Wedge

No, it isn't. There is a difference between between omicron and omega which is being notated by using a w for the omega and an o for the omicron.

Don't correct people if you don't know what you are talking about.

/grumpy bitch

Johnny Skeptic

There are numerous provable scribal and copyist errors in the Bible.

Why is it up to skeptics to disprove the Bible? Have you found an error or a contradiction in Deism? What makes Christianity a more reasonable worldview than Deism is?

Skeptics at the Evolution/Creation Forum are having a field day with your thread on the global flood. The link is http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=275891. Even many conservative Christian experts know that a global flood did not occur, including geophysicist Glenn Morton, and astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross. Have you ever heard of hydrodynamic sorting? It conclusively proves that a global flood did not occur. Unless you want to try to change the law of gravity, if fossils and sediments are mixed with water, they have to settle in certain well-known ways, that those ways do not indicated that a global flood occurred. Glenn Morton discuss hydrodynamic sorting in great detail at one of his websites.

Ezekiel said that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. That did not happen.

Consider the following Scriptures from the NASB:

Ezekiel chapter 26:

1 Now in the eleventh year, on the first of the month, the word of the LORD came to me saying,

2 "Son of man, because Tyre has said concerning Jerusalem, 'Aha, the gateway of the peoples is broken; it has opened to me. I shall be filled, now that she is laid waste,'

3 therefore thus says the Lord GOD, 'Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves.

4 'They will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock.

5 'She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,' declares the Lord GOD, 'and she will become spoil for the nations.

6 'Also her daughters who are on the mainland will be slain by the sword, and they will know that I am the LORD.'"

7 For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and a great army.

8 "He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a ramp against you and raise up a large shield against you.

9 "The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers.

10 "Because of the multitude of his horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of cavalry and wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached.

11 "With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets He will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground.

It is probable that verse three was added years later after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar would not be able to defeat Tyre. Ezekiel knew that Nebuchadnezzar was a powerful king. That is why he referred to him in verse 7 as "king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry and a great army," and in verses 8-11 as "He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a ramp against you and raise up a large shield against you. The blow of his battering rams he will direct against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. Because of the multitude of his horses, the dust raised by them will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of cavalry and wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city that is breached. With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets He will slay your people with the sword; and your strong pillars will come down to the ground."

A king of kings doing all of that certainly indicates that Ezekiel believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre.

Ezekiel was probably jealous of the riches of Tyre, and wanted God to destroy it. It is quite odd that God would take centuries to destroy Tyre, and finally by a suspiciously unnamed conqueror, Alexander.

Since Hebrews appointed themselves as God chosen people, that explains why the Old Testament contains so many Hebrew prophecies.

A loving God choosing a group of people and their descendants based upon genetics? No way.

If the Ten Plagues in Egypt happened, that would have been the end of Egypt as a major power in the Middle East, and many historians would have records the events. There is no record of the Ten Plagues anywhere except in the Bible even though they would have been the most important and most talked about events in the entire world not just of the year, or of the century, or of that millennium, but of all of the millennia in human history. Thousands of travelers and traders from many countries were constantly going to and from Egypt, and surely they would have spread news about the Ten Plagues throughout the Middle East and to the rest of the known world.

IBelieveInHymn

Atheists often interpret this prophecy found in Ezekiel 26 as meaning that Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to be the one who destroyed Tyre. Believers, however, often interpret this prophecy as meaning that "many nations" were supposed to destroy the city of Tyre, over a long period of time, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar. We base our interpretation on verse three, which states that "many nations" would attack Tyre, like waves casting against the shore. And history shows that many nations did attack Tyre. Alexander the Great used ships from many nations to conquer the island city in about 332 BC, bringing a permanent end to the Phoenician Empire.

Tyre attacked and destroyed again
1291 Tyre again is attacked and destroyed, this time by the Arabs. The once-great city never recovers its former greatness. This fulfills a prophecy from Ezekiel that Tyre would be attacked by many nations, never to rise again to prominence.

spin

Just for precision, the text reads "Hebrew, Latin and Greek" ebraisti, ellhnisti kai rwmaisti, hebraice graece et latine. And the Peshitta is also clear on the issue.

Massive sign in three languages.

You'll notice that all the Aramaic is trivial. It doesn't convince that it reflects an original speaker, but of magic words meaning such gems as "little girl, get up" or "father". As these are mainly in Mark and Mark was written in Rome, it seems highly improbable that the Aramaic is veracious.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Message to IBelieveInHymn: Please reply to my post #120 in a thread at
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=275799&page=5 at the General Religious Discussions Forum.

I request that you discuss one of your favorite fulfilled Bible prophecies.

semiopen

There seem to be have some excellent responses to this, from my point of view, dividing people between atheists and Christians is not correct. Jews for example are usually not atheists but they don't "believe in" (whatever that means) Jesus.

Most of the twisting I see is by theists. For example the 8th commandment "Do not steal" is said to mean "Do not kidnap Jewish people" by Talmudic authorities.

Regarding your Love/Hate routine, I've commented previously on my disappointment with how shallowly you treat this.

This reminds me of Hanibal Lector's line to Agent Starling in "The Silence of the Lambs"

Other than the nasty thread title, you were also doing fine, you were demonstrating some understanding of biblical analysis with your use of Hebrews, and quoting some relevant passages.

You had a choice of many interesting directions for the discussion. For example covenant theory, where you might have expressed an opinion on a 1st or 2nd millenium origin of Deuteronomy, and perhaps . The love ("ahab") in Deuteronomy might have been compared to friend ("oheb") as in 1 Kings 5:1.

and what about the unforgettable protest of Joab to David after the death of Absalom 2 Samuel 19:6

But instead, you launched a "ham-handed segue" of your own into the nutty Jesus crap.

It won't do.

Failte

Indeed there are. But only one set of facts. And they don't support your thesis.

You won't be surprised that we're skeptical of "christian archeologists' - those who attempt archeology with a spade in one hand and the bible in the other are suspect, at best. If your purpose is to "prove" the bible, you'll pardon me for believing that you're willing to ignore evidence that doesn't match and play up evidence that does.

While some of the bible matches (at least peripherally) historic record, far more of it is unsupported by any other source. You're getting into the argument that we can "trust" the bible as a historic record, and that since some of it's statements might be true, then all of them must be. That's not supportable.

Johnny Skeptic

There are numerous provable scribal and copyist errors in the Bible. Even most fundamentalist Christian scholars admit that.

Why is it up to skeptics to disprove the Bible? Have you found an error or a contradiction in Deism? What makes Christianity a more reasonable worldview than Deism is?

Skeptics at the Evolution/Creation Forum are having a field day with your thread on the global flood. The link is http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=275891. Even many conservative Christian experts know that a global flood did not occur, including geophysicist Glenn Morton, and astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross.

Have you ever heard of hydrodynamic sorting? It conclusively proves that a global flood did not occur. Unless you want to try to change the law of gravity, if fossils and sediments are mixed with water, they have to settle in certain well-known ways, and those ways do not indicate that a global flood occurred. Glenn Morton discuss hydrodynamic sorting in great detail at one of his websites.

jakejonesiv

Immanuel Velikovsky was a crank. He didn't know the difference bewteen hydrocarbons and carbohydrates. His "naturalistic" explanation (celestial ping pong) of ancient myth is just as idiotic as the supernatural explanations.

Jake

spamandham

This is a silly reason to suppose that the unverifiable aspects are all true, particularly when many of the unverifiable aspects are absurd at face value.

I'd also wager that you accepted the Bible as *true* before you examined it for errors and contradictions. If so, then your response you just gave is dishonest.