bfniii

not according to most non-christians i interact with here.

i have? perhaps you could refresh my memory so i could clarify. i recall only addressing desire in response to others who brought it up.

there are times when sin affects people and God does allow that.

the fact that israel had done things that angered God.

1 chronicles 27 does not indicate that joab encouraged that census.

should it have been? could you elaborate on why you think that is necessary?

is that required for it to have happened?

i think the first thing we need to address is where your assumptions are coming from. perhaps you could state WHY you think these questions must be answered.

here is an example of such an assumption. where does the text say that the census in 1 chronicles 27 is a sin by joab. what in the text gives you the idea that it must have been a sin to such a degree that david would consider it so?

i'm glad you're here to tell me this. that's sound advice.

if i didn't support the position, i might agree. we can continue to discuss it if you like.

do you have any other reasons why you think it is the same census? i think there are some other, more pertinent questions you can ask. let's see if they come up.

Jack the Bodiless

...Then I stand corrected. I'm aware that Daniel isn't mentioned by some sources that might be expected to mention him, but I can't find a reference to one of those sources being "a list of Jewish holy books". I did read something somewhere about a claimed holy book being missing from such a list though (possibly in a later era).

John A. Broussard

If I understand you correctly, hell doesn't matter to an individual once they've become a christian, it's just one of the inducements that god uses to get a person to become a christian.

Is my interpretation of your answer correct? Please clarify.

Thank you.

Jack the Bodiless

I have been considering creating a new E/C spinoff thread.

However, on reveiwing the previous E/C spinoff thread, I notice a rather familiar pattern of evasion: apart from the usual creationist falsehoods (bogus claims of "no transitional forms", misrepresentations of Patterson and Gould etc), the rest of bfniii's replies consisted of pointless rhetorical questions regarding the evidence for common descent and evolution, and a very conspicuous avoidance of issues that contradict creationism. He even tried to pretend that the Flood could not be dated from the Bible, and simply ignored Biblical proof that it could!

Presumably, this evasion would simply continue.

Would a thread on the failure of Jesus to fulfil Jewish messianic prophecies be worth starting? My current feeling is "probably not", due to the ongoing evasion of the question of why the majority of Jews reject Jesus: this is not a good sign.

Hence, I will not start either thread just yet. If bfniii manages to post something of substance on either topic, then I will shunt it into an appropriate thread (or a moderator could). On the E/C issue, such a thread could also incorporate Sven's questions earlier.

Sven

Read what I wrote again. The first time he simply explains that they can choose for themselves, but that doing it has consequences, the second time he says "don't do it". The second kind of statement suggest that he don't want them to do it, the first kind does not. IOW, the first kind of statement is consistent with him secretly wanting them to do it, the second one (at face value, without adding something which isn't in the text) contradicts it. What's difficult about this?

Guess what? You have just negated our free will in one swoop.

So ultimately, you will take the meaning of words as their exact opposite, just to avoid a contradiction.
I'm starting to think that discussing with you is entirely futile.

What?!? The snake helped him to get what he wants, and he punishes it for it?
Sorry, bnfiii, who do you think you will fool with this ridiculous scenario?
Everything points into the opposite direction, that god did not want us to have morality, but you simply conlude a priori that this is wrong and force-fit your interpretation on the text. Trouble is, this fitting absolutely fails, because one has to read the text as if means the exact opposite of what is written.

This entirely misses the point. The point is that god himself makes this pain happen. Why would he do so if A&E did exactly what he wanted them to do (although he said "Don't do it", just to remind you).

A long, long time ago. This doesn't address the strange fact that you didn't do so after I challenged you here.

Sven

[I can neither read nor argue ]

Jack the Bodiless

He also took advantage of the opportunity to slip in some extra punishment for the crimes of others (in this case: punishing all future generations of serpents).

Was this "natural consequences"? Of course not: amputation isn't Lamarckian, the descendants of the Serpent should have had legs. And how are all serpents, almost uniquely among land animals, individually just as guilty of sin as the first one was? Not a single snake has ever been as relatively sinless as a lizard, a leopard, or whatever: sufficiently sinless for God to relent from his habit of pulling the legs off defenseless critters, for generation after generation.

blt to go

bfniii, I notice that you have yet to provide any support, citation, or even argument as to your claim that the census of 1 Chron. 27 was a different census. It appears that you tacitly agree 1 Chron. 27 is contradictory, otherwise you would be incorporating it in your apologetic to resolve the issues between 2 Sam. 24 and 1 Chron. 21, rather than avoid it all together. By a continued (and unsupported) claim that it is a different census, it demonstrates the recognition that it clashes with the other record of the same census.

You still would need to address the problems raised by your claim that the 1 Chron. 27 census was either before or after 1 Chron. 21.

Probably the most disappointing facet of this apologetic is that it renders, what to me is a fascinating story, to 2-dimensional flannel graph puppets. On occasion, the discussion rears its head in this forum, as to whether the Bible should be tossed out entirely, or should be enjoyed for what it is. While the participants may agree that it has as much divinity as nail clippings, it is more debatable as to whether it has caused more harm than good. I happen to fall on the side that I think it is extremely interesting and has some valuable insight.

In my opinion, the story of David is one of the greatest legends/myths every made, equally on standing with Robin Hood, King Arthur and (dare I say) Superman. The tale has passion, romance, intrigue, sword play, war, honor, duty, family, humor, all framed around the classic rags-to-riches theme that has continued from the beginning of time. Hometown boy does good. (All right, the Jonathan/David thing is a bit hokey, but there are hokey motifs in other tales as well.)

In order to resolve the problem of what is wrong with doing a census, the common statement is that David was being prideful. This creates a two-dimensional characteristic about David that is simply not there. “Since it says he did it, we must assume he did� without ever looking at the why of the story. Look at the life of David. This was a guy who does not demonstrate a life of pride. Read 2 Sam. 23:15-17 and explain that was the actions of a prideful person. This was a guy who had no problem dancing naked in the street, groveling in the dirt at the news of his son, and having rocks thrown at him. While passionate, pride was never something David demonstrates.

Apologetists simply want to resolve the immediate problem of the moment, so they toss out, “Oh, David was prideful� without considering the depth and background of what a wrong statement that is. This is like saying Robin Hood missed the all-important target shot, with no explanation as to why! Completely out of characteristic for Robin Hood, and would cause a reader to want an explanation.

Further, this is an excellent example of how an apologetic will completely change its set of criteria mid-stream in order to resolve the issue immediately presented, and will then change back at the whim of the wind. It fails to keep the big picture, and attempts to resolve this one word at this one moment, and will then say the exact opposite set of criteria to resolve the next problem.

Observe: David is a humble person, It is out of character for David to be prideful. However, to resolve what the “sin� was for doing the census, the apologetic says that David had pride. “Just because David was humble everywhere else, it doesn’t say that he was not prideful here, so this means he had Pride,� so goes the set of criteria. Very well, let us apply it equally, shall we?

2 Sam. 24:1 says “Again, the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel….� Notice it does not say for what. Now, everywhere else it was because Israel screwed up, BUT, if we are going to say that “everywhere else� doesn’t count, just like “everywhere else� David was humble, than we cannot rely upon what God got angry for before. See? Further, if David was acting contrary to his character herein (and it doesn’t say he wasn’t) than just as equally God could be acting against His character here (and it doesn’t say he wasn’t).

Therefore, using the set of criteria that David was full of Pride, we can apply the same set of Criteria and make the determination that God was angry at Israel for no reason. BUT, the apologetic cannot have that! (heaven forbid) so when it comes to God, we will assume He was doing what he did everywhere else, and when it comes to David, we will assume he was doing what he didn’t do anywhere else. Nice changed set of criteria.

I thought I was clear as to why God desiring this end result of punishment was contradictory in the grand theological scheme, but perhaps not. The Normal course of Business, for God, was:

1. Israel sins.
2. God gets angry.
3. God sends punishment (famine, armies, sickness)

But here we have:

1. Israel sins (maybe?)
2. God gets angry.
3. God incites David to sin.
4. Satan incites David to sin (God had to allow it.)
5. David takes a census.
6. David takes the blame (note the humbleness here?)
7. God sends punishment.

There is no reason, nor explanation feasible as to why God added the extra steps. Worse, while the immediate apologetic may attempt to explain the apparent contradiction, it creates greater theological issues. Those little words of God being angry first, make this a monster of an act.

I assume most literalist, inerrantists would also make the claim that God is the author of absolute morality, and thus the superiority of that particular theism. But notice how God, in this story has a subjective, unexplained morality that is apparently not absolute, and runs at His whim. God orders censuses to be taken. David does so. God says it is bad. God orders all Jebusites killed, David allows one to live. God gives his approval.

Two significant morals breached, and God does the exact opposite of what He claimed. In point of fact, Saul lost his Kingship due to failure to complete a genocide.

bfniii – you miss the point of a Jebusite having two names. The point is that he was to only have one name—dead man. David fought the Jebusites! God mandated the Jebusites be wiped from the face of the earth. There should be no payment of money, whether it is 30 silver pieces of 600 gold. According to God’s mandate, it should have been a quick knife thrust and be done with it!

I hope you did not deliberately confuse the word, “cuwth� by making the claim it is not in 2 Sam. 24. It absolutely is. While you want to point to the words before it, it obfuscates the point:

2 Sam. 24: God _____ David.
1 Chron. 21: Satan _____ David.

In BOTH of those verses, the word “cuwth� is used. You desire to point out other words in 2 Samuel. Deal with this issue, please. If you make the claim that Satan tempted David, since it is the same word, using the same criteria, we can say the God tempted David. Is that a theological problem? You use the example of Job. The problem there is that Job is explicit as to God and Satan’s interaction. Here we have no interaction at all. In fact, it is as if they are not even aware of each other.

If Satan committed an immoral act toward David, then God is just as guilty of committing an immoral act. If God cannot act immorally, than Satan did not act immorally. Why have them in it at all? Why, if it was a non-moral act, just state “David took a Census?�

Again, this creates such a two-dimensional characteristic of Satan. Do we assume he is dumber than humans? The portrayal here is that Satan is a dog on a leash, desiring to bite all within his reach, and if God lets out the chain 3 inches, Satan will bite all within 3 inches. Don’t we think he would be more clever than that? Is he just a 2-dimensional, biting machine?

Since 2 Sam 24 indicates God is involved in this process, and deliberately manufacture the events to make it occur, it is necessary to say that, in some way, God was preventing Satan from inciting David to do a Census.

Now, you are Satan. You know God is your enemy. You know God is preventing you from doing something you want to do. All of a sudden, God says, “You know what Satan, I am angry. You go ahead.� As Satan, doesn’t the thought cross your mind, that maybe, just maybe, the loosening of the leash is a trick? That maybe it would not help your cause? That you are falling into a trap?

Do you see all the rich interplay that would have to be here, that is washed away by this attempt to reconcile these verses?

I will freely admit, the only apologetic you introduced, that I had never seen was this reconciliation of the 3 years of famine vs. 7 years of famine. And this was rich. Let’s see if I have this straight.

1 Chron. 21 says one of the choices was three years of famine. 2 Sam. 24 says one of the choices was 7 years of famine. You claim this is reconciled by the fact that 2 Sam. 24 was saying 7 total years of famine (even though the word “total� is not in there) As long as we can add and subtract words, it can reconcile, right? Well, maybe not.

You claim that 2 Sam 21:1 has three years of famine. (It does.) That there must have been a “year’s� worth of activity between 2 Sam. 21:2 and 2 Sam 24. (No proof, of course, just an assertion.) Thus the “three� years of punishment would total up to (tada!) seven. One itty-bitty problem you may not have realized—King David dies in 2 Sam. 23! You may not have realized that 2 Sam. 24 is a post script, and additional story about David, re-told after he says his last words. (So is the second half of 2 Sam. 23, by the way, or else you would have Uriah the Hittite coming back from the dead to fight with King David!)

You see, chronologically, 2 Sam 24. does not follow 2 Sam 21. Thus this 3-1-3 years of famine is a hilarious explanation. You have David doing a census after he is dead!

I know all the other explanations that attempt to make this work. I don’t see them selling to the person on the street.

I am always more interested in methodology—in what manner on establishes a criteria to weed out contradictions. I see nothing new (and some a bit funny) here.

bfniii – I have watched these long postings with Jack the Bodiless. I have no interest repeatedly pointing out that the same assertions over and over with no proof. I have now seen this criteria. It is the same—apply the lowest possible standard (any possible explanation, no matter how improbable) that one would never use in life. You may have the last word, if you choose.

(And yes, I skipped a bit. If a poster feels something needs to be addressed, I will be happy to do so, I just didn’t want to waste time with the back-and-forth.)

Sven

Hey, just take a look at bnfiii's Genesis "defense"!
Guess what this story tells us? That god secretely wanted David to take the census, and does not send punishment afterwards, but rather "God may ultimately want [him] to make a choice that leads to short term pain, but long term good."

Welcome to the woowoo-land of apologetics! :wave:

bfniii

please point out ANY examples of me wanting you to drop something. when i post, i try not to miss anything. please show me what you think i'm avoiding.

i have told you before i see nothing in 7-11 that nebuchadnezzar failed to do to the nation of tyre. all of the actions described were executed by nebuchadnezzar. it could even be argued that the city-state of tyre did not exist after nebuchadnezzar's campaign due to the exile of the monarchy to babylon. all that was left was the island vassal because the mainland (which apparently included the industrial infrastructure) had been leveled and abandoned.

would you please quote the word that describes "after", "next" or anything chronological in the text?

actually i have. i will repeat it:

in verse 2, God refers to tyre as a common not a place just as in the reference to jerusalem. "tyre has said". places don't "say" anything. groups of people do. in verse 6, "they shall know that". if He were referring to the place, He would say "it". verse 7 claims "against tyre". the language implies that an attack would come against a people, not a place. an enemy isn't against a city. in verse 15, which picks up the word against the nation, God says sound of your fall. the word used is Mappeleth which means overthrow. a place isn't overthrown, a seat of power is. the lamentation in verse 17 uses the word "perished". the original word is 'abad which means perish, die, be exterminated, kill, put to death. those words don't refer to a place. in verse 20 God says He will "bring you down with those". the word "those" is `am which means nation or people. that obviously doesn't refer to a place.

furthermore, please explain which words in the text support "you" referring to just one part of the land of tyre.

oh it should be taken literally and was literally fulfilled. the city-state of tyre is no more. even if you hold that nebuchadnezzar didn't complete the task, alexander did. even if another group of people forms a nation with the same name, it won't be the same.

is that a concession that you are unable to find that in the chapter?

well, it took a long time, but i finally got you to realize that verses 7-11 do not depict nebuchadnezzar will not be the ultimate downfall of tyre.

there is no evasion. everything listed there was done to the nation of tyre by nebuchadnezzar.

actually, he did do that. can you quote a historical source that supports your position; that nebuchadnezzar did not execute actions listed in verses 7-11?

?? no consequences here on earth? no pain or suffering? we would have no earthly sense of morality. anytime someone did something wrong, there would be no consequences. how would that person know they did anything wrong? why would God bother to kick adam and eve out of the garden of eden? their consequences wouldn't be due until the afterlife.

that is a misrepresentation. christianity purports that evil people are evil not because of their lifestyle, but because of their spirituality.

i made no assertion. i am asking YOU to prove YOUR belief.

do you know what my assertions are regarding this matter? could you accurately represent them and then point out WHY they are false instead of just stating so?

it's not hypocritical at all and i have addressed it. sometimes, God allows things in the short term that He may not want in the short term, but will be for ultimate good. here is an analogy:

your relative is sick. the doctor treats them but it is painful. you don't desire to see your relative suffer, but you know it's for the best in the long run. the painful treatment isn't something you desire, but more of a relief.

the only problem is why you are trying to judge God by the standards that apply to us. you claim God is unjust but you are using human standards. can you please explain why you are doing that?

what constitutes as rare? how many appearances must the bible conform to in order to meet your standard, whatever standard that is? you have already quoted 3 instances. how many more is necessary to satiate you? keep in mind that your "yes" list doesn't even contradict the "no" list as i pointed out earlier because we know that there will be suffering and injustice and that it is a necessary component of life on earth.

is that an admission that God is not bound by our morals and ethics relieving Him from your prior constraints?

right according to whom? explain how you work this proposition into your logical argument. granting the temporary nature of our suffering here on earth is not unjust. God never, in fact no one has ever, guaranteed life would be fair. that is one of the main principles of suffering! how you handle unjust people or unjust circumstances is of vital importance to our character and spiritual development (do you respond in kind or do you rise above with a higher morality). if God assured us there would be no injustice on earth and then reneged on the promise, then you might have a point.

if that was your aim, then the analogy was quite flawed. as i pointed out previously, mr. smith does not represent God because he is on the same existential level as the neighbors. the closest equivalent in the analogy given is the judge.

the bible claims that we are all sinners. therefore, any punishment is deserved regardless of the precipitation. therefore, it is sophistry ON OUR PART to claim we exculpable.

how many times do i have to repeat the rebuttal before you will conjure up a response to it? the verse quoted, deut 24:16 doesn't belong on your "no" list because it isn't referring to God punishing people, but people punishing people. this is a standard that exists between people, not God and people. it does not belong on your "God says no list". that is how it is misinterpreted. i have supported it multiple times now. break down the text and show us how it you interpreted it correctly, if you can.

i'm not evading anything. if you check back through the thread, you will see that i have addressed every verse you cited and avoided none. i provided an explanation for each one. God can and does allow the consequences of one person's sin to affect another person. i have not denied this at any point.

i must admit i am not following you. how do you get this analysis out of my posts that you cite? i'm not evading either verse. I QUOTED AND EXPLAINED BOTH. how is that evading?

you originally claimed that the bible advocated child sacrifice. then you backpeddled and claimed the bible advocated human sacrifice and the people sacrificed were firstborn, as if that's different than your original claim. i analyzed the verses and pointed out that niether verse refers to children or firstborn being ritually sacrificed or put to death.

i don't imagine such. the question is where do you get the idea that these two verse are referring to child sacrifice. i have already quoted you that you think so. the sacrifice referred to in leviticus outlines that the ones who must be put to death are the ones who entered into a binding, sacrifical agreement with God, not children. therefore, this is not an example of someone getting punished for someone else's crimes.

i admit that it is possible that canaan got punished for ham's crime. if that did happen, so be it. a fair life was never promised. besides, God can use injustice for good.

let's try a different approach. you say God is unjust for doing so. define unjust. according to what standard do you judge God?

it most certainly is not in the context. while it may be a reasonable assumption, you fail to show how the text conclusively portrays that one verse is caused by it's predecessor. you never provided the support for your assumption that noah cursed canaan for "what ham did". please show which translation you are using that states that phrase or some variation on it.

this is an example of you reading into the text. verse a appearing after verse b does not mean b was caused by a nor does it mean b occurred after a.

as i said, your ability to quote has never been in question. but your comprehension of what you quote is another matter altogether. even a parrot can quote.

where/how does history and archaeology contradict the bible? would you mind just skipping past the general insults and get to the specifics? oh wait, i have to take my response elsewhere.

that is incorrect. the words "only" or "because" do not appear despite the fact that you say so. therefore, the implication is that adam and eve's disobedience were at least part of the reason.

you stated: "I have, in many cases, checked the actual claims of the crackpots/scholars: and found them to be baseless. So have others." i replied "how about quoting some of those claims?" to which you HAVE NOT provided a quote. my accusation was correct.

because i have rebutted your claim that there wasn't a canonization period with the counter that you have no proof of that. the best argument you presented was that there are other, later documents in the DSS. my counter was for you to show how that necessitates that daniel was written 2nd century. your point is inconclusive at best. if you're going to claim that there wasn't such a period, then you bear the burden of proving that that statement is true. when i rebutted your point, you responded with the intellectual "Dude, the "canonization process" is an INVENTED APOLOGETIC EXCUSE". is that supposed to be an argument?

there is no fallacy here. if you make a claim, no matter what the claim is, you bear the burden of proof. if you can't shoulder the burden, no one is obligated to give your statement any credence.

the use of the eastern aramaic and the mention of musical instruments in vogue during the 5th-6th century are two other points i have mentioned. i realize you counter the former with the fact that there are other apocalyptic works in the 2nd century that use archaic language. first, could you provide a list of those works. second, that still doesn't necessitate that the same applies to daniel. it's circumstantial at best. i don't recall you rebutting chap 3.

that is of course irrelevant to the composition date of daniel.

i have stated that God never promised a life free of injustice here on earth. therefore, the point that needs to be addressed is your underlying assumption that it should be which leads you to the conclusion that God is unjust. whether or not i have a bias is irrelevant.

i have stated that your analogy was flawed in that mr. smith does not accurately represent God. would you mind addressing that?

in order for your analogy to be more accurate (for your purposes), you would have had to state that mr. smith promised his neighbors that he would never punish someone for someone else's crime. dang, now i'm doing your work for you.

i have not claimed vindication. all i have done is present arguments that support daniel being written earlier than the 2nd century.

and nothing you have argued is incompatible with earlier authorship. you claim that just because alleged NT works were found at qumran means daniel was authored in the 2nd century. that is circumstantial evidence. if you stand next to someone who is guilty, you aren't necessarily guilty. you have also said that other 2nd century apocalyptic works (you haven't mentioned any specifics) used an archaic style of prose. this too is also circumstantial. are there other objections you would like to raise?

not that that is necessary for it to have been true. that's called the argument from silence. at best, it's inconclusive.

what you need in order refute his existence is contradictory evidence. otherwise, extra biblical history is thus far silent on this issue other than me pointing out that darius is a title (proper name meaning royal one) and was probably given to the person who administrated for cyrus, most likely gubaru. in addition, cyrus apparently had two medes that were administrators while he was out on military conquests during this time.

you most certainly have not! you have done no such thing and that is another dishonest statement. you posted a link with no challenge whatsoever. then you said you had "thought" about creating a thread but did not want to do so because none of the arguments would be your own. how convenient. i have asked you over and over YOUR thoughts on why Jesus didn't fulfill OT prophecy. no response yet.

another dishonest statement. i have made no such declination and i defy you to quote me as saying such.

yeah right. i've dodged. if by me asking you to "illuminate us on your opinion why Jesus failed to fulfill OT prophecy" you mean dodge, then you're right.

being the overwhelming majority does not make them right. that's called an appeal to numbers. it's a logical fallacy.

here's a great way we can cut to the chase. explain why the jews who reject Jesus are more correct than the ones that accepted Jesus.

that's the whole point. i asked you for examples as to why you think Jesus failed to fulfill OT prophecy. you have provided no examples. all you did was point me to other threads and a jewish website.

i can answer the question. they reject Jesus as messiah. i'm asking YOU yet again why YOU think they are right or wrong. you proclaiming that they reject Jesus doesn't make their view nor yours correct. why can't you answer the question? you cited them, so let's see if you can cite why they are correct. it's funny, you act like i'm evading but i'm actually the one challenging you to back up your statement.

the old appeal to numbers. i don't have to, nor does christianity have to, have an equal number of jews to judaism to be correct about Jesus.

:banghead: and you accuse me of evading. i have asked you several times why you don't think it's hypocritical for you to insult christians but then tell me to take my defense elsewhere. you still haven't even mustered the guts to admit it's hypocritical.

i'm confused. you earlier state "I'm familiar with natural phenomena which are said to have inspired the story". if that is the case, why are you asking me to reproduce what we both agree exists?

they didn't have to do so on demand, all they had to do was have the foreknowledge that the event was going to happen (which they apparently did have), and then claim they produced the effect.

oh brother. they did not need to trigger them on cue. all they had to have was knowledge of events happening in their land. here is an assigment for you. go check out "The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist's Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories" by cambridge university professor colin humphreys. humphreys proposes that the miracles in exodus invariably have natural causes. the miracles are revealed by the extraordinary timing of these events. go read it. it will fulfill your challenge.

the whole point to this thread was that you claimed the bible mentioned other gods with real power. humphrey suggests that ancient people knew about this "magic". in summary, the egyptian priests performing pseudo magic does not confirm your hypothesis that the bible endorses polytheism . i agree there were polytheistic hebrews. but they acted outside of the mandates and doctrines of true judaism which is represented in the torah as monotheistic.

if you disagree, go read the book and other books on the subject. enumerate their points and why they are wrong.