Your favourite Bible absurdity

quote:

---

Science cannot prove, or disprove God or the the Bible.

---

I think some of the somewhat harsh comments you're getting maybe because you're being (unfairly?) lumped in with the many who post here who don't agree with your statement.They think that the Bible is literally true. They claim is that the Bible proves science wrong. Of course, if that is the case then the reverse is also possilbe. They claim that the Bible says that the earth is a few 1,000 years old. They claim that the Bible says there was a world wide flood. They claim that this means the findings of science are wrong.Of course, what they have done is make the Bible subject to scientific examination. The Bible fails this test.Since you are not one of those then the somewhat impatient comments directed at you are inapproprate. To those who are attempting to control childrens education in non-religious areas such comments are, perhaps, more understandable.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-18-2003]

Obviously, this is not a place for rational discussion, so I will withdrawl from this site. Again, Brian attacks the intellect of believers, saying they have to be Cuckoo.This is absurd, and childish. Of course a lot of Christians are arrogant and make harsh judgements.If you bothered to read my posts, I do say they I admit I could be wrong in my beliefs. I never claimed exclusively that my God is the only God. I BLIEVE He is the one and only true God, but I'm not saying that is a fact. It is a faith statement.Thank you for you closed minds, presummptions, and all.All of you are to prideful to admit you could be wrong, and resort to bashing someone's intelligence if they believe other than you.Way to go.Grow up. Good bye.-----
Note from Adminnemooseus: This type discussion needs to be taken to the "Change in Moderation?" topic.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-18-2003]

Hi Sagg, You're going to have to develop a tougher skin. Rather than taking offense that Quetzal sees your interpretation as forced or tortured, take it as an opportunity to once more explain how clear and straightforward it is. In this administrator's view, you're asking Quetzal to take an obsequious approach to your posts.[Correct egregious grammatical error. --Admin]------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator[This message has been edited by Admin, 04-18-2003]

Nope, I simply thought that your purpose in coming to this discussion board was to discuss. Evidently, you were interested only in preaching, and assumed that everyone would accept your assertions as true without question or comment. If you're unable to back up your claims, why did you post them? Why come on a message board that clearly says in its title "Creation versus Evolution" and not expect to be challenged? Did you really believe no one would question you and your beliefs, especially in a thread marked "Your favorite Bible absurdity"? I think you were very presumptious in this instance. Have a nice life.

Do you not comprehend the english language? I'm leaving because I'm not debated with sound arguments, but met with childish attacks at my intelect, and the intellgience of all believers. NOT, because I didn't expect to hear arguments against my positions. If you could read and comprehend my posts, you'd understand that I admit my beliefs could be wrong, and that it is a matter of faith. But, I keep getting responses that put words in my mouth (like your last post), and then when I call people out on these lies, they aren't big enough to apologize and admit they are wrong.Therefore, there is no room for a logical debate.This will be my final post. I hope you all learn to respect others and extend them a common courtesy, at least until you know their position. I, for one, don't think evolution and creation are necessarily against one another. Evolution could be a possible means of creation. I also don't necessarily believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that the Bible says it is, or that the Bible is 100% error free. But all these presumptions were made against me...See you in the afterlife. But don't ask me for any water...

Whoever you were referring to, let me firstly say, that the Bible does record history that progressively gets more accurate as we get closer to the time of composition. In other words, Genesis is complete myth, the Exodus may contain faint memories of an actual historical event, Judges is a collection of myths from a completely different tradition, the book of Samuel is possibly greatly exaggerated history, and 2 Kings might represent history as seen through a theological lens. If you view the Deuteronomic history (Joshua to 2 Kings) as a single composition, all of this falls nicely into place.Since you've decided to run away, let's look at your examples to show exactly how the Bible, while getting some facts correct, gets others wrong, or these "corroborations" are actually too vague to be useful.

quote:

---

According to recorded history, Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king, there was no Belshazzar. Archaelogy uncovered tablets showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus son, who served as co-regent.

---

Yes, and Daniel got it wrong, not once, but several times by claiming Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadrezzar. Nor was Belshazzar ever king, another fact Daniel seems to get wrong.

quote:

---

The story of the flood is corrobarated in many other documents of many other ancient civilizations.

---

And ignored or unnoticed by Egyptians and Chinese civilisations. Strange that.

quote:

---

Sumerian tablets record the confusion of language found in the Tower of Babel story.

---

Hmmm, haven't heard of this one before. You do realise that the evolution and "speciation" of languages has the most rock solid proof of evolution of any kind?

quote:

---

The walls of the Egyptian Temple of Amun in Thebes recors Shishaks campaign into Israel.

---

Actually, it is assumed that this Egyptian Shoshenq I refers to Shishak of Kings, and embarassingly the Israelites got spanked badly didn't they? Secondly, Jerusalem is not mentioned among Shoshenq's victories. Strange what the Bible gets wrong isn't it? Anyway, care to hazard a guess who Shoshenq gave the credit to? (And even then, scholars like Finkelstein disagree that the towns Shoshenq sacked were actually Israelite.)

quote:

---

the Mesha inscription records the revolt of Moab against Israel.

---

Correct. And? YHWH's precious altarpieces were stolen and presented before Chemosh the Moabite god. Some omnipotence.

quote:

---

The Taylor Prism records the campaign of Sennacherib against Judah.

---

Yes. And so? It just makes Hezekiah look foolish, even though he was supposedly one of the better kings.

quote:

---

The Lachish reliefs record the siege of Lachish.

---

Again, making Hezekiah look foolish. (And as I predicted, the closer we get to a theoretical date of composition (the Jewish exile), the more facts we are likely to see).

quote:

---

The annals of Esarhaddon record the assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons.

---

Haven't heard this one. Probably correct, see above.

quote:

---

The Babylonian Chronicles record the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar.
The Babylonian Ration Records record the captivity of Jehoiachin in Babylon.

---

And Daniel again got it wrong. This Daniel bloke failed his history methinks. Why exactly would he talk about the surrender of Jehoiakim who was already dead at the time of the fall of Jerusalem, unless he was absolutely stupid? There are plenty of other clues, but from this, we can surmise that Daniel was in fact a much later composition.

quote:

---

The Cyrus Cylinder records the freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus.

---

No problems here. Nehemiah and Ezra are probably fairly accurate, although the compilers of the Bible managed to get it wrong by placing Ezra before Nehemiah in the books of the Bible.

quote:

---

Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud and Lucian record Jesus existence. Suetonius records the forcing of Jews to leave Rome during Claudius' reign.

---

Nonsense. Josephus has two mentions, one of James the brother of Jesus, and another to a hotly disputed Testimonium Flavianum which generally accepted to be a Christian interpolation. Since methodology on the analysis of the TF is rather circular, I won't go into this. Suetonius writes of of Jews "stirring up trouble at the instigation of Chrestus" and the link to Jesus is tenuous. Best not to spout uncertainty as certainty right? Besides, the actual quote seems to state that Chrestus was alive at this time, and quite possibly in or near Rome. Attempts at corroboration from Thallus are just horseshit. He is quoted by Christian apologists circa the second century as proof of a darkness over the land, and we have no clue when he actually lived and wrote, nor do we even have the original apologists who quote him (i.e., we have Eusebius, quoting Julius Africanus, quoting Thallus). Pliny the Younger's "evidence" only mentions a question as to how Christians were to be tried. It dates to c.112 CE, so it's hardly news that there were people called Christians by that time. If you are to take his letter as evidence, the contents of the letter are embarassing, mentioning how Christians backstabbed each other. The Talmud references date to the 3rd or 4th century, and could just as easily presume that the Christians' Jesus existed. Lucian finally, was a satirist, and it is just as possible that he presupposed Christian belief so as to make fun of it, as it is to believe he believed in a historical Christ. So the only ground you can stand on, is actually a Christian interpolated text that still dates to half a century after Christ's death. If it was a clearcut case, why did Christians feel the need to forge so many documents, including a Gospel purportedly written by Jesus himself?

quote:

---

Obviously, other texts corroborate at least some of the historical events recorded in the Bible

---

Yes, but they also show a great deal of the Bible being wrong.Joel

quote:

---

I'm leaving because I'm not debated with sound arguments, but met with childish attacks at my intelect, and the intellgience of all believers.

---

I have not once said anything about your intellect, or the intelligence of believers. I do say that they (and you) could do with exposure to better scholarship. I have not, however, minced my words when you were overreaching. Ignore the rest if it pleases you, I'll debate you, and none of your criticisms refer to me. I'm new here.Joel

Hi Sagg,I exaggerate for effect, but here's how I think your posts look to others here: Get the picture? You're not just too sensitive, you're way too sensitive.Plus there's an element of the "mote in other guys eye with beam in own eye" situation - you don't seem to realize that you're violating your own standards.I'm all for polite discussion, but I think you're going way too far. By the standards of Internet this is already a fairly polite place.--Percy

Lies? Childish attacks? Lack of comprehension? Putting words in your mouth? I challenge you to show me where - in any of my posts - I did any such thing. If you are so immature and unwilling to debate in good faith, then I think your decision to leave this board was the smartest thing you've done since you started here.There is no room for logical debate with someone whose sole purpose is to preach.Respect, as a final point, is earned. You haven't even come close.

Nice to meet you as well Brian. :-)It would appear that you did not get your Bible out:-(Always remember Brian that God created heaven for us and truly wants to bring us there. The fact of the matter is that we will put ourselves into hell through rejection, not God. You may see it that way Brian. I see the promises of a loving God however. Not only is he present in the universe, he's bigger than it, he created it, and he directs every function and action within it, as his presence is everywhere, remember Brian God is a spirit being. And created you as one too. I believe Gods awesome power created, gives direction and is present in the very Quarks of the Atom, thats how big he is. Prove to me it's not there. The only place His presence isn't is in the hearts of people who reject him. Remember Brian, that the human race and the earth itself had a curse of degeneration brung upon itself when Adam and Eve fell from God, thats why we die pyhsically. Hell was created for Lucifer and the fallen angels, whom fell before Adam and Eve, and it's not God's fault that the human race jumped on board with them. The good news is that we can accept what Jesus did for us and not have to worry about Hell :-)There was no desperate clutch at all Brian. You gave a so called absurdity and I gave a timely well prepared Bible based response with no accusations or low blows either. As below. Take Care :-)Paul :-)

Getting back to topic, this one's a pretty good absurdity: --Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by sagg:
Oh boy, here we go again, tsk tsk tsk... *sigh* , rolls eyes, *sigh*

​

How is that an absurdity? This was a response Jesus gave after telling the disciples how he must suffer and be killed in Jerusalem, and Peter says, "No, this must never happen to you". Jesus reponse was:

​

"Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men"

​

The things of men, here being, Peters desire for his friend, Jesus, not to suffer and die - even though doing so mean salvation for all mankind. Satan was tempting Christ, through Peter, to consider not fulfilling the aduous task he was sent for.

​

Get behing me meaning, don't block the path ahead of me (the cross).

​

[This message has been edited by sagg, 04-17-2003]

---

Yes, there were some obviously humourous, sexual connotations

I missed so much of this thread due to internet problems at the cabin Here's my own favourite absurdity ...Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.This would be the all-knowing, eternal, unchanging God who didn't see this coming, changed his mind and "repented" of having done it in the first place, and then showed mood changes by grieving.O and of course, he showed his all-merciful, loving side by wiping the whole lot out, men, women and children, in a global flood.I think not.

How very odd! My heart is made up, ultimately, of quarks indistinguishable from your average found-in-gaseous-nebula quark, but mine aren't inhabited my this guy? And my pancreatic quarks are? Puzzling!

There are some leptons involved as well....