ex_libres

Wow, what a response. I am currently sitting at my desk at work so I do not have specific information to address each of your responses. I should apologize for providing information from memory, but I am very passionate about my beliefs. I will try harder next time when I have my research at hand. That said, I would like to clear up some misunderstandings.

1. When I wrote this I thought it was obvious that the key word is KNOW. Know as in eyewitnesses to Christ's life. This is in comparison to what people believe to be true like the Muslims WTC attack. They did this based on what they believed to be true, not because they were present with Mohammed and knew it to be true (Marterdom=virgins). P.S. Christ was believed to be the Messiah because of the miracles he performed and his resurection (eyewitnessed by the Apostles) and other scholars like Pliny, Josephus, Trajan, Martyr, Santillion, to name a few which were intended to attest to his Deity. Mohammed's claim to fame as a prophet is due to a mole on his back. A mole on the body was a sign of a prophet to these people.

2. Comparing ancient scrolls to modern text- Do you actuaklly think this has never been done?

3. Archeology- If finds keep on varifing accuracy in the biblical record, is it unresonable to think the other narratives may be true?

4. Belief in the supernatural events- God is in the buisness of the supernatural. And no, you can't see him no matter how many rocks you look under. Do I find some of the supernatural events hard to believe? Of course I do. However, my belief in Christ dictates that if he refers to them as actual events, as he does, I must concede they were or call Christ a liar-which would be inconsistant with his nature (God-man).

5. I have read Losing Faith in Faith. For me it was clear he was spending a lot of time with skeptics because he uses many of the arguements I find on this site and like those on this site who read him, give no evidence for his beliefs and ultimately traded a truth in for a lie. I also find it interesting that he married Annie Gaylor(Co-founder of Freedom from Religion Foundation) only three years after his public claim of atheism. Could she have been a major influence on his conversion. How long were they courting. Take a look at some of the books she has written.

CX

Only GMt and GJn are even purported to be by eyewitnesses and there is considerable difficulty maintaining that in the face of text critical evidence. Plus, John, according to tradition, died in exile at a very advanced age. That being said, my argument still holds. Consider the Heaven's Gate cult or the Branch Davidians if you don't like my original analogy. People do irrational things all the time. Such is not proof of of the truth of their belief. Manson family members reported that they had personally witness Charles Manson levitate a bus. People believe they have been healed by Benny Hinn on their TV. There are about a zillion more parsimnious explanations than the one you give the simplest of which is A)We don't actually know what happened to any of the apostles B)The only sources we have for the life of Jesus aside from the barest details are in the gospels, the providence of which are extremely murky and difficult to sort.

Not so. Jesus, if he existed, lived in a very credulous time all kinds of people besides The Messiah performed supposed miracles. In fact several parties accused Jesus of sorcery. Celsus makes the claim (unfounded) that Jesus performed miracles by means of magic he learned in Egypt. Performing miracles would not have guaranteed one acceptance as the Jewish messiah. Secondly nowhere in Jewish theology is the idea that the messiah must die and be ressurected. Even so many other individuals in Judeo-Xian mythology were resurrected.


.

I have no idea what this is trying to say. The extra biblical references we have tell us next to nothing about Jesus. The most expansive, Josephus, is largely regarded as corrupt, but even if it isn't it tells us very little.

Mageth

I should apologize for providing information from memory, but I am very passionate about my beliefs.

Passion in regards to one's beliefs is a bit dangerous, don't you think? I could be a stinker and refer to the passion of the 9/11 hijackers and of Hitler's Nazis.

I prefer to approach my beliefs with reason, and to question every one.

1.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People die all the time for what they believe to be true, but never for what they know to be untrue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I wrote this I thought it was obvious that the key word is KNOW. Know as in eyewitnesses to Christ's life. This is in comparison to what people believe to be true like the Muslims WTC attack. They did this based on what they believed to be true, not because they were present with Mohammed and knew it to be true (Marterdom=virgins).

I don't think anyone here has directly questioned that the Apostles et al didn't believe they knew their claims were true. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't; we have no way of knowing either way, do we? So we're forced to believe one way or the other.

In any case, for most of the apostles, the reports of their martyrdom are church tradition and not generally accepted as documented fact. And the ones that were killed were killed for practicing Christianity, not for "knowing" it was true.

P.S. Christ was believed to be the Messiah because of the miracles he performed and his resurection (eyewitnessed by the Apostles)

Note for correctness: the actual resurrection was not witnessed by anyone outside either one or two angels, according to the bible. What was reportedly witnessed was Jesus walking and talking after the resurrection.

and other scholars like Pliny, Josephus, Trajan, Martyr, Santillion, to name a few which were intended to attest to his Deity.

And for all of whom there is considerable controversy, as I'm sure others here in this forum could detail far better than me. In any case, these accounts are flimsy support for Jesus' alleged deity, at best.

Mohammed's claim to fame as a prophet is due to a mole on his back. A mole on the body was a sign of a prophet to these people.

I think you'll find most here consider the claims of Mohammed just as questionable as the claims of Jesus, so comparing the "claim to fame" of the two is pretty pointless.

2. Comparing ancient scrolls to modern text- Do you actuaklly think this has never been done?

Who said that it's never been done? What difference does it make if it has? It doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible.

3. Archeology- If finds keep on varifing accuracy in the biblical record, is it unresonable to think the other narratives may be true?

Yes. In the first place, you're wrong in assuming that the archaeological accuracy of the bible is so solid. In the second place, what accuracy has been found just shows that the writers were correct in their descriptions of some places; it lends nothing to the veracity of the supernatural claims.

4. Belief in the supernatural events- God is in the buisness of the supernatural.

What does he bill per hour? I need a miracle or two. Oh, I forgot, he retired 2000 years ago.

And no, you can't see him no matter how many rocks you look under.

Then your whole point about not being able to look everywhere in the universe for god, thus making the Atheist's lack of belief in god untenable, goes out the window.

Do I find some of the supernatural events hard to believe? Of course I do. However, my belief in Christ dictates that if he refers to them as actual events, as he does, I must concede they were or call Christ a liar-which would be inconsistant with his nature (God-man).

So your belief dictates your acceptance of the Biblical accounts. Then why all the attempts at factual defense of the Bible through archaeology etc? Is your faith not as strong as you let on?

Further, Jesus could have believed the Genesis accounts to be true without them actually being true, and thus not be a liar. Just like you do.

5. I have read Losing Faith in Faith.

Good for you.

For me it was clear he was spending a lot of time with skeptics

I would assume he spent time with theists as well as skeptics. I don't see what difference that makes. Skepticism is a good thing to practice, BTW. Otherwise, you'll go around believing all kinds of weird stuff. For example, you practiced some serious skepticism in regards to Mohammed's claims just now.

because he uses many of the arguements I find on this site and like those on this site who read him,

Well, yeah, I suppose he does. That's not surprising; there's only so many arguments on one side or the other, after all. Just like you've given no new arguments in this thread.

give no evidence for his beliefs

Are you sure about that? And I've seen no good evidence provided by you on this thread, that's for sure. In fact, you claim above that "my belief in Christ dictates that if he refers to them as actual events, as he does, I must concede they were..." Indicating that you'll believe whatever the evidence indicates. So why go on about evidence?

and ultimately traded a truth in for a lie.

Well, that's purely a judgment call on your part. You haven't establised your beliefs as "truth" or atheism as a "lie", that's for sure.

I also find it interesting that he married Annie Gaylor(Co-founder of Freedom from Religion Foundation) only three years after his public claim of atheism. Could she have been a major influence on his conversion. How long were they courting. Take a look at some of the books she has written.

Pure ad hominem on your part. What does Barker's relationship with Gaylor have to do with anything?

ex_libres

Darwin’s Finches — Evidence for rapid post-Flood adaptation
Darwin's Finches - Evidence for rapid post-Flood adaptation
How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?
[URL=http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp]
Brisk Biters — Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4034.asp
John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study,

Ligers and Wholphins: What Next? (Biblical Kinds)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...22n3_liger.asp

And for those who question the sea worthiness:
“[Mark] Isaak: How was the ark made seaworthy? The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [Gen. 6:15].
Answer: This argument is often parroted, but is just as bogus as the others. The Ark was built for stability, not movement. A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag. If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy. If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy. Woodmorappe points this out too, and much more, so Isaak is dishonest to ignore that. Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m (S.W. Hong et al., “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway”, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):26–36, 1994. All the co-authors are on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Taijon.)”

Finally, I do not disagree with you on your point about people dying for their beliefs and if you really read what I wrote it is obvious. So, let me make this clear. Know=First hand experiance. Believe=reliance on second hand information. If I told you I grew a third eye this morning, some might believe me some might not (I hope) you would not know if it were true unless you were there. My wife on the otherhand could tell you for a fact if it is true or not because she was there. Simple enough?

Mageth

Originally posted by ex_libres
Darwin’s Finches — Evidence for rapid post-Flood adaptation
Darwin's Finches - Evidence for rapid post-Flood adaptation

You (and they) should read more real science.

The above site talks a bit about some of David Steadman's pioneering work on fossils on some of the Pacific islands. A quote:

"He's been amazed that some species on the Galapagos have not evolved over the past 10,000 years and some in Tonga have remained the same for more than 100,000 years. "There's almost no change. I can't tell the old bones from the new bones in some species," Steadman says. "

So the finches and other species have been there a lot longer than the supposed date of the flood.

The following mess I deciphered as best I could:

How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?

John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study

If you're gonna post other people's arguments I'll post other people's refutations.

Brisk Biters — Fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4034.asp

I don't get it - out of one side of their mouth, creationists charge that "there's not enough time for all this diversity to arise through evolution" and that there's "no witnessed examples of speciation", and out of the other side they crow in glee when an example of rapid speciation is revealed? Unbelievable. Well, believable; those AiG are capable of anything.

Ligers and Wholphins: What Next? (Biblical Kinds)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...22n3_liger.asp

Or maybe just an example of two species that diverged not far enough back so that hybridizing is still possible? Evolution accounts for that.

But you still haven't answered my manatee/hyrax/elephant question. Throw sea cows and dugongs in there as well. And how about seals and sea lions? And while we're at it, did Noah take a "sea cow" kind, a sea otter kind, and sea lion/seal kinds on the ark? All those species feed exclusively on food sources that would not be available in such a deluge and/or require frequent rests on land (in the case of seal/sea lion).

And you have yet to satisfactorily define kind, BTW.

I also noticed that they mention zebra/horse hybridization. Note that ahorse has 64 chromosomes and a zebra has 44. How to the creationists account for the difference in chromosome count, I wonder?

And for those who question the sea worthiness:
“[Mark] Isaak: How was the ark made seaworthy? The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [Gen. 6:15].

Answer: This argument is often parroted, but is just as bogus as the others.

In other words, it's absolutely valid.

The Ark was built for stability, not movement. A flat-bottomed barge like the Ark wouldn’t have problems with sag.

Are you sure of that? How familiar are you with structural engineering, not to mention marine engineering?

If the lower deck were made of logs, four layers deep, it would have been very sturdy.

And very heavy.

If they were teak logs, especially specially treated by being buried for a while, the ark would have been especially seaworthy.

Is gopherwood teak? Did God tell Noah to bury the logs? You're wildly speculating.

Woodmorappe points this out too, and much more, so Isaak is dishonest to ignore that. Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability.

Well, they concluded that, anyway, in an article first published in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 8(1):26–35, 1994.

Here's an interesting quote from the paper:

Interesting stuff, that. They tested creationist's conception of what the ark's hull might be like, which of course may or may not be accurate.

And from the bottom of the article:

Ookay.

They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m (S.W. Hong et al., “Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway”, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):26–36, 1994. All the co-authors are on the staff of the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering, Taijon.)”

I wonder, in their research, did they factor in the 30 feet per hour "rainfall" that would have been falling on top of the ark?

BTW, that article illustrates a point I made earlier: there's a lot more to marine engineering than just "a simple operation of mass and water displacement", as you earlier claimed.

Finally, I do not disagree with you on your point about people dying for their beliefs and if you really read what I wrote it is obvious. So, let me make this clear. Know=First hand experiance. Believe=reliance on second hand information. If I told you I grew a third eye this morning, some might believe me some might not (I hope) you would not know if it were true unless you were there. My wife on the otherhand could tell you for a fact if it is true or not because she was there. Simple enough?

That's all moot, as you haven't established that anyone died for not denying what they knew to be true, rather than for their belief or religious practice. Caesar wouldn't give a rat's ass whether you knew what you claimed to be true or not when he threw you to the lions. Nor have you established that they knew it as the truth and didn't just believe it to be true. You merely believe they knew it to be true.

In any case, history has shown that people die for all sorts of weird stuff.

jayh

Manuscripts- Qumaran scrolls have been compared to todays text showing very little change in text as transmited to us. What changes have been made in no way take from the context. Supports reliability

People always say this because the Isaiah scrolls are indeed very closely copied. The Jeremiah scrolls, which have hundreds of major discrepancies are less mentioned. Then the majority of the Qumram scrolls have no modern counterpart, did God lose track of these?

2. Archeology- Of all the archeological finds concerning the biblical text, not a single one has contridicted the biblical text but rather confirms them. In fact some archeologists use the bible as a guide. Supports reliability.

This is so far wrong that I couldn't begin to discuss it. If you want, pick an area and we'll look at the problems.


hrist fullfilled over three thousand prophecies.

So it's three thousand now. It used to be 400. There certainly aren't 3000 places in the gospels where it says that a prophecy was fulfilled. Let's eliminate the obvious 'stretcthing' where a single phrase, plainly referring to someone else at another time is sort of, kinda like somehting that happened to Jesus so it MUST be a prophecy. Maybe we should look at Matthew's reference to the prophecy of Jeremiah which flat out doesn't exist (oh wait, it must be in those other Qumaran scrolls--yeah, that's the ticket).

Let's get down to real prophecies, unambiguous, not easily contrived (like the baptism) and historically documentable.


Lets test that. In order for you to know their is no God, you would have to travel to all the corners, nooks and crannies of the universe and check everywhere.

In order for you to know that Zeus does not exist, you would have to travel to all the corners, nooks and crannies of the universe and check everywhere. Or do you believe in Zeus?

by Simon Greenleaf. He was the FORMOST AUTHORITY on Judicial Law. A jew who was challenged by his law students to disprove the resurrection. After several years of research he converted to Christianity.

Well since he already was a major believer in the Yahweh character, probably believing in such tales as Noah's flood, the 10 plagues, etc, that wouldn't be much of a jump at all.

BTW why do you folks seem to need to put highly questionable superlatives into your conversion stories. I suspect that you will find very few Judaic scholars who consider him the FOREMOST AUTHORITY on Jewish law. It's like when you refer to some Christian who's an engineer somewhere in NASA as a TOP NASA SCIENTIST. Sheesh, get a grip.

Jack the Bodiless

We have had threads on "fulfilled prophecies" before.

At present, the number of clearly fulfilled prophecies in the entire Bible (not just those "fulfilled by Jesus") currently stands at ZERO.

...A number considerably lower than I would have expected by chance alone. The Bible is supernaturally inaccurate?

ex_libres, if you think you have evidence of ANY fulfilled Biblical prophecies, then start a thread on that.

You may be surprised at what you will learn.

SecularFuture

HAHAHA!! Nice link!!
Everyone Evolutionist should study the good work @ http://www.talkorigins.org so that they can be properly prepared for goofy creationist questions and arguments.

SecularFuture

ex_libres
Because the source of your reasoning comes from a blind faith in supernatural concepts. You can’t believe that your bible came from a deity, or believe any of it's magical stories are true unless you first obtain a belief in supernatural concepts.

No – not really. This only proves that people know how to copy *stories* without making many mistakes.

Archeology is about studying the physical (real) world. Has the field of archeology found anything to support the existence of a supernatural realm? Nope. No field has.

All of these "prohecies" are within the context of a book that you believe to be the inspired word of a deity. And just because you, and a bunch of others believe in your bible, that does not by default make it true. No amount of belief can turn something into a fact, no matter how hard you may want it to.

This same kind of reasoning also applies to you. Don’t forget that. For you to know that there is a god, you would need to know everything about our physical world.

By the way – I’m an *atheist*, and by the definition of that word, I do not *believe* in a god. I never said that "there was no god”. I don’t have enough information to make such claims, or to believe in a god concept.

Like I said to someone earlier:
Your bible is just text, and that text could have been written by anyone with a little spare time and imagination. Unlike real history books that refer to events within a real world, your bible tries to justify the existence of a supernatural world that can only be believed, and not seen. Without empirical evidence in support of supernatural concepts, your bible lacks credibility.

SecularFuture

:banghead: