Well, I hope to learn a lot on this forum.
Welcome.
Welcome.
SA? Saudi Arabia or South Africa?
South Africa. Johannesburg
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 05:20:30 AM
South Africa. Johannesburg
Nice, How did you become an atheist, If I might ask?
I grew up in the Netherlandse Gereformed Church.
I got fedup with the politics and silly teachings by men who stood in front of congregations just to make money.
Once I investigated what the Church believed in, I decided I was not impressed at all, and went to many other churches.
I continued my investigation, (15 years on and off about)and eventually studied Mormonism, and Jehovah Witnesses (Bible & Tract Society), Catholicism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Budism, and a heck of a lot more isms.
Eventually I realized that no logical intelligent person can believe in any such concoctions as what religions are spreading.
I then called myself Agnostic. Only because I was a coward to admit I was an atheist.
I reckoned an Theist can not prove God's existence, neither can an Atheist disprove this entity.
Safer to be an agnostic.
At the age of about 40 I decided I want to make a study of religious scriptures after a Muslim gave me a DVD where Zakir Naik and William Campbell had a debate in 2000 about "Science, the Bible and Quran.
He thought I would be a nice candidate to become a Muslim because he saw how I always used to argue with Christians about their religion.
To say the truth, I never bothered to investigate the Quran or Islam for that matter, and I was impressed by the information Zakir Naik used to decimate Campbell.
I then bought a Quran, Hadith and the book by Maurice Buchaille and started to intensely study Islam.
Well, I was totally disappointed in the Islamic religion, and refused to embrace it due to the total disinformation spread by it's scholars as a revelation in miracle form from God!
But what I did learn was that :
NEVER JUDGE A RELIGION IF YOU NEVER STUDIED THEIR HOLY BOOKS!
I then decided to go back to all the religions of before, and to re evaluate their Books, not their institutions.
The Book of Mormon, Insight (JW.org), Upanishad, Bagiva Ghita, Aquarius, Gilgamesh, Creation epoch, Mysticism, Dianetics, and hundreds more,...
only to be able to disprove them all when tested with Science, History, archaeology, Mathematics, and other logical sciences.
However, when I studied these religions, I was amaised at the comical and silly history and values it contained, and billions of people believer in this rubbish.
Now, this is where the whole story engaged into a twist I never expected.
In an argument with a Christian one day, he proved to everyone that I never read and investigated the Bible.
Every argument I uttered, he answered with ease.Evolution, History, Archaeology, Geology, Cosmology, science, etc.
His final words was: You never read the Bible, but claim you know what it says because you heard how others read it when you were in church.However, if I were to criticize Newton, without reading his principia, you would call me a fool. You are an educated person and read thousands of books on your trade, but never read the Bible, and you call it false!"
It made me realize that he was correct,I did not know the Bible as I do all the other holy books of religion.
Well I studied the Bible and measured it with science, History, Archaeology and whatever I could get my hands on, and today I am yet to find a contradiction with it and these sciences.
Needless to say, I am a Bible believing Christian, who believes in the Trinity and Bible only.
I do not belong to any church, neither do I condemn or condone any.
Hope we will talk a lot in future.
Welcome also. Sorry for where you live, politically. And every nation has a sucky past. Even Bantu are colonists, just got there before the Dutch ... ask the Bushmen about it. And the Zulus! A very war-like hybrid ... but respect for the fighting trim.
Here in the US we are returning to the 1960s, only without good music ... getting ready for Civil War ... with or without Marxist revolution and race war. History and prejudice is a gift that keeps on giving.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 05:58:09 AM
Well I studied the Bible and measured it with science, History, Archaeology and whatever I could get my hands on, and today I am yet to find a contradiction with it and these sciences.
Poofing shit into existence, talking snakes, world wide floods, living inside whales, and you couldn't find any contradictions with science? Were your science sources written in Newton's day?
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 04, 2018, 07:56:03 AM
Poofing shit into existence, talking snakes, world wide floods, living inside whales, and you couldn't find any contradictions with science? Were your science sources written in Newton's day?
Yes, never read fiction ... it is all lies ... obviously ;-) Yes, it was very disturbing so many people wanting Harry Potter to be real.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 05:58:09 AM
I grew up in the Netherlandse Gereformed Church.
I got fedup with the politics and silly teachings by men who stood in front of congregations just to make money.
Once I investigated what the Church believed in, I decided I was not impressed at all, and went to many other churches.
I continued my investigation, (15 years on and off about)and eventually studied Mormonism, and Jehovah Witnesses (Bible & Tract Society), Catholicism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Budism, and a heck of a lot more isms.
Eventually I realized that no logical intelligent person can believe in any such concoctions as what religions are spreading.
I then called myself Agnostic. Only because I was a coward to admit I was an atheist.
I reckoned an Theist can not prove God's existence, neither can an Atheist disprove this entity.
Safer to be an agnostic.
At the age of about 40 I decided I want to make a study of religious scriptures after a Muslim gave me a DVD where Zakir Naik and William Campbell had a debate in 2000 about "Science, the Bible and Quran.
He thought I would be a nice candidate to become a Muslim because he saw how I always used to argue with Christians about their religion.
To say the truth, I never bothered to investigate the Quran or Islam for that matter, and I was impressed by the information Zakir Naik used to decimate Campbell.
I then bought a Quran, Hadith and the book by Maurice Buchaille and started to intensely study Islam.
Well, I was totally disappointed in the Islamic religion, and refused to embrace it due to the total disinformation spread by it's scholars as a revelation in miracle form from God!
But what I did learn was that :
NEVER JUDGE A RELIGION IF YOU NEVER STUDIED THEIR HOLY BOOKS!
I then decided to go back to all the religions of before, and to re evaluate their Books, not their institutions.
The Book of Mormon, Insight (JW.org), Upanishad, Bagiva Ghita, Aquarius, Gilgamesh, Creation epoch, Mysticism, Dianetics, and hundreds more,...
only to be able to disprove them all when tested with Science, History, archaeology, Mathematics, and other logical sciences.
However, when I studied these religions, I was amaised at the comical and silly history and values it contained, and billions of people believer in this rubbish.
Now, this is where the whole story engaged into a twist I never expected.
In an argument with a Christian one day, he proved to everyone that I never read and investigated the Bible.
Every argument I uttered, he answered with ease.Evolution, History, Archaeology, Geology, Cosmology, science, etc.
His final words was: You never read the Bible, but claim you know what it says because you heard how others read it when you were in church.However, if I were to criticize Newton, without reading his principia, you would call me a fool. You are an educated person and read thousands of books on your trade, but never read the Bible, and you call it false!"
It made me realize that he was correct,I did not know the Bible as I do all the other holy books of religion.
Well I studied the Bible and measured it with science, History, Archaeology and whatever I could get my hands on, and today I am yet to find a contradiction with it and these sciences.
Needless to say, I am a Bible believing Christian, who believes in the Trinity and Bible only.
I do not belong to any church, neither do I condemn or condone any.
Hope we will talk a lot in future.
I searched for answers for a long time. Then I finally read the entire Bible and many, many commentaries about it. I then realized that it was simply a collection of stories written by ancient peoples to explain to them how the world worked and cobbled together by men who wanted to control the masses of their people and become rich and powerful. They succeeded. However the bible is simply drivel with no substance whatsoever. I do not understand how an able minded person can believe that stuff. I came to the exact opposite conclusion you did. The bible IS a clever document in that one can make it say whatever they want it to. BTW, which bible are you referring to? There are literally hundreds of different ones out there, all professing to be THE word of god.
Our new guy, if he is Dutch Reformed ... is a Calvinist ... moderate Arminian or more Fundy. But definitely interpreted thru Jean Cauvin (John Calvin). His Bible may be in Dutch or Afrikaans. Certainly not in the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek original.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 04, 2018, 07:56:03 AM
Poofing shit into existence, talking snakes, world wide floods, living inside whales, and you couldn't find any contradictions with science? Were your science sources written in Newton's day?
As a matter of fact, your comments do not not really carry any well thought out educational bias.
Lets see, who said:
"Throughout my life I studied the Bible every day and could not find a single contradiction with the use of experimental and theoretical science."
I am sure a certain Newton, not sure which one, said this, or something similar than this.
Perhaps you can assist on whether science at the time of SIR ISAAC NEWTON was poor, or whether you believe SIR ISAAC NEWTON was a poofy scientist.
please elaborate.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:18:23 AM
As a matter of fact, your comments do not not really carry any well thought out educational bias.
Lets see, who said:
"Throughout my life I studied the Bible every day and could not find a single contradiction with the use of experimental and theoretical science."
I am sure a certain Newton, not sure which one, said this, or something similar than this.
Perhaps you can assist on whether science at the time of SIR ISAAC NEWTON was poor, or whether you believe SIR ISAAC NEWTON was a poofy scientist.
please elaborate.
I think you are over-interpreting Popeye's comment.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 04, 2018, 09:23:12 AM
BTW, which bible are you referring to? There are literally hundreds of different ones out there, all professing to be THE word of god.
I would recommend any Bible you please.
There are 2 main translation versions which one is what we named the King James Version, and the other the newer translations such as the NIV.
both have the same contents but a few differences.
But you are welcome to talk about any Bible you want, they all are translated from ancient manuscripts in the language of Hebrew and Greek.
If you say there are hundreds of Bibles out there, all of them will have, for instance, the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in them. It is not that they differ in the historical contents, where you would like to create an impression that there are 100 different Bibles, and they dont say the same thing at all. Such a thought is totally incorrect and smothered in bias.
Quote from: Baruch on July 04, 2018, 10:07:28 AM
Our new guy, if he is Dutch Reformed ... is a Calvinist ... moderate Arminian or more Fundy. But definitely interpreted thru Jean Cauvin (John Calvin). His Bible may be in Dutch or Afrikaans. Certainly not in the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek original.
It will be very difficult to have the originals.
But I do have a huge collection of bibles and 4 software programs.
My personal Bible is the Hebrew Roots Bible, then the KJV.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:26:06 AM
I would recommend any Bible you please.
There are 2 main translation versions which one is what we named the King James Version, and the other the newer translations such as the NIV.
both have the same contents but a few differences.
But you are welcome to talk about any Bible you want, they all are translated from ancient manuscripts in the language of Hebrew and Greek.
If you say there are hundreds of Bibles out there, all of them will have, for instance, the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in them. It is not that they differ in the historical contents, where you would like to create an impression that there are 100 different Bibles, and they dont say the same thing at all. Such a thought is totally incorrect and smothered in bias.
English Bibles are OK, if tendentious (as any translation is ... there are built in theological biases by the translators). You have to read the original languages, as originally intended ... but few can do that.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:26:06 AM
I would recommend any Bible you please.
There are 2 main translation versions which one is what we named the King James Version, and the other the newer translations such as the NIV.
both have the same contents but a few differences.
But you are welcome to talk about any Bible you want, they all are translated from ancient manuscripts in the language of Hebrew and Greek.
If you say there are hundreds of Bibles out there, all of them will have, for instance, the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in them. It is not that they differ in the historical contents, where you would like to create an impression that there are 100 different Bibles, and they dont say the same thing at all. Such a thought is totally incorrect and smothered in bias.
Your last point is true ... do all historians completely agree on history? Was the British Empire correct or the Boers? No agreement is to be had in history. But if you accept scripture as traditional story-telling, then you don't have to worry about what really happened way back when.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 05:58:09 AM
Well I studied the Bible and measured it with science, History, Archaeology and whatever I could get my hands on, and today I am yet to find a contradiction with it and these sciences.
oy…..so…Jesus indeed rode a dinosaur? How quaint. And this place you learned "science"….did they have like ink or just crayon?
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:26:06 AM
I would recommend any Bible you please.
There are 2 main translation versions which one is what we named the King James Version, and the other the newer translations such as the NIV.
both have the same contents but a few differences.
But you are welcome to talk about any Bible you want, they all are translated from ancient manuscripts in the language of Hebrew and Greek.
If you say there are hundreds of Bibles out there, all of them will have, for instance, the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in them. It is not that they differ in the historical contents, where you would like to create an impression that there are 100 different Bibles, and they dont say the same thing at all. Such a thought is totally incorrect and smothered in bias.
I see your point. As I understand it God (your god) is the creator of all; perfect and beyond stain. Yet he could not create a consistent Bible? He reached out to only one small portion of earth? He killed all of his own creation because he did not get it right (you know, the Flood--or do you believe in some parts of the bible and not others??)? That is perfect? He can't even communicate to his crowning glory????? So, the hundreds of bibles point to a man created scripture and not god. If it is your god, he is one sloppy god and ineffectual. Didn't say all of each bible is different. All bibles have similarities---and differences. I find that odd, as I mentioned above.
Don't forget Aramaic since it was probably the original language used to create the bible--at least the OT.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:26:06 AM
If you say there are hundreds of Bibles out there, all of them will have, for instance, the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in them. It is not that they differ in the historical contents, where you would like to create an impression that there are 100 different Bibles, and they dont say the same thing at all. Such a thought is totally incorrect and smothered in bias.
Let's test that claim. And it'll be a super simple test, especially for such a learned bible scholar.
How did Judas die?
If you are correct, different Bibles will have more or less the same story.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 04, 2018, 06:57:47 PM
Let's test that claim. And it'll be a super simple test, especially for such a learned bible scholar.
How did Judas die?
If you are correct, different Bibles will have more or less the same story.
This so called contradiction is an age old question.
I really think it can never disprove the Biblical narratives at all.
Actually, I find this so called contradiction answered over an over again, yet no Atheist accepts this explanation.
You can go and read one good explanation here.
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/how-did-judas-die/
However, I would like to know from you; is this description between 2 witnesses really your evidence that there is no God?
Do you really think that the disciples of Jesus never read what the other compiled about the 3 years they spent with Jesus?
Would it not mean that if they perceived it as a contradiction, they would have redacted their writings wholesale?
Is this the reason why you deny the existence of God?
I do not think this will be sufficient for other atheists at all.
Anyhow,
Think about this,
This is the reason why I believe the Gospels to be true, the 4 witnesses DID NOT PRE-CORRUPT THEIR VIEWS.
And take into account that the 4 gospels was quoted by the "Church fathers" from 65 AD to 100 AD, when there were still living witnesses on the life of Jesus, they would have mentioned such redaction.
Anyhow, this will be a discussion for later.
A literalist then? Do you believe that Moby Dick literally happened, or is just an imaginative retelling based on actual events? And some literature isn't based on any actual events ... just plausible human behavior patterns.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 04, 2018, 10:18:23 AM
As a matter of fact, your comments do not not really carry any well thought out educational bias.
Lets see, who said:
"Throughout my life I studied the Bible every day and could not find a single contradiction with the use of experimental and theoretical science."
I am sure a certain Newton, not sure which one, said this, or something similar than this.
Perhaps you can assist on whether science at the time of SIR ISAAC NEWTON was poor, or whether you believe SIR ISAAC NEWTON was a poofy scientist.
please elaborate.
Let's try this again then.
"Poofing shit into existence" According to the Bible god did this. An example of god poofing shit into existence would be the creation of Adam and Eve along with every other thing on this planet including the planet itself. Modern science, i.e. biology, geology and physics, contradicts this Biblical claim. In Issac Newton's time, late 17th - early 18th century, science that contradicted this Biblical claim was sparse. Were the scientific sources you claim you searched written in the late 17th to early 18th century? I am thinking they must have been because the current science says it didn't happen the way the Bible claims it did.
The same thing could be said about talking snakes, world wide floods, and living inside whales. These Biblical claims are contradicted by modern science yet you claim you can not find any contradictions between the Bible and science.
LOL at Answers in Genesis. That explains a lot. Why don't you try some actual scientific sources as opposed to religious propaganda.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 10:19:20 AM
This so called contradiction is an age old question.
I really think it can never disprove the Biblical narratives at all.
Denial. A very unexpected strategy from an avowed Christian when confronted with biblical discrepancies. I am almost shocked.
QuoteYou can go and read one good explanation here.
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/how-did-judas-die/
Thanks. I needed a laugh. Also, it really puts the lie to your "scholarly" self-image.
QuoteHowever, I would like to know from you; is this description between 2 witnesses really your evidence that there is no God?
Oh? Is that my claim? Or did I merely present that in response to your absurd claim of biblical consistency?
Mousetrap, this is some of what I consider to be proof that your god does not and never did exist. This is about the bible. Is this not supposed to be the Word of God? He either had it channeled or wrote it himself--right? Study how the bible was constructed. It was constructed from a huge mass or writings. By men--not god; which is why there are so many versions of 'the bible'. Most of the material not selected was destroyed by the honest and trustworthy men who constructed it. None of those early bibles exist now--only bits and pieces of it and many of them contradict each other. This is beyond careless for a god who professes to wish to communicate to all of his creation. God could easily have created His Word with total perfection and then deposited it with all who populated the world at the time. So, if one could go to Europe and South America, Australia, etc (anywhere in the world) and find ancient exact copies of this Word made in an indestructible form, this would be proof that your god does, indeed, exist. Otherwise, the creation of the bible from man-made material that is not consistent simply demonstrates that your god is a man-made wishful entity.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 10:19:20 AM
This so called contradiction is an age old question.
I really think it can never disprove the Biblical narratives at all.
Actually, I find this so called contradiction answered over an over again, yet no Atheist accepts this explanation.
You can go and read one good explanation here.
https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/how-did-judas-die/
However, I would like to know from you; is this description between 2 witnesses really your evidence that there is no God?
Do you really think that the disciples of Jesus never read what the other compiled about the 3 years they spent with Jesus?
Would it not mean that if they perceived it as a contradiction, they would have redacted their writings wholesale?
Is this the reason why you deny the existence of God?
I do not think this will be sufficient for other atheists at all.
Anyhow,
Think about this,
This is the reason why I believe the Gospels to be true, the 4 witnesses DID NOT PRE-CORRUPT THEIR VIEWS.
And take into account that the 4 gospels was quoted by the "Church fathers" from 65 AD to 100 AD, when there were still living witnesses on the life of Jesus, they would have mentioned such redaction.
Anyhow, this will be a discussion for later.
Wow. This is one of the few contradictions that are easily explained, and you still got it wrong. They are not two viewpoints. First of all, one account says that Judas bought the land, the other said that the priests bought the land because Judas tossed them back the "blood money" they paid him, and they couldn't keep it. The first account doesn't say it was bought with Judas' money. It says he bought it. That's a contradiction.
Second, one account says that Judas' hung himself. The other says he was walking in the field when he tripped and fell onto a rock spilled his guts out. It doesn't say that he was bloated and fell from a tree, spilling out his guts after he was already dead. This just goes to show the lengths apologists will go to twist scripture to say whatever is convenient for them.
As I said, there is a legitimate way to explain away that contradiction. You won't find that explanation from the hacks at Answers in Genesis, however. Got a Bible with those notes in them? If so, look at the notes for the account in Acts.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 05, 2018, 10:19:20 AM
Think about this,
Ohh nooes...not the "think about this" line....dagggnabit....well he got us on that one eh? If there is one thing we never do here as atheists is "think about things"
yessir...you got me.....you got "tater salad"...
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 05, 2018, 09:22:44 PM
Wow. This is one of the few contradictions that are easily explained, and you still got it wrong. They are not two viewpoints. First of all, one account says that Judas bought the land, the other said that the priests bought the land because Judas tossed them back the "blood money" they paid him, and they couldn't keep it. The first account doesn't say it was bought with Judas' money. It says he bought it. That's a contradiction.
Second, one account says that Judas' hung himself. The other says he was walking in the field when he tripped and fell onto a rock spilled his guts out. It doesn't say that he was bloated and fell from a tree, spilling out his guts after he was already dead. This just goes to show the lengths apologists will go to twist scripture to say whatever is convenient for them.
As I said, there is a legitimate way to explain away that contradiction. You won't find that explanation from the hacks at Answers in Genesis, however. Got a Bible with those notes in them? If so, look at the notes for the account in Acts.
Come on ... be realistic. Peter had a sword, and knew how to use it (he cut off the ear of the temple servant). And he felt guilty for denying Jesus three times before the cock crowed. Peter took care of Judas ... kind of like people who annoy the Mafia are found with nail gun wounds to the back of their heads ... careless that! Peter founded the Jewish Mafia aka Detroit Mob aka Murder Inc. Al Capone later hired them for a little wet work on St Valentine's Day in Chicago ... the Irish were unlucky because it wasn't St Patrick's Day yet.
Welcome from South Texas. More North than your south. Here have a comic:
(https://img00.deviantart.net/caf7/i/2012/232/3/c/lol_cho__gath_and_annie_by_rectocharlie-d5bqymc.png)
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 05, 2018, 11:03:46 AM
Let's try this again then.
... In Issac Newton's time, late 17th - early 18th century, science that contradicted this Biblical claim was sparse. Were the scientific sources you claim you searched written in the late 17th to early 18th century? I am thinking they must have been because the current science says it didn't happen the way the Bible claims it did.
I would like you to remember this post you have sent, for this is the actual misconception Atheists has about the connection of the Bible and science.
I would only require from you the assurance that you do know that Isaac Newton was one of the worlds greatest scientists, as well as unequaled in his Biblical research.
Later today I will open my link to discuss the creation epic and Science.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 05, 2018, 11:05:29 AM
LOL at Answers in Genesis. That explains a lot. Why don't you try some actual scientific sources as opposed to religious propaganda.
I investigated the Question in Question already in 2007 when Answering Genesis still did not have these apologetic s.
I deliberately chose Answering Genesis to show you your Bias.
I am not a supporter of Ken Ham and most of his theories.
However, the answer on this question is a valid one, and due to your bias, all you can do is to laugh at the answer because it comes from a creationist website.
I can also laugh, for instance if I refer to Atheists such as Richard Dawkins where he was caught out as a 'pan-spermian' by Ben Shapiro.
Does that make all Dawkin's statements false?
No, it does not, because I never pre -conceive a person's faults with the facts that he has from which all could learn.
I am sorry to have set that trap, but hope I have demonstrated that you should never be superficial in finding facts.
This is what shows our intelligence.
Sorting the bad from the good.
else we would not have been sitting and talking to each other now if our ancestors did not have this cognitive abilities.
I apologize again for having to show you your bias towards facts.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 05, 2018, 11:19:50 AM
...
Oh? Is that my claim? Or did I merely present that in response to your absurd claim of biblical consistency?
Yes it was your claim.
You claimed that you had an example of a contradiction which you posted boastfully as an test where I had to give you an answer.
Did you forget?
All I did is to give you an answer, yet, you now retract your claim after I asked you if this was your best reason to claim the Bible is full of contradictions.
All you did was to visit the skeptics annotated Bible, took a contradiction that is not one, and played the role of Judge.
I bet you you NEVER EVEN READ THE BIBLE FOR YOURSELF.
Please do not be so aggressive it is not what intelligent minds do.
I always am told how Atheists are OPEN MINDED and how they investigated all the facts before coming to conclusions.
I would love to talk to such people on this forum.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 05, 2018, 09:22:44 PM
...First of all, one account says that Judas bought the land, the other said that the priests bought the land because Judas tossed them back the "blood money" they paid him, and they couldn't keep it. The first account doesn't say it was bought with Judas' money. It says he bought it. That's a contradiction.
realy, who's money was it the priests used to purchase the land?
Quote from: Second, one account says that Judas' hung himself. The other says he was walking in the field when he tripped and fell onto a rock spilled his guts out. It doesn't say that he was bloated and fell from a tree, spilling out his guts after he was already dead. This just goes to show the lengths apologists will go to twist scripture to say whatever is convenient for them.[/quote
please supply me with the verse where it say JUDAS WAS WALKING AND HE FELL AND HIS GUTS SPILL OUT.
so, who is now the one who twists the Bible.
You added the words "Judas walked in a field".
Please give me your references.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 02:58:09 AM
I investigated the Question in Question already in 2007 when Answering Genesis still did not have these apologetic s.
I deliberately chose Answering Genesis to show you your Bias.
I am not a supporter of Ken Ham and most of his theories.
However, the answer on this question is a valid one, and due to your bias, all you can do is to laugh at the answer because it comes from a creationist website.
I can also laugh, for instance if I refer to Atheists such as Richard Dawkins where he was caught out as a 'pan-spermian' by Ben Shapiro.
Does that make all Dawkin's statements false?
No, it does not, because I never pre -conceive a person's faults with the facts that he has from which all could learn.
I am sorry to have set that trap, but hope I have demonstrated that you should never be superficial in finding facts.
This is what shows our intelligence.
Sorting the bad from the good.
else we would not have been sitting and talking to each other now if our ancestors did not have this cognitive abilities.
I apologize again for having to show you your bias towards facts.
So in other words you are being a dishonest prick by deliberately misrepresenting your position. I guess I shouldn't have expected any better considering that's the modus operandi of many of the Christians that visit our forum for discussion.
Last chance then. I gave you some examples of stories from the Bible that I believe conflict with science. What is your take on the Biblical creation story, the flood, and Jonah and the whale? How do these stories not conflict with science? Answer that simple question honestly and we can continue this conversation. Don't answer it, and you can go fuck yourself.
Mousetrap, can you explain why Gen. 1 is different than Gen. 2? These are two different stories.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 06, 2018, 08:22:19 AM
So in other words you are being a dishonest prick by deliberately misrepresenting your position. I guess I shouldn't have expected any better considering that's the modus operandi of many of the Christians that visit our forum for discussion.
Last chance then. I gave you some examples of stories from the Bible that I believe conflict with science. What is your take on the Biblical creation story, the flood, and Jonah and the whale? How do these stories not conflict with science? Answer that simple question honestly and we can continue this conversation. Don't answer it, and you can go fuck yourself.
Glad you asked.
Look at my thread on the Origins of the Universe over the next few days, and lets see if you can swallow a whale of information you never had before.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 06, 2018, 09:03:53 AM
Mousetrap, can you explain why Gen. 1 is different than Gen. 2? These are two different stories.
I will gt to that too, but who said it is a chronological sequential follow up?
Is the one not a description of 7 days, and the other a detailed description of what happened on the 6th day?
look at the separation between the two descriptions...
Quote from: Gen 2:4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
it says that this was how God created everything in 6 days, then it goes over to telling us what God did on the sixth day when he created man.
some will now say that god made animals first in Gen 1, but in Gen 2 He made animals after Man.
but this is not the case, because even though God created animals first, He also created animals to bring to Adam so he could name them.
Anyhow, this is a postulation and has nothing to do with The Bible ans science, but an age old argument made by Atheists who blatantly refuse to accept that Gen 2 describes day 6.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on July 06, 2018, 08:22:19 AM
Answer that simple question honestly and we can continue this conversation. Don't answer it, and you can go fuck yourself.
And here we have the representative of Atheist mentality at its best.
Poor soul, do you agree that you are a bad person that lives in a dark and safe cave, too scared of the light?
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:29:04 AM
And here we have the representative of Atheist mentality at its best.
Poor soul, do you agree that you are a bad person that lives in a dark and safe cave, too scared of the light?
That would be my question to you, theist.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 06, 2018, 10:02:43 AM
That would be my question to you, theist.
He certainly reminds me of evangelicals who have visited us before. Perhaps Cavebear had extra-sensor bear perception?
Quote from: Baruch on July 06, 2018, 12:19:29 PM
He certainly reminds me of evangelicals who have visited us before. Perhaps Cavebear had extra-sensor bear perception?
He also reminds me of several past visitors. All of them thinking they were coming to the rescue of these poor atheists.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 03:08:02 AM
All I did is to give you an answer, yet, you now retract your claim after I asked you if this was your best reason to claim the Bible is full of contradictions.
Yes, the Bible is full of contradictions and other errors:
Biblical Contradictions - by category (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=5.0)
Please feel free to explain these to us ignorant atheists.
It would be very difficult to defend any of the nonsense you're defending.
The tearing of cloth, the earth shaking, the dead rising from their graves. Remembered only by some, but not all.
I think I would remember shit like the above-mentioned.
Yeah, Christianity - defending the indefensible for 2000 years!
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 06, 2018, 07:10:28 PM
Yeah, Christianity - defending the indefensible for 2000 years!
Dr Who was behind it all, but he had the Jews take a vow of silence about it ;-)
Well, either they broke their silence - or they broke wind.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 03:26:29 AM
realy, who's money was it the priests used to purchase the land?
The contradiction isn't in where the money came from. It's in who bought it. Apparently the people who wrote the Bible ascribe to the Obi-Wan Kenobi brand of "truth."
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/oarGJ.gif)
Fuck off with that.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 03:26:29 AM
please supply me with the verse where it say JUDAS WAS WALKING AND HE FELL AND HIS GUTS SPILL OUT.
It's implied. You like your "implied" messages when it comes to the Bible, don't you? It says he fell "headlong." How would he fall headlong if he was hung from a tree? He was walking, he tripped, and he cut his gut open. That's what it says.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 03:26:29 AMso, who is now the one who twists the Bible.
Still you. I noticed you ignored my suggestion to look up notes on the Acts account as well. How can you expect to learn from the Bible if you're too lazy to open it?
Mousetrap, seriously... I'm new here as well, but I've been around the block.
If you think you're the first to use AIG as a way to make atheists cower in the corner, you are badly mistaken.
I live in a roundhouse, so I never cower in a corner...;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 08, 2018, 07:06:37 PM
I live in a roundhouse, so I never cower in a corner...;-)
Shh ... first rule of fight club is ... don't talk about fight club! (a kind of brawl).
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 08, 2018, 07:06:37 PM
I live in a roundhouse, so I never cower in a corner...;-)
Ostensibly why the house in "Blair Witch" had corners.
No corners, no curse.
Great. Now I have to remodel my house.
Well, actually I was pulling your leg - I haven't lived in a house of any kind, round or otherwise, for decades.
Quote from: ferdmonger on July 08, 2018, 06:55:40 PM
Mousetrap, seriously... I'm new here as well, but I've been around the block.
If you think you're the first to use AIG as a way to make atheists cower in the corner, you are badly mistaken.
Hell, I even read the Answers in Genesis book when I was a kid. Wasn't impressed with it then, either. It failed to answer any of my questions.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:29:04 AM
And here we have the representative of Atheist mentality at its best.
Poor soul, do you agree that you are a bad person that lives in a dark and safe cave, too scared of the light?
I probably shouldn't bother answering this, as others have already done it, but I can't let let such idiocy pass by without response.
Mousetrap, I live in the light. The light is the reality of reason and fact. I pay attention to the factual world, not your imagined world of faith in spirits, superstition, and imagination. Imagined beings like deities are not part of my world. I do not think of them in normal everyday life, nor do I think of them in my sleep. In fact, the only time I ever think of such damn-foolish nonsense is when I see posts like yours here.
And in case you are thinking "Oh good he is thinking about God", no I'm not. I just see a person trapped in the sad superstitious ideas of the past before we normal (dare I say "advanced") humans began to understand that the universe is understandable without deities, that humans can develop ethics by themselves, and religious rules normally make little sense except for the rules we humans had already figured out on our own.
In short, you are basically a retrograde thinker, stuck in ancient thought. You might just as well worship Zeus or Odin or Mithra for all I care.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 02:10:13 AM
I probably shouldn't bother answering this, as others have already done it, but I can't let let such idiocy pass by without response.
In short, you are basically a retrograde thinker, stuck in ancient thought. You might just as well worship Zeus or Odin or Mithra for all I care.
Really?
So without even taking into consideration on what I will tell you, you already decide I am wrong.
Friend, you can carry on to defend this point of view until the horses grow horns, it will remain a display of ignorance and bias.
:smile: :smile2: :snooty:
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 08, 2018, 10:00:02 PM
Hell, I even read the Answers in Genesis book when I was a kid. Wasn't impressed with it then, either. It failed to answer any of my questions.
Same here.
Especially when Ham tries to force science to fit in with an Earth created before the Sun.
That is simply put, silly.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 03:24:29 AM
Same here.
Especially when Ham tries to force science to fit in with an Earth created before the Sun.
That is simply put, silly.
Every biblical quote or theistic assumption just sets you deeper in irrationality. Keep it up. I can just sit here and let you dig your hole deeper.
No religious scripture is to be taken literally.
They were written on hearsay by various people as stories many centuries ago.
As I have mentioned a few times, all religions/deities are human creations. No exceptions.
Quote from: pr126 on July 09, 2018, 03:56:54 AM
No religious scripture is to be taken literally.
They were written on hearsay by various people as stories many centuries ago.
As I have mentioned a few times, all religions/deities are human creations. No exceptions.
We agree on that. But a lot of damn fools don't. They take the bible or other religious texts literally. And THAT is where the problem is.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 04:02:33 AM
We agree on that. But a lot of damn fools don't. They take the bible or other religious texts literally. And THAT is where the problem is.
All problems are people problems.
All people problems are psych problems.
Quote from: Thomas PaineThe Bible has been received by the Protestants on the authority of the Church of Rome, and on no other authority. It is She that has said it is the word of God.
The RCC created the New Testament. And then made the reading of it by anyone other then their ordained priests punishable by death. Those who finally translated it into vernacular languages so anyone could read it were burned alive at the stake. When people finally rebelled against the RCC should have rebelled against their propaganda, too.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 09, 2018, 02:01:51 PM
The RCC created the New Testament. And then made the reading of it by anyone other then their ordained priests punishable by death. Those who finally translated it into vernacular languages so anyone could read it were burned alive at the stake. When people finally rebelled against the RCC should have rebelled against their propaganda, too.
I dislike admiring anyone promoting religion, but I do respect John Wycliff for at least putting an English language-appropriate text into print. It supported religion, but also allowed thinking people to ask questions about it.
Well, you have to start somewhere...
Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 02:12:52 PM
I dislike admiring anyone promoting religion, but I do respect John Wycliff for at least putting an English language-appropriate text into print. It supported religion, but also allowed thinking people to ask questions about it.
Well, you have to start somewhere...
Wycliffe's edition was Middle English. Tyndale's was the first in modern English ... and he was executed for it too. Wycliffe inspired not only the English Reformation (but not the kind King Henry VIII liked), but also Jan Hus in Bohemia, and their first successful Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther was a johnny-come-lately. Much of Tyndale's version was reused in the King James version.
Textus Receptus--
The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516â€"a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar, priest and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. This edition of the New Testament represents the tradition of manuscripts of the New Testament as the one that the Orthodox Church has received and used without interruption since the 4th century.[1] They are also the text type used in most Protestant denominations consistently throughout history before the 19th century adoption of the Alexandrian priority position within mainstream Biblical scholarship.
Manuscripts of the Byzantine family represent the vast majority of the 5700 manuscripts that have currently been found and collated; no two of its manuscripts are identical.
That tells the story. No clue as to what the 'original' bible said.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 04:02:33 AM
We agree on that. But a lot of damn fools don't. They take the bible or other religious texts literally. And THAT is where the problem is.
Or perhaps they live on preconceived ideas on what the Bible says.
Let me also inform you about my perception of Atheism.
I am 100% sure and convinced that Atheism is a religion!
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 10:30:33 AM
I am 100% sure and convinced that Atheism is a religion!
I am sure you are. Since you have your knowledge given to you by your god, all you have to do is label it and it is so. There actually is no such thing as Atheism. But you have labeled it as such and therefore it is so. Since you believe in a fictional character I am not surprised by your labeling. If it makes your world from deep inside your cave seem less threatening, go ahead a label. Your fiction matters little to me.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 10:30:33 AM
Or perhaps they live on preconceived ideas on what the Bible says.
Let me also inform you about my perception of Atheism.
I am 100% sure and convinced that Atheism is a religion!
Right. And I'm 100% sure you have your head up your ass. Atheism is to religion what not collecting stamps is to hobbies.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 10, 2018, 12:04:54 PM
Right. And I'm 100% sure you have your head up your ass. Atheism is to religion what not collecting stamps is to hobbies.
But atheists do have other hobbies ... only nihilists have none.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 10, 2018, 09:09:44 AM
Textus Receptus--
The series originated with the first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516â€"a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar, priest and humanist Desiderius Erasmus. This edition of the New Testament represents the tradition of manuscripts of the New Testament as the one that the Orthodox Church has received and used without interruption since the 4th century.[1] They are also the text type used in most Protestant denominations consistently throughout history before the 19th century adoption of the Alexandrian priority position within mainstream Biblical scholarship.
Manuscripts of the Byzantine family represent the vast majority of the 5700 manuscripts that have currently been found and collated; no two of its manuscripts are identical.
That tells the story. No clue as to what the 'original' bible said.
Details aren't that important. Scripture isn't that important. You must do what the Byzantine Emperor demands, directly thru his officers or thru the Byzantine church priesthood. Protestant and even more so Free Church POV is very narrow. The first Byzantine emperor was Constantine.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 10:30:33 AM
Or perhaps they live on preconceived ideas on what the Bible says.
Let me also inform you about my perception of Atheism.
I am 100% sure and convinced that Atheism is a religion!
And we're supposed to care - why?
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 10:30:33 AM
Or perhaps they live on preconceived ideas on what the Bible says.
Let me also inform you about my perception of Atheism.
I am 100% sure and convinced that Atheism is a religion!
Your perception is flawed because it contradicts with the dictionary, just like your bible contradicts with reason. At least you are consistent.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 09:03:15 AM
So, dont you believe in atheism?
Sarcasm isn't your strong point, isn't it?
"Atheism" is the name we put on people who lack a particular belief. You believe that it is a religion because you think there is some sort of creed behind it.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 11, 2018, 09:17:37 AM
Sarcasm isn't your strong point, isn't it?
"Atheism" is the name we put on people who lack a particular belief. You believe that it is a religion because you think there is some sort of creed behind it.
OK So you dont believe in it?
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 09:36:43 AM
OK So you dont believe in it?
There's nothing
to believe or not believe in it. It's not the kind of thing that the phrase "believe in" makes any sense applied to it.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 11, 2018, 10:00:41 AM
There's nothing to believe or not believe in it. It's not the kind of thing that the phrase "believe in" makes any sense applied to it.
Ok, I get it.
You dont believe in Atheism, because there is nothing to believe in.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 09:36:43 AM
OK So you dont believe in it?
No, I don't 'believe' in it. I don't believe in anything. I know atheism is accurate since I rely on facts, data, and critical thinking. Beliefs have nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 11, 2018, 10:16:33 AM
No, I don't 'believe' in it. I don't believe in anything. I know atheism is accurate since I rely on facts, data, and critical thinking. Beliefs have nothing to do with it.
Thanks for admitting you dont believe in atheism.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 10:20:43 AM
Thanks for admitting you dont believe in atheism.
Thanks. Don't need belief to know that atheism is accurate and true. You, on the other hand, must rely on belief, for facts show that is all you have--belief. But, hey, whatever gets you thru the night as you huddle in your cave.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 10:06:43 AM
Ok, I get it.
You dont believe in Atheism, because there is nothing to believe in.
You don't "believe" in atheism (a lack of theism) in the same way that you don't paint with a lack of paint or renovate a lack of a house.
"Not believing" isn't the same as "believing not." I know it a fine distinction, but it's an important distinction.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 11, 2018, 01:52:55 PM
"Not believing" isn't the same as "believing not." I know it a fine distinction, but it's an important distinction.
Agnostic vs anti-religious. "believing not" is more assertive, "not believing"" is more passive.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 10:30:33 AM
Or perhaps they live on preconceived ideas on what the Bible says.
Let me also inform you about my perception of Atheism.
I am 100% sure and convinced that Atheism is a religion!
Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color...