief

Other Comments by down_under

265. Comment #13388 by ryuile on December 17, 2006 at 11:25 am

@Billy Sands in number 406-

>Besides all the arcaheological evidence to back this up, do you not think it was a bit strange that the law of moses was suddenly discovered upon the return to jerusalem, where it got its firsy public reading?<

Where do you find that? What about Joshua 8:30-35?

Joshua 8v35:
'There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel'

ps Billy, sorry for assuming you hadn't read your Bible earlier, my bad entirely. I made a mess of that, was just trying to say that I didn't want to comment on the evolution/science side of things but that I have read the Bible and understand at least some of it.

Other Comments by ryuile

266. Comment #13417 by BillySands on December 17, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Hi Ryuile

It is recorded in 2kings 22:8-23:24. The problem with josh 8:30-35 is probably that the book was written some time later than supposed. Further evidence for this is that the people at the reading by josiah were unaware of it's contents and found a passage outlawing moabites or their decendants entering the assembly of god. this resulted in the expulsion of those of mixed ancestry (Nehemiah 13:1-3) (Incidentally, Jesus had a moabite ancestor (Ruth)(Ru.1:4, 4:13, 17) hmmmmm!

Other Comments by BillySands

267. Comment #13501 by JonG on December 18, 2006 at 3:07 am

414. Comment #13226 by down_under on December 16, 2006 at 9:31 am

Why do no official Ancient Roman records mention Jesus?

D_U,

When you say 'official' do you not include the many (to my knowledge - maybe more) Roman historians (with no axe to grind - usually in the context of him being an annoyance to them) who record not only the existence but the doctrine of Jesus Christ..?

I have more information on this somewhere - i'll get back to you - I just wondered what you class as official?

Other Comments by JonG

268. Comment #13503 by JonG on December 18, 2006 at 3:23 am

413. Comment #13223 by down_under on December 16, 2006 at 9:27 am

"In the debate of the existance of God it is Science vs relgion NOT History, and Science has an overwhelming advantage"

D_U, Sorry, it's not as simple as science v's Religion because (as previously discussed at length - go to post 63) not all scientists are atheists!

As for archaeology, I personally have an interest in what is found in relation to the Bible, but i'm not going to rely upon it as a crutch to my faith.

Unfortunately getting archaeologists to agree is like trying to get scientists to agree (and theists for that matter) so one person having a preference for one time-line doesn't make it 'fact'.

Interestingly, no one has been able to categorically prove the Bible a fake as a result of archaeology.
Now, what are the chances of that given the amount of time that the Bible has been around, you'd have thought they'd have found something by now to indefinitly trip it up?

Again, it's not a reason for faith, but it is interesting...

Other Comments by JonG

269. Comment #13507 by JonG on December 18, 2006 at 3:37 am

420. Comment #13417 by BillySands on December 17, 2006 at 2:46 pm

"The problem with josh 8:30-35 is probably that the book was written some time later than supposed."

Helllo Billy,

"Probably"..? What's the evidence for this?

And the Moabite thing...

Earlier in the Exodus it is recorded that anyone converting to the faith of the Hebrews was considered an hoem-born Jew. You were no longer classed as Moabite, Egyptian, etc...

This suggests then that, by being called by the name of their home nation, it was their allegience to God that was being questioned.

Jesus had two 'gentiles' in his lineage Ruth (as ou pointed out) and Rahab (described also as an harlot). Again, this foreshadows the acceptance of those who respond to God and display faith, from whatever background.

Even the Apostle Peter has to be taught to let go of his prejudices in this area and accept that God is willing to forgive the sin of any who will listen and change there lives to accomodate Him.

Other Comments by JonG

270. Comment #13512 by BillySands on December 18, 2006 at 3:55 am

Hi JonG,
It seems that you have no evidence to back up your statement about Moabites. You should also note, that in Nehemiah, it was those of mixed ancestry that were expelled, not those who claimed allegence to moab or ammon. Jesus also had a bastard (perez) in his ancestry , an another problem.
Some of the problems with joshua (I can give more later) include the fact that AI was already a ruin at the time of the conquest, and jerico had no wall. If the book was written at the time, then it should be accurate. There is no sudden change in pottery styles in the area either, and it has been suggested that the cananites and hebrews were the same. You also find impossible events in the patriarchal naratives too. Abraham visits cities that did not exist at the time etc

Other Comments by BillySands

271. Comment #13591 by shauntheboy on December 18, 2006 at 3:30 pm

Hi all

There is ample archaeological evidence which supports the accuracy of the Bible as an historical record, so much so that most who seek to discredit the Judeo-Christian Scriptures have turned their attention elsewhere. The evidence Billy refers to relates to the opinion of a small minority of "specialist" Bible critics who have the objective of discrediting the Bible higher on their list of priorities than objectively presenting or analysing the facts.

Such critics find excuses to try and circumvent the obvious conclusion that the facts lead to – that the Bible is a reliable historical record! They will scrabble around to try and find alternative dates, discrepancies, anomalies, etc, etc. This is the same pattern of behaviour evident in the writings of the "Higher Critics" of the 16th and17th centuries who sought to discredit the Bible with claims such as:

-There's no such place as Nineveh
-Babylon was a myth and never existed
-King Nebuchadnezzar was a myth
-The Kings of Israel and Judah were made up

They claimed that if such places existed, if such great empires and kings ruled the Earth, there would be archaeological evidence to support this. They concluded that because there was no evidence, these kings, kingdoms and places were myth and fantasy. They also applied this line of logic to the NT writings and historical facts around the life of Christ. I'll stick with archaeology in this post though.

Unfortunately for the "Higher Critics" around throughout the 18th C. and into the first few decades of the 20th C. many archaeological discoveries were made:

-Nineveh was excavated confirming the existence of the Assyrian empire

-Babylon was excavated and the name "Nebuchadnezzar" was engraved on the bricks of the city.

-The Sennacherib Prism. The best way to see the accuracy of the Biblical account with this record on Sennacherib's Prism is to compare 2 Kings 18:13-19:37 and Isaiah 36:1-37:38 with the record on the prism (see: http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html )

-The Moabite stone. This inscription supplements and corroborates the history of King Mesha recorded in 2 Kings 3:4-27 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele )

We could go on and on, but really this is an area where there is far more evidence in favour of the Bible than against. The evidence/interpretation "against" (which Billy relies very heavily upon), is not widely accepted in scholarly circles, is not corroborated, and exist solely in an attempt to discredit the Bible, not because there is in itself a valid case to be made.

To understand more of the viewpoint from which Billy is arguing see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

Other Comments by shauntheboy

272. Comment #13594 by Theo on December 18, 2006 at 3:43 pm

Hi Guys,

My last comment did not go through (you guys ever experienced this?)well anyway, here it is again:

BillySands,

No, sorry it was not the ahmose stele which was in fact mistranslated. If you did not see the stone tablet on the site itself, I guess it can only be seen on the video or if not, you will have to keep track of the history channel to see when it is airing again. I will also keep track of it and if i see anything I will let you, know.

down_under,

I was not the one who interpreted the tablet as portraying the exodus, the scientists did (I just agreed with the material presented).Therefore this discussion would go around in circles unless you view the material, so I will also keep you posted.

As for the hard original copies, well of course there are copies of the originals, but they are still copies. For example Tacticus' "Annals of Imperial Rome" was written in about 115 A.D. however the earliest COPY was dated to about 850 A.D. over 700 years later yet it is considered to be historically accurate. The bible also has copies of the original manuscripts (over 20,000 for the N.T. alone) .If I am not mistaken you have an issue with oral tradition which is an accepted historical method, but I guess when being applied to the bible, it becomes problematic. We must understand that the bible claims to be inspired by God and believers consider this to be a matter of faith based on evidence.

Roman authors mentioning Jesus: Flavius Josephus (born in AD 37 and died in AD 97), Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120), Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (secretary to Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138), and Pliny the Younger who was a Roman author and administrator.

I see that you believe that the debate should be on science vs. religion, not history, then in that light my comments shall be in accordance with this.

Now you made comments that I was a closed minded theist. As a former atheist I totally understand your plight, I admit freely that there are blind believers who are not open to reason. They believe because of 1) they had a weird dream, 2) they experienced some so-called supernatural event, or 3) they believe just because the bible says so (without critically investigating the bible). I do believe that belief should be based on fact and reason. Now while on that I would like to share something with you- the bible is against blind belief: 1 Thess 5:21 says to prove all things i.e. put all things to the test. Whenever I come across a fellow believer who believes blindly without reason I share this with him. You can too because he may not listen to you but he will listen to scripture.

Other Comments by Theo

273. Comment #13595 by goddogit on December 18, 2006 at 3:51 pm

This silly debate over the factual basis for Biblical mythology is still going on??? And being used by the Xian faction as "proof" that a character as silly as Jehovah is therefore both real AND the "Supreme Being"?????
Some atheists really have too much time on their hands, debating with such obviously thick losers ( "Someone call me?", says Shaunyboy). Better to take up online RPGs or visit weird porn sites than to toy with (and therefore encourage) people like these twisted monotheistic lying Xians with serious, even potentially dangerous, mental conditions, however "socially functional" they may or may not be.

Other Comments by goddogit

274. Comment #13598 by Theo on December 18, 2006 at 4:31 pm

Heh Heh! this guy is really entertaining...keep it up!

Other Comments by Theo

275. Comment #13600 by shauntheboy on December 18, 2006 at 4:42 pm

Its interesting that D_U sees the question as one of "science vs. religion"

Many atheists will try to frame the debate as "science vs religion". Some do this because they sincerely believe this is what the debate is about. Others adopt it as a deliberate strategy to beguile the general public, or those listening to a discussion in order to try and create the impression that anyone who believes the Bible is "opposed to science". As JonG points out this is quite simply untrue. Many people with scientific training undertaken in "proper" Universities (myself included), find no contradiction between "the facts of science" and the teaching of the Bible. The problem comes with the naturalistic philosophy that is entrenched in our educational institutions, which places a significant bias on those facts, skews the interpretation of the facts, and glosses over the "difficult" questions as if they either do not exist or are of no consequence.

Some of you have asked for the "scientific evidence" that we base our belief on that the Universe and the natural world has been designed by the God of the Bible. Well, it's the same facts that I learned about in my Higher biology lectures at school, it's the same facts that I learned as an undergraduate and postgraduate student at university. I look at these things and see the product of an intelligent mind, the God of the Bible. You look at the same facts and see the product of millions of years of random mutation and natural selection. These are the same facts that many "practising" scientists observe and attribute to an intelligent mind – to the God of the Bible, and yet many, many others to random mutation and natural selection.

I'm not saying that these things "prove" the Bible to be true, or that they "prove" the existence of God. They do in my eyes because that is the philosophical approach that I bring to the facts. The atheist views the same facts with the philosophical view that God does not exist, and so comes to a different conclusion.

The conclusion of the atheist is not the only conclusion that can be reasonably made from the available evidence. Richard Dawkins himself says that "biology (specifically) is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" – but then goes on at great length to try circumnavigate this obvious conclusion, a bit like the "Higher Critics" in their efforts to discredit the Bible! Massive time and effort are expended in order to try and avoid the obvious conclusion because it does not agree with his philosophical approach to the facts.

(The RD quote comes from the opening passages of "Climbing Mount Improbable")

Other Comments by shauntheboy

276. Comment #13655 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 3:04 am

Shaun, I think you give a rather biased view of criticism of historical accuracy in the bible, and anyone who claims bablylon never existed is just potty. Nebuchadnezzar also existed, but daniel gets the sequence of the kings wrong, and he most certainly was not the ancestor or Nabonaidus. They are nit related. The persians took babylon, not the medes. Go read the annals of Sennacherib. He was not defeated by god as the bible claims, he did not go home to be murdered by his sons, he lived another 20 years. Matt has jesus born c. 4BCE and Luke has him born c.6CE http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html. AI was a ruin at the so called time of the conquest, jerico had no wall, AND THE CREATION ACCOUNT, WELL, THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE AT ALL. I too could go on and on. Shaun, just because you find a stone with someones name on it does not mean that the bible is true, and I would laugh at anyone who made the claims that you quote from sceptics. Choose some real challenges, not eay to dismiss crackpot claims.

THEO, suetonius et al only mention christians, no jesus from what I remember. Josephus is a forgery. No devout Jew would call jesus the Christ. Also, the passage clearly splits up 2 otherparagraph that make sense when the jesus paragraph is deleted. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sources.html

Other Comments by BillySands

277. Comment #13668 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 4:13 am

Shaun and Theo, I was in a rush earlier, so I hope you dont think my tone was rude earlier. Shaun, I'm sure some of the bible is historically accurate, but you didn't tackle any of the serious flaws. In the early days of biblical archaeology, the emphasis was to confirm the bible. Now, more archaeologists look at the evidnce and ask what does this tell us. The philistine cities and the Moabite state did not exist in the time of the poentateuch narratives. It is therefore logical to conclude that they are not accurate. Since god is involved it is not likely that he exists either. Present me with strong evidence that the phillistine cities existed then and I will accept that. Present
me with strong evidence of the flood and I will accept that. It will have to be stunning though. The geological record amongst other things excludes it. I would like to know why you think the bible accurately resembles nature. From what I can see the bible states that a flat earth was created in 6 days 6002 years ago, before the sun, which goes around it. Life was created (gen 1 and 2 give differing accounts of the specifics), within a (very) few generations there were cities and a global flood. There is also water above the earth and the stars are small. Do you see my problem?
THEO, there are many biblicists, some on this site disagree with you. however the verse from thessalonians if you read it in full is actually about prophecy. Although, for me, looking at prophecies in their original contexts tend to disprove them. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/messianic.htmlhttp://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart16.html#ref1621

Other Comments by BillySands

278. Comment #13729 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 8:17 am

shaun said "The atheist views the same facts with the philosophical view that God does not exist, and so comes to a different conclusion."
This is a broad overgeneralisation. I personally found the facts against the bible compelling when I was a christian. I have now read the links you posted. There are certainly bits in them that contradict the bible eg "This inscription can be interpreted as supplementing and corroborating the history of King Mesha recorded in 2 Kings 3:4-27, thereby earning it a prominent place in the corpus of Biblical archaeology. However there are significant differences. In the Bible it is Ahab, Omri's son, who conquers Moab, and the rebellion is against Ahab's son Jehoram. Further, in the Bible, it is not Chemosh who gives victory to Mesha but Jahweh who gives victory to Jehoram. Israel withdraws, according to the Book of Kings, only because they are disconcerted when they see Mesha sacrifice his son." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele, so it actually gives a different story to the bible. As far as I am aware, there are no suviving jewish autographs or tablets from the time.

Goddogit. How can people make their own mind up if the facts are not presented. This does deconvert people. I don't know why you are an atheist, bu I became one through reason. I don't consider this to be a waste of time. The theists here are generally polite and respectfull too. If it was David Robertson though, that would be a different matter

Other Comments by BillySands

279. Comment #13736 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 19, 2006 at 8:34 am

You're dead right there, Billy S!

I came to the same conclusions, for the same reasons. It was stated on the Mike Dickin feed, by a Christian, that it was for 'intelligent people to translate the Bible'.

How hard can it be to translate:

Matthew 15:4? It's not clear whether killing is RIGHT or WRONG in the Bible. Sure, we have one of the 10 commandments stating it is wrong. But other areas of the Bible, say killing is FINE if God has ordered it. This is abhorrent.

You're right about David Robertson. He invades these forums, and DELIBERATELY attempts to ANGER atheists - just to prove his point of view.

I wouldn't mind David, if you offered some credible evidence we could investigate. You never do. Quoting the Bible as 'proof positive' is no proof at all. Again, for the same reasons, both Billy and I have stated. We both find the Bible wanting and SERIOUSLY FLAWED as a guide to living one's life. You can move the goalposts as much as you like; there are certain portions of the Bible that are quite evil and indeed, intolerant. The very same intolerance you claim us Atheists display.

I'm willing to bet many an Atheist in here lives a MUCH more moralistic life than you Theists. If your God is to condemn us, after living good, honest and clean lives, for lack of belief, then what does that say about your God?

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

280. Comment #13738 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 8:54 am

Hi NLHB,
The bible is so lacking as a moral guide, and look at the problems it causes, like HIV transmission in africa or the imperialistic policies in palestine etc. The most immoral and manipulative people I know are christians (I know some gems too). The problem with the former group is that they think what they do does not matter, god will forgive them and thats that. I am more aware now than ever that if I hurt someone, then I should do my best to fix that, and not lie to myself that god has forgiven ME, so it is OK. One of those bastards did something bad to me. I still live with the consequences, but they think they are forgiven. At least the last person I hurt, I swallowed my pride and did what I could to fix it. grrr, the claim that christians are more moral makes me mad, but that's just a personal rant.

There are some folk that reason will never shift. one of my best friends is one. It's quite funny, I was involved in his conversion. He is honest about what faith is (lack of evidence) and he usually thanks me for teaching him about what it means to live by faith, and I thank him for showing me that I'm right.
There are plenty of people out there who will swing either way, and I want to reach those here, as I'm sure the christians do too.

Other Comments by BillySands

281. Comment #13743 by Theo on December 19, 2006 at 9:09 am

BillySands,

The reason why some believe that Josephus was a forgery is because they believe that no devout Jew could have written that (the first people to confess Jesus as Christ were devout Jews). On the premise of he did not write it, they sought to find all the reasons why he could not have written it. But if Josephus and Suetonius are problematic, we can still consult Tacticus or Pliny the younger. But these also can also be so-called disproved on the same grounds or as a matter of fact any historical document if unpalatable to those with powers of approval.

1 Thess 5 deals mostly with prophecy, verses 16 to 22 each deals with individual topics- 16: rejoicing, 17: praying, 18: thanksgiving, 19: quenching not spirit, 20: prophecy, 21: proving, 22: abstinence from evil. Therefore the immediate context in 21 is proving all things. Even without the inclusion of verse numbers, one can see the individual issues being stated.

NoLongerHaveBelief,

Mat 15:4- in a time before the N.T. came into effect, Jesus reiterated capital punishment as a consequence for breaking that particular aspect of the law which I believe is different from advocating murder. Just as our present laws make provisions for capital punishment when certain laws are broken while at the same time condemning murder is the same manner in which the O.T. deals with the matter.

Other Comments by Theo

282. Comment #13751 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 19, 2006 at 9:25 am

>>Comment #13743 by Theo<<

OH! I see, Theo. I live in the U.K. We don't have, nor believe in Capital Punishment in this country. MURDER is wrong, whether it be by Man, State or God. I DON'T agree with the death sentence. It is abhorrent and an incorrect philosophy.

So then. According to Matthew 15:4, killing children for cursing their parents is OKAY?! And you would consider doing this? This is IN DIRECT VIOLATION of the 10 commandments, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.

So what have we learnt? That the Bible is a contradictory ridiculous tool for living one's life. My kid swore at me the other day? Should my child be put to death? What a wonderful philosophy, TRULY outstanding in it's greatness.

Oh! You're trying that N.T came into effect lark, are you? Matthew is IN the New Testament! So this is a NEW LAW! Superceding, then, the 10 commandments?!

Murder is murder. Killing is killing. Jesus said we can kill our kids if they curse us. How EVIL can you get? You've explained NOTHING by stating this is different to the Old Testament and how they dealt with this. NOTHING.

PLEASE THEO, explain in black and white HOW Matthew 15:4 is good? How did God condone killing kids as a good thing?

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

283. Comment #13753 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 9:34 am

Theo, josephus was a jew who subscribed to judaeism, not jesus. Read the link I posted.

The antiqities 18:3:2-4 2. "But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

Verse 4 makes no sense. What other sad calamity? was the christ coming a sad calamity? take out the jesus verse and it makes sense
"2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.

4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder....."

It is obviously an insertion.
Full text here if you are interested http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

The thessalonians passage is referring only to prophecy "Do not stifle the holy spirit, do not scoff at prophecy, but test every thing that is sais, and hold on to what is good". I think the instruction is clearly about prophecy. However, I think there are more important points than that, Like why did the early church invent the testimony of Josephus?

Other Comments by BillySands

284. Comment #13767 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 10:50 am

I cant belive it!
i wrote a whole post and the dman thing didnt go through!! very annoying!!

Anyway

Jon G Comment 421 -
By offiial i mean written by people prooven to have existed writting verifiable history, and as for the Roman records that mention Jesus? please provide Links, are these by any chance bias Christians claiming these records exist?

422 -
"D_U, Sorry, it's not as simple as science v's Religion because (as previously discussed at length - go to post 63) not all scientists are atheists!"

It is as simple as science vs religion as science disprooves alot of relgious claims
Not all scientists are atheists no but the ones who belive in God tend to be from fields irrelavent to the argument or
1) Dont belive in the bible (which is what we were debating)
2) are widely discredited


"Unfortunately getting archaeologists to agree is like trying to get scientists to agree (and theists for that matter) so one person having a preference for one time-line doesn't make it 'fact'"

Scientists disagree bacuse they are trying to work out the facts, this is a good thing, if ALL scientists agreed on everything we could end up in a medival world where everybody worships a higher being......
Scientists disagreeing means points are made about theorys to progress science
As for Archaelogists it is the same story about trying to piece together entire histories from tiny fragments accuratly

And Christian Archaelogists have been known to destroy artifacts that could potentially disproove Christianity.


"Interestingly, no one has been able to categorically prove the Bible a fake as a result of archaeology.
Now, what are the chances of that given the amount of time that the Bible has been around, you'd have thought they'd have found something by now to indefinitly trip it up?"

The classic "it cant be dis-prooven so it must be real" argument,

how about i reverse it:
In all the time sence the bible has supposidly been around you'd think we could definatly proove its existance??

besides you cant diproove stories, Proove to me beyond a doubt that Harry Potter didnt infact happen?

And as for tripping the bible up, well many things have "tripped the bible up"

Evoloution
Dinosaurs
The Big Bang
Aboriginals (have been livingin Australia for approx 60,000 years)
Entire galaxies millions of light years away
the fact that the universe is at least 13 Billion years old
the fact that the earth is approx 4.6 billion years old

And many more.......

Other Comments by down_under

285. Comment #13770 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 11:07 am

Theo

So you admt there is no HARD ORIGINAL BIBLE, the earliest copy, which you openly admitted was a copy was written over 100 years after Jesus was born (and thats just the NT, so the OT must be waaay out of date)

so thank you fo prooving my point completly

The Romans who mention Jesus, im glad you mentioned those particular Authors, check out this website

http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

Pliny the younger never once mentioned "jesus" by name or title (messiah)

Flavius Josephus mentioned Jesus but only from word of mouth, he did not actually see jesus himself, nor did he belive jesus to be the messaih.

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

and Christians have actually forged many documents by these authors to try and use it as proof of Christ!
Most documents mentioning Chirst have been deemed un-authentic

As for Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120), and Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas (secretary to Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138)

Please use your commen sense and read when they were alive, then think of how old Jesus was when he died......I will say no more on that!

And for the ONE bible quote Thess 5:21 , that just made me laugh as you are trying to apply it to this argument

Other Comments by down_under

286. Comment #13772 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 11:11 am

Theo

you said

"If I am not mistaken you have an issue with oral tradition which is an accepted historical method"


No it isnt an accepted historical method?!?! Where on Earth did you get this misguided belief from?? Your bible no doubt

Other Comments by down_under

287. Comment #13776 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 11:17 am

Shauntheboy


I was going to reply to your post but it seems other people have done it for me and much better than I could have done myself!

Thank you billy ad NLHB, you both make alot of sense

Other Comments by down_under

288. Comment #13779 by shauntheboy on December 19, 2006 at 11:59 am

D_U and others who have experienced the frustration of losing a carefully composed post.

If you compose your post off-line in Word or equiv, then just copy it into the comment box you will have a back-up if your post disappears in the ether!

I notice some people manage to use "bold" and "italics" in their text. How do you do this? Is it to do with the format you save it in?

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

289. Comment #13787 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 19, 2006 at 12:47 pm

... and glosses over the "difficult" questions as if they either do not exist or are of no consequence.

I was amazed to read this. Honestly Shaun, did all my posts about the incompatibility of gods omnipotence and omnibenevolence just go unread?

Religion is the one with the nightmare of reconciling inconsistent and impossible claims.

God loves us but leaves us all to die, except a choosen few, God made the hummingbird, but he also made the mosquito? God has in the last few thousand years improved tolerance to malaria among africans, while condeming thousands to death from sickle cell anemia?

Come on, grasp when your beaten and leave the field with some dignity.

By the way, italics can be generated with <-i-> and then closed with <-/-i->. However there should be no hyphens, that was just to prevent them activating. For bold, simply replace the i with a b.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

290. Comment #13788 by Mark Taunton on December 19, 2006 at 12:49 pm

Trying to be helpful here - I suffered the problem myself. To minimise (but probably not completely eliminate) the risk of losing a post, do what Shaun says and edit your coment off-line. Then, immediately before posting, refresh your browser view on the current (last) page of the thread, to pick up the latest comments; make sure you're logged in before you do that (your login times out after a while I think). Then copy-paste your comment into the box and click submit as soon after that as you can. I theorise that if someone posts a new comment between your last refresh and your clicking submit, your comment will be lost, but I may be wrong...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

291. Comment #13801 by shauntheboy on December 19, 2006 at 1:35 pm

In post 345 Brian Coughlan said:
"Second, I could easily improve on this arrangement. Any halfway humane entity would have limited our "free will" to benign largely harmless exhibitions of independence. This is what responsible parents do every single day.

They do not warn their children about scalding water, and then let them pour a kettle over themselves.

They do not warn their children not to play in traffic, and shrug their shoulders when the kid heads off to the motorway.

Insane, lunatic and irresponsible asocial freaks behave like that."


Shaunyboy:
Thanks for the tips on how to get bold text etc.

You may have a point Brian if we intervened in this way throughout our children's lives, but we don't do we? Your children grow up and go off into the world and you can't stop them from making mistakes in their lives. They may participate in activities which worry you senseless, but you can't stop them, and probably wouldn't choose to stop them because they are adults with freedom to choose what they do. They may blunder into situations that you have warned them about, but they end up learning "the hard way" as we say.

I don't want to get too caught up in the analogy because it is after all only an analogy, and not a perfect mirror image of the relationship between God and human beings, but there are very powerful similarities. When your kids grow up they go off and do their own thing and you can't stop them and even if you could, doing so would damage your relationship with them and prevent them from developing into responsible adults.

If you view this life and the world that we see around us with all its problems as the "be all and end all" then your point might have more impact. But to a Bible believer this is a work in progress and there is more to life than this life. As Job said, "Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" (Job 2:10).

The bottom line is that you reject the authority of God to establish the rules as he sees fit. All of the references to difficult passages in the OT concerning ethnic cleansing, capital punishment and so on are only really problems if you believe that God was/is unjust. I don't believe that he is, I think that an omnipotent being is more capable of making such decisions than you or me. Having said that, I am very glad that, on the face of it, we do not live in such brutal times (not sure Iraqis or children with HIV Aids in Uganda would agree with that sentiment). The brutality of God's dealings (at times) was and is a reflection of the brutality of the people he is dealing with. There is a passage in the letter to the Romans which says that ultimately we are not in a position to dictate terms with God. God will not accept that from me any more than I would accept it from my three year old child. I've pasted the Romans passage in for anyone who wants to read it, although obviously I recommend searching out the context:

"21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Rom 9:21-24)


You may feel I am detached from the suffering and terrible injustice in our world, but hopefully you are wrong in this assumption. An integral part of my occupation is involved with trying to alleviate disease and suffering here and now, and sadly death is a part of my job almost every day. I look forward to a time when these problems will be a thing of the past, and that's the hope that is contained within the pages of the Bible.

Other Comments by shauntheboy

292. Comment #13803 by shauntheboy on December 19, 2006 at 1:39 pm

I'm acutely aware that I owe Steve and Torbjorn a response. I've got some maths and genetics floating around in my head and I'll try and get them into a coherent post soon!

Shaun

Other Comments by shauntheboy

293. Comment #13806 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 1:47 pm

Hi Shaun,
I'm affraid that we dont recognise the bible as evidence, althoug I realise it is the source of your views, so that make discussion a bout morals dificult. One thing your answer does not address is disease. God could prevent that. How is that a consequence of free will? how is a woman in her 40s giving birth to a child with an extra 21st chromosome not preventable? It doesn't make sense. Take your time answering, you have a bit to get through.

Billy

Other Comments by BillySands

294. Comment #13810 by shauntheboy on December 19, 2006 at 1:51 pm

Billy

I kind of never finished that discussion of the context of Micah 5. I think you said something about the context being concerned with the defeat of Assyria.

I wouldn't disagree with that, the prophecy certainly has the northern border problems as its primary focus, otherwise it would have had no relevance to its primary audience. However, there is a broader, as yet unfilled element.

Micah 4:1-5:2
1 And it will come about in the last days That the mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains. It will be raised above the hills, and the peoples will stream to it.
2 And many nations will come and say, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD and to the house of the God of Jacob, that He may teach us about His ways and that we may walk in His paths." For from Zion will go forth the law, even the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3 And He will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty, distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war.
4 And each of them will sit under his vine and under his fig tree, with no one to make {them} afraid, for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken.
5 Though all the peoples walk each in the name of his god, as for us, we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever.
6 "In that day," declares the LORD, "I will assemble the lame, and gather the outcasts, even those whom I have afflicted.
7 "I will make the lame a remnant, and the outcasts a strong nation, and the LORD will reign over them in Mount Zion from now on and forever.
8 "And as for you, tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, to you it will come-- even the former dominion will come, the kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem.
9 "Now, why do you cry out loudly? Is there no king among you, or has your counselor perished, that agony has gripped you like a woman in childbirth?
10 "Writhe and labor to give birth, daughter of Zion, like a woman in childbirth, for now you will go out of the city, dwell in the field, and go to Babylon. There you will be rescued; there the LORD will redeem you from the hand of your enemies.
11 "And now many nations have been assembled against you who say, 'Let her be polluted, and let our eyes gloat over Zion.'
12 "But they do not know the thoughts of the LORD, and they do not understand His purpose; for He has gathered them like sheaves to the threshing floor.
13 "Arise and thresh, daughter of Zion, for your horn I will make iron and your hoofs I will make bronze, that you may pulverize many peoples, that you may devote to the LORD their unjust gain and their wealth to the Lord of all the earth.

CHAPTER 5

1 "Now muster yourselves in troops, daughter of troops; they have laid siege against us; with a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek.
2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, {too} little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.")


The fuller context of this prophecy is clearly concerned with the establishment of God's government over the whole Earth. This being the case the Bethlehem prophecy relating to the birth of the Messiah who will be the Earthly head of this government seems to fit perfectly with the context.

Other Comments by shauntheboy

295. Comment #13813 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 19, 2006 at 2:03 pm

If you view this life and the world that we see around us with all its problems as the "be all and end all" then your point might have more impact.

That is simply begging the question. What evidence do you have that there is anything more than this? The bible. Why should we beleive the bible? Because it tells us to. Thus you come full circle to your view that "there is more" than this.

Shaun, that is just rubbish. A book of dubious authorship, written thousands of years ago is not evidence. The writers are dead, those recorded in it (if they ever existed) are dead, the witnesses to the miracles are dead. Long dead. It wouldn't even qualify as hearsay in a court of law.

Have you never heard the adage "don't beleive everything you read.". This is exponentially true if the text is thousands of years old, written by God knows who:-)

It is beyond laughable to reply to the observation "the world is a chaotic mess, therefore your omni everything God is a logical fallacy" with the response "Ah .... but this isn't everything, so it'll all be ok in the end".

You see that right? You cannot escape the illogic of god by invoking he/she/it/them:-) ROTFL

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

296. Comment #13818 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 2:12 pm

Brian Coughlan:

You have pointed out (and I have noticed) that shaun simply ignores anythig he cannot explain, answer or something that seems to dfhis belives

I think this is something to do with keeping his faith by alwas having one eye (at least!) closed
he is not the1st theist I have pointed this out too but most simply choose to ignore that I have pointed it out to them! (ironic isnt it!)

Other Comments by down_under

297. Comment #13819 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 2:13 pm

* dfhis belives = defy his beliefs

I apologise to everyone for my grammer and typos but i am very tired!!

Other Comments by down_under

298. Comment #13821 by BillySands on December 19, 2006 at 2:20 pm

Hi Shaun,
A couple of problems here. The first is more speculative, and that is that verse 10 sounds very much like the babylonian exile, and this is backed up by verse 8 makes it clear there is no royal line (That would be hard to restore since god cursed the royal line with jehoaikim (Jer 36:30 as mentioned earlier, contradicted in 2 kings 24:6)
The second and the one I would put most weight on is that Micah 5:6 says "he will rescue us from the Assyrians" the only he can be the he of 5:2. It can't be jesus.
Other problems I have pointed out include the fact that Bethelehem may be a person, one who does not appear in either of jesus' genealogies.
I notice another problem too. You start micah 5 with now mobilise. This links it to chapter 4 as a continuous narrative. However not every translation does this (eg NIV and NLT). However, I still think the context of this verse rules out jesus as you kind of admit (at least I think you do). The Assyrians are fatal to your interpretation. If you think this part was fulfilled, then micah 5:6 talks of this person apointing people to rule Assyria, that never happened.

Other Comments by BillySands

299. Comment #13822 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 2:21 pm

Shaun:

PLEASE stop using Bibe quotes to prove your point!!!
we do not take the bible as any evidence because (as We earlier debated, won the debate and now you ignore the debate) it is not a reliable scource, it is nothing more than stories

And from reading your points you seem to just ignore what you cant explain, any reason for this???

Other Comments by down_under

300. Comment #13824 by down_under on December 19, 2006 at 2:27 pm

A quick thankyou toeveryone (even shaun) who helped with the "loosing posts" dilemma

Other Comments by down_under