John A. Broussard

Any chance of getting an answer to my post. I'll repeat it.

***

Got it. Christians believe in hell, but hell doesn't matter.

However, I'd appreciate having your further explanation as to just exactly what the point is to having a hell if it doesn't matter.

Why does god have a hell to punish people, if the threat of hell isn't intended to modify they're behavior?

bfniii

i responded to the accuracy of daniel's prophecy directly. it's disappointing that you just repeat the standard criticisms instead of rebutting my post.

you stated that i refused to visit the previous sites mentioned but then above state that i actually did. nevermind.

this is what has been a disappointing aspect to interacting with you. it was YOU that brought up the jews' rejection of Jesus. i didn't bring it up, you did. when i ask you to support your belief you either tell me to go to another forum, ask me to ask someone else like spin or you just repeat your belief. just an observation.

wow. most interesting. did you not read what i posted? i'll try to clarify. you state position x. i respond with either original language to show why that is incorrect or i ask you to support your belief with hermeneutics. you then repeat your original statment along with some pseudo-insult. that is the charge. i asked you to observe the posts between me and broussard to see how a successful debate can be fruitful.

your response above doesn't even attempt to address this charge. you just act incredulous that you have even been charged with anything. you don't try to defend yourself. you don't attempt to show that it's false. you just proclaim that you have won the debate. what gives?

could you perhaps show an example of me evading so that i can respond? i don't want there to be any further confusion.

response now posted.

goodness. the volcano, et al. if they knew about it, all they had to do was leverage from the results. there are explanations out on the web that describe how these miraculous events could have happened due to natural forces. are you asking me to quote some of them? not that it really matters as i have pointed out. we both agree that there are scientific explanations except for the last miracle that the egyptian priests could not replicate, hence pharoah letting them go.

if there are scientific explanations, volcano, etc., then their job wasn't difficult at all. they only needed knowledge of their own land. apparently they weren't up to the challenge because they couldn't counter the last miracle.

bfniii

i don't see how the way it is worded in the bible and they way you word it makes a difference. what difference would it make if God had told them there would be consequences? perhaps you could elaborate.

ultimately, yes. if an omnipotent God didn't want it to happen, He could have easily made it that way.

it appears that what God wants is for us to understand that earth is not our ultimate destination, that there would be pain here. so ultimately, i think He allowed for us to eat the fruit.

that seems rather obvious; for his part in the drama.

God may ultimately want us to make a choice that leads to short term pain, but long term good.

i have made several posts there so clearly i'm not afraid. i still read there from time to time and may post again.

bfniii

what reasons do you have for thinking it's the same census?

bfniii

but it does matter. it just doesn't matter to a person once they have become a christian (except that christians don't want other people to go there).

it is part of the decision to become a christian.

bfniii

the old argument from silence. does it's absence from that list prove that it didn't exist?

blt to go

Because many (if not all ) Christian apologists believe it was the same census. I'll start so simple it will be easy - My Thompson Chain reference (not a hot-bed of in-depth study) links it as the same census.

Now, I have given one, Christian, source. Any sources you have to state is not?

bfniii- Christian apologetics takes some thought, research and skill. One cannot simply throw out some statement that solves the immediate problem. Often it creates greater problems. You need to maintain your theology as well as your inerrancy. Not sacrifice one for the other.

For (minor) example, you keep referring to "God's desire" as if "desire" only incorporates things one likes to do. We often desire to follow things we may not like to do. Would you agree that a Judge should desire just, even though the judge may not like the results? In the same way, God desired the results of 70,000 killed.

In order to resolve this, you must determine what the initial precipitating cause of the 70,000 killed was. (Hint: 2 Sam. 24:1)

Now, to show you how difficult apologetics can be, let's take your presumption that the census of 1 Chron. 27 was not the same census of 1 Chron. 21 and 2 Sam. 24. Watch how many new problems you create by doing so.

Either the 1 Chron. 27 was before or after the other census. (Couldn't be at the same time, since that would make it, by gum, the same census.) Let's play the after game.

If after, you would need to provide further explanation why Joab was against the first census, saw the results he anticipated, but then encouraged a second census. What was the sudden reversal in Joab's position? You might do some research on Joab, he was not one to change his mind. He was single of purpose.

You would also have to account for it not being recorded anywhere else, why David didn't mention it as a count against Joab in his dying speech, and why David didn't use it to give Solomon a reason to kill Joab.

I know Jack the Bodiless keeps saying you need to read Genesis. I know you have a lot on your plate. But a great deal more research is necessary into David, Joab, Ashner, Saul, Jonathan, and the high priests to explain why Joab would NEVER have done this after the initial census.

Simply put, you creat more problems by putting 1 Chron. 27 census after, in light of Joab and David's indictment against Joab.

So, try putting the census prior to 1 Chron. 21's cenus. Now you create theological problems. If it was before, that would explain why Joab was so against the second one! And Joab did not hesitate to talk back to David. (Read on Absalom's death.) BUT, if David saw Joab do a census, and God's wrath come on account of this numbering, then David would be even less likely to do such a census. He would not repeat Joab's mistake.

This means, for God to get David to do a Census (2 Sam. 24:1) He would have to go the extra mile to incite David to do such a thing. God punishes it once, David learns, God forces David to do it again.

To put the 1 Chron. 27 Census first makes God the author of a sin. He compelled David to sin, when David would have every inclination to not! In point of fact, in 1 Chron. 27 it is implied that David would not take such a census. If it was first, You have killed the apologetic of David having pride (which you have used as a defense already) since David would NEVER do such a Census.

bfniii - you need to think through these answers. A shout out of "its a different one" creates more problems and weakens your position by doing so. And I have now given you one (terribly weak) source as to it being the same census. Can you give any source (even a terribly weak one) that says it is not. (Note: The other apologetisits understand the greater difficulty of separating out the third account of this census, so they ignore it entirely.)

next....

bfniii

i don't find any post where i made such a comment. could you point it out to me?

working together is probably not the correct terminology. God does allow satan to tempt people though.

were they required to?

why? is that a requirement for the story to be true?

addressed later in response to the analogy

what verses?

in 1 chronicles 21:22, the hebrew word used is Maqowm which means place or can even mean city, land or region. an important distinction between the two is that 2 sam 24:24 portrays david paying for the threshing floor and the oxen whereas 1 chronicles 21:25 portrays david paying for the entire site (Maqowm). the two accounts are not contradictory.

is there some archaeological information that disputes these claims?

since 1 chron 27 hasn't been established to be referring to the same census, that won't be necessary. but it appears that the number from judah was rounded. is more discussion needed?

oh but you've left out something vitally important which is the reason why God was angry. the implication is that israel had dome something to incite God's anger. so God getting angry wasn't the precipitating cause.

i guess this is a little like asking God why. why did God act differently here than in other places? you're welcome to ask Him. the main point is why you feel it's necessary that God be bound to issue the same consequence for every occasion.

there really is no conflict. israel angers God, God allows satan to tempt david (much like job), david succumbs.

ultimately, yes.

if satan is the antithesis of God, then he wants everyone to sin.

could you show where that is in the text?

i would imagine satan takes every chance he can get because he knows that tempting someone as visible as david might get have some peripheral success.

2 samuel doesn't explicity state that God tempted david of His own accord.

the bible portrays satan as an instrument that God uses to tempt people.

apparently God was angry before david began this particular census. additionally, david, being imperfect, probably wouldn't turn down a census at any time.

i don't think God is overly concerned with any census. the census was just the vehicle in this particular case.

2 samuel differs from 1 chronicles in that "anger was kindled" ('aph Charah) is used as opposed to cuwth.

we need to resolve this translation issue before we can address these conclusions.

fail probably isn't the most accurate word to use. they just chose to record different elements.

it's not that apologists feel these details are important in regards to the veracity of the story. they provide a wider and clearer picture.

it depends on how much investigation a person was willing to do. if a person didn't put any effort into interpreting the reports or digging further or waiting until more details evolved, then i can see how it would be easy to think they were contradictory.

whoa. if a person looks at the three accounts and determines they are in conflict without considering the bigger picture, then that is the person with the lower standard. each account reported accurately the facts they had. later on, it will probably be the case that these puzzle pieces will be put together for a broader view. a person who decides to put forth the effort to find out that the three accounts don't contradict would be the one with the higher standard.

i'm not sure i'm following this point. taking a census isn't in itself wrong. however, the reasons for doing so may be wrong. that's the point of the narrative. just like money isn't itself bad, but it can be used for evil.

2 sam 21:1 notes that there were 3 years of famine in the land. the events that follow, 21:1-24:13, are the 4th year. note that the bible doesn't mention that the famine had abated. in 2 sam 24:13, gad asks david if he is going to choose 3 additional years of famine. the wording "shall seven years of famine come to your land" indicates 7 total including the 4 already incurred. this is supported by the fact that 1 chronicles, not mentioning the famine prior to chapter 21, depicts gad asking for 3 total which makes sense.

joab didn't round. the author did.

the chronicler mentions an army, 27:1-15, that samuel does not.

we lack archaeological evidence of much that happened during that period. that being the case, it doesn't seem so odd.

both names, Ornan (light was perpetuated) and Araunah (make ye to shine) have almost identical word origins. it appears that the difference between the two is orthographical.

i'm not sure what bearing this has on the census. could you elaborate?

what qualifies as major? does it matter? a sin is a sin right?

i'm not sure that's an accurate analogy. what might be more accurate is asking the dealer how much for the radio options. after you pick the one you want, you tell your spouse about the radio purchase you made. maybe between the two of you, the car purchase was understood. but to someone else, they only know about the radio.

while it is noteworthy, it's not the point of the story. therefore, the expectation that all accounts include it is what should be addressed, not the inclusion.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
THe problem here is that you want me to drop issues that have NOT received ADEQUATE responses: issues which you have evaded, or missed the point repeatedly.

You also have a habit of slipping in bogus claims that skeptics have "misinterpreted" the Bible, merely because their interpretations differ to yours: that they are "in error". That's tantamount to an accusation of incompetence, and you just can't back it up: hence your ongoing total inability to demonstrate any such misinterpretation.

For instance, in reply to YET ANOTHER attemt to get you to address Ezekiel's prophecy failure in 26:7-11, you have a paragraph beginning "one mistake that till makes is in reference to ezekiel 29:18-19". Why did you bother to type this paragraph, or the one following it?
He failed to fulfil ANY of it, except the first two actions described (sacking the daughter villages and laying siege to Tyre).
ANOTHER bogus assertion of "error"! This is NOT a complete misrepresentation of Ezekiel, who describes the destruction of the daughter villages FIRST (and that's indeed what Nebuchadnezzar did FIRST), THEN the siege of Tyre (and that's indeed what Nebuchadnezzar did NEXT). Nor does it address Nebuchadnezzar's failure to conquer Tyre as described AFTER that.
No, you haven't. Indeed, the text doesn't make sense with any other twisting of the meaning of the word "you" that I can imagine. YOUR (Tyre's) daughter villages, the siege against YOUR (Tyre's) walls, and so forth. I note that you have STILL provided no alternative explanation of these verses.
Why not? Christians like to imagine that this is what happens to "evil" people nowadays who live a life of luxury.
The blatant hypocrisy of this doesn't bother you AT ALL?

Nowhere is YOUR interpretation supported by the text! ALL of your assertions here are unsupported!
Now you seem to be mixing up the census massacre with the Amalekite massacre!

You still haven't addressed the hypocrisy of claiming that God DIDN'T want to do something he supposedly DID, but DID "want do do" everything that happens anyway (as seen in the "forbidden fruit" incident).
Then you agree that God is unjust, as I have already pointed out. So what's the problem?
You could have simply said "yup" and left it at that. We have already covered the fact that God's actions go beyond "natural consequences", that saying it's "temporary" doesn't make it right, and that you're accusing the Bible of lying about the stated reason for the punishment (that's what the story of Mr. Smith was supposed to illustrate).

Why are you pretending that these rebuttals to YOUR rebuttals don't exist?
ANOTHER unsupported accusation of "misinterpretation".
You were trying to evade the issue by quoting other verses, now you've switched to a repetiton of previously-addressed points. See above.
Again, your evasion is perfectly obvious. You evade Exodus 22:29 by talking about Leviticus 27:28-29, and you evade Leviticus 27:28-29 by talking about Exodus 22:29.

Why do you imagine that the "firstborn" would be born as adults? Why do you imagine that people "put to death" don't die?

Just who do you think you're kidding here? You call this a "rebuttal"?

On the "plagues" reproduced by the Egyptian priests:
Yes, yes, a thousand times YES!

I still say that you can't come up with an explanation of how they could reproduce, ON DEMAND, a sequence of plagues THEY didn't choose. Just how long do you think you can spin out your failure to respond to this?

As Sven has already adequately addressed your attempted mangling of Genesis in more detail, I'll skip that.

On the Noah/Ham/Caanan incident:

I have given the appropriate context, and you know it. You've admitted it already, and here you admit it again:
Yes, it's a reasonable assumption. A point that you then completely forget shortly afterwards:
Because it's in context. YOU are the one DEFYING the context.
So, you weren't able to find an example where I had failed to provide a quote. And, of course, there is still no Biblical support for the notion that this one shouldn't be taken literally (except, of course, for the fact that it didn't happen).
AGAIN, your ongoing EVASION is noted.

WHY can't you answer this question?

"Hey, some have converted" does NOT explain why MOST have NOT.
This is from the person who claimed that fundamentalists "study history and archaeology" (which contradict the Bible: so, no, they don't).
I was addessing your mangling of Genesis, already described elsewhere. The Bible is clear: the ONLY stated reason for the expulsion from Eden was God's desire NOT to let us gain powers that were making us increasingly like him.
Another false accusation that I'm not providing quotes, when I HAVE provided quotes throughout this thread in support of my claims.
Of course it isn't a "factor", it is entirely irrelevant, as already explained. So why are you still implying that it IS a factor?
You are merely repeating the burden-of-proof fallacy. I take it that your failure to back up the apologetic claim of an "extended period of canaonization" is an admission that you cannot do so? Especially as we don't even know that the DSS is limited to "canonical" texts? Indeed, we know that at least SOME of the DSS aren't religious texts at all!
It is a simple statement of fact: a reminder that you haven't yet demostrated a single Biblical error by myself or any other skeptic.
Are you admitting that God's conduct would be indefensible if it were not for your bias? Apparently so! But you're still not really addressing the point of the analogy: that your attempted defense of God involves assuming that the Bible is lying, just as Smith's lawyer must argue that Smith was lying.
Why are you STILL wittering about the "ultimate downfall of Tyre", which is NOT specifically claimed by Ezekiel in verses 26:7-11, and evading what is ACTUALLY claimed in Ezekiel 26:7-11?

How many times must I point out to you that Nebuchadnezzar FAILED to break down the towers, enter the gates, trample the streets, slay the people by the sword, and cause Tyre's "strong pillars" to fall?

Back to Daniel:
Because you have falsely claimed a "vindication" where none exists. It's up to YOU to provide the "vindication", and you haven't done so. To "vindicate" those who would prefer an old authorship of Daniel, you must provide evidence that the authorship of Daniel predates the 2nd century BC. Nothing you have said so far is incompatible with a Maccabean authorship of Daniel using an archaic prose style.
Because it has no supporting evidence, no confirmation.
I HAVE offered to debate you on this, on another thread because this one is getting too unweildy, and you have again declined to do so. I have also AGAIN asked you to account for the rejection of Jesus by the overwhelming majority of Jews, and you keep dodging. Therefore I conclude that this is a subject you'd rather avoid.
Anyone reading this thread can see that your charges are false. You want me to needlessly re-quote the entire thread as proof that I'm not needlessly repeating myself? How ridiculous.
Just how many MORE examples must I provide? Wouldn't I be "needlessly repeating myself" if I provided them YET AGAIN?
Right on cue, another evasion! But I guess that was a needless repetition.

My challenge is simple: you must PROVIDE an explanation. Something that mere mortals, responding to a sequence of events NOT decided by them, could trigger on cue.

spin

Where on earth did you get the idea that there were lists of Jewish "holy books" which themselves predate the 2nd century BC. I'd love a few examples of such lists!!


spin