Your Help Refuting a Blog

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greek mythology in no way compares with the Bible in terms of evidences of accurate historical accounts. I have to say, this is this first time I have ever heard anyone try to argue that it is. It's like comparing rocks with oranges.

This is most likely true,

No, it is not, "most likely true". It is true.

You seriously do not know this?

Citation needed.

but only because of the different time periods people are dealing with.
Most of the New Testament occurs during recorded history, thus there are dozens of real places and perhaps real events recorded in it. However, comparing the archaeological evidence for the earliest myths in the bible with the Greek myths, one would find them to be equivalent. The flood of Noah and the Trojan war are both examples of things that are based on historical events we have archaeological evidence for. Albeit, the actual events were far less grand.

We can assume that would we find less evidence for events that took place 5000 years ago as opposed to something that took place 3000 years ago. Sure!

Why should we just assume this? Do you have any evidence for this to be the case?

Still Greek mythology fails when compared to the Old Testament and New Testament, in terms of accurate historical accounts, based on outside evidence.

Once again, citation needed.

It's like comparing rocks with oranges and I think its odd any of you would even waste the time to bring it up.

Perhaps it is, but until you actually verify any of these claims, we will never know.

Since I have your attention now, is there any chance you will return to this thread?

 

[thenexttodie]

Greek mythology in no way compares with the Bible in terms of evidences of accurate historical accounts. I have to say, this is this first time I have ever heard anyone try to argue that it is. It's like comparing rocks with oranges.

This is most likely true,

No, it is not, "most likely true". It is true.

You seriously do not know this?

Citation needed.

You are pretending that something which is not true, could be true, and then asking me to provide citation? I think I know where this is going..

but only because of the different time periods people are dealing with.
Most of the New Testament occurs during recorded history, thus there are dozens of real places and perhaps real events recorded in it. However, comparing the archaeological evidence for the earliest myths in the bible with the Greek myths, one would find them to be equivalent. The flood of Noah and the Trojan war are both examples of things that are based on historical events we have archaeological evidence for. Albeit, the actual events were far less grand.

We can assume that would we find less evidence for events that took place 5000 years ago as opposed to something that took place 3000 years ago. Sure!

Why should we just assume this? Do you have any evidence for this to be the case?

:!:

You forget your own argument. This is evidence that the beliefs you use to justify your worldview are not very well founded. Similar instances could be evidence of plagiarism. Though I think plagiarism is very common among atheists when they try to discredit the Bible, I don't think this is what you are doing here.

The difference between you and me is that I am well founded in my world view. So I can mean what I say, and say what I mean.

You, on the other hand, would just say anything.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Since I have your attention now, is there any chance you will return to this thread?

Greek mythology in no way compares with the Bible in terms of evidences of accurate historical accounts. I have to say, this is this first time I have ever heard anyone try to argue that it is. It's like comparing rocks with oranges.

This is most likely true,

No, it is not, "most likely true". It is true.

You seriously do not know this?

Citation needed.

You are pretending that something which is not true, could be true, and then asking me to provide citation? I think I know where this is going..

I was making an intuitive observation. You came and said it was a fact (you even bolden "is" in your reply). I thought since you were so confident in your reply that you based it on some evidence.

Was this where you thought it was going? Someone simply asking for evidence for your bold claim?

but only because of the different time periods people are dealing with.
Most of the New Testament occurs during recorded history, thus there are dozens of real places and perhaps real events recorded in it. However, comparing the archaeological evidence for the earliest myths in the bible with the Greek myths, one would find them to be equivalent. The flood of Noah and the Trojan war are both examples of things that are based on historical events we have archaeological evidence for. Albeit, the actual events were far less grand.

We can assume that would we find less evidence for events that took place 5000 years ago as opposed to something that took place 3000 years ago. Sure!

Why should we just assume this? Do you have any evidence for this to be the case?

:!:

You forget your own argument. This is evidence that the beliefs you use to justify your worldview are not very well founded. Similar instances could be evidence of plagiarism. Though I think plagiarism is very common among atheists when they try to discredit the Bible, I don't think this is what you are doing here.

Plagiarism? What are you talking about?

Again, what is my argument? I said it would not surprise me if there was more evidence for the bible over Greek myths because part of the bible happens during recorded history. You boldly claimed there is more evidence for the bible than there is for Greek myth. I figured since you boldly claimed this you had evidence to back it. Furthermore, there being evidence to support the bible or not would not affect my worldview one iota. There is far more to life than old books of myths.

The difference between you and me is that I am well founded in my world view. So I can mean what I say, and say what I mean.

You, on the other hand, would just say anything.

I try not to mince words when I post and I feel you went out if your way to misunderstand what I said here. I am not the one that boldly claimed something was a fact and than when asked to support my assertion, spouted off about world views and plagiarism. Thus, I am glad you can say what you mean and mean what you say, but can you please back what you say with evidence?

 

[SpecialFrog]

if Hosea hadn't been written another creative interpretation would probably have been developed to explain why elaborate rules that were absolutely required the week before were now optional. How does that help?

I'm not interested in discussing "creative interpretations" and whatever could have been written.

Wait, who brought up the point about what it would be like if Hosea hadn't been written?

It's not like if Hosea had never been written, the Jews would have all commited suicide or became pagans or anything like that, just because part of the Bible talks about ceremonial law.

Ah yes.

Anyway. There are half a dozen other verses in other books of the Old Testament that vividly express the same sentiment as Hosea 6.6. Even in Isaiah 1:11 and I think in the 22 chapter of Samuel 2. God basically says he is sick and tired of sacrifices.

And yet the temple rituals started up again after the end of the Bablyonian exile. Given that Isaiah was most likely written during the exile it is clear that Jews interpreted this disdain for sacrifice to be temporary at first until they later interpreted it to be permanent.

Greek mythology in no way compares with the Bible in terms of evidences of accurate historical accounts.

While the Bible probably contains more factually accurate historical statements than Greek mythology I don't know that its overall batting average is notably higher. And many of its major events are purely fictional. The exodus didn't happen and while there are local floods in Mesopotamia that correspond well to the Bablyonian myths from which the story of Noah was derived, no global flood happened either.

Even the Gospels provide two entirely incompatible dates for Jesus's birth.

It may be better history than Greek mythology but it's probably significantly worse than Herodotus (who is far from great in that regard).

Lets be clear. You are arguing that because books of Bible were written at different times by different people, then they can not have any supportive, explainitory, or instructive value in regards to one another.

Not exactly what I said. I said because of these facts that:

There is no reason to conclude that there is a "correct" interpretation of the Bible as a whole.

A lot of the Bible is a bit like the Aeneid (or fan fiction if one is being less generous), which takes existing mythology and adds to it in a manner that imposes a particular interpretation on the original. In some cases, multiple "fans" wrote competing fiction (such as the Gospels) and other fans at later dates decided which versions to keep and which ones to throw away.

You can claim that everyone involved at every stage was "divinely inspired" and therefore the sum of their work is correct. But in the historicity thread you already agreed that most people who think they are talking to God are not.

Besides, most non-fundamentalist Biblical scholars recognize that even supposed "literal" interpretations of the Bible are tied to a particular theological view that inherently has a degree of anachronism to it. If no literal view exists, how do you determine that your allegorical interpretation is correct?

Also, you again excised the section of my post around your claim that there are only a few sentences worth of important instructions.

What I said was every thing the Lord expects from you can easily be summarized in just a few sentences. I did not say the Bible contains only a few sentences of important instruction. You can either cry like a little girl because I won't tell you or you can go figure it out for yourself. I am obviously not trying to evangelize to anyone of you.

I'm simply pointing out that you are making claims you can't justify. How this constitutes "crying" is beyond me. Really, I'm finding it funny how many sentences you are willing to expend avoiding describing a few sentence summary.

I note you have also stopped trying to justify your claim that you can tell which parts of the Torah are intended for everyone and which parts for Jews only and how you can distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary laws (which may or may not be the same thing).

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

What I said was every thing the Lord expects from you can easily be summarized in just a few sentences. I did not say the Bible contains only a few sentences of important instruction. You can either cry like a little girl because I won't tell you or you can go figure it out for yourself. I am obviously not trying to evangelize to anyone of you.

I'm simply pointing out that you are making claims you can't justify. How this constitutes "crying" is beyond me. Really, I'm finding it funny how many sentences you are willing to expend avoiding describing a few sentence summary.

I note you have also stopped trying to justify your claim that you can tell which parts of the Torah are intended for everyone and which parts for Jews only and how you can distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary laws (which may or may not be the same thing).

A wise person once told me:

thenexttodie[/url]"]I think people sometimes like to play dumb, especially when engaged in a topic that has to do with one's worldview. And I think the reason why people sometimes do this is because they hope it will make it harder for someone else to prove a point.

I feel this explains a lot of thenexttodie's actions on this forum. I sometimes wonder if I will run into that wise person ever again.

 

[thenexttodie]

Again, what is my argument?

You were arguing that the only reason that the only reason that we have more evidence supporting the history given in the Bible, than we do for the Greek myths is that it is because the Bible covers more recent events. Afterwards you rather immediatley contridicted yourself. You are also arguing that I am making a "bold claim" when I say that we have more evidence that confirms the historical accounts of the Bible than we have for Greek mythology.

Furthermore, there being evidence to support the bible or not would not affect my worldview one iota.

Typical.

The difference between you and me is that I am well founded in my world view. So I can mean what I say, and say what I mean.

You, on the other hand, would just say anything.

I try not to mince words when I post and I feel you went out if your way to misunderstand what I said here..

I think I understand you perfectly.

 

[thenexttodie]

Greek mythology in no way compares with the Bible in terms of evidences of accurate historical accounts.

While the Bible probably contains more factually accurate historical statements than Greek mythology, I don't know..

So you don't know "blah blah blah"? That's great.
SpecialFrog, I already know you don't what you are talking about. I'm just wondering; why you would even bring this shit up in the first place? Kind of a waste of fucking time, wasn't it?

 

[Collecemall]

Is there any particular reason you're being a dick to anyone and everyone?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Is there any particular reason you're being a dick to anyone and everyone?

Trying to deal with the realization that a lot of things he assumed were established facts are shakey assertions that he can't actually justify?

 

[SpecialFrog]

So you don't know "blah blah blah"? That's great.h
SpecialFrog, I already know you don't what you are talking about. I'm just wondering; why you would even bring this shit up in the first place? Kind of a waste of fucking time, wasn't it?

Get back to me if you want to have an adult conversation.

In the mean time, enjoy this quote from Plato's "Apology":

I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Since I have your attention now, is there any chance you will return to this thread?

Again, what is my argument?

You were arguing that the only reason that the only reason that we have more evidence supporting the history given in the Bible, than we do for the Greek myths is that it is because the Bible covers more recent events. Afterwards you rather immediatley contridicted yourself. You are also arguing that I am making a "bold claim" when I say that we have more evidence that confirms the historical accounts of the Bible than we have for Greek mythology.

Yup. I immediately contradicted myself, because when someone says something is "most likely," they are stating an absolute fact. Now, can you please stop playing dumb and can you please provide the citation that shows the bible is more accurate than Greek myths. Again, you did bolden "is" when you claimed it as a fact. This seems like a simple request since it is a fact after all.

The difference between you and me is that I am well founded in my world view. So I can mean what I say, and say what I mean.

You, on the other hand, would just say anything.

I try not to mince words when I post and I feel you went out if your way to misunderstand what I said here..

I think I understand you perfectly.

Great. Does that mean you will provide your citation for your claim and stop playing dumb? Remember, I am simply asking for sources for your bold claims. I see you excerpted all my requests for said sources from my last posts in your response, so you might not be understanding me as perfectly as you think.

Is there any particular reason you're being a dick to anyone and everyone?

It is not obvious to you? It is because thenexttodie believes that bravado and bluster can make up for his lack of argumentation. It does not, but it is hilarious to read.

 

[thenexttodie]

Yup. I immediately contradicted myself, because when someone says something is "most likely," they are stating an absolute fact.

What a sorry excuse you are.

can you please provide the citation that shows the bible is more accurate than Greek myths.

There is no authoritative source that even questions the matter. Surly you know this.

I guess if you wanted to, we could go through, piece by piece every single evidence we have that supports Biblical history and all the evidence we have supporting Greek mythology and compare them. Would you like to do this?

Is there any particular reason you're being a dick to anyone and everyone?

I know that real life mannerisms might not always be reflected in personal interactions that occure via the internet. But I think that overall as general rule; when a person is being treated like a dick it is because he is one.

Seriously. Collecemail. Make a valid point. If you feel you have already made one that I have missed (I am just one man) please restate it now I promise you I will an equal amount of effort in answering it next.

 

[thenexttodie]

Is there any particular reason you're being a dick to anyone and everyone?

Trying to deal with the realization that a lot of things he assumed were established facts are shakey assertions that he can't actually justify?

Please point them all out to me now.

 

[thenexttodie]

You can claim that everyone involved at every stage was "divinely inspired" and therefore the sum of their work is correct.

Every stage of "what" exactly?

But in the historicity thread you already agreed that most people who think they are talking to God are not.

I have not said this anywhere. Not in this thread or in another. How many times in this thread have you tried to put words in my mouth?

 

[Collecemall]

But in the historicity thread you already agreed that most people who think they are talking to God are not.

I have not said this anywhere. Not in this thread or in another. How many times in this thread have you tried to put words in my mouth?

I would agree that when people are hallucinating, that they are not communinating with God.....I would say that all people who are hallucinating, are not talking to God. I am sure there are people out there who would disagree with me. I also know there are some who believe that trees are gods. Maybe that's what you mean by "a god". You can certainly hallucinate and go talk to a tree.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I know that real life mannerisms might not always be reflected in personal interactions that occure via the internet. But I think that overall as general rule; when a person is being treated like a dick it is because he is one.

That sounds like a "rule" invented by dicks.

Trying to deal with the realization that a lot of things he assumed were established facts are shakey assertions that he can't actually justify?

Please point them all out to me now.

That's what I have been doing. For example:
- your claim that the Bible doesn't occasionally sanction rape
- your claim that laws intended for Jews only are clearly delineated from general laws within the books of Moses
- your claim that "every thing the Lord expects from you can easily be summarized in just a few sentences"
- your claim that the Bible is reasonably historically accurate
- that there is a demonstrably correct interpretation of the Bible

And in other threads:
- that the Pope is not Christian
- that we don't have first-hand evidence of some late Roman emperors

I've probably missed a couple.

You have failed to justify any of these claims except by hand waving and bluster. It is not convincing and gives the impression that I described above.

You can claim that everyone involved at every stage was "divinely inspired" and therefore the sum of their work is correct.

Every stage of "what" exactly?

The writing, editing and assembling of the modern Bible.

But in the historicity thread you already agreed that most people who think they are talking to God are not.

I have not said this anywhere. Not in this thread or in another. How many times in this thread have you tried to put words in my mouth?

How many times do I have to quote your own words back to you after you accuse me of this before you will look at what you actually wrote first?

In addition to the quote Collecemall posted there is this exchange:

If so, you must agree that the default position when evaluating a claim of divine communication is that it is not true and that evidence otherwise is needed in order to shift from that position.

That's not quite how the Bible explains it but for now it's close enough.

I have consistently quoted you accurately, despite your protestations.

So are you going to respond to the rest of what I said? Really, the bullets above are a good sample of the threads of conversation you have dropped in this thread alone.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Since I have your attention now, is there any chance you will return to this thread?

Yup. I immediately contradicted myself, because when someone says something is "most likely," they are stating an absolute fact.

What a sorry excuse you are.

A sorry excuse for what? Please complete your thought. We are all adults here, you will not offend anyone.

can you please provide the citation that shows the bible is more accurate than Greek myths.

There is no authoritative source that even questions the matter. Surly you know this.

Yet you claimed this as a fact in several posts. After all your bluster about it, you now admit you have no source; just as I suspected from the start. If you now admit there is no source for this statement, how can you state it is a fact? Moreover, if I am a sorry excuse for a [fill in the blank] for simply asking for a citation I suspected you did not have, what are you for now admitting my suspicions were correct?

I guess if you wanted to, we could go through, piece by piece every single evidence we have that supports Biblical history and all the evidence we have supporting Greek mythology and compare them. Would you like to do this?

Yes, I would like this very much. Lead the way. While you are at it, you could also return to this thread and start defending your position.

 

[thenexttodie]

.

But in the historicity thread you already agreed that most people who think they are talking to God are not.

I have not said this anywhere. Not in this thread or in another. How many times in this thread have you tried to put words in my mouth?

Then Collecemall for some reason quotes me here.

I would agree that when people are hallucinating, that they are not communinating with God.....I would say that all people who are hallucinating, are not talking to God. I am sure there are people out there who would disagree with me. I also know there are some who believe that trees are gods. Maybe that's what you mean by "a god". You can certainly hallucinate and go talk to a tree.

What is the purpose of this, Collecemall?

 

[thenexttodie]

Trying to deal with the realization that a lot of things he assumed were established facts are shakey assertions that he can't actually justify?

Please point them all out to me now.

That's what I have been doing. For example:
- your claim that the Bible doesn't occasionally sanction rape
- your claim that laws intended for Jews only are clearly delineated from general laws within the books of Moses
- your claim that "every thing the Lord expects from you can easily be summarized in just a few sentences"
- your claim that the Bible is reasonably historically accurate
- that there is a demonstrably correct interpretation of the Bible

I'm asking you to show how the arguments I have used to prove the points I have made are mere "shakey assertations".

Until you do this I will not answer anymore of your questions.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Trying to deal with the realization that a lot of things he assumed were established facts are shakey assertions that he can't actually justify?

Please point them all out to me now.

That's what I have been doing. For example:
- your claim that the Bible doesn't occasionally sanction rape
- your claim that laws intended for Jews only are clearly delineated from general laws within the books of Moses
- your claim that "every thing the Lord expects from you can easily be summarized in just a few sentences"
- your claim that the Bible is reasonably historically accurate
- that there is a demonstrably correct interpretation of the Bible

I'm asking you to show how the arguments I have used to prove the points I have made are mere "shakey assertations".

Until you do this I will not answer anymore of your questions.