RandomCoolzip

It sounds as if your friend is just determined to believe what he believes, and really doesn't care if it makes sense or fits well-established facts or not. Why is his motivation so strong? What is he afraid of, that he has to close his mind so completely? What does he think would happen if he suspended judgment for just one minute and listened to any non-YEC information?

Seems to me that even if you had a simple, crisp, one-paragraph argument to present to him, it wouldn't do any good unless you could also address the source of his motivation to be so close-minded.

Just for fun: have you asked him which version of Jesus' ancestry he thinks is correct, Matthew 1 or Luke 3? They are irreconcilable, as I am sure you know.

EmpiricalGod

I thought they attribute the geneology to Mary that's presented in Luke 3

-Jay-

This is true, although they do so without any warrant. The claim is that "sometimes" maternal geneaologies were used, although so far as I know, there is no evidence that this has ever been the case.

regards,

NinJay

Sheshbazzar

Trying to employ a question to about genealogies as a means to undermine the basic beliefs of Fundamentalists will usually prove be an exercise in utter futility, first of all, because such considerations are not considered as being essential or "fundamental" to either their beliefs or practices.
More likely (if they recall it) that they will simply resort to the NT admonition of Apostle Paul;
Titus 3:9

Or, Secondly, they can always resort to that old "catch-all" for any and all unanswerable questions or contradictions, "The Lord will explain it all perfectly by and by"

It is only when the individual finally gets their fill of the swallowing of so many inconsistencies and the resorting to far-out and unsupportable
"explanations" required to defend their "faith", that they will finally become disgusted with the stretches of even their own credulity that are needed to maintain any "faith" in what is increasingly and obviously amounting to not much more than a pack of lies.

At least this was my personal experience that moved me from what I was, to where I now am.

-Jay-

Oh, you're absolutely correct. It's difficult to understand how they can claim that the Bible is inerrant (I'm conflating again...), yet how part of the Bible essentially says that another part of the Bible is wrong.

Don't forget the position that the errors and contradictions were put there deliberately by God to confound the nonbelievers. I've never personally understood that one - doesn't that make God a liar?

regards,

NinJay

Sheshbazzar

Yes, you are right NinJay, that could well be listed as "Thirdly....."
The Bible provides many examples of where by any normal interpretation of language, "Yahweh" hizself, is the to be found as directly and personally responsible for the promulgation of lies and murders.
and;

Kind of like a super "Don Corleone", not personally committing any lying, thefts or murders, but pretending His hands are clean, all the while having his henchmen at his beck and call, ready and willing to speak whatever lies he commands, and carry out whatever despicable deeds it is that has been dictated to them by Him, their "super Don" whom they are compelled to obey.


Note that I restore the name "Yahweh" to the text, (as does Farell Till, and many other prominent Atheists within these forums)
I do this for several reasons; First, employing it more accurately represents the tone and ideas of the original text and its religious distinctions. Secondly, it serves as an indicator that I am no longer under the stupid constraints imposed by ancient superstitions surrounding the writing and speaking of the so-called "Holy Name".
Thirdly, it serves as an additional means of indicating to the modern reader how far the watered down "Versions" have obscured the significance of that Name to the original authors.
Fourthly, it serves to further indicate to modern readers just how alien and strange the original texts are, to the popular modern forms of religion that are derived from, and dependent upon them.
Modern religionists like to smugly say that "a name makes no difference" Well then let the name "Satan" be inserted everywhere their text employs "Lord"
Make no mistake, the continued subterfuge that they are pulling off, and getting away with, by substituting the term "The LORD" for that actual personal name indicated within the text, serves as a tool to further the power and goals of the religious establishment.
Accurately maintaining and conveying the true contents of these texts is the most effective weapon in the Atheist's arsenal.

Darklighter

That was explanation I was given when I asked people in my church who should know. But I pointed out that they specifcly say 'Joseph son of Heli' and then 'Joseph son of Jacob'. Ant they said that was because the Jews of the day would 'look down' on citing ancestry through the mothers side. But doesn't that make EITHER MARK OR LUKE A LIAR!?!?!? One of them was lieing about who Jesus' grandfather was! "Maybe, but it doesn't matter. " AHHHHHGH! :banghead: YES IT DOES!

Sorry...

-Jay-

Nice segue to a broader question:

When others assert that "The Jews of the day would <X>, so therefore <Y> isn't a contradiction or an error.", one must wonder where they're getting their information. On the flip side of the issue, how well do we really understand what the Jewish culture of the day was? :huh:

regards,

NinJay

Sheshbazzar

Neither one would necessarily be a "liar", as neither one was recording anything that they themselves had actually been witness to, but were simply writing down the different versions of the same old popular "urban legend" story.
No sense in trying to reconcile, or make any sense out of what has from the beginning been nothing but a bunch nonsense.