Sven

Hey spin, you underestimate the power of conjecture! The text of Genesis being quite specific about what happened also didn't hinder bnfiii in the slightest of conjecturing the exact opposite of what the text say into it!

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Bfniii: I notice that you conveniently avoided replying to my post #172 even though you replied to other peoples' posts. Why is that?

Jack the Bodiless

He failed to fulfil verses 7-11 (except the first two actions described).

Why are you imagining that he DID?
I am not denying that the first act of Ezekiel 26:7-11 happened. The second act also happened. Then it fails.
"Nations" don't have walls, gates and towers: the city of Tyre did. Tyre's walls, gates and towers, which Nebby beseiged, were not ON the mainland. They were on the island fortress, and he failed to penetrate them.
As far as I can recall, I have never experienced any pain, suffering or injustice as a consequence of my sins (unless you count hangovers from drinking too much).
...That he will actively inflict. But you don't seem to have a problem with that.
Fascinating. You think doctors deliberately make their treatments painful, and would consider fitting their patients with shock collars if the treatment would otherwise be painless?
And, according to your religion, God is largely responsible for it. But that's OK.
Evolution. Even monkeys have a sense of "fair play".
You have presented no evidence for this "confusion". It seems quite clear to ME. You seem to be admitting that YOU are confused.
Translation: YOU can't find any more either.
Well, I actually used the word "inflicted". But, yes, the "bfniii principle" implies that you don't have a problem with that, so why bring it up again?
Yes, it is. You're still dithering on this, aren't you? Why do you have a problem with simply admitting what you so obviously believe: that YOU DON'T CARE about whether God's actions are "just" or not?
This was in response to your earlier attempts to pretend that God was "just", and only punished the children of wrongdoers if THEY did something to deserve it: which isn't what the Bible says. But you now seem to have (almost) fully embraced the "bfniii principle": you no longer care.
It would, however, imply that the Bible is lying about WHICH crimes you are being punished for.
I have no idea what you are talking about. My claim did not change. Unless this is your way of saying that YOU want to be let off the hook?
Thereby demonstrating your ignorance of the Bible (again), even though you have been given the quotes.

Exodus 22:29 "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me" - please explain how ripe fruits and liquors can VOLUNTEER.

Leviticus 27:28-29 "Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death" - note that "a man" is devoting stuff that HE HAS from his men, beasts, and fields. Please explain why a volunteer needs to be "devoted" by another man, how a beast volunteers, and how crops volunteer.
Are you now arguing that the children were allowed to grow to adulthood before being sacrificed? Do you have evidence of this, and does it make any difference anyhow?

On the E/C stuff, and the need to discuss this in the appropriate forum:
Well, as I recall, YOU did (indirectly), by claiming that fundies "study history and archaeology" (which contradict Genesis).
Are you actually unaware of the existence of radiometric dating, the fossil record, tree rings, polar ice layers, varves, records from civilizations unaffected by the Flood, the light from distant stars, the lack of a global sediment line, the lack of water damage of "pre-Flood" archaeological sites, and so forth?
As I pointed out, YOU are incorrect. My statement was factually correct: therefore yours was not.

You do seem to have some sort of fundamental reading-comprehension problem.
You want a quote from a person making such a claim?

There's a guy called "bfniii" around here who has said something similar.
...Except that they're not, of course. Again, you seem to have some sort of problem here.
Again, you seem to have a comprehension problem here. You did not "rebut" my claim. Merely posting comments which fail to contradict a claim (and fail to back this up with facts which actually contradict the claim being made) is not a "rebuttal".

The claim stands. A Maccabean Daniel is the accepted mainstream view: the scholarly consensus.

I will let spin address any further specifics about Daniel.
Yes, and some that are Muslims, Scientologists... and rather a lot of atheists too.

Evasion noted (again).
Other than "it's just a story", you mean? No, but weren't we discussing the ones which the Egyptian priests allegedly duplicated?
Again, they were. Remember, we're not talking about what the BIBLE claims.

Jack the Bodiless

This revelation has transformed my understanding of the Ten Commandments...

Sven

Edit: OK, got it!

Well, something I really wonder: If one has the liberty to reinterpret Genesis the way bnfiii does, what exactly stops one to reinterpret it to let it say "god created through evolution, all life shares a common ancestor". IMHO, one needs no more force fitting for this interpretation than for bnfiii's.

Jack the Bodiless

Why not do that for the entire Bible?

Some "liberal" Christians, including the Bishop of Durham, don't believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead: this was "figurative". Bfniii, do you agree with this? If not: why not?

Jack the Bodiless

...By the way, bfniii:

I intended my post #178 to be a "where we're at" summary. I note that you have not responded to it, despite posting twice on this thread since then. Do you consider it an accurate summary? If not: why not?

Jack the Bodiless

I've been searching, and I can find no mention of Tyre's "daughter villages" having walls (except for fundie sites, which assume they did because that's how they want to interpret Ezekiel 26:7-11). Presumably the individual houses had walls...

Nor can I find any mention of the daughter villages being besieged (no need for this if there were no walls).

The walls of Tyre proper (the island fortress) were magnificent: 150 feet tall! These were, quite obviously, the walls being referred to: the only walls worth mentioning, the only walls which would pose an obstacle to Nebuchadnezzar's army. The walls he struggled to breach for 13 years: the walls which actually defeated him: the walls responsible for the failure described by Ezekiel himself (when he again uttered a false prophecy, that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer Egypt instead).

If God had actually meant "the walls of a hut in the villages that one of Neb's chariots would accidentally run into and flatten" or whatever: then God is a trickster. And an outright liar too, as the later failures demonstrate (no permanent destruction of Tyre, no conquest of Egypt): if he can simply lie about those, then why not simply lie about Tyre's walls too?

bfniii

no it's not. it's an obvious way NOT to do it. judging something supposedly infinite against something finite borders on ridiculous.

no i have not agreed to such. i am saying that we have an unclear notion of morality apart from a super-natural standard. human justice is relative and no two people would be able to agree completely. therefore, to judge something supernatural, we need to consider a supernatural morality. concordantly, to judge biblical accounts of the actions of an omnipotent God on such a flawed system is flawed in itself. there may be a "human just" as you put it, but it would be convoluted and opaque at best.

i think short term injustice can be used for long term good. so there is both, there is a distinction. but christianity purports that these peaks and valleys are not central to a christian. accepting Christ is. therefore, injustice and justice are just trappings of this life.

i agree that if we are shortsighted, then this perception is possible.

there are times when God's will does appear to be confusing.

not at all. i have agreed that there is injustice in this life. there is no loss of meaning.

i think because he is scientifically exploring the possibility. if it did not happen, then let's let science prove it. there's nothing to lose.

no but i think he's working on a book comparing the bene gessirit "voice" to wonder woman's lasso.

funny, i didn't see that part in there.

not at all. i think what they were saying is that so far, history is silent on the issue (as with many other issues) but that might not always be the case.

i have seen archaeological speculation that there is such evidence such as sea animal fossils in mountaintops.

blt to go

Sven, after reading your discussion on Genesis, I think I may have gained some insight into bfniii’s God-concept. Let’s see if I follow this correctly;

1. God says to not eat the fruit, while God actually wants them to eat the fruit.

Incorporating the questions raised regarding David, we can add;

2. God incites David to take a census, while God actually did not want David to take a census.
3. God (through Mosaic Law) orders David to kill Hittites, but actually did not want David to kill Uriah the Hittite.
4. God (through Mosaic Law) orders David to kill Jebusites, but rewards David when he does not kill a Jebusite.

Adding Jack the Bodiless’ Tyre problem, we can state further;

5. God predicts that Tyre will be destroyed, which actually means Tyre will not be destroyed.

With the Ten Plagues discussed:

6. God wants his people to leave Egypt, when Pharaoh agrees, God can’t have that, so he harden’s Pharaoh’s heart.

As to the Book of Daniel;

7. God (through inspiration) calls Belshazzar a “king� which means he was not a King.
8. God (though inspiration) calls a King Darius, which means he is not named Darius.

A common polemic used, in this current apologetic, is that what it says, it means the exact opposite.

In fact, although not addressed, we can start to see other areas in which God says one thing, which means the opposite. Like Judges 20-21, or the complete change between Hebrew Bible God and New Testament God.

What we have here is, as I have come to affectionately call it, “Opposite God.�

Now, this becomes important, because we have also seen the statement, “God is just.� That has been a bit difficult to nail down. Primarily because the word “just� means “in accordance with a law, or conforming to what is lawful� and that is all it means. In order to have the statement, “God is Just� have any rational meaning or use, it must mean that God is following some law of some sort.

But what Law? And how can we determine what that law is? By careful inspection of the necessary result of this apologetic, the standard becomes clear. We must do the opposite of what God says!

The only problem I see, is that often theists claim that the “law� God is following is his own nature. Eventually, of course, this will boil down to “might makes right� and renders the word “just� useless as there is no law, only whim. But what makes this apologetic interesting is that by combining “God is Just� with “’Just’ meaning following his nature� and “we must do the opposite of what God wants� we come to the conclusion that in order for God to be Just, He must be doing the exact opposite of what he wants to do!

Apparently God wanted to save the earth at the time of Noah, and, being Just, had to do the exact opposite. To any Christian buying this “opposite� apologetic-is it scary to think that the only reason you live is because God wants you dead, but his Justice demand he do the exact opposite?

Seriously, there are plenty of anecdotes of inerrantists becoming convinced through apologetical arguments, that the Bible has errors. Is anyone aware of a singe person that believed the Bible had errors, argued the Bible has errors, and in discussing it with an inerrantist, became convinced of inerrancy?

Or is it always a one-way street?