The Bible is true, but what you heard about it is not.

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As I said before, you may not see a lot of me with the project I'm engaged with, but especially won't if you continue to cite "men," as I said you would resort to if you couldn't disprove my claims on Genesis. I don't give a shit about anyone's opinion, I am here to defend the Bible. Thus, scripture is my witness and by scripture alone you will have to show the fault in my hermeneutics.

As expected, you are unable to prove your claim, and are turning your back on doing so.

As I (and others have) said, it's not for us to disprove what you claim - it's for you to prove what you claim.

And it is clear that you have no intention of even attempting to do so.

You're merely making claims as if they are self-evident and cannot be questioned.

Like abelcainsbrother, you're just here to preach your solipsism - nothing more.

In this you've already failed to live up to the quotes you cite on the frontispiece of your book.

Genesis is not talking about material, biological beginnings, and therefore does not conflict with science.

That is your opinion - nothing more.

If you actually consult scholars who know what they're talking about - such as the NOAB, Jewish Study Bible, Koren Jerusalem Bible or Alter - you'll see that that is not the case.

[Edit: Just realised that the original two sources I mentioned - Fr. Brown and Burkett - only work for the NT. I've replaced those with actually relevant sources.]

To say that God is not the God of Christianity if He did not create the physical universe is a moot point in this case, and strictly your opinion.

It is neither moot or merely my opinion.

If God didn't create anything in the common English sense of the term, then it is not "God" as Christians think of it.

But, I did not even make that assertion -- God could had started the evolution process - IF evolution is true. All I'm saying is, Gensis, and the Bible for that matter, is not talking about hose things as you (and millions of others) have assumed. IMV, the gig is up on that one, and the world is in for a rude awakening.

Again, this is just your opinion - and the veiled threat is unwarranted, though not unexpected, given your casting aspersions on posters' character throughout this thread with your "this will show your true character" phrase.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

but especially won't if you continue to cite "men,"

And contrary to what you would like, so do you cite only men, it has always been men, either you like it or not. However contrary to you, I no delusions about my sources and think that I am talking for God himself..

as I said you would resort to if you couldn't disprove my claims on Genesis.

Shit, I failed to notice that there was actually any claim. What claim was that?

I don't give a shit about anyone's opinion, I am here to defend the Bible.

Then as people point out. You are not here for a conversation. You can drop this façade of reasonableness, drop this lie that you are only interested in the truth and that you would only change your mind if only you were presented with a good enough reason. But we both know that is bullshit.

Thus, scripture is my witness and by scripture alone you will have to show the fault in my hermeneutics.

And by scripture alone I dismiss your claims. Because I don't fucking care about scripture, why should I?

Genesis is not talking about material, biological beginnings, and therefore does not conflict with science.

Except it really does talk about that. If you are talking about a metaphorical creation, with a metaphorical fall of grace, than so is Jesus a metaphorical savior saving you from a metaphor. Thus reducing Christianity to a mere joke. And by proper hermeneutics, that spells "shove it!".
And another thing, If God set out evolution, then when did he decided that one of the monkeys was different and needed Jesus to save them from a metaphor?
Another example of stupid Christians making claims without realizing that such claims have consequences, consequences that immediately turn around and bite them in the ass.

the gig is up on that one, and the world is in for a rude awakening.

Yes... :lol: I can't wait.

I have told you from the begging that you would fail, and fail you did.

 

[JRChadwick]

As I said before, you may not see a lot of me with the project I'm engaged with,

That's a great way to leave a discussion without admitting defeat.

but especially won't if you continue to cite "men," as I said you would resort to if you couldn't disprove my claims on Genesis.

Ah, I keep forgetting how you ignore links with direct quotes from the bible. And how you dishonestly try to excuse the irreconcilable contradictions pointed out to you.

And we didn't have to disprove your claim. You never proved it. You never proved that the bible is inerrant or a useful source about anything. When I tried to get you to directly prove your claim, you simply posted a half dozen bible quotes, justified it with nonsensical ramble, and chastised me for how you assume I live my life without knowing anything about me (you also didn't make much sense with your critique of me.)

I don't give a shit about anyone's opinion, I am here to defend the Bible. Thus, scripture is my witness and by scripture alone you will have to show the fault in my hermeneutics.

Besides the occasional "The bible is shit" comments, no one has given anyone's opinion. We have simply rejected your own opinion because that is all you have given; your own unprovable assertions and your own interpretation of what you want to believe the bible contains.

Genesis is not talking about material, biological beginnings, and therefore does not conflict with science.

Your opinion.

To say that God is not the God of Christianity if He did not create the physical universe is a moot point in this case, and strictly your opinion.

Wait, so are you saying the god character in the bible is supposed to have created a different universe than the one in which we live?

But, I did not even make that assertion -- God could had started the evolution process - IF evolution is true.

Evolution IS an inescapable fact of reality and if you want to challenge this, any one of us can help you make a fool out of yourself in another thread.

All I'm saying is, Gensis, and the Bible for that matter, is not talking about hose things as you (and millions of others) have assumed. IMV, the gig is up on that one, and the world is in for a rude awakening.

*Slow clap*

 

[Deleted member 619]

Shauk100, you owe me £10,000. Prove you don't.

I expect payment forthwith.

 

[aka Frank Lee Seaux]

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, aka Frank Lee Seaux and Steelmage99!

Kindest regards,

James

Thank you DG. Can I call you DG? It's nice to feel welcomed to a new place. Especially among people who could, and probably will shred at least some of my arguments.

Now can someone kindly direct me to the Genesis accounts? Or can I sluff that off in favor of the arguments at hand?

shaukhad told me they started on page 11 of this thread, but the only thing I could find there were references to those arguments, indicating they had obviously been made earlier in the thread, so I went back to the beginning, since it seems that's where a Genesis account rightly belongs, by definition (Fully realizing the folly in that reasoning). That proved to be of no avail. Finally, bored with searching, but enjoying the posts of people like hackenslash among others, including yours, I resolved myself to asking shauk, in that youtube comment section where I'd run into him to kindly give a better detailed and more accurate description of its location. I never got that answer.

So, here am I, about to embark on my second attempt at addressing some of his argumentation in a new and scary locale, among peers, and hopeful future friends.

 

[aka Frank Lee Seaux]

Shauk100, you owe me £10,000. Prove you don't.

I expect payment forthwith.

Clearly, if you claim it to be so, it must be.

 

[JRChadwick]

Don't waste your time. He never made any arguments. Just unprovable claims.

 

[aka Frank Lee Seaux]

Don't waste your time. He never made any arguments. Just unprovable claims.

Of the three Christian apologists with whom I've been in very recent contact, shauk is, by far, the most reasonable, which doesn't say much for him, but says a mountain about the other two. As a clue, one is a geocentric young earth creationist/science denialist, who claims that his mentor/hero, Malcolm Bowden, uses "actual science." Malcolm Bowden, by the way, has a video about the "Science Mafia."

But, you didn't hear about it from me. I don't want to be found at the bottom of the Potomac wearing carbon 14 shoes, or something like that. You know how those scientific mafia people are... They find new and inventive ways of killing people.

 

[aka Frank Lee Seaux]

The person without the Gruntbuggly does not accept the things that come from the Gruntbuggly of Grimsargh but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Gruntbuggly.

So, what are you saying? That he has no Gruntbuggly? Therefore he cannot possibly know Grimsargh?

Loved that one and laughed my ass off when I read it. Thanks for the humor.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Now can someone kindly direct me to the Genesis accounts? Or can I sluff that off in favor of the arguments at hand?

If I am not mistaken, shauk100 is talking about this. However, I have to agree with JRChadwick in that it is a waste of time.

 

[aka Frank Lee Seaux]

Now can someone kindly direct me to the Genesis accounts? Or can I sluff that off in favor of the arguments at hand?

If I am not mistaken, shauk100 is talking about this. However, I have to agree with JRChadwick in that it is a waste of time.

You're both almost certainly right. However, it might be fun and serve as an introduction to my "style." Ya know, give everyone else a peek at what I got goin' on under the hood, so to speak.

 

[JRChadwick]

Unlike in religious circles; new ideas are always welcome here.

Don't waste your time. He never made any arguments. Just unprovable claims.

Of the three Christian apologists with whom I've been in very recent contact, shauk is, by far, the most reasonable, which doesn't say much for him, but says a mountain about the other two. As a clue, one is a geocentric young earth creationist/science denialist, who claims that his mentor/hero, Malcolm Bowden, uses "actual science." Malcolm Bowden, by the way, has a video about the "Science Mafia."

But, you didn't hear about it from me. I don't want to be found at the bottom of the Potomac wearing carbon 14 shows, or something like that. You know how those scientific mafia people are... They find new and inventive ways of killing people.

I bet you would change your opinion of him if we got him into the Creationism forum. He hinted at being a Y.E.C.

 

[aka Frank Lee Seaux]

I bet you would change your opinion of him if we got him into the Creationism forum. He hinted at being a Y.E.C.

The point was that as crazy and apparently deluded as he obviously was/is, he was far outstretched along that line by his competitors for my attentions. I only wish I could get one of them in here to have some fun with.

Then, of course, you can lead a horse and all that.

 

[Dustnite]

Whatever, you're entitled to your own wrong opinion. I guess you don't understand things of the spirit, but that's your fault not anything about me, as God inspired:

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

AND

1Cor 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

 

[Dustnite]

As I said before, you may not see a lot of me with the project I'm engaged with, but especially won't if you continue to cite "men," as I said you would resort to if you couldn't disprove my claims on Genesis. I don't give a shit about anyone's opinion, I am here to defend the Bible. Thus, scripture is my witness and by scripture alone you will have to show the fault in my hermeneutics.

Genesis is not talking about material, biological beginnings, and therefore does not conflict with science. To say that God is not the God of Christianity if He did not create the physical universe is a moot point in this case, and strictly your opinion. But, I did not even make that assertion -- God could had started the evolution process - IF evolution is true. All I'm saying is, Gensis, and the Bible for that matter, is not talking about hose things as you (and millions of others) have assumed. IMV, the gig is up on that one, and the world is in for a rude awakening.

The bible is true because the bible is true because the bible is true because the bible is true......

 

[JRChadwick]

But why is the bible true?

I bet you would change your opinion of him if we got him into the Creationism forum. He hinted at being a Y.E.C.

The point was that as crazy and apparently deluded as he obviously was/is, he was far outstretched along that line by his competitors for my attentions. I only wish I could get one of them in here to have some fun with.

Then, of course, you can lead a horse and all that.

I understand, but I get the inkling that he could close the gap if we dug a little deeper into his beliefs.

 

[aka Frank Lee Seaux]

I understand, but I get the inkling that he could close the gap if we dug a little deeper into his beliefs.

He immediately came crying to me that the mean ole atheists here were just mocking him instead of offering constructive criticism. I explained how some of that "mocking" was constructive and pointed to where he was in error, and why it was in error. And, I told him he was being a whiny little bitch. He didn't exactly accept my constructive criticism very well either. He insisted that he wasn't whining. He said he was expecting biblical reasons for why he was wrong, and complained that y'all were citing men. I reminded him that he admitted to me that he believed that certain parts of the Bible were altered by men, and therefore he was also citing men at least some of the time, so it was hypocritical of him to admonish anyone else for that.

That aside, I'm going to have to take the time one of these days to make a video critiquing assertions made by Malcolm Bowden on Geocentricity and the Scientific Mafia. The backlash from that should prove epic.

 

[JRChadwick]

He ended with a vague threat of divine punishment, so I don't expect him to return. I remember VenomFangX using a similarly childish response "I can't defend myself intellectually, so I am going to pretend that you're all just a bunch of meanies and I'm going to fantasize my imaginary friend punishing you in the most horrible ways imaginable. Of course, VenomFangX came back three times, so maybe we will see him again.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Since he can't prove his central claim, I see no point in Aron wasting time with him - better to concentrate on his next presentation.

Yet another thing I didn't find out was which bible and which translation was the most accurate according to shauk100.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Gnug215]

Hi Shauk.

No, the Bible isn't true.

Why not?

Because if God existed and wanted to make sure that everyone could see the Bible was true, he would have done so.

How? Easily. And most certainly NOT with the vague prophecies and ambivalent nonsense that religious people always present as "evidence".

God could for instance have put in there something like... the moon is far away, the distance is on average about 10 times the equatorial circumference of the earth. Something simple. He could even have supplied a number in kilometers (God obviously uses the metric system, duh!)

No, instead you're left with the moon being a light that shines at night, and the earth being a circle.

So either God doesn't exist and the Bible is bullshit, or God exists, but he filled the Bible with vague, ambivalent crap that people are interpreting in all kinds of different ways.

Either way, the Bible is useless as an objective source for... anything. But apparently, it's great for subjective feeding of one's own already established faith.



... oh, and what have I heard about the Bible?

All kinds of things. Different things, depending on who you ask.

That's the problem.