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

[shauk100]

I know most people, especially scholars would shriek at the idea of being told they have climbed the wrong mountain their whole academic careers, and that is the kind of reaction and resistance I get to these things because nobody wants to be wrong. Nobody wakes up and hopes to believe a really good lie for the day.

While this may be true for many people, you'll find a different response here. There's nothing I love more than discovering I was wrong about something, because it means I've learned something, and that's my favourite pastime. You can't learn anything when you're right all the time.

I told the last atheist I spoke with he had drinken the kool-aid, and of course he came back with the same thing to me.

I don't do kool-aid.

But do I have proof? Can words prove anything to some people or does it have to be material proof for some to believe something? And I do mean words, not something I etherealize or spiritualize or make up myself.

Some terms need defining here, because at least three words are being horribly misused, namely 'etherealise' (whatever the fuck that is), 'spiritualise' (how this terms applies to language I have no idea, and I'm pretty good with words) and 'proof' (proof is a formal procedure applicable only to axiomatically complete systems of deductive logic and definitely doesn't apply to anything you've said).

As for the rest, no; words will simply not suffice, unless, since you wish to talk about how our rejection of your celestial peeping-tom is based on being misinformed about the hokey blurble, you can provide documentary evidence that's somehow been missed by ALL the world's biblical scholars that your interpretation supersedes or is more robust than theirs.

Frankly, I'm intrigued to see what your approach will be, setting aside the fact that there are things in the wholly babble that are demonstrably plain, flat wrong, and cannot be reconciled with a divine inspiration, let alone the authorship of an allegedly omniscient entity (setting aside that omniscience is self-refuting).

Does this mean you guys will never find anything wrong with what I say?

I already have. See above.

Hell no, but what’ll matter is if I know when I’m wrong and admit it.

My recommendation for you, just so that you know the sort of thing you're likely to encounter here, would be to look up some key terms. The first would be the Dunning-Kruger effect, because that's a really important to grasp if you're going to claim some special competence at anything. Secondly, two perceptual issues to be aware of, namely pareidolia, and confirmation bias.

Even scholars seek to get their work critiqued (if they’re smart) so they can get right with the truth. In this battle of the minds, TRUTH is at stake here.

There's another term that requires definition, because the way it's used by most theists in my experience, which is vast, is so nebulous that it rarely makes contact with any robust definition. I have a pretty rigid definition for truth, and there is much in the bible that fails to meet it.

The Bible is far too great a book and message

What's great about it? It isn't internally consistent, it's poorly written, containing so many passages so oblique as to be entirely message-free, and that brings me to the second part of this fragment of your text, namely the message. If the word 'great' is still intended to be applied here to the 'message' of the bible, then you've already lost the whole shooting match, because the central message of this book of preposterous guff is about the most depraved bit of moral turpitude in all of fiction.

to have been fabricated just to control the masses as many assert.

Nobody here will be saying that, not least because it wasn't fabricated, but cobbled together out of already extant myths, with events transplanted from one myth to another in the most slapdash fashion so that, for example, you get an exodus (for which there is exactly diddly-squat in evidential terms) that should have taken, at most, a fortnight, yet takes forty years, even with the assistance of an allegedly omnipotent entity (yet another self-refuting attribute).

With the Bible, I hold to the simple fact that if it is true and holy inspired as claimed, it cannot contradict itself.

There's your malfunction, right there, and it demonstrates that you aren't actually ready for this discussion, because there is a direct relationship between the diameter of your argument and its circumference, given as a multiple of pi. This 'last atheist you spoke to' was he three years old or four? This sentence can most readily be critiqued with the saying that 'circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because...

I had an atheist send me an alleged 101 contradictions in the Bible,

OK, then you'll have no trouble debunking an allegedly omnipotent entity that was defeated by iron chariots.

Seriously, contradictions in the bible have little interest for me, but I know I can come up with some if you want to play the amateur game. I'd much rather go for the jugular, because your astral voyeur is an impossible entity, having been imbued in your badly-written bit of fanfic to have mutually exclusive and logically absurd attributes.

I debunked the first four in bout 15 minutes and he conceded

Good for you. Now that you've given us your pathetic C.V., perhaps you can set aside blowing your own trumpet, because nobody here is interested in your anecdotes concerning quite probably fictitious people you've debated with. You won't find anybody here telling you about previous demolitions of moronic drivel but, more importantly, they don't have to, because you can find them for yourself. This self-aggrandisement is most often, again in my vast experience at demolishing vacuous crap, more for your benefit than for ours, and we're not remotely interested in it, we're only interested in the gymnastics you're about to engage in in a futile attempt to support the absurd claim you've erected for yourself, especially against a known and experienced bible-skeptic in a community of skeptics. Seriously, nobody cares who you claim to have beaten in a debate. That was that (assuming you haven't simply fabricated it, which is par for the course) and this is this, and all your focus should be on this, because you're only ever as good as your last performance, as they say in my business.

and turned to non-bible sources to try and bash me, when I was using the Bible to prove a point.

The only points you can prove using the bible are a) that the bible says X, and b) that people are fucking stupid and gullible and will believe some really ridiculous shit. All attempts at employing the bible to support arguments for the existence of the entities or events described therein fall under the rubric of the previously elucidated fallacy, the commission of which is a schoolboy error of absolutely epic proportions.

This brings me to another recommendation, namely some study of logical fallacies. You can find a good précis of logical fallacies HERE, with a more basic elucidation of the most common and egregious fallacies HERE. You should check all your arguments against those, because it will ensure that you look vaguely competent, as it will serve as an error-checking mechanism and will save Aron and others the effort of elucidating those fallacies for you.

He was putting the Bible on trial, but got hostile and had to attack the messenger instead of the message because he could not refute what I said. I hope I don’t have to deal with that here, because I won’t.

The fallacy you're committing here is known as 'poisoning the well', a version of the genetic fallacy (of which the ad hominem you allege here is also a subset). Trust me, nobody here will attack you (unless you demonstrate yourself to be a total cunt, in which case I might well), but they will attack your arguments with extreme prejudice. As long as you understand that you are not your arguments, and that taking offence at the tone with which your arguments are eviscerated (and trust me, I've seen enough already to know that they will be) as committing any insult to you commits yet another logical fallacy, namely the category error, you'll be fine.

The Apostle Paul never had rot convince anyone - he shared it, even debated it. If they just mocked (LOL, etc.) and scoffed he used the Hebraic expression of wiping the dust off his feet to make an example of them. Like slamming the door behind you and moving on.

Well, Paul never met your magic man or had any contact with him. Pretty much everything Paul said can be discounted (and that's even assuming he said any of it, which is very much not in evidence).

Part of my argument will be that mankind (without the holy spirit, sometimes even with because it’s a growing process, but less likely) is presumptuous, self-centered and cares more about winning than the truth.

Except, of course, that you've already committed a massive, howling, carpet-bitingly stupid logical fallacy just in this bit telling us what you will argue, namely the non sequitur, because this has exactly fuck all to do with your claim concerning what we have heard about your idiotic book of fuckwittery. It's entirely irrelevant, and that's even before we pick apart propagandistic terms like 'holy spirit', whatever the holy fuck that is, and which, whatever it is, is once again begging the question. It may well be that your statement is correct, and that 'without the holy spirit, mankind is presumptuous (by the way, nothing even comes close to the presumptuousness of assuming that the whole universe was made just for you), but that says nothing about the existence of this 'holy spirit'.

Oh, and gotta love the beautiful bit of fuckwittery inherent in the accusation of being presumptuous, self-centred and caring more about winning than the truth coming from somebody who began by giving us his C.V. detailing alleged previous conquests and proceeded to poison the well.

But to clarify presumptuous, my claim here is just what I said at the onset “The Bible is true, but what you’ve heard about it is not.” And that has proven correct for me going on about ten years now, because mankind is often cocky, mean-spirited, presumptuous and mocks and scoffs at what he can’t refute if he wants to refute it.

And here you've done it again. There is literally no connection between the first part of this up to the quotation and what follows the quotation. Seriously, if this is the quality of argumentation you have to offer, you're in for a rude awakening, because this is among the most ludicrous errors in logic you can commit, and will be pounced on by an experienced skeptic. Seriously, let me parse that into a single sentence so that you can see the logical disconnect:

Mankind is often cocky, mean-spirited and presumptuous, therefore the bible is true, but what you've heard about it isn't.

Does that really make sense to you? If it does, I retract all my previous advice and replace it with a single piece of advice now: Run the fuck away, because if this is the level of mastery of logic you can muster, you're about to find out what the tribulation of your dear and fluffy magic Jewish zombie really felt like, because you're going to get fucking crucified.

But if this is a quest for the truth, then what does it matter if one of us is wrong - right? It’s the truth and the truth only that should matter.

Glad you feel this way, because you're 'not even wrong'. Thus far, you've failed to meet the standard of competence to deserve the appellation 'wrong'.

The things I plan on showing you are a case of tradition vs. the Bible.

Then you're going to struggle, because nobody here will be dealing with tradition, it will be a case of facts vs the buy-bull.

[Will you turn to non-bible sources and say “well, so and so has a doctors degree and doesn’t say that.”

Setting aside that you're once again attempting to poison the well, the short answer is 'no', because to do so commits yet another logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam), and your opponent has a much better grasp of logic than that.

or will you do the fair thing and let scripture interpret itself?

If I know Aron, he'll be doing the correct thing and measuring what the babble says against empirical facts. The simple fact to be noted here is that, if your silly book of bollocks were actually the word of an omniscient, omnipotent entity, it would require no interpretation. Thus, that any believer attempts any interpretation other than a direct, literal translation defeats your silly magic man and kills it stone dead. Of course, it's also the only way to keep this entity alive, which is yet another contradiction inherent in this book of semi-literate bullshit, written by piss-stained goat-roasters in the ignorant infancy of our species.

Even if it calls an ace a spade? Maybe what you call a spade is wrong, and a ripped off term and really should be called an ace. If we let scripture interpret scripture, it will define our words. I don’t think anyone is holy inspired today, at least not like they were in the first century. I tell Christians if you’re holy inspired than go to the cancer wards and start sending people home like they could in the 1st century. I know translations are not holy inspired, so I examine the Hebrew and Greek words often. I also know that God (according to His word) hides things, then reveals them. It is my assertion He is now revealing things not known for millennia to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

Ah, the old 'if you believe, you will believe' trope, with another liberal dose of circular reasoning.

I don’t know how much I can contribute until my and Aron’s agreement of around the 1st week of July comes when my book on Genesis is finished, but I will check periodically, so I hope none starts saying I’m purposely avoiding answering, because that’s not my style,

And some more well-poisoning.

I (like Aron, I think, though I don’t know him) am a very in your face kind of guy.

If you think you're in-your-face, wait till you get a load of me.

Anyhoo, some pointers for you there that, if taken seriously, might well set you up to look less incompetent than all who've come before you, though you'll forgive me if I allow respiration to continue within normal parameters in the interim, I hope.

Edit: Tags and typos

Ok thanks for that. So how do you want to proceed? Would you like to show me some Bible verses that do not add up in your view, and see what I mean about tradition vs. scripture?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Ok thanks for that. So how do you want to proceed? Would you like to show me some Bible verses that do not add up in your view, and see what I mean about tradition vs. scripture?

:facepalm:

With the Bible, I hold to the simple fact that if it is true and holy inspired as claimed, it cannot contradict itself.

How did Judith die? How did king Saul die? If I am not mistaken those have contradictory accounts in the bible.

I had an atheist send me an alleged 101 contradictions in the Bible,

OK, then you'll have no trouble debunking an allegedly omnipotent entity that was defeated by iron chariots.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ok thanks for that. So how do you want to proceed? Would you like to show me some Bible verses that do not add up in your view, and see what I mean about tradition vs. scripture?

Sorry if I gave you the impression I wanted to proceed at all. I was merely delivering an analysis of your opening salvo, which I may also do for following posts. You don't want to debate me. That said, I'd like to see your response to the blatant contradiction I already highlighted, and that HWIN has kindly brought into relief.

 

[Bango Skank]

Mark 5:21 When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. 22 Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. 23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” 24 So Jesus went with him. (NIV)

VS.

Matthew 9:18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” 19 Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples.(NIV)

 

[SpecialFrog]

If you are looking for areas where the Bible is clearly wrong, there is always the flood. Not only is there essentially no evidence that it happened but there is significant evidence that it couldn't have happened. You can claim that God made the evidence look the way it does but you then have the same evidence as you have for Last Thursdayism.

 

[shauk100]

How did Judith die? How did king Saul die? If I am not mistaken those have contradictory accounts in the bible.[/quote]

I hold to the 66 books called the Bible as holy inspired in the original languages (translations ar not holy inspired), so I know little of Judith except Gen 26:34.

So Saul took his sword and fell on it. When the one who carried his battle-clothes saw that Saul was dead, he fell on his sword and died also. So Saul died with his three sons. All those of his house died together. 1Chr 10

You'll have to elaborate a little about what you see as contradictory.

 

[shauk100]

Sorry if I gave you the impression I wanted to proceed at all. I was merely delivering an analysis of your opening salvo, which I may also do for following posts. You don't want to debate me. That said, I'd like to see your response to the blatant contradiction I already highlighted, and that HWIN has kindly brought into relief.

I'll debate anyone when it comes to scripture. I put out a request to Dawkins, but have not heard anything yet.

 

[shauk100]

Mark 5:21 When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. 22 Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. 23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” 24 So Jesus went with him. (NIV)

VS.

Matthew 9:18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” 19 Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples.(NIV)

No contradiction, only a different writer added tot he story of what actually happened.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Welcome to LoR, shauk100!

It'd be interesting to know what the "101 contradictions" were and how you debunked them...!?

I trust you realise that arguing about meanings using English (American) is pointless as the bible needs to be argued from its original languages - Aramaic and Hebrew (OT) and Koiné (NT)?

Kindest regards,

James

Dragan, I've added a few since then ....

101 Contradictions in the Bible:
101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible
Shabir Ally

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
• God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
• Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

I was amazed to find this next passage that has a parallel, which according to the translations would contradict if it implied the popular notion of satan, but I knew this was not the case and by this point knew where it was going. It seemed like one passage after another was being revealed to me in this new light. Here are the parallel passages, in 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 we read:

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah. (cf.1Ch 21:1) And Satan (adversary) stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.

Which was it, Satan or Jehovah God?! It had to be one or the other! The context of the passage indicates it was Jehovah God who temporarily became the adversary of David and Israel when David doubted. Again, the YLT correctly uses the word adversary instead of the confusing transliteration, "Satan:" “And there standeth up an adversary against Israel, and persuadeth David to number Israel.”

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
• Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
• Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

First off, they don't even get the amount right in 2 Samuel - see below for yourself, because the House of Judah and the House of Israel always comprised all 12 tribes (see Gen 49:28 Judah is one of the tribes!), only sometimes they were referred to as Israelites. You have to understand the history of Israel and the split of the tribes after Solomon's death to understand the Bible....

2Sa 24:9 And Joab gave the king the number of all the people: there were in Israel eight hundred thousand fighting men able to take up arms; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand.

800,000 + 500,000 = 1,300,000

1Ch 21:5 And Joab gave David the number of all the people; all the men of Israel, able to take up arms, were one million, one hundred thousand men; and those of Judah were four hundred and seventy thousand men, able to take up arms.
1Ch 21:6 But Levi and Benjamin were not numbered among them, for Joab was disgusted with the king's order.
1Ch 21:7 And God was not pleased with this thing; so he sent punishment on Israel.

1,100,000 + 470,000 = 1,570,000 - (2 of the tribes in v.6 "But Levi and Benjamin were not numbered among them, for Joab was disgusted with the king's order.")

= real close to 1,300,000! Keep in mind these are rosters taken by fallible men too.

4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
• Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
• Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

Look, the Septuagint gets it right...

2Sam 24:13 And Gad went in to David, and told him, and said to him, Choose [one of these things] to befall thee, whether there shall come upon thee [for] three years famine in thy land; or that thou shouldest flee three months before thine enemies, and they should pursue thee; or that there should be [for] three days mortality in thy land. Now then decide, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. (LXX)

-vs.-

1Chron 21:12 either three years of famine, or that thou shouldest flee three months from the face of thine enemies, and the sword of thine enemies [shall be employed] to destroy thee, or that the sword of the Lord and pestilence [should be] three days in the land, and the angel of the Lord [shall be] destroying in all the inheritance of Israel. And now consider what I shall answer to him that sent the message. (LXX)

5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
• Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
• Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

2Kings 8:26 Twenty and two years old [was] Ochozias when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and the name of his mother [was] Gotholia, daughter of Ambri king of Israel. (LXX)

2Chron 22:2 Ochozias began to reign when he was twenty years old, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother's name was Gotholia, the daughter of Ambri. (LXX)

6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
• Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
• Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

Both verses use G3638 ὀκτώ oktō A primary numeral; “eight”: - eight (ABP+) in the Greek. As for the Hebrew, both verses use Strong’s H8083 and have H6240 עשׂר ‛âśâr following it, which appears to use (th) as in eighth.


For H6235; ten (only in combination), that is, the “teens”; also (ordinal) a “teenth”: - [eigh-, fif-, four-, nine-, seven-, six-, thir-] teen (-th), + eleven (-th), + sixscore thousand, + twelve (-th).

I take it from your responses so far that you do not consider the bible to be the "inerrant Word of God" - is this inference correct?

It's also clear you believe in a interventionist God.

As for the above samples...

1. Although I take your point regarding your interpretation of the term being used in the context of "adversary" - its basic meaning - and that it appears to you that Jehovah is the "adversary", there's nothing to specifically indicate that it was Jehovah: it could have been a angel, even Shaitan, sent in Jehovah's place or, as most versions of the bible have it, Satan per se.

There is a difference between "the adversary" and "an adversary".

I refer you to the various commentaries on this verse.

Gill indicates that it may, in fact, have been Satan - through Jehovah's withdrawal of his favour, thus "allowing" Satan to tempt David to sin in numbering the Israelites.

2/3.

= real close to 1,300,000! Keep in mind these are rosters taken by fallible men too.

"Real close" does not pass muster.

How many are in the excluded tribes? No indication is given.

How then can you claim that the results are "real close"?

4.

Look, the Septuagint gets it right...

Again, on what do you base this assertion?

From the commentaries, the correct total number is seven - I refer you, in particular, to Gill's.

5. You give no indication of the age of Ahaziah/Ochozias when he began his reign.

Again, the commentaries wrestle over this issue - and decide it (and the differences in names of the king and his mother) is due to a copying error.

6. Jehoiachin/Jeconiah/Coniah was eighteen when he became king of Jerusalem.

As mentioned earlier, from the above, I infer that you do not consider the bible the "inerrant Word of God", as many creationists appear to do.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[shauk100]

If you are looking for areas where the Bible is clearly wrong, there is always the flood. Not only is there essentially no evidence that it happened but there is significant evidence that it couldn't have happened. You can claim that God made the evidence look the way it does but you then have the same evidence as you have for Last Thursdayism.

No, it happened - the ark has even been found, but all the naysayers (atheists and so-called Christian creationists sadly) bash everyone with their traditions to silence them. What neither one will admit is that the Bible teaches a local regional flood. Earth s/b translated land, every living soul etc. is only talking about every living soul in that particular land, below all the heaven s/b below the sky, etc. I do not make this stuff up, that is only letting scripture interpret itself! Preterism is a key to understanding these terms, but preterism is wrong too! BUT there is a proper form of preterism, you and everyone hear needs to learn about because it has the solid answers people need!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Mark 5:21 When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake. 22 Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. 23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.” 24 So Jesus went with him. (NIV)

VS.

Matthew 9:18 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.” 19 Jesus got up and went with him, and so did his disciples.(NIV)

No contradiction, only a different writer added tot he story of what actually happened.

Such a change would be taken as evidence that the bible is not the "inerrant Word of God", which is most often where the contentions occur when dealing with creationists.

It also shows that the author of Matthew, at least, is not averse to embellishing the story to add more glory to Jesus for healing an already dead - rather than merely dying - child. Hardly puts the author in a god light, does it?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[shauk100]

As mentioned earlier, from the above, I infer that you do not consider the bible the "inerrant Word of God", as many creationists appear to do.

Kindest regards,

James[/quote]

James, thanks for that, and yes I do hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but translations are not. Translators by no means were, nor are holy inspired --- they often put their bias into the text.

 

[shauk100]

Such a change would be taken as evidence that the bible is not the "inerrant Word of God", which is most often where the contentions occur when dealing with creationists.

It also shows that the author of Matthew, at least, is not averse to embellishing the story to add more glory to Jesus for healing an already dead - rather than merely dying - child. Hardly puts the author in a god light, does it?

Kindest regards,

James[/quote]

Adding to what happened does not constitute a contradiction, that does not fly sorry.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If you are looking for areas where the Bible is clearly wrong, there is always the flood. Not only is there essentially no evidence that it happened but there is significant evidence that it couldn't have happened. You can claim that God made the evidence look the way it does but you then have the same evidence as you have for Last Thursdayism.

No, it happened - the ark has even been found, but all the naysayers (atheists and so-called Christian creationists sadly) bash everyone with their traditions to silence them. What neither one will admit is that the Bible teaches a local regional flood. Earth s/b translated land, every living soul etc. is only talking about every living should in that particular land. Preterism is a key to understanding these terms, but preterism is wrong too! BUT there is a proper form of preterism, you and everyone hear needs to learn about because it has the solid answers people need!

Which begs the question as to which form of preterism do you claim to be "a proper form"?

Also, by "the ark has even been found", I trust you mean Finkel's reference to the original story?

You cannot seriously mean that a actual "Noah's Ark" has been found? Even the SBL's archaeologists have debunked all such claims.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Such a change would be taken as evidence that the bible is not the "inerrant Word of God", which is most often where the contentions occur when dealing with creationists.

It also shows that the author of Matthew, at least, is not averse to embellishing the story to add more glory to Jesus for healing an already dead - rather than merely dying - child. Hardly puts the author in a god light, does it?

Kindest regards,

James

Adding to what happened does not constitute a contradiction, that does not fly sorry.

On the contrary...

Matthew's author doesn't merely "add" to what happened to the account in Mark, he contradicts Mark.

In Mark, the girl is "dying" - hence, she's alive.

In Matthew, she's already "dead".

"Alive" and "dead" are mutually exclusive conditions, and therefore the accounts are contradictory.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As mentioned earlier, from the above, I infer that you do not consider the bible the "inerrant Word of God", as many creationists appear to do.

Kindest regards,

James

James, thanks for that, and yes I do hold the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, but translations are not. Translators by no means were, nor are holy inspired --- they often put their bias into the text.

Which now begs the question as to which "bible" do you consider to be "the inerrant word of God"?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[shauk100]

Which begs the question as to which form of preterism do you claim to be "a proper form"?

Also, by "the ark has even been found", I trust you mean Finkel's reference to the original story?

You cannot seriously mean that a actual "Noah's Ark" has been found? Even the SBL's archaeologists have debunked all such claims.

James

Yes, I claim to know a proper form of preterism, full and partial preterism are wrong.

No, not Finkel and the SBL's archaeologists are WRONG. I lead people to the videos, but they never even watch it all. I tell them "You mean to tell me that a ship A) the right size in all 3 dimensions, B) the right area, C) with drogue [anchor stones] that fit the size of the ark nearby, in a pattern going towards the ark, D) with regular metal patterns from the rivets that have been found, E) Has organic carbon showing it was once living matter, F) 6000+ ft. above sea level with no rational explanation for it being there because there are no nearby bodies of water near it, and this is all coincidence?!?!?! I tell them those kinds of coincidence do not occur in my world - maybe in their fantasy world. But they'll call it a sincline and try and come up with any other explanation than admit it could (and IS) the real thing.

But be rest assured, Proper Preterism is even more exciting than this find.

 

[Deleted member 619]

E) Has inorganic carbon showing it was once living matter,

Aaaaaannnddd the moron alarm has wakened me from slumber.

 

[shauk100]

E) Has inorganic carbon showing it was once living matter,

Aaaaaannnddd the moron alarm has wakened me from slumber.

Oh yea, like you never made a typo or a mistake! WTH, that's all you have to say about it?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Which begs the question as to which form of preterism do you claim to be "a proper form"?

Also, by "the ark has even been found", I trust you mean Finkel's reference to the original story?

You cannot seriously mean that a actual "Noah's Ark" has been found? Even the SBL's archaeologists have debunked all such claims.

James

Yes, I claim to know a proper form of preterism, full and partial preterism are wrong.

So, you claim that you know something - "a proper form of preterism" - of which the academic world is unaware?

No, not Finkel and the SBL's archaeologists are WRONG.

And your qualifications for claiming that SBL's archaeologists - and others - are wrong are what exactly?

I lead people to the videos, but they never even watch it all. I tell them "You mean to tell me that a ship A) the right size in all 3 dimensions, B) the right area, C) with drogue [anchor stones] that fit the size of the ark nearby, in a pattern going towards the ark, D) with regular metal patterns from the rivets that have been found, E) Has inorganic carbon showing it was once living matter, F) 6000+ ft. above sea level with no rational explanation for it being there because there are no nearby bodies of water near it, and this is all coincidence?!?!?! I tell them those kinds of coincidence do not occur in my world - maybe in their fantasy world. But they'll call it a sincline and try and come up with any other explanation than admit it could (and IS) the real thing.

What conclusive evidence do you have that it's "Noah's Ark" and not a syncline or other explanation?

But be rest assured, Proper Preterism is even more exciting than this find.

We await with 'bated breath to find out what is "proper preterism".

Not to mention what qualifies you to claim a third form of preterism that supersedes the others.

Kindest regards,

James