FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-24-2005, 01:25 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 1,708
Default

Um, doesn't make it true, though.
Javaman is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 01:28 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 1,708
Default

FWIW, it's not that every detail is wrong. It's about internal inconsistency, and that claimed prophesies aren't actual prophesies. Further, there are actual OT prophetic writings that Jesus, if he existed, did not fulfill - plus there are internally-valid reasons he couldn't have been The Messiah.
Javaman is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 01:29 PM   #43
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: tampa,florida
Posts: 342
Default

hmmm not conclusively true, but not conclusively false, but better.....perhaps the test is in the choosing!
mata leao is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 01:30 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 3,034
Default

How could Jesus be of the "seed of Abraham" if he was born of a virgin? "Seed" is usually taken to mean "sperm", as in the story of Onan. Which one is it then?

--Jared
JaredM is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 02:21 PM   #45
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: tampa,florida
Posts: 342
Default

jesus' geneology is established both matrilineally and patrilineally
mata leao is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 02:23 PM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 1,708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mata leao
jesus' geneology is established both matrilineally and patrilineally
which is both wrong and irrelevant given how Jewish bloodlines are measured.
Javaman is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 02:27 PM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 1,708
Default

As interesting as this diversion could be, it would be nice if Half-Life came back and tried to address what was written. Most here understand how Psalm 22 is mis-translated and doesn't constitute prophesy. Perhaps we'll have an argument about it? And you, mata leao, do you want to argue about prophesy?
Javaman is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 02:28 PM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: US
Posts: 1,216
Default

I remember when I was an apologist my faith hung pretty much on the fact that jesus fullfilled all the porphecies. but then. . .
Then as I read these alleged prophecies I realized that they were always taken out of context, usually talking about someone else, and sometimes just made up by the writers of the NT.
Now, as I am no longer "in the box" I laugh (as does mato leao @ us) at the thought of this jesus fullfilling prophecy. The pophecies were, as mentioned afore, cut and pasted into the story to the pleasure of those who wrote them.
Spanky is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 02:59 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Half-life
The Bible does not contain the characteristic untruths of other religious books. In Job, one of the oldest books of the Bible (written in about 3500 B.C.), Job wrote, "He [God] hangeth the earth upon nothing". Back then, people believed the earth was on the back of turtles and elephants and all kinds of strange things--you will find no such ridiculous statements in the Bible. The only way Job could say that the earth was suspended in air is by the Holy Spirit of God revealing it to him.

The Bible is not a scientific book, but when it speaks about "scientific" matters, it is always correct. The Bible says that "the life of the flesh is in the blood". This is one of the most medically accurate statements that can be made. The blood carries all kinds of antibodies, nutrients, etc. George Washington died because the doctors (I'm sure they were the best at the time) bled him to death thinking that bleeding would help his condition--they took a quart of blood at the last bleeding. They drained his life out of him--"the life of the flesh is in the blood". Science was wrong.
The life of the flesh in NOT IN THE BLOOD.
That is the most reidiculous statement ever made.
The example that you give only indicates your ignorance.

First, every cell in you body is alive in its own right.
There is no more life in one cell than another.

Second, every cell needs nourishment.
If you cut it off the cell dies.
If I take away oxygen from the air that you breath you will die within minutes. Does that mean that your life is in the oxygen that you breath?
Of course not.

It is true that blood carries the nourishment to all cells and this is a vital element of the feeding process. Did ancient people know this?
No they did not.
What they knew is rather more simple.
The ancient Israelites, like many others, carried out ritual sacrifices.
In particular lambs and other sacrificial animals were killed by slicing their throats and bleeding them to death.
There is here a simple conclusion from observation.
No blood leads to death therefore blood = life.
Thre premise is correct; the conclusion is not.

Next subject
"He [God] hangeth the earth upon nothing".

This statement is taken out of context and is made to say something which it does not say.

First, this statement is made by Job.
Yahweh answers him in Chapter 38
Here is it
Quote:
Job 38 1:6
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
2"Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3"Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding,
5Who set its measurements? Since you know.
Or who stretched the line on it?
6"On what were its bases sunk?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
Yahweh first tells Job that he does not know what he is talking about.
(words without knowledge)
Then the first subject that Yahweh corrects Job on is exactly the subject at hand here, that is, the foundations of the earth.
And what does Yahweh tell Job?
Yahweh tells Job what the rest of the BIble also says and that is that the earth has a foundation and a cornerstone upon which it was laid.

The author of this book simple made Job say saomething ridiculous.
Something everybody knew was wrong.
He made him say that the earth was hung on nothing.
Why?
So that Yahweh could correct him and make him look like a fool.

If you do not accept this explanation then you have to come to the conclusion that Job knew something that Yahweh did not know.

Quote:
The only way Job could say that the earth was suspended in air is by the Holy Spirit of God revealing it to him.
Obviously incorrect since Yahweh corrected him qualifying Job's words as words without knowledge.

Second, you need to look at the entire sentence.

Quote:
Job 26:7
7"He stretches out the north over empty space
And hangs the earth on nothing.
What is the north?
You can look at Job 9:8 and Isaiah 40:22 as well as many other verses in the bible. Yahweh stretched out the heavens over the earth like a dome or a tent.
So the empty space refers to the area under the dome.

Job like every other author of the Bible believed that the heavens were like a tent or dome over a flat earth.

There is no great knowledge here.
NOGO is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 03:13 PM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Half-life
The Bible does not contain the characteristic untruths of other religious books.
Nonsense. It is full of them.
One of them is that the life of the flesh is in the blood.
Here is another among many.
Paul says that a seed must die before it can grow into a plant.
If the seed dies you wont get any plant.
NOGO is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:37 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.