Kosh

Since the bible isn't specific as to his medical condition, is this an inspired interpretation of the book?

I don't think we even want to know that rest of
that story....

See below...

Really?... see below....

The number one thing to remember when you're
standing in quicksand is: DON'T SQUIRM!



Below is the text of Genesis, from KJV:


Genesis 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his
image; and called his name Seth:

Genesis 5:4
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons
and daughters:

Genesis 5:6
And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

Genesis 5:7
And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and
daughters:

Genesis 5:9
And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

Genesis 5:10
And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and
daughters:

Genesis 5:12
And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:

Genesis 5:13
And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and
daughters:

Genesis 5:15
And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

Genesis 5:16
And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and
daughters:

Genesis 5:18
And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

Genesis 5:19
And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

Genesis 5:21
And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

Genesis 5:22
And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons
and daughters:

Genesis 5:25
And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:

Genesis 5:26
And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat
sons and daughters:

Genesis 5:28
And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:

Genesis 5:30
And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and
daughters:

Genesis 5:32
And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Genesis 6:10
And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Genesis 10:8
And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

Genesis 10:13
And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,

Genesis 10:15
And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,

Genesis 10:24
And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber.

Genesis 10:26
And Joktan begat Almodad, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah,

Genesis 11:10
These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two
years after the flood:

Genesis 11:11
And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:12
And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

Genesis 11:13
And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and
daughters.

Genesis 11:14
And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

Genesis 11:15
And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and
daughters.

Genesis 11:16
And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

Genesis 11:17
And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and
daughters.

Genesis 11:18
And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:

Genesis 11:19
And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:20
And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug:

Genesis 11:21
And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and
daughters.

Genesis 11:22
And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor:

Genesis 11:23
And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

Genesis 11:24
And Nahor lived nine and twenty years, and begat Terah:

Genesis 11:25
And Nahor lived after he begat Terah an hundred and nineteen years, and begat sons and
daughters.

Genesis 11:26
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

And here's a snippet from NAS:

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own
likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

Genesis 5:4
Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had
other sons and daughters.

Genesis 5:5
So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

Genesis 5:6
Seth lived one hundred and five years, and became the father of Enosh.


So... even if you ignore that meaning of the
original hebrew word for "begat".. you've got
this problem. Each entry gives a specific age
for each patriarch, at which point they "begat"
the next one. Notice how it also then lists
how many years they lived afterwards and indicates
they had "other sons and daughters". Somebody
correct me here, but aren't they listing the
first born sons here? I don't think they're
listing first born great grand sons.

But let's look at the scriptures using reason. Why would you specify the age
of a person when indicating that they were
the great grandfather of someone? That would
mean we're reading "When Adam was 152 years old
he became the grandfather of Seth".

But wait! It's doesn't matter! Because even if
there were generations skipped in there, we can
still ascertain a numerical timeline! Because the
age given then becomes a fixed span of time between the different generations.

If you say that Adam was 150 when somebody was born,
it doesn't matter if they are son, grandson, etc.
It's still possible to add up the numbers.

And those numbers add up to around 6000.

NEXT!

(Ron, please correct if I've missed something
in my reasoning here).

Well defined scientific analysis,confirmed from
multiple scientific disciplines, indicates that
the earth just over 4 billion years old.

The bible is wrong on this account. And it is
NOT obvious from reading it that the authors
didn't intend for you to take that literally.

Bait

Hi Kosh,
Forgot something did we?? First off, how many days (or thousands, or millions of years) BEFORE Adam was created?
Second, you left some generations out:
Genesis 10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and unto them were sons born after the flood.
2. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javen, and Titras.

Then there are another 30 verses of "begats" that do NOT have exact dates attached to them, or really define if the one "begatting" was the father, grandfather, gggggggggggggggrandfather, etc....and goes along exactly as I stated in my previous post - including the ones you yourself cited. You cannot determine a timeline from this chapter...it could have been 100,000 years...or a billion for that matter, for all we know...the Hebrew tradition of genealogy is "to come from". Even verse 2 does not give dates or ages to the sons of Japheth. And as to the timeline of when Adam was created, if you look at the Hebrew text, it is NOT saying literal "days" as we think of them, but a finite expanse of time (God hadn't invented the solar day yet...remember?). So it is very conceivable that a couple of billion years could have occurred BEFORE Adam was created...logically that is. The 4 billion years btw...is a scientific guess, estimate, with no real proof. It could have been 3 billion, 900,000 years. :-)
R.

Kosh

Doh! Good point...

Actually, it's not so much a guess. It's based
on scientific measurements. There may be some
wiggle room, but not up to 900,000 years, not
even with an error of Billions.

So, you think that the fundies have simply been
misinterpreting Genesis all this time, and that
the earth is very old? Are an IDer (evolution
guided by GOd?) Or do you think that after
he created things in a certain day ("age"), the
Earth just kind of sat around static for a long
time before the next "day" of creation?

isaac42

Okay, Ron. You say, "there is NO evidence that it could not have happened". Sure. And Washington could have chopped down that cherry tree. "There is NO evidence that it could not have happened." He might have thrown a silver dollar across the Delaware (or was it the Potomac?), too, since "there is NO evidence that it could not have happened."

My point here is that stories get made up about famous people. If stories can be made up about Washington, why not about David, Solomon, mOses and the rest? After all, "there is NO evidence that it could not have happened."

People get made up, too. Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, many legendary figures never existed. Some did, but had their actual exploits fictionalized, and new stories made up about them. Given these facts, there is NO reason to believe the Bible stories without corroboration.

Why do you accept the Hebrew Bible, anyway, other than because you want to? What makes it more authoritative than the Qu'ran or the Bhagavad-Gita? As far as I'm concerned, you've yet to propose anything more substantial than wishful thinking.

Isaac

isaac42

Not even close. Really, for a person who claims to use reason, you use precious little of it.

Read <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html" target="_blank">this</a>, then come back.

Isaac

ex-preacher

Ron,

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Pick one of these arguments and stick with it: either the Bible is inerrant and thus a proof of God's existence OR the Bible had mistakes but there are other reasons for believing in God. You are attempting to be amazed by the accuracies in the Bible but to be utterly unfazed by its mistakes. A book that has some accurate history mixed in with myths, clear mistakes, contradictions, anachronisms, and textual errors cannot be used as proof of anything.

I'd like your response to this quote from an eminent theologian: "While it is no doubt a mystery that eternal truth is revealed in temporal events and presented in human words, it is sheer unreason to say that this truth is revealed in and through that which is erroneous."

Once again, why do you believe in God?

Kosh

OK, I've been looking all over to web to find
the details of Usher's estimates, but to no
avail. Suffice to say that there are other ways
of filling the timeline from other parts of the
Bible and known history, and Usher was comfortable
with this. So apparently were a great many church
leaders who accepted his estimate. The "missing
geneology information" is also addressed in a
link I'll post in a second.

The point is, the Bible doesn't leave any wiggle
room on the age of the earth. Ron would have us
buy into the gap theory. But here's an
excellent refutation of that:

<a href="http://www.pblcoc.org/baoe.htm" target="_blank">http://www.pblcoc.org/baoe.htm</a>

Note that this also addresses Rons claims of
missing geneology information (13 generations
only).

I was going to post a link to the Talk.origins
faq on the age of the earth, but somebody beat
me to it. Ron, please read that FAQ so we can
stop hearing you go on about claims of scientific
guestimates etc.

That being said, I want to make a general comment
on Ron's approach to justifying his beliefs. Ron,
please tell me if I'm misunderstanding you. Also,
if anyone knows if there is a name for this
specific type of reasoning, please let me know.
Ron's main approach seems to be:

You (those who believe the opposite) don't *know* for certain that you're right.
Hence, if you could be wrong, then I could
be right. If I could be right, you can't say
that I'm wrong.

Is that fair? Is this a logical fallacy?

diana

Kosh, you said: You (those who believe the opposite) don't *know* for certain that you're right.
Hence, if you could be wrong, then I could
be right. If I could be right, you can't say
that I'm wrong.

Is that fair? Is this a logical fallacy?

While that appears to be his approach, more or less, I don't know if he considers it fair. I do see it as a logical fallacy, though. It appears to be a combined Appeal to Ignorance and a False Dilemma, rolled into one.

Gettin' to ya, Bait.

d

diana

Originally posted by Ron v.:
Hi Diana, Kosh, big d., Ipetrich, and all,...I'm going to try to answer some of your questions, hopefully not posting too much or too long:-)

You've already blown it on that one. S'okay...we all do from time to time.

I read and believed the Bible as God's word AFTER I became a Christian.

Do you not see the inherent bias of your position?

To take everything so literal, especially when many were not meant to be taken that way, is not logical IMHO.

Upon what do you base the assertion that "many were not meant to be taken [literally]"?

...and is where and why so many people miss the message the scriptures are trying to relate,

Do you realize that you'd have to be omniscient to know (1) what message the scriptures are trying to relate, and (2) that we're missing it?

and why so many people get turned off of religion.

I was turned off when I read the bible without the assumption that God inspired it.

What that means is I believe that the scriptures are the INSPIRED word of God,

Why?

and that they are inerrant in it's religious message to mankind,

Why?

and that it's lessons are perfect for our instruction, correction, etc.

Why?

&gt;&gt;"Scripture says it sank into his forehead. If you think a rock hitting a rabbit's head has any bearing on a rock sinking into the frontal bone of a Giant, I suspect a refresher course in basic anatomy is in order."

So the squama suture (which isn't in my anatomy book, and I don't recall it from anatomy class--I thought I was losing my mind for a minute there) ossifies in most people by the eighth year, although Gray says in some people, it never closes completely. It also is one of the thickest parts of the bone (this, I do remember).

But fair enough. There's a suture that you argue may have not closed completely, thus making Goliath vulnerable enough to die twice. OK.

(Just an aside, but my cousin would have dispatched the entire argument with, "God can do anything." At least you didn't take the easy way out. Yet.)

I think it is YOU who needs to do the homework here.

Always doing my homework. In this case, assuming Gray (circa 19th C.) is still considered the authority, I stand corrected.

and since this "Giant" was probably the result of an abnormal petuitary gland, it is entirely possible that he had this condition.

While you're looking at natural explanations, you might check into how tall the tallest person on record was, and what physical problems he had to live with that resulted from his extreme height. He was still quite a bit shorter than this Goliath character supposedly was.

it does not take that much force to crack a skull, even a normal one.

There are many spots on the skull that are easily crushed, yes. But in that particular spot, it does take quite a whallop. Unless, of course, the Giant had an unhealed suture, as you suggest.

I can even do it with the heel of a womans spike heeled shoe...the hole looks like a .38 hit it.

Seems I saw that on a television movie once. But the victim was impaled at the temple--in order to make it more believeable, I suspect.

Right!!! I don't do either, I look at texts using reason...

Tinged by the fact that you've already decided it's true, as you've already stated. This makes you an unreliable witness indeed.

With II Tim 3:16, I focus on the whole thing, including the "inspiration" bit. (From Merriam-Wester, "a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify him or her to receive and communicate sacred revelation"). If it's divinely influenced, shouldn't it be accurate? Can't we expect accuracy from God?

It DOES NOT say anything about EVERY SINGLE WORD being ABSOLUTLY correct...ESPECIALLY translations of the original text.

But it implies it. And the bit about translations is getting old. If you're going to write off everything that doesn't fit as a "copyist error," you're using confirmation bias, not reason. (Besides...would God allow man's only eternal meal ticket to be so corrupted?)

What's amazing to me though, is how accurate even the translations are...even with their minor errors.

"Minor errors," no doubt, that you see courtesy of scientific advancement. So are you going to maintain this "the bible is infallible except for translation errors" bit, or are you planning to sit back and critically examine the logical bankruptcy of that position anytime soon?

Oh yea, lets look something else up while we are at it in the dictionary.
Scripture: 1.a. A sacred writing or book.
3. A statement regarded as authoritative

So, the purpose of the Bible is in the message, and the bible as scripture is supposed to be "authoritative", as in the proper means to instruct (or it is supposed to be the authority when it comes to matters concerning the way we are to live and conduct ourselves).

Where did you get the "as in the proper means to instruct" and "when it comes to matters concerning the way we are to live and conduct ourselves"? You look up a definition and when it doesn't say exactly what you want it to say, you qualify it so it does. Please support your qualifications.

For the record, I do agree that all references to "scripture" in the NT seems to refer to the Jewish Bible (which puts a whole different light on II Tim 3:16, doesn't it?). It follows that the NT isn't "scripture," according to itself; it wasn't in existence yet.

Look at the message, the forest if you will, what is the lesson it is trying to tell...is it correcting you? Is it instructing you? Is it giving you hope? If it is describing a historical event, the event probably actually happened, but is told from the viewpoint of the writer.

How do I know what the "lesson is trying to tell"? I can know what I get out of it, but I have no way of knowing if this matches the author's intent. How do I know if it's relating a historical event or a myth from which I'm supposed to get some moral? And upon what do you base the assertion that anything inspired of God is based on the viewpoint of the writer?

No, just different vantage points. Same with the Bible.

I don't buy this. Not if God was the moving force behind it.

It's their (the writers) vantage point of an event. Quit getting so hung up on semantics.

As soon as you go back and read the bible without the preconceived notion that God inspired it, I'll quit "getting hung up on semantics." Deal?

God is, by definition, perfect. He wouldn't make a stupid mistake like killing Goliath twice--or even saying it looked that way.

Oh...that's right. Men wrote the bible, as they were inspired of God. Tell me...how did this "inspiration" differ from any pennings in which they just felt like putting on goatskin a legend that had been in their families for decades? Did they feel something different, to know it was inspired of God? I mean, if their observations were still clouded by human judgment, in what way, exactly, were they "inspired"?

I just can't figure out how you can combine the two and avoid cognitive dissonance.

No, you misread or misinterpreted the very verse you gave me. Besides, there is no verse that says you ARE to take every single word literally. It says you are to use them to LEARN, to IMPROVE, for CORRECTION.

Again...to prove I misread, please go into a little depth with what, exactly, constitutes "inspiration of God," since the finished product is obviously indistinguishable from human ramblings.

If it don't make sense, then I ask myself WHY...is there something I'm missing? Has something been left out? Is there a lesson here? Is this not making sense because of some Hebrew neuance, or mis-translation?

In other words, you have a whole arsenal of excuses for why God's Inspired Word is so holey. You've just admitted, in detail, that you stand prepared to make everything in the bible make some sort of sense, and if it doesn't, you excuse or ignore it. This is not critical reading, nor is it reasonable. It is irreconcilable with a divine book.

That would be a rather conceited and self-righteous attitude to take is it not?

I prefer the word "reasonable."

Ever read the Koran, Ron? Did you read it with the assumption that Allah is the one true god and Muhammed is his prophet? To do otherwise is to not give the writing a fair shake, by your standards.

I admit I do not know everything, so who am I to say this or that is absolutely wrong...without absolute proof the translation(s) is absolutely correct, and that the "proof" is also absolutely correct.

In other words, you're buying into it because no one has absolutely proven it wrong (so long as you're allowed to produce your bucket of excuses for God's work, that is).

I'm not fetching, just pointing out that some of the things I've seen put down, ridiculed, etc. on this (and other) lists does not usually take into account REASON.

No...we just didn't decide that it has to be right, no matter what, then read it. Where was REASON when you did that?

rather I see nit picking to see just how WRONG you can prove the bible to be.

Actually, it's a game. Most of us have been through many years of religiousity and, if any of the others are like me, they're constantly amazed at the logical inconsistencies they continue to discover in your holy book. Once we stopped reading it with blinders, desperate to make it make sense, that is.

..while at the same time trying to put down people who do believe, trying to show them how stupid you think they are.

For me, at least, I'm so disgusted with the whole apologetic rigamarole that I have to try not to.

I don't think you're stupid, per se. I think you're willfully blind when it comes to religion.

All that while leaving out and ignoring obvious items that lends credence to it's historical nature and the validity of its message.

What is the message, by the way?

Identical or not, the lesson of the story is that "Gods people (the Hebrew army)" were afraid to tackle this large man (giant)...soldiers who were supposed to be hardened warriors who believed in the strength of God...those not new to battle. Then along comes this lowly boy, who because of his strong FAITH in God,

And like most youths, because he didn't have a clear idea of his own mortality...

had enough courage

and/or stupidity

to go out with only a sling (no "modern weapons such as armor, swords, sheilds) face and kill this large (giant) man who was known for his fighting abilities and murderous tendencies.

I thought he was feared for his size. Where'd you get "known for his fighting abilities and murderous tendencies?

How he (David) did it (defeated him) was by

sheer luck

cracking the dude in the head with a rock,

slaying him

then taking the "large man's" OWN sword...cut off his head.

slaying him again

The rock was thrown so hard, and it hit in just the right spot, that it stuck in the forehead, and would have probably killed the large man all by itself. The purpose of the story IS NOT whether he killed Goliath twice, but that he was able to kill him at all because of his faith in God.

Similar "miracles" have been worked through the centuries because Kali was watching, or because Zeus was on the side of the invading army, or because Krishna was there when I fell down that elevator shaft and that's why I was only mangled and not dead.

Sure...the story had a point. Point taken. It also is passed off as truth, even though Goliath died twice. This may not be the "point" of the story, but it is a flaw that would make a reasonable man (not blinded by belief) look askance at it.

Did [God] make (force)the writer to write down everything, word for word, as God dictated to him (like one would to a secretary)?I doubt it...and especially not on translations.

So what does inspired mean again? And just how accountable do you think your merciful God will hold those of us that are limited to all those O So Faulty Translations, in which he didn't bother to preserve the original meanings?

if anything it supports it, especially when you look at how well the scriptures have been preserved, and believed for thousands of years.

Appeal to Antiquity. Appeal to Popularity. The bible has managed to survive. Since it was in the bloody clutches of most of the war-mongering kingdoms throughout the history of western civilization, this should come as no surprise--neither should it come as some sort of "proof" that the book itself is in any way inspired.

"People have believed this for thousands of years. It must be right." This is the same logic that got Galileo excommunicated, and what the Jews said about their own religion when that Jesus character popped up, I imagine.

Look again at the definition of "inspired". The writer was "prompted" to write historical event. If he made mistakes in grammer, spelling, etc...so what? If he wrote it from his vantage point...so what? The event still happened. The lesson is still the same...and from a religious point of view, the lesson itself, Inerrant (perfect).

What lesson is that? And how is it that you have decided that the lesson is "Inerrant" but not the book itself?

I've underminded NOTHING...just opened it more up for you. It's not corrupted, the message is still true, and that is what is important, not whether Noah had a dozen names.

Or whether Noah was a completely mythological creation (or, more likely, borrowed) intended to teach some lesson, right?

Did God tell you to pay attention to the message but don't pay any attention to the specifics?

Because of the historical evidences I've read about that supports many of the stories of the bible...almost exactly.

You're very selective in your reading.

Why do you trash everything just because someone (a human)mis-translated, or didn't use proper grammer or spelling?

Please demonstrate, if you wish to pursue the "mistranslation" angle, which bits were mistranslated and why you think so. I'm tired of hearing this as your blanket explanation, so please back it up each time you wish to toss that out. Thanks.

Why do you trash the whole thing because some of the Hebrew writings are in ancient Hebrew, a dead language, that we may not have all of the true meanings of each word as it was intended at the time of the writing?

So God had his inspired text written in a language that would be obsolete in a few centuries, rendering accurate future translations impossible? He just gets more omniscient by the minute.

you've not proven the lessons wrong, nor have you proven the scriptures wrong.

I don't "prove" anything. I point out your logical bankruptcy and the problems in your own scriptures, and you struggle to excuse everything I point out. I am merely allowing you to showcase your extreme Christian rationalization for Those Who Lurk.

Your taking things literal, that may not have been meant to be literal.

I take things literally when there's no indication that it was meant to be taken otherwise.

'Tis you I think, that is stretching so hard to prove me wrong, that you have to resort to picking on "literal" grammatical errors found in translations.

It's but a simple thing that you dismiss as either out of God's control or which does not concern him (pick one). Slaying someone twice isn't a grammatical error. It isn't like the writer mis-conjugated a verb or anything.

Amusing how you're convinced that I'm stretching to prove you wrong, but you don't see how you're stretching so hard to prove the bible is divine.

your trying to excuse why you don't believe,

I've only begun to provide reasons I don't believe. One does not "excuse" one's lack of belief; one simply does not believe. Why would it be necessary to make excuses?

to the extent that you are not willing to reasonably look at a text to see if the message is valid and reasonable, if the account COULD be historically accurate.

You mean, I'm not willing to "reasonably" look at a text AFTER I'VE DECIDED IT'S DIVINE NO MATTER WHAT, don't you?

Instead you look for something,anything, any reason, such as a grammatical error,or mispelled word (even in translations) to throw out the entire lesson, the entire book.

Please do not make the mistake of assuming I trash the bible because David slew Goliath twice. It is logically indefensible, chock full of contradictions (in the ORIGINAL), interpolations, and was written by a gang of anonymous people with an obvious agenda. Why anyone simply accepts it as gospel is an unending source of amazement to me.

God's word, his lessons, his corrections, ARE infallable.

But he found something better to do when people started translating it, I see. Or when the original was written, come to think of it, he didn't find it necessary to make sure it was flawless--which would have taken no effort from an all-powerful being.

Upon what do you base the assertion that his lessons, his corrections are infallible?

I bore of this, Bait. Perhaps your answers will fill in some of the gaps for me.

d

Asha'man

Hi Ron,

You are proposing that the message of the Bible is clear, despite apparent errors and contradictions that may have been introduced by man.

But the main message is completely insane:
1st: I am going to hell for all eternity because of something my ancient ancestor might have done (except that my ancient ancestor might have been a myth.)
2nd: Because of the blood sacrifice of an innocent man, I can be excused from my crime (that I didn’t really commit).
3rd: These are the decisions of a perfect and just supernatural entity (who doesn’t seem to ever take action in the real world, but you have to believe in him anyways.)

If I was to walk up to you and explain that this was the message of the god Cthulhu, you would know I was crazy or joking. But since this is the message from your God, you accept it without even looking at it. Who exactly is wearing blinders here?

I can’t accept such a message unless I have damn good proof. The Bible has proven to have errors, so it fails to meet my standard. Easy enough?