51. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96789 by stevencarrwork on December 10, 2007 at 10:55 pm

The Nazis were trying to create a religion-free society with their slogan 'Kinder, Kirche , Kueche'.

And I see Father Jonathan has quite forgotten about Franco, or the various Croats and Greek leaders during the second world war.

And what was the religion of the commandant of Auschwitz? Rudoelf Hoess was a Catholic.

As for this 'apology' he talks about, said apology talked about errors made by the sons and daughters of the church, not the church itself.

52. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96785 by stevencarrwork on December 10, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Surely the Pope is better placed than Dawkins to know about the evils of Hitler.

After all, he was in Hitler's army - if only temporarily.

53. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96778 by stevencarrwork on December 10, 2007 at 10:33 pm

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the faithful 'receive with docility' the teachings of their elders in their various forms.

Why is Father Jonathan pretending to be open-minded when he is pledged to 'receieve with docility' whatever the Catholic Church decides to tell him?

54. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #94522 by stevencarrwork on December 5, 2007 at 11:00 pm

' Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith, out to rack up conversions. Consider, for example, the sloppiness displayed by all of the authors in discussing their political aims. Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion?'

Does Linker think that Dawkins is American? What political aims does Dawkin have for America, where he can't even vote?

Does Linker think there is anything outside America?

At least, anything actually important outside America.

55. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #94521 by stevencarrwork on December 5, 2007 at 10:56 pm

I've named my teddy bear 'Dswkins'.

Cam somebody give me some advice on how to hide from the New Atheists who will crush me for my insult to their prophet of Atheism?

56. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #87498 by stevencarrwork on November 12, 2007 at 9:52 am

You have to remember that The World's Most Notorious Atheist in the 20th century was Professor Antony Flew.

If that is the worst atheism has, then what is the problem?

57. Antony Flew's Bogus Book

Comment #87090 by stevencarrwork on November 11, 2007 at 6:56 am

In 2005, *after* his conversion, Antony Flew recommended a book containing several chapters by Richard Carrier.

The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave edited by Robert M. Price , Jeffery Jay Lowder

Strange how people trumpeting Flew's conversion don't tell us what books Flew recommends Christians reads.

58. Antony Flew's Bogus Book

Comment #86902 by stevencarrwork on November 10, 2007 at 11:59 am

Carrier does have fans.

His writings on the http://www.infidels.org/ are very popular

Certainly, Flew was quite happy to correspond with him and fill in questionnaires.

59. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85705 by stevencarrwork on November 6, 2007 at 10:37 pm

'How did purposive behavior of the kind we engage in all the time – understanding, meditating, enjoying – ever emerge from electrons and chemical elements?'

Easy.

It was magic.

God did it 'Just like that', to quote Tommy Cooper.

Why can't God make a computer understand anything? Varghese claims it is impossible for a DVD player to enjoy the music it plays.

I guess some things are just too hard for his god to make.

60. Suffering, Evil and the Existence of God

Comment #85702 by stevencarrwork on November 6, 2007 at 10:28 pm

Flew has not written a new book.

Roy Varghese wrote all the original writing for it, and then an evangelical pastor rewrote parts of it.

61. The Turning of an Atheist

Comment #85446 by stevencarrwork on November 5, 2007 at 10:53 pm

In his latest defense of the book, even Vargehse does not go so far as to claim that Antony Flew wrote one sentence of the book. He 'edited' and 'approved' versions of the manuscript.

But write it? Vargehse never claims Flew wrote any of the book.

62. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #84876 by stevencarrwork on November 4, 2007 at 2:09 am

Why was Newton able to get such accurate results using a basically mistaken view of the world?

Because God guarantees that even mistaken physics is reliable?

63. Lessons in hate found at leading mosques

Comment #83740 by stevencarrwork on October 31, 2007 at 5:27 am

I detect double-standards here.

Do you hear Muslims complaining about the books openly on sale in Britain which claim that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old girl, or that Muhammad ordered the assassination of opponents?

Do you see the Times trying to track down the publishers of these books?

64. Lessons in hate found at leading mosques

Comment #83606 by stevencarrwork on October 30, 2007 at 3:44 pm

'Whoever changes his religion, kill him'."

News just in.

Muslims quote the words of Muhammad.

Later in our bulletin.

The Pope. What religion is he?

Bears. Where do they choose to defecate?

65. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #83094 by stevencarrwork on October 28, 2007 at 11:45 pm

JIM BUCK
The goldilocksfish know that the "interface" is the source of the food they eat (we have the "earth" beneath our feet). They do not have the inside-outside dichotomy you are trying to arbitarily impose.

CARR
I see. So the goldfish can actually see the person who provides them with life, and yet you claim a Dawkins goldfish would still claim that the reason the goldfish are alive is not because of the food which comes down from the goldfish heaven.

Did you intend your goldfish analogy as a parody? Or a dumb insult?

66. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #82828 by stevencarrwork on October 28, 2007 at 1:12 am

JB
'We are just a humble species, amongst innumerable others that have evolved in bowls, elswhere'

CARR
You like getting battered with your attempts at satire.

Not only does this goldfish bowl not parallel our 'fine-tuned' universe, in so much as you admit that it has a perfectly visible 'interface' where things from outside appear to sustain life.

Now, you claim that the inhabitants of a goldfish bowl can work out a theory of evolution, although all they see are fully-formed goldfish appearing in the bowl. (We know they were bought from the shop)

SO your satire that these goldfish would just say they were evolved falls flat on its face, because there is no evolution in a goldfish bowl.

Leave parody to Dawkins. Anti-atheistic parodies are too easy to tear apart.

67. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #82677 by stevencarrwork on October 27, 2007 at 7:50 am

JB
'They posit that the food develops in the subtle medium of the air---whose currents, they have measured on its interface with their watery world.'

CARR
SO these goldish know that there is a world outside their goldfishy universe?

Your analogy did not last very long did it?

68. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #82672 by stevencarrwork on October 27, 2007 at 7:23 am

And, of course, the fish observe that the goldfish bowl is gigantic and that the vast majority of the bowl is totally unsuited to aquatic life.

They also observe that the goldfish bowl contains lots of other animals, which all seem to survive by tearing other animals to pieces to get a meal.

What does that tell them about their aquarium keeper?

69. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #82654 by stevencarrwork on October 27, 2007 at 6:00 am

Sir: Richard Dawkins is obviously fond of satire (letter, 1 October). Perhaps he will like this too: Two goldilocksfish are swimming in a bowl. One says: "If there is no God, how come: 1) the temperature in here is just right; 2) food arrives regularly; 3) the water gets cleaned?"

The second goldilocksfish (who happens to be a Professor for the Goldilocksfish Understanding of Science) replies: "It is probable that we live in a multiverse that contains an astronomically large number of fish-bowls. Most of those bowls will be completely lifeless. The fact that we are here able to discuss the matter means that we are fortunate to live in one of the tiny number of bowls capable of sustaining evolved life. In the words of the old song: We're here because we're here, because we're here!"

-----------------------

I see.
So presumably these fish see
a) there is no reproduction in their goldfish world, so life cannot change and adapt to its surroundings

b) Food is being put into the system from outside - breaking the law of conservation of matter.

Where do similar miracles happen on a daily basis in our world?

And how come our goldfish bowl cleaner allows tidal waves to swamp and kill 250,000 of his goldfish in one day?

70. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82612 by stevencarrwork on October 27, 2007 at 12:37 am

D'Souza
Why do neurons in my body follow the same laws as atoms on far-off planets?"

CARR
SO D'Souza is now complaining that nature is just so damn unnatural?

Why does D'Souza think that nature is behaving unnaturally, and that this is proof that something is making it behave differently to what D'Souza thinks it should behave?

71. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #82329 by stevencarrwork on October 26, 2007 at 4:32 am

'Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces'

What is a rational force?

'Only the theist is able to claim coherence and true logic in his arguments because those arguments are founded on the notion of an all-knowing being.'

And theists claim that there are malovelent demons capable of attacking their reasoning and highly-motivated to do so.

Why believe the words of people who claim that they might be possessed by demons?

72. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82231 by stevencarrwork on October 25, 2007 at 10:39 pm

D'Souza trying to convince the world that religion does not condone killing is facing a David and Goliath task.

Still, at least D'Souza has the consolation of knowing that David killed Goliath, so perhaps he can show the world that religion does not condone killings.

73. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #82220 by stevencarrwork on October 25, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Evil people will do bad things.

The difference is that religious people will often praise the murders committed by other religous leaders.

I wonder why D'Souza does not include the public beheadings of 600 or 700 Jews by Muslims after the Battle of the Trench in 627 AD?

Perhaps because D'Souza knows that Muslims can be scary , but he can attack atheists without having to go into hiding.

Strange, when atheists are all mass-murderers?

74. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81093 by stevencarrwork on October 24, 2007 at 4:11 am

'Finally, I am having a problem counting the early Christians who were fed to the lions. The Romans who were doing the feeding were believers, so that is the Religion side, but we know of no religious belief systems ever attributed to any lions, so they would have to count as Atheists. That would have to go for tigers and bears as well. Atheist lions and tigers and bears, oh my!'

The difference between religion and atheism is that religions praise killings.

Take killing by lions.

2 Kings 17:25 When they first lived there, they did not worship the LORD; so he sent lions among them and they killed some of the people.

Do atheist books praise Stalin and Mao for killing people?

75. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81026 by stevencarrwork on October 23, 2007 at 11:16 pm

1.. Without the bible, there is no morality

Numbers 31
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

All of you who have killed anyone or touched anyone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days.

CARR
Killing and ritual purity - the two great themes of religion combined in one easy to remember passage.

76. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81016 by stevencarrwork on October 23, 2007 at 10:48 pm

D'Souza '“If right and wrong is determined by instinct...'

Most of us have an instinctive revulsion against the thought of God ordering the Israelites to kill the Canaanites, man, woman, and child.

Fight against that instinct...

77. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81013 by stevencarrwork on October 23, 2007 at 10:41 pm

Is this the same D'Souza who writes in the book 'What's so great about Christianity' that '"Only by examining the text in relation to the whole can we figure out how a particular line or passage is best understood."'

So Jews cannot understand the Old Testament because they do not have a New Testament in their Bible?

Christianity is implicit anti-Semitism.

78. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #80192 by stevencarrwork on October 20, 2007 at 2:27 pm

LENNOX
"How would you like it if I only read about Darwinism from an engineer, and never read "Origin of Species' ?"

CARR
You mean Lennox claims Dawkins hasn't read the Bible, or that Lennox thinks reading the Bible does not enable you to understand Christianity?

79. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79709 by stevencarrwork on October 18, 2007 at 9:31 am

Those of you who want to hear more of Lennox debate atheists can tune into

http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm?i=1266&launched=y&ItemID=846

80. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78623 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 11:10 pm

TETRARTONIS
Well, I think the religious person's view is that Christianity specifically discourages mass murder...

CARR
William Lane Craig debates many atheists, and he wanted to debate Dawkins.

Watch Craig defend mass murder....


http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

81. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78622 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 11:02 pm

ARCHBISHOP UNWIN
"There are few things more annoying than people saying 'I know what you mean.'"

CARR
One of the great ironic statements of our time, by a man whose writing often has a fog index of over 30.

ARCHBISHOP UNWIN
'So to be in Christ is to be committed to this
action for the sake of each other and for the world; the hope of our calling is the hope of this mutuality whose full possibility is given by the one faith and one baptism into our one Lord.'

CARR
I know what you mean.

ARCHBISHOP UNWIN (attacking Dawkins)

"The believer who worships assumes absolutely that God is there and worth attending to," Williams said, adding: "If God was there before the Big Bang, he must be complex."

He urged atheist writers to better understand religion.

PROFESSOR ALVIN PLANTINGA (attacking Dawkins)
'First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple...'

CARR
How can you understand something that is just being made up on the spur of the moment?

82. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78507 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 10:55 am

Lennox was on Premier Christian Radio today

See http://www.premier.org.uk/engine.cfm?i=680 in the next few days for details

83. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78465 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 2:15 am

Veronique,
didn't Taunton's comments on page 2 of this thread give you an idea of the mentality of religious people.

TAUNTON
Anyway, why do I say that Deu 28v49 onwards is about Rome....

Because Moses said: "The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand"

CARR
What sort of mentality can say that this is a specific prophecy about Rome?

84. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78446 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 12:06 am

War on religion?

Writing books. Talking on the radio.

Is there no end to the horrors atheists are prepared to use in the war on religion?

What next? Atheists have already deployed the T-shirt with a symbol on it, so what could be next?

Flyers? Leaflets? That's the sort of utterly despicable thing an atheist might do in their crusade against religion.

85. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78444 by stevencarrwork on October 13, 2007 at 12:00 am

TAUNTON
I can envisage a few infantrymen being carried on each ship, but please, what on earth is the point of chariots if the enemy was going to try attacking an island?

CARR
At last we know why the Allied Forces avoided attacking the Germans on the Channel Islands, preferring to go for the mainland.

What use would their tanks have been if they were trying to attack an island?

Mark is getting into typical fundie mode.

He is just throwing out huge amounts of junk, because he has no evidence.

Tyre has been rebuilt. There is a city there.

Mark cannot face reality, so he thinks chariots are useless on an island.

86. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77042 by stevencarrwork on October 8, 2007 at 9:28 am

MARK TAUNTON

64 And Yahweh shall scatter you among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there you shall serve other gods, which neither you nor your fathers have known, even wood and stone.....

I ask again: what about that is not clear?...

And the prophecy was fulfilled....

CARR
SO Jews serve wood and stone gods nowadays?

And the Roman gods were thought of as being made of wood?


Of course, it is an amazingly specific prophecy, what with the Jews being the only people to have been spread all over the earth :-)
Another prophecy busted.....

87. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77040 by stevencarrwork on October 8, 2007 at 9:21 am

It really is not controversial that Ezekiel was referring to the island of Tyre, and her daughter settlements on the coastline.

All of Taunton's word games are just junk.

It is like someone taking 'middle of the sea', finding where somebody refers to a ship in the middle of the sea in a painting by Turner, and declaring that 'middle of the sea' actually means in a painting.

Everybody would laugh if somebody tried that on in English.

So why Mark is trying it in Hebrew is beyond me.

And, of course, Ezekiel said Tyre would become a bare rock.

It isn't.

The prophecy is busted.

Even without Ezekiel 29 where he admits that Nebuchadnezzar did not get anything from his attack on Tyre.

88. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76941 by stevencarrwork on October 7, 2007 at 10:43 pm

Perhaps Taunton , in his brave battle against reality, might like to read Isaiah 23 where Tyre is also described as an island.

This is all so 'specific', yet Taunton tells us that these Hebrew words of Ezekiel have 'broad meanings', and that when Ezekiel said 'the middle of the sea', he meant on the mainland.

Does he not realise that he is destroying the credibility of Christianity in our eyes?

89. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76940 by stevencarrwork on October 7, 2007 at 10:37 pm

TAUNTON on EZEKIEL 26
The sheer uniqueness of it (along with the specificity of it...

CARR
Speficifity?

TAUNTON on EZEKIEL 26
Yes, the daughters belonged to Tyre. They were either villages around the city, or actually women from her; either could be "in the field", as meaning the agricultural land adjacent.

CARR
What a joke!

Taunton has to twist what it says to get around the fact that it says Nebuchadnezzar will destroy what is in the middle of the sea , and what has daughter settlements ie the island.

And it is so 'specific' that he cannot tell us what these 'daughters' were!

There is zero mention of Alexander.

And the whole area where Tyre was is now covered with buildings, despite the claim that it would become a bare rock.

The prophecy is so 'specific' that Taunton has to claim that nobody knows exactly where Old Tyre was.

How specific is that?

90. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76861 by stevencarrwork on October 7, 2007 at 1:52 pm

TAUNTON
TO illustrate: Luke's account of Paul's journey by ship to Italy is loaded with specialist technical terms relating to ships, sailors, navigation, sea and weather conditions, local geography, etc. Recent comparative analysis in relation to first century Mediterranean maritime history has demonstrated just how precise and accurately used his language is.

CARR
There's a big fat zero of evidence Taunton came up with.

Perhaps the author of Luke had been on a sea voyage himself?

Or had read accounts of sea-journeys?

No, the only way anybody could get such knowledge was by being a prisoner on a ship....


Paul was allegedly a prisoner on a ship.

So why did the sailors instruct him in all this technical knowledge?

Did the captain say 'The prisoners on the ship. Have you taught them how to sail this thing yet?. For goodness sakes, educate these prisoners. We can't deliver them to Rome until they've learned technical sailing terms, proving that they were on this ship.'

But let us look at some of this amazing technical language, and we will see that it often comes from poetry and fiction, not from real life.

I am indebted to Neil Godfrey for this knowledge.


http://vridar.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/acts-27-28-an-eyewitness-account-part-2/


Acts 27:41 'they ran the ship aground' = EPEKEILAN THN NAUN

This is a distinctively poetic (Homeric) phrase.

This is the only time in the New Testament 'NAUS' is used for a 'ship'. Everywhere else the author of Luke-Acts uses PLOIA (Lk.5.3, 7, 11; 8.22, 37; Acts20.13, 38; 21.2, 3, 6).

Another word used nowhere else in the NT (nor even in the LXX) is EPIKELLEIN = 'to ground'. 'In fact, EPIKELLEIN and [its uncompounded form] KELLEIN are poetic forms' prose prefers EPOKELLEIN or OKELLEIN.' (MacDonald, p.94)

Commenting on EPEKEILAN ('beached') the Lake and Cadbury commentary on Acts says: 'According to Blass this is an Homeric form not found in prose-writers, who used OKELLW and EPOKELLW, . . . . He compares Odyssey IX 148 . . . and 546. . . . It is also remarkable that the word NAUN is used only here in Acts, which always has the ordinary Hellenistic word PLOION. Blass’ suggestion that there is a conscious reminisence of Homer in this collocation of two unusual words is very attractive. If Luke was acquainted with Aratus and Epimenides, his knowledge of Homer is easily credible.' (p.339)

F. F. Bruce calls it one of Acts 'unmistakable Homeric reminiscences.'

According to Susan M. Praeder, - Little else except a reminiscence of the Odyssey would explain the only appearance of EPIKELLEIN and NAUS in the New Testament.

So this amazing knowledge that Taunton touts as evidence comes from the Odyssey?

We may as well have people quoting Gulliver's Travels and Taunton claiming that they obviously knew all about sea-journeys :-)

Neil Godfrey find some more stuff, which is rather embarassing for Taunton's claim of the real-life nature of this writing of the author of Acts.

Odyssey

There are two shipwreck scenes in the Odyssey. In book 5 Odysseus suffers alone and in book 12 Odysseus loses his entire crew. MacDonald observes that other writers, Apollonius Rhodius and Virgil, composed shipwreck scenes that drew on both these Homeric accounts, and that Paul’s shipwreck scene similarly contains elements of both.

Prediction of disaster: Acts 27:9-10 - cf Od.12 (portents predict disaster) and Od.5 (Odysseus fears disaster)

Sail out in fine weather: Acts 27:13 - cf Od.12 and Od.5 (Odysseus set sail in good weather)

Storm soon follows: Acts 27:14 - cf Od.12 (Zeus soon sends a storm) and Od.5 (Poseidon later sends a storm)

Winds, waves and darkness: Acts 27:14, 18-20 -cf Od.12 (south, east, west, north winds) and Od.5 (south, west winds) and traditional Greek names for the winds used in both Acts and Odyssey.

Abandon all hope: Acts 27:20 - cf Od.5 (Odysseus abandons hope) The abandonment of all hope was a topos in ancient storm stories

Winds drive the helpless ship: Acts 27:15, 17 - cf Od. 12 and Od.5 (the word is FERW, 'to drive')

Expect to die: Acts 27:20 (except for Paul) - cf Od.5 (Odysseus expects to die at sea)

Fulfilled prophecy: Acts 27:21 - cf Od.5 (Calypso's prophecy came true)

Divine figures suddenly appear: Acts 27:23 - cf Od.5 (goddess Ino appears to Odysseus in the middle of the storm)

The divine figure tells the hero none will be lost but the ship: Acts 27:22 - cf Od.5 (the divinity tells Odysseus he will survive but his ship will not)

The divine figure assures the hero of his 'fate': Acts 27:24 - cf Od.5 (it is the fate of Odysseus to escape as it is the fate of Paul to stand before Caesar)

Why believe a divinity?: Acts 27:30 - cf Od.5 (Odysseus did not trust the message of the goddess any more than the crew on Pauls ship trusted the word of the angel - both continued to attempt managing on their own.)

Everyman for himself: Acts 27:43-44 - cf Od.12 and Od.5 (Odysseus rides a plank, in Acts some swim and others ride planks)

An island to the rescue: Acts 28:1 - cf Od.12 and Od.5 (Odysseus arrives on an island)

Friendly locals: Acts 28:2 - cf Od.12 (Calypso shows generosity) and Od.5 (locals show generosity)

Hero experiences cold and warmth: Acts 28:2-3 - cf Od.5 (Odysseus gathered leaves when cold; Paul gathered firewood when cold)

Locals are most unimpressed by the hero: Acts 28:4 - cf Od.5 (locals recoil in fear at Odysseus’s appearance, just as they rejected Paul as a murderer doomed to divine punishment)

Locals subsequently see the hero as a god: Acts 28:6 - cf Od.5 (locals believe Odysseus must be a god because of his appearance, just as they later believed Paul was a god for surviving the snake bite)

Wild beasts: Acts 28:3 - cf Od.5 (Odysseus feared wild beasts; Paul was bitten by one)

The hero is highly honoured: Acts 28:9-10 - cf Od.5 (Phaeacians entertain and honour Odysseus with many gifts for his stories as Maltese entertained and honoured Paul for his many healings)

Locals provide the necessaries and a new ship: Acts 28:10 - cf Od.5 (Alcinous provided Odysseus with a ship to continue his journey)

Smooth sailing from then on: Acts 28:11-14 - cf Od.5/13 (The renowned Phaeacian sailors drove Odysseus ship to his destination with astonishing speed; Pauls ship led by the Dioscuri (the twin gods Castor and Pollux, protectors of ships and sailors) and with help of a NOTOS (south wind) arrived quickly at Puteoli.)

-----------------------------------------

Pretty devastating stuff.

The only excuse for Taunton is that his apologetic books never tell him about this stuff.

It must be a shock when he then talks to sceptics who simply blow his arguments away.

His apologetic books leave him high and dry when talking to sceptics.

I feel sorry for him.

91. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76681 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:56 pm

Perhaps Mark would accept Christian sources about the island status of the city of Tyre , and how it had daughter settlements on the coast.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/ii.xxii.htm

TAUNTON
...the context is characterising Tyre as a grand and mighty armed trading ship....

CARR
What? A grand and mighty armed trading ship that is on land, and not in the sea, like an island would be?

92. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76675 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:20 pm

MARK THE BIBLE-DENIER TAUNTON
There is a regular way in Hebrew to say "surrounded by", but it does not come in Ezekiel 27:32.

CARR
The Hebrew word used for 'midst' is 'tevek'.

Mark the Bible-denier Taunton claims this is not a regular way to say 'surrounded by'...

Let us see where else 'tevek' is used, and if it means 'surrounded by'.

Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.

Hey, he wasn't totally surrounded by the tent, was he?

Exd 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush.

Was the flame totally in the bush?

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

I guess Adam and Eve were partly in the garden and partly out.


Exd 24:18 And Moses went into the midst of the cloud.

Moses, of course, was partly in the cloud and partly out.

There are others, way too numerous to mention.

Still, Mark Taunton tells us that when Ezekiel said Tyre was on a throne surrounded by seas, or was in the midst of the sea, he meant that Tyre was not in the sea at all, but was a mainland city.

And, of course, the mainland is also built up today, which Taunton dodges.

There is simply no reasoning with fundamentalists like Taunton, who will simply deny anything that they cannot face - including their own Bible, if needs be.

93. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76671 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Let us read Ezekiel one more time, so that Mark the Bible-denier Taunton can deny it one more time.


Ezekiel 28:2 'In the pride of your heart you say, "I am a god; I sit on the throne of a god in the heart of the seas."

Yes, Ezekiel says one more time that Tyre is *in* the seas, and Taunton will twist scripture one more time to tell us that Ezekiel meant that Tyre was *beside* the sea, not in it.

But that is fundamentalism for you.

Fundies do not take the Bible as literally true.

As what it does say is obviously false, they have to twist the Bible like a pretzel to get it to say the opposite of what it does say.

94. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76665 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 3:55 pm

Let us read Ezekiel ONE MORE TIME, so the Bible-denier can deny it one more time.

Fundamentalists literally cannot read. All they can do is twist words, and insult our intelligence by their sophistry.

Ezekiel 27:32 'As they wail and mourn over you,
they will take up a lament concerning you:
"Who was ever silenced like Tyre,
surrounded by the sea?"

Ezekiel says Tyre was surrounded by the sea, yet Mark the Bible-denier Taunton claims Ezekiel though of Tyre as on the mainland, and that the island part was not silenced until Alexander (who is never mentioned by Ezekiel, of course).

I look forward to Mark Taunton telling us that 'surrounded by the sea' does not mean 'surrounded by the sea'.

He will convince nobody of anything except that he is blind and obstinate.

Of course, the mainland part by the island (as well as the island part itself) has been rebuilt many times.

Ezekiel's prophecy is totally busted.

95. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76650 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 3:27 pm

TAUNTON
You have not shown why Tyre must be identified as the island, whereas I have given multiple reasons why it was in fact on the mainland.

CARR
'Out in the sea'....

'A bare rock...'

I guess the Bible-denier has his work cut out here.

Perhaps the mainland of Lebanon is now just a bare rock.

Of course, both the island part and the mainland parts have been rebuilt.

There is even an Archbishop of Tyre, who I imagine tells people that Tyre has never been rebuilt, just like the prophecy stated.

96. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76647 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Perhaps Mark might want to read a bit more of Ezekiel's prophecy...

"This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Tyre: Will not the coastlands tremble at the sound of your fall....'

Gosh! Mark says that Tyre was on the coastlands, and Ezekiel seems to think that the coastlands will hear the sound of Tyre's fall - almost as though Tyre was the island....

That is the trouble with fundamentalists though.

They simply cannot read what the Bible says....

97. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76645 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 3:09 pm

TAUNTON
The place I propose as the site of Palaetyros certainly looks pretty bleak, and is bereft of people, even today.

CARR
Let us go through Ezekiel's prophecy ONE MORE TIME.

So the Bible-denier can deny it one more time.

Ezekiel 26

I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets...

Apparently this 'nature reserve' is a bare rock , where people spread fishnets.

At least according to Taunton, who appears to be an amateur at the art of denying what the Bible clearly says, while still claiming that it is all true....

Hey, but if some fundie claims that 'out in the sea' means a nature reserve , which is not in the sea, what can we do except give him more rope to tie himself up in knots with?

98. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76641 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Let us go through Ezekiel's prophecy one more time.

'You quoted the same original text in two different translations. The relevant original words are most directly rendered as "daughters in the field"'

Daughters in the field....

The original was not in the field.

What was in the field were the 'daughters'

What was on the island was what the daughters belonged to.

Is this so hard to grasp?

'Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets...'

Notice the 'out in the sea'.

What we have here, is another Bible-denier, who simply denies what the Bible says.

Of course, both the settlement on the former island and the settlements on the mainland have been rebuilt, so smashing Ezekiel's prophecy of the place being 'a bare rock'.

Thank you for playing.

Could we have the next religion please?

99. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76574 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 10:34 am

The main part of Tyre was the island part.

There are now buildings on what was the island part and what was the mainland part.

The coastline has changed over 2,500 years but that is basically the case.

Ezekiel claimed that both the island part and the 'daughter' part on the mainland would be conquered by Nebuchadnezzar

'It shall become plunder for the nations, and its daughter-towns in the country shall be killed by the sword.'

But Nebuchadnezzar never conquered the island part.

'Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations, and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword.'

What was on the mainland were 'her settlements', according to Ezekiel, not the island itself, which was 'out in the sea'.

But Googe Maps shows the dense building on the site of the former island.


The mainland part was , apparently , called Ushu.

But I would have to check that.

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1999/2/992tyre.html

100. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #76528 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 5:08 am

MARK TAUNTON
'When they turned away to other so-called gods,...'

CARR
Mark is himself living proof that all these stories are ridiculous rubbish.

Despite not seeing one thousandth of the evidence of these people, he would never turn to another so-called god, yet he claims that the events in Exodus were true, and religious people saw all these things and still turned to other gods.

Mark's faith is living proof that that would not happen.

Farrell Till has an excellent mocking column on the sheer stupidity of what Mark Taunton is trying to sell us :-

http://www.skepticfiles.org/sr/4like93.htm

It is just so funny.

'Surely, in the entire history of mankind, no one had ever witnessed a miracle as amazing as the one that those Israelites witnessed on that day.
One would think that after seeing the power of Yahweh wielded so decisively on their behalf, the people would have been loyal to him till
death, but, if we are to believe the Bible, it didn't happen that way.


The last ripples in the sea had hardly settled when the people began to bellyache again. They sang a hymn of praise to Yahweh and turned inland
to march across the Sinai, but they had traveled only three days from the Red Sea when they began to complain because there was no water to drink
(15:22).

So we must again ask ourselves, "How likely is this?" Must we believe that the people who had witnessed the parting of the Red Sea could so soon forget the power and majesty of their god Yahweh that they would complain about a shortage of water? Which of them could have possibly been so utterly dense of intellect that they would not have known that supplying drinking water would have been next to nothing for a god who could forge a path through the Red Sea?'