FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-17-2008, 08:48 AM   #191
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The temple of Isis at Memphis
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
ints.
My analagy of the courtroom presumes the witnees is on the stand. No checking him forst fits here.
But checking out the witness first is a precondition to being allowed to take the stand. It most certainly does fit here. It fits not only because that is how real life works, but it also fits because checking out the bible (or Koran or whatever) must be proven correct before you can expect anyone else to take it as evidence.

There's a bunch of work you have to do to prove the bible to be credible -- that's the bottom line. You act like you're too lazy to do it.

Quote:
I'm just saying about witness and jury.
Your saying there first must be a examination if it is to be allowed on the stand. This is beyond the analagy.
It is not beyond your analogy. It is part of your analogy that you didn't realize was there. Now that you realize there's a step you missed -- a step that will take some reading and research -- you're trying to convince everyone that you ought to be excused from doing so. It ain't gonna work.

Quote:
Then the examiner would have to presume its credibility and so.
No credibility is assumed either in the courtroom, or in the examination of ancient texts. Credibility must be proven, not simply assumed.

[
Quote:
One can not be neutral in listening to someone give an account they mean for you to believe. If you are neutral while listening then you have already judged that the person may be lying.
1. You most certainly can be neutral; I explained in my earlier post how this is possible. Repeating your original refuted claim does not work, Robert.

2. You are not judging that the person is lying. You are making no judgements whatsoever. You are keeping an open mind.

3. The person may be wrong, but not be lying. It's possible that they were misinformed by some third party, they misinterpreted the results, or they made an honest mistake. There are more than two choices; a witness' testimony is not confined to either (a) truth or (b) lie.

Quote:
So you are not neutral in assessing their credibility.
Yes, you are. I explained in my earlier post why this is so.

Quote:
You must presume someone is credible until they show otherwise.
Nope. You presume nothing. All credibility must be proven.

Quote:
Right back where we started.
Rob Byers
Only because you refuse to address the failures in your argument, and retreat into mindless repetition whenever confronted.
Sheshonq is offline  
Old 01-17-2008, 09:14 AM   #192
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 4,157
Default

(Spelling corrections in red mine. I can't take it anymore...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
I don't mean the Koran is true until I show otherwise.
But for about 8 pages you've been claiming that "reliable" = "true unless proven otherwise", so by your own usage, your words mean exactly that "the Koran is true until (you) show otherwise."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
I mean the Koran must be accepted as a reliable witness.
Which by your usage for the last 8 pages means "true unless proven otherwise."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
This is a important difference.
No difference. You're waffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
It can be dismissed as a reliable witness as one reads things one sees as false. That quick.
Which, in the case of the Bible, occurs at about Gen 1:2, since Genesis conceives of the primordial Earth as a sea from which the land was separated, but geology informs us that water was a later arrival.

Dismissed. End of discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
A witness is a relationship of one with another. Integrity or reliability must be presumed until otherwise shown.
The bible claims to be God's word and so its claims must be accepted because it must be accepted as a witness. Cease to accept the moment you see something wrong.
Robert, this is so circular that I get dizzy just reading it.
Dracula claims to be an account of a vampire. By your "logic", we must, by default, accept it as true.
Moby Dick claims to be an account of a white whale and an obsessed sailor. By your "logic", we must, by default, accept it as true.
The Smurfs cartoons claim to be an account of a village of androgynous little blue gnomes. By your "logic", we must, by default, accept them as true.
The Quran claims to be God's word. What, in your opinion, makes it any less credible as a witness, according to your rather soft evidentiary standards, than the Bible? What about the Book of Mormon? What about Science and Health - With Key to the Scriptures? What about Dianetics?

Would you care to stop with the special pleading for the Bible and look at the glaring flaws in your logical constructs for a while?

regards,

NinJay
-Jay- is offline  
Old 01-17-2008, 06:19 PM   #193
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
And that Robert, is the problem, it fails, and fails miserably as the following example illustrates.

Quoting Farrell Till
"YAHWEH'S FAILED LAND PROMISE"


Quote:
In Joshua 16:10; 17:12-13; Judges 1:1-5; 1:9; 1:21; 1:27-36; 3:1-6 and many other places, references are made to the people that the Israelites could not drive out of the land, and many of these were specific references to people from the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" that Yahweh promised that he would drive out WITHOUT FAIL. But he didn't, and so the inerrancy champions have some serious explaining to do. IF "Yahweh gave unto Israel ALL the land which he sware to give unto their fathers" (Joshua 21:43-45) and IF "they possessed it (the land) and dwelt therein" (same passage) and IF Yahweh "gave them rest round about, according to ALL that he sware unto their fathers" (same passage) and IF "there stood not a man of ALL their enemies before them" (same passage) and IF "Yahweh delivered all their enemies into their hand" (same passage) and IF "there failed not AUGHT of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken unto the house of Israel" (same passage) and IF "ALL came to pass" (same passage), how could it have been that some of the enemies of Israel were still in the land during the time of the book of Judges and how could it have been that some of the people of the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" were still dwelling with the children of Israel "unto this day"?

Someone has a lot of explaining to do, and it isn't those of us who reject the inerrancy doctrine.

I used to also be a believer in Bible inerrancy, the above self perjuring passages, however can in no way be explained as any simple mistakes of translation, or misinterpretations of the text. or omitted in some texts.
They are blatant contradictions coming directly from the mouth of Yahweh, and are written down in every version of The Bible;
Thus both Yahweh, and his "Scriptures" DO perjure and disqualify themselves as being of any reliable witness or testimony.
Witness dismissed on clear grounds of perjury.
The only course left to HONEST men, men who value the TRUTH is to reject that record, and testimony, for the falsehood that it reveals itself to be, and most certainly is.
This is another subject and too labourise to get into.
Some other time on another thread maybe.
Rob Byers
Shortened it up for your comprehension Robert, No, it is NOT "another subject". You have alleged;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers
The bible is a witness in good standing to take the stand. It doesn't have to prove its reliable before it takes the stand.
Once its on the stand its reliability is presumed to be fine unless it fails.
And that Robert, is the problem, it fails, and fails miserably as the foregoing example by Farrell Till has illustrated.

You are the one attempting here to portray the Bible in the guise of a witness on the witness stand.
Witness testimony is subjected to examination to determine its reliability, and its validity.
The above cited textual contradictions clearly reveal a "witness" whose testimony attempts to both affirm, yet latter deny, the happening of exact same events;
And that, Robert, in any Court of Law, would be acknowledged as committing perjury.
You would need remove and exclude from your witness's testimony, all of those "Land Promise" verses that now effectively perjuring your clients testimony.

Really Robert, you ought stop this charade, and go consult with your "client" in private, to determine why he insist in perjuring himself when examined under oath.
Let me remind you, that you and your witness have an obligation, "To tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth."
A man (or even a "Gawd") is no better than the veracity of his word;
Your clients account of events call his veracity into question.

note:
That you would even enter into defense such flaky testimony as is presented by your client, does not reflect at all well upon your "legal expertise".
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 01-17-2008, 07:13 PM   #194
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers
My analagy of the courtroom presumes the witnees is on the stand. No checking him forst fits here. I'm just saying about witness and jury.
What you are "just saying about a witness and jury", is NOT how a courtroom works, a witness does not just hop up on the witness stand and drone on and on in a monologue, while the jury listens until he finally runs down.
The witness is questioned with specific questions presented by the defense, and then his testimony is subjected a careful cross-examination by the prosecution, this is all conducted with the judge and jury as an audience.

Of course your "client" first has to gain admission to the witness stand .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers
Your saying there first must be a examination if it is to be allowed on the stand.
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers
This is beyond the analagy.
Need we remind you, that you chose your inapt analogy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers
Then the examiner would have to presume its credibility
Hardly.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 01-18-2008, 01:11 AM   #195
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto. Ontario, Canada
Posts: 921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NinJay View Post
(Spelling corrections in red mine. I can't take it anymore...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
I don't mean the Koran is true until I show otherwise.
But for about 8 pages you've been claiming that "reliable" = "true unless proven otherwise", so by your own usage, your words mean exactly that "the Koran is true until (you) show otherwise."



Which by your usage for the last 8 pages means "true unless proven otherwise."



No difference. You're waffling.



Which, in the case of the Bible, occurs at about Gen 1:2, since Genesis conceives of the primordial Earth as a sea from which the land was separated, but geology informs us that water was a later arrival.

Dismissed. End of discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
A witness is a relationship of one with another. Integrity or reliability must be presumed until otherwise shown.
The bible claims to be God's word and so its claims must be accepted because it must be accepted as a witness. Cease to accept the moment you see something wrong.
Robert, this is so circular that I get dizzy just reading it.
Dracula claims to be an account of a vampire. By your "logic", we must, by default, accept it as true.
Moby Dick claims to be an account of a white whale and an obsessed sailor. By your "logic", we must, by default, accept it as true.
The Smurfs cartoons claim to be an account of a village of androgynous little blue gnomes. By your "logic", we must, by default, accept them as true.
The Quran claims to be God's word. What, in your opinion, makes it any less credible as a witness, according to your rather soft evidentiary standards, than the Bible? What about the Book of Mormon? What about Science and Health - With Key to the Scriptures? What about Dianetics?

Would you care to stop with the special pleading for the Bible and look at the glaring flaws in your logical constructs for a while?

regards,

NinJay
None of these examples claim to be true. They claim to be fiction by authors wanteing credit for their creativity.
I see no flaws in my stuff glaring or not.
Rob byers
Robert Byers is offline  
Old 01-18-2008, 01:17 AM   #196
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto. Ontario, Canada
Posts: 921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
My analagy of the courtroom presumes the witnees is on the stand. No checking him forst fits here. I'm just saying about witness and jury.
Hopefully you can see how inadequate your analogy was, as you've had to clarify and limit it, though by so doing of course you are making a special plea for the bible. All witnesses must go through accreditation before they go on the stand. Otherwise they don't get heard. If we want to be coherent, we mustn't make exceptions. Live with it, Robert Byers. One must test that the witness has the opportunity to know what s/he claims. If you want to use a part of the bible as a witness to something, you need to show that the writer could have known the information.


spin
This is not so. my analagy was a simple witness/jury case. If a examination of the witness must first happen then that is the same thing with different people. If the jury van hear the witness then the witness must be credib;le to the first examiner. My analagy is of the jury with a witness. It stands fine.
Rob Byers
Robert Byers is offline  
Old 01-18-2008, 02:24 AM   #197
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto. Ontario, Canada
Posts: 921
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshonq View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
ints.
My analagy of the courtroom presumes the witnees is on the stand. No checking him forst fits here.
But checking out the witness first is a precondition to being allowed to take the stand. It most certainly does fit here. It fits not only because that is how real life works, but it also fits because checking out the bible (or Koran or whatever) must be proven correct before you can expect anyone else to take it as evidence.

There's a bunch of work you have to do to prove the bible to be credible -- that's the bottom line. You act like you're too lazy to do it.


It is not beyond your analogy. It is part of your analogy that you didn't realize was there. Now that you realize there's a step you missed -- a step that will take some reading and research -- you're trying to convince everyone that you ought to be excused from doing so. It ain't gonna work.


No credibility is assumed either in the courtroom, or in the examination of ancient texts. Credibility must be proven, not simply assumed.

[
1. You most certainly can be neutral; I explained in my earlier post how this is possible. Repeating your original refuted claim does not work, Robert.

2. You are not judging that the person is lying. You are making no judgements whatsoever. You are keeping an open mind.

3. The person may be wrong, but not be lying. It's possible that they were misinformed by some third party, they misinterpreted the results, or they made an honest mistake. There are more than two choices; a witness' testimony is not confined to either (a) truth or (b) lie.


Yes, you are. I explained in my earlier post why this is so.


Nope. You presume nothing. All credibility must be proven.

Quote:
Right back where we started.
Rob Byers
Only because you refuse to address the failures in your argument, and retreat into mindless repetition whenever confronted.
We are both repeating ourselves.
Checking out the bible to be correct before you offer it as evidence???
Your wrong.
The analgy is about a witness/ jury situation. The jury only weighs and listens to the witness. This preliminery stuff of allowing the witness on the stand is not the analagy. Its not a strict court case. Iy is just a court scene.
A jury does not need or have presented the credibility of the witness before the account of the witness. The witness is just announced with basic introduction. I know this.
We disagree about credibility and human relationships.
I see in human interactions and the courtroom that credibility is and must be presumed until shown otherwise. I still think you guys are misunderstanding the difference betwen presumed credibility and presumed accuracy. Ones credibility ends once while in talking they say something the jury questions in their heart. yet I still see credibility is a right of God and man for anyone listening same. They can can ask that there be more verification before conclusions but they can't be neutral about your credibility as that is the same as a jugement you are not honest. (in this case no error is possible it is all truth or lies).
We've been around this and I'm worn out too.
I think most people would agree with me.
Rob byers
Robert Byers is offline  
Old 01-18-2008, 04:28 AM   #198
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me View Post
Dracula claims to be an account of a vampire. By your "logic", we must, by default, accept it as true.
Moby Dick claims to be an account of a white whale and an obsessed sailor. By your "logic", we must, by default, accept it as true.
The Smurfs cartoons claim to be an account of a village of androgynous little blue gnomes. By your "logic", we must, by default, accept them as true.
The Quran claims to be God's word. What, in your opinion, makes it any less credible as a witness, according to your rather soft evidentiary standards, than the Bible? What about the Book of Mormon? What about Science and Health - With Key to the Scriptures? What about Dianetics?

Would you care to stop with the special pleading for the Bible and look at the glaring flaws in your logical constructs for a while?
None of these examples claim to be true. They claim to be fiction by authors wanteing credit for their creativity.
I see no flaws in my stuff glaring or not.
Robert -

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

The Book of Mormon, the Quran, Science and Health, and Dianetics all claim truth for themselves.

But in any event, you've demonstrated the absurdity of your position regarding witnesses:

You're implying that something like Dracula is, a priori, dismissed as a witness because of the author's intent*, not because of the internal content. Yet you're asserting that the Bible must not be dismissed except after considering its internal content.

Special pleading, Robert. You're trying to have it both ways.

regards,

NinJay

*As an aside, the imagery and immersiveness of Dracula is, in my opinion, far richer and more vivid than anything in the Bible. If it were possible that I could pick both up and read them with no preconceptions, I think I would be more inclined to believe that Dracula was the more credible account.
-Jay- is offline  
Old 01-18-2008, 06:02 AM   #199
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers
The Bible is a witness in good standing to take the stand. It doesn't have to prove it is reliable before it takes the stand.
Deist: Deism is a witness in good standing to take the stand. It doesn't have to prove it is realiable before it takes the stand.

Robert Byers: Yes it does.

Deist: Why?

Robert Byers: Because the Bible has proven itself to be a good witness and deism hasn't.

Deist: If the Bible is a good witness, please explain the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.
Did God tell a lie? At the very least, God was unnecessarily deceptive. A loving, perfect God would never be deceptive. No intelligent case can be made that the average person ought to be able to understand those Scriptures.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html

[quote=infidels.org]

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.
GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.

GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.
LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)

GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

GE 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
EX 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses.

GE 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
GE 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.

GE 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
HE 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.

GE 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2CH 19:7, AC 10:34, RO 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.

GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

GE 4:15, DT 32:19-27, IS 34:8 God is a vengeful god.
EX 15:3, IS 42:13, HE 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
EX 20:5, 34:14, DT 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
LE 26:7-8, NU 31:17-18, DT 20:16-17, JS 10:40, JG 14:19, EZ 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
NU 25:3-4, DT 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, PS 7:11, 78:49, JE 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, ZP 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2SA 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
EZ 6:12, NA 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him."
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is love.
GA 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

GE 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
JE 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.

GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.
GE 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
NU 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.

GE 6:6. EX 32:14, NU 14:20, 1SA 15:35, 2SA 24:16 God does change his mind.
NU 23:19-20, 1SA 15:29, JA 1:17 God does not change his mind.

GE 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark.
GE 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark.

GE 7:1 Noah was righteous.
JB 1:1,8, JB 2:3 Job was righteous.
LK 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
JA 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1JN 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
RO 3:10, 3:23, 1JN 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.

GE 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.
GE 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?).

GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.
PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

GE 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1CO 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.

GE 11:12 Arpachshad [Arphaxad] was the father of Shelah.
LK 3:35-36 Cainan was the father of Shelah. Arpachshad was the grandfather of Shelah.

GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.

GE 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, EX 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, NU 12:7-8, 14:14, JB 42:5, AM 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.
EX 33:20, JN 1:18, 1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.

GE 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
GE 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.

GE 15:9, EX 20:24, 29:10-42, LE 1:1-7:38, NU 28:1-29:40, God details sacrificial offerings.
JE 7:21-22 God says he did no such thing.

GE 16:15, 21:1-3, GA 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
HE 11:17 Abraham had only one son.

GE 17:1, 35:11, 1CH 29:11-12, LK 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God.
JG 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots.

GE 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
GA 6:15 It is of no consequence.

GE 17:8 God promises Abraham the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession."
GE 25:8, AC 7:2-5, HE 11:13 Abraham died with the promise unfulfilled.

GE 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings.
LE 20:17, DT 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.

GE 18:20-21 God decides to "go down" to see what is going on.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

GE 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring.
2PE 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous."

GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.

GE 27:28 "May God give you ... an abundance of grain and new wine."
DT 7:13 If they follow his commandments, God will bless the fruit of their wine.
PS 104:15 God gives us wine to gladden the heart.
JE 13:12 "... every bottle shall be filled with wine."
JN 2:1-11 According to the author of John, Jesus' first miracle was turning water to wine.
RO 14:21 It is good to refrain from drinking wine.

GE 35:10 God says Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer; henceforth his name is Israel.
GE 46:2 At a later time, God himself uses the name Jacob.

GE 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
GE 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz.
1CH 1:35-36 Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek.

GE 49:2-28 The fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and Benjamin.
RE 7:4-8 (Leaves out the tribe of Dan, but adds Manasseh.)

GE 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite.
AC 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor.

EX 3:1 Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses.
NU 10:29, JG 4:11 (KJV) Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses.

EX 3:20-22, DT 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians, to plunder their enemies.
EX 20:15, 17, LE 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor.

EX 4:11 God decides who will be dumb, deaf, blind, etc.
2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is a god of love.

EX 9:3-6 God destroys all the cattle (including horses) belonging to the Egyptians.
EX 9:9-11 The people and the cattle are afflicted with boils.
EX 12:12, 29 All the first-born of the cattle of the Egyptians are destroyed.
EX 14:9 After having all their cattle destroyed, then afflicted with boils, and then their first-born cattle destroyed, the Egyptians pursue Moses on horseback.

EX 12:13 The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God to see which houses they occupy and "pass over" them.
PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from God.

EX 12:37, NU 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as more than 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of about 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt.
1KI 20:15 All the Israelites, including children, number only 7000 at a later time.

EX 15:3, 17:16, NU 25:4, 32:14, IS 42:13 God is a man of war--he is fierce and angry.
RO 15:33, 2CO 13:11, 14, 1JN 4:8, 16 God is a god of love and peace.

EX 20:1-17 God gave the law directly to Moses (without using an intermediary).
GA 3:19 The law was ordained through angels by a mediator (an intermediary).

EX 20:4 God prohibits the making of any graven images whatsoever.
EX 25:18 God enjoins the making of two graven images.

That was only about one third of the Bible contradictions at that web site.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...tml#empty_tomb


Quote:
Originally Posted by infidels.org

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Robert Byers: Well, er, uh.......

Johnny Skeptic: Robert, so much for your witness in good standing. Are you not aware that merely DECLARING that the Bible is credible is much different than REASONABLY PROVING that the is credible. You need to produce specific, detailed evidence WHY the Bible is credible. Are you able to do that?
How many lies and deceptions should it take to discredit the Bible? How babies and innocent animals does God have to kill in order to discredit the Bible?
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-18-2008, 07:27 AM   #200
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Byers View Post
I mean the Koran must be accepteded as a reliable witness.
This is a important difference.
It can be dismissed as a reliable witness as one reads things one sees as false. That quick.
Just the Quran, or the Bible, too? May I dismiss the Bible as reliable as soon as I read things in it that I see as false?
Doug Shaver is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:56 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.