Well here we go, an official Biblical problems thread.
I have no deep reason for starting this thread; I did it to try and answer the claim that there are many problems with the Bible, be they archaeological, scientific, a contradiction, or just unreasonable. This debate started in the dinosaur thread, and I just thought I’d bring it in here for a fresh start.
So let’s get into this, I’ll start with the list of “problems” brought to us by Blob. I’m not going to copy his whole post all at once, instead I’ll take the problems one at a time.

Wait, wait, I've changed my mind, here's the whole list at once, that way you know what's coming and what's in the thread for contradictions. Blob's list is first and Vile's will be posted when we finish Blob's. Here's the list:
# Isaiah says: "...put on thy garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean." Yet, the uncircumcised have never stopped traveling through Jerusalem.

# In John 14:12 Jesus says: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." But what believer has ever done a miracle greater than those preformed by Jesus?

# In John 14:13-14 Jesus stated: "And whatsoever ye ask in my name I do, that the Father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it." In reality, millions of people have made millions of requests in Jesus' name and failed to receive satisfaction. This promise or prophecy has failed completely.

# In 2 Chron. 1:7, 12 God said the following to Solomon: "Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee: and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like." This prophecy has also proved to be erroneous. There were several kings in his day, and thousands since, that could have thrown away the value of Palestine without missing the amount. The wealth of Solomon has been exceeded by many, and is small by today's standards.

http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.p...opic&t=5489
SCIENCE:
Pi is 3: "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" (1 Kings 7:23)
Also:
quote:
* (a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);
* (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
* (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);
* (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);
* (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);
* (f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);
* (g) The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);
* (h) The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);
* (i) The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);
* (j) A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);
* (k) The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);
* (l) A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);
* (m) Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);
* (n) The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);
* (o) The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);
* (p) Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);
* (q) The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)
* (r) A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44).

So, first up from the Old Testament book of Isaiah chapter 52 verse 1:
“"...put on thy garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean."
And Blob points out:
“Yet, the uncircumcised have never stopped traveling through Jerusalem.”

Isn’t it odd that out of nowhere the beginning of Isaiah 52 comes up with a prediction, and then wanders off to something else? Maybe this chapter 52 verse 1 of Isaiah belongs not by itself, but with other verses. See the problem here is that you’ve pulled this verse out of its rightful place, and have used it all by itself as an individual prophecy. This prophecy actually starts back in Isaiah 51 where God is telling the people that He’s in control and that one day Jerusalem will be back on top, that it will be a pure place. Look at Isaiah 51:21-23, here you’ll see God promising that the cup of suffering that Jerusalem was going through will be taken from them and given to her enemies. Now check out 52:1-2, here is more of the prediction of how great Jerusalem will be. The question is, why will it be so great? Look at 52: 3, and verses 7-9, here we see that God is going to redeem Jerusalem, but not with money. How will God redeem Jerusalem? Read Isaiah 52:13 through Isaiah 53:12, this is saying that someone else will pay for the sins of those who have distanced themselves from God. This is not an unfulfilled prophecy, it’s a yet to be completed prophecy. The end times will bring a new Jerusalem, a pure Jerusalem, see Revelation 21:2-8, that’s the end of the prophecy. The only way this prophecy fails is if, in the end, God doesn’t set up a new Jerusalem.
Now on to the next problem:

This problem takes us to John 14:12 where Jesus says:
“"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."
And with that Blob adds:
“But what believer has ever done a miracle greater than those preformed by Jesus?

First, what are some miracles that Jesus did? Well, he made the lame and paralyzed walk, made the blind see, cured people of leprosy, walked on water, calmed a storm, and raised the dead, (remember Lazarus?) there are other miracles I left out, I’m sure. These miracles are all physical healings, which is great, but in the end the people still died, even Lazarus. What does Jesus teach us about the physical things? Take a look at Matthew 6:19-21:
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

All through the New Testament Jesus doesn’t seem to stress the importance of being rich, or powerful, or the importance of being able to jump high and run fast. Instead he kept teaching about our spiritual side. He performed miracles to catch the attention of the people, but spoke of our spiritual thirst, being right with God, and turning from evil. So in that context what would Jesus consider greater? Would he consider it greater to make more people able to walk again, or would he consider it greater to bring someone into eternal salvation with the Father? Of course eternal salvation is greater, so with that in mind look at Acts 2:38-41:
“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-- for all whom the Lord our God will call." With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.”
I don’t know how many people accepted Jesus as Lord before he died on the cross, but when he was on trial he didn’t appear to have people speaking up for him, not even his disciples. Yet after his resurrection his followers were bringing three thousand people at a time into salvation. That would be greater then bringing a healing physically.
Christian: if you want to do great things reach out to the unsaved with love and prayer, for their salvation, because healing the person spiritually is greater then physically.
Okay, I’ll post this and start another contradiction later.

I think you should be more specific in your "Bible problems" thread.

There is a plethora of scientific and historical "problems" with the Bible. Even the Catholic church has agreed on this matter. The Teachings of the New Testament (particularly the teachings of Jesus), when viewed as a blueprint for living your life, are much more defensible than the historical/scientific inerrancies of both the old and new Testaments.

Good luck....... but be prepared to be "flamed"

I think you should be more specific in your "Bible problems" thread.

I agree. Before you continue the bible apologetics I would like to establish your aim here, Stark.

It's not to show the bible to be literally true because you have conceded the "eat dust" is a metaphor for humiliation (in the dinosaur thread). I presume your purpose is to show it is "the word of god". Please confirm.

On to the quotes. Firstly I'd like to note that I pasted these bible contradictions complete with their rebuttals from another site (click my sig for the page) in a strange, uncharacteristic moment. I quickly posted again confessing this and suggesting you don't have to reply to such a cheap trick on my part. But I think you enjoy the topic so fair enough. So let me open-mindedly consider your arguments.

“"...put on thy garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean."
Henceforth means from now. You cannot say 'henceforth' and mean 'from some point in the future' (2000 or more years in this example).

It is irrelevant what the surrounding sentences say, or the context those sentences build. Henceforth is a word that has a meaning. It means starting now, only starting now, and nothing but starting now. The word of god is wrong, lies or does not know the meaning of the word 'henceforth'.

“"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

he made the lame and paralyzed walk, made the blind see, cured people of leprosy, walked on water, calmed a storm, and raised the dead
Not literally, nor literally greater than, the works of Jesus then. Again it seems you argue not that the bible is literally true, but that it is the (literally untrue) word of god.

That's my call. These are my own answers done without research or consultation with other atheists (or anyone for that matter). I genuinely see immediate and obvious problems with what you say. I am not fretting to 'find' problems in any sense, please be assured. This is why I say the bible does not survive a moment's casual thought.

Okay, back again with the next Biblical problem; it’s found in John 14:13-14:
“Jesus stated: "And whatsoever ye ask in my name I do, that the Father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it."
And Blob added:
“In reality, millions of people have made millions of requests in Jesus' name and failed to receive satisfaction. This promise or prophecy has failed completely.”

Interesting that Jesus Christ would leave us with a promise that would be so fraught with problems. Think about it: Christian guy 1 falls in love with Christian girl and prays that God will hand her over right now. Christian guy 2 sees the same Christian girl he falls as deeply in love and prays that God will hand her over to him, right now. Christian girl, by the way, is not in love with any of them, she loves Christian guy 3. Each Christian prays in Jesus name…now what? What if I suffered a rather disturbing set back and prayed in Jesus’ name for God to kill me quick, yet God sees the future, and sees that everything will be alright? Does God say “Oh to bad stark prayed in Jesus name, now I’ve got to kill him.” Could praying in Jesus name mean something other than a magic incantation to get what ever you want?
Praying in Jesus’ name means that you are putting your will aside and accepting the will of God. Your taking the name of Jesus before God, not as a formula for getting stuff, but as a way of telling God that you want to be in harmony with the personality and character of Jesus. If I pray for a fast and expensive sports car so that I can make others jealous, that’s not in keeping with the nature of Jesus. So pray in Jesus name and God will weed out what will harm you and bring about what will help you.
Go ahead, anyone, ask me why we should even pray at all, if God is going to just answer as He wants anyway.

Oldphart you said:
“I think you should be more specific in your "Bible problems" thread.”

Sorry, I’m not sure about what aspect of my thread you want me to be more specific about. If the “Bible problems” is not specific enough I’ll explain what I mean.
By Bible problems I mean just that, if you have a problem with the Bible be it in an archaeological, historical, prophetic, scientific, or just plain logic sense, bring it here and we’ll talk about it. I can’t say that my answers will satisfy everyone or even anyone, but I’ll give it a shot.
Next you said:
“There is a plethora of scientific and historical "problems" with the Bible. Even the Catholic church has agreed on this matter.”

That’s great, line them up and let’s see those problems…oh and the Catholic Church is welcome to join in the fun also, as is Agnostics, Atheists (weak and strong) unbelievers of any bend, and Christians of any theological bend.

Blob you said:
“Before you continue the bible apologetics I would like to establish your aim here, Stark.”

Fair question. My aim is to bring the unbeliever to a point where they may at least ponder the idea that the Bible is special, and that the God revealed in the Bible may actually exist. It’s also very entertaining for me to check these things out.
Next you said:
“It's not to show the bible to be literally true because you have conceded the "eat dust" is a metaphor for humiliation (in the dinosaur thread).”
And later in your post you said:
“Again it seems you argue not that the bible is literally true, but that it is the (literally untrue) word of god.”

Okay, forgive me if my answer doesn’t seem to fit the way you asked the question. What I’ve done is cut and pasted my answer to you from when we had the literal discussion in the dinosaur thread. Here it is:
I wouldn’t go so far as saying I take everything literally. The Psalms speak of the wings of God, well I understand this is poetry and conveys a sense of protection, and that God doesn’t have wings. Jesus said that if your hand causes you to sin cut it off, I understand that this is hyperbole, after all one can sin with out a hand or an eye or whatever. What Jesus was doing by saying this was highlighting how bad sin was in the eyes of God, and that we should repent at any cost. There are many more examples, but I’ll cut this one short, I just wanted to clarify my position.
Now, you mentioned the Bible using metaphors…does the fact that the Bible uses metaphors cast doubt on the Bible?
Next you said:
“Firstly I'd like to note that I pasted these bible contradictions complete with their rebuttals from another site (click my sig for the page) in a strange, uncharacteristic moment.”

Oh, okay, when I speak of the rebuttal I won’t reference it as your rebuttal.
Next you said:
“It is irrelevant what the surrounding sentences say, or the context those sentences build. Henceforth is a word that has a meaning. It means starting now, only starting now, and nothing but starting now.”

Wait, is this a trick to see if I’m on my toes and paying attention?
It is very relevant what the surrounding verses say, because your assertion that henceforth means starting now and nothing but starting now, in the context that you’re using now, is wrong. Henceforth means from this time forward? What time forward? This is where the context comes in, if I told my little boy that from this time forward, for the rest of the day, whenever he spelled his name correctly he would get M&Ms, then in the context I would mean from now (the point of time we were speaking) until the end of the day. In the case of Isaiah 52 henceforth or from this time forward is speaking of the time of the arrival of the new, pure Jerusalem. Why? Because it’s speaking of future events.
Next about the disciples being able to do greater things then Jesus you said:
“Not literally, nor literally greater than, the works of Jesus then. Again it seems you argue not that the bible is literally true, but that it is the (literally untrue) word of god.”

Bringing someone from death into eternal life with the Father in heaven, is literally greater then healing a person who is lame.
It just hit me that the problem your having with my believing the Bible literally even though I understand its use of metaphor, phenomenological language, anthropomorphic language, hyperbole, poetry, and spirituality, isn’t that you have difficulties with a claimed Word of God using such language. The problem is that you don’t believe that God exists literally. Am I way off on this?
Next you said:
“…the bible does not survive a moment's casual thought.”

Since you don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, maybe you should look into it with more then a casual observation.

Now, on with more Biblical problems, next up is from 2 Chronicles 1:12, I noticed that the reference posted has listed verse 7 but it’s only from verse 12. Anyway here is the verse:
“2 Chron. 1:7, 12 God said the following to Solomon: "Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee: and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like."
Now the comment for this is almost exactly what skeptic Dennis McKinsey, says about this verse, which is:
“This prophecy has also proved to be erroneous. There were several kings in his day, and thousands since, that could have thrown away the value of Palestine without missing the amount. The wealth of Solomon has been exceeded by many, and is small by today's standards.

Now, that’s a bold statement, but what McKinsey has failed to do is tell us exactly how wealthy King Solomon was, so that we can compare it to today’s wealthy kings. Don’t blame him though, because no one knows for sure how wealthy Solomon was, the Bible doesn’t give us his net worth. Now having said that let’s see if we can at least get some idea of his worth. Look at 1Kings 10:14:
“The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents, not including the revenues from merchants and traders and from all the Arabian kings and the governors of the land.”
At that time Palestine was a major trade thoroughfare, so how much did Solomon get in trade revenues?
Looking just at the gold he received yearly we’re looking at 666 talents which is about 25 tons of gold, but moving on from there how much money did he get from the merchants, traders, Arabian kings, and governors? The Bible doesn’t say. 1Kings 9:27 says that he got 420 talents from Ophir. Move down to the beginning of chapter 10, here we find queen of Sheba giving him an unspecified amount of spices, and precious stones, and 120 talents of gold. In verse 11 we see an unspecified amount of lemonwood and precious stones. Read all of 1kings chapter 10 you’ll see he had a fleet of trading ships that returned every three years carrying an unspecified amount of gold, silver, and ivory, plus apes and baboons. Look at 1Kings 10:25 “Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift-- articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules.” Look in verse 26, it says Solomon had fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses. Think about how much gold Solomon had, how many tons that it added up to, now how much was gold an ounce? Was it more or less then it is today? I could guess that since it took so much more labor to extract it from the ground, that it would be worth more back then. One other thing, did Solomon just sit on all this wealth or did he invest it, and if he did invest it how much did he make from said investments?
Do you think it’s safe to say that King Solomon was worth billions? How about hundreds of billions? More? Who knows.
When McKinsey, the skeptic that was quoted, says that Solomon‘s wealth was “small by today's standards” I have to say “prove it.”
Folks, read 1Kings chapters 9, and 10 add up the wealth that is listed, and then remember we don’t know everything that he had or how he invested it. This is not a Biblical problem.

Next, on the Biblical problem list, is a math problem from 1Kings 7:23, the comment is actually before the verse and it says:
“Pi is 3“:
Here‘s the verse
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about"

I’ve checked in my word search and I can’t find one verse, especially 1Kings 7:23, that says that Pi is 3. So we can guess that the author of this “problem” assumes that Kings 7:23 says Pi is 3 from their reading of the verse. Now how would they come to the conclusion that 1Kings 7:23 claims Pi is 3? What facts do they have? Let’s ask some questions: 1. How long is a cubit? My Bible dictionary says about the cubit:
“Cubit-- The distance from the elbow to the finger tip-- about 45 centimeters (18 inches). The cubit was the standard unit of length. (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)”
It says about 18 inches. About? So is it more or less then 18inches? This doesn’t sound to exact. My Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary says that the ancient Egyptian cubit measured 20.64, the Roman cubit was 17.4, and the English cubit is 18 inches. It doesn’t seem to say what the Hebrew measurement for a cubit was. I wonder how the author of “Pi is 3” came to their conclusion?
Another question: what was the design of the vessel in question? The verse says that the vessel was ten cubits from one brim to the other, and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. Let’s say the brim means the upper most edge of the vessel, the question is; where is round about? Does that mean around the upper most edge of the vessel, or could the edge of the vessel have flowered downward and outward and that the “thirty cubits” measurement was from around the part where it flared out? I don’t know, and the Bible doesn’t say.
This is not a problem concerning Pi and the Bible, this is a problem of a lack of information revealed by the Bible.

I enjoy reading debate, but I do not really understand this prove the Bible right thingy.
I am sure that Webster's Dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britanica is correct. I also have no doubt that they were written by men with the influence of men. Using the Encyclopedia as a religious reference could be a new fad. Most everything can be found there.

Dan, do you really not understand what the point is?
If the Bible is the Word of God, it will demonstrate it. One bit of evidence is the knowledge it possess will be correct.

Now, we are at the part of the list that suggests there are scientific errors in the Bible. Let’s take a look at the first one:
“(a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);”
Here’s the verse, the quote claims that it’s from 19:19 but really it’s from Leviticus 11:13 and 19
“13 "'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,… 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
Oh, oh, the Bible is putting the bat in the list of birds that the Israelites were not to eat. Scientific error? Today, yes, but thousands of years ago? Here’s a quote from an article written by James Patrick Holding:
“Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects.”

And this is what I wrote to Vilepagan on dinosaur chat:
“Wow, here comes the bat problem again, almost as if we’ve never discussed it. I’ll try to make this quick: Here in the 21st century we have deemed the bat an order of flying mammalia, or simply a flying rodent. This has been done because the scientist chose the mammal characteristics of the bat to put it in its classification. I hope I’m using the right terminology. God, however seems to have classified the bat as a bird probably because of it’s flying ability. Doesn’t God have the right to classify the bat as he wants to? Your bat difficulty is a difference in classification criteria, not a scientific error.”

Next, we’ll look at b and c because they both come from the same Biblical passage, and I found another quote from James Patrick Holding that covers the problem better then I would have…or at least quicker. Here they are:
“* (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);
* (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);”

Before I turn this over to Mr. Holding I’d like to point something out about problem ( C ) and that is that the Israelites ate these things, it would be strange that after all those years, of chowing down insects, they wouldn’t know the number of legs the things had…could it be that we’re missing something about the way the Hebrew thought thousands of years ago?
Anyway here is that quote I told you about from James Patrick Holding:
“Is this an error -- since insects have six feet, not four, and since "fowl" have two feet, not four? The reference to "fowl" is thought by some skeptics to refer to birds, but the word used here is 'owph, which merely means a creature with wings -- it is the same word used in verse 21 (flying). The reference in both cases is to insects. Now we might be cute here and call this a poetic phrase (i.e., "crawling around on all fours"), and this is partially right. But there is an even better - and more correct - answer.
Quite simply, the big back legs on the locust, etc. were not counted as "legs" in the same sense as the other legs. Let's use an illustration from our popular literature, George Orwell's Animal Farm. In this story, Snowball the pig invented the slogan, "Four legs good, two legs bad" so as to exclude humans from Animal Farm society. The geese and other fowl objected, because they had only two legs. Snowball explained (more clearly in the book than in the movie) that in animal terms, the birds' wings counted as legs because they were limbs of propulsion, not manipulation, as a human's arms and hands were.
Now note the differentiation in Leviticus above -- referring to "legs above the feet" for leaping. The "feet" are being differentiated from the "legs above the feet" because of their difference in function. They are legs, but in a different sense than the "four" legs which are just called "feet." We are being told of two types of legs: The "on all four" legs (which are nowhere called legs; they are only called "feet" [v. 23]), and the "leaping legs." It is clear that the Hebrews regarded the two large, hopping hindlimbs of the locust and the other insects of the same type, which are the only types of insects mentioned here (we now translate "beetle" as "cricket"), as something different than the other four limbs - perhaps because they were used primarily for vertical propulsion, whereas the other limbs were for scurrying around.

Now we are at the rabbit problem which is found in Leviticus 11:6
“* (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);”
Here’s the whole verse:
Leviticus 11:6 “The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.”

First let’s look at an animal that we can all agree chews its cud: the cow. What’s going on when a cow chews its cud? The cow practices rumination, which is to chew the cud, or to chew again what has been slightly chewed and swallowed. So we have the cow regurgitating up, and chewing again, little balls of partially digested food.
Now, let’s look at the rabbit. The rabbit practices refection, which is the process in which the rabbit eats it’s own dung that is mixed with undigested material. Basically it chews again what has already been chewed and swallowed. So here we have the rabbit passing through, and chewing up, little balls of partially digested food. What’s the difference? The cow regurgitates and the rabbit passes through. What’s the common denominator? Little balls of partially digested food.
So the question is: what is the focus of the phrase in Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7 which has been translated “chew the cud”? Is the focus on the way the partially digested food got into the mouth, or is the focus on the partially digested food itself? The Hebrew phrase is used only twice in the New Testament: Leviticus 11:6 and Deuteronomy 14:7, so it is only in these context that we can figure out what exactly they mean.
I suppose, if you need the Bible to be scientifically wrong, you can demand that the intention of the phrase is regurgitate. On the other hand if you’re claiming the Bible is scientifically accurate you can demand that the intention is the chewing again of the little balls of partially digested food.
But in fact this is not an example of the Bible being scientifically inaccurate
For a very scientific and detailed discussion of this whole matter here’s a link to a Leonard R. Brand Chairman, Department of Biology Loma Linda University and his paper on it.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm

My aim is to bring the unbeliever to a point where they may at least ponder the idea that the Bible is special, and that the God revealed in the Bible may actually exist.
I see. However, it is fallacious to prove the biblical god exists using the bible, so I assume you mean ponder the idea that the bible presents a coherent god.


Firstly the word 'henceforth'. Henceforth means 'from now'; or 'from this time' as you prefer - though never 'from that time'. The word for from a specified time in the future is 'thereafter'. Neither henceforth nor thereafter is context dependent. For example, consider:
"I have an important meeting next month. Henceforth I will prepare myself."
...as opposed to:
"I have an important meeting next month. Thereafter I will prepare myself."
It would seem that believing the bible means disbelieving the words therein.


Next literalism.
Now, you mentioned the Bible using metaphors…does the fact that the Bible uses metaphors cast doubt on the Bible?
If there is a reliable, objective methodology for identifying metaphor in the bible please reveal it. Otherwise it seems to be that you dismiss silliness (like eating dust), gruesomeness (chopping off hands) and so on by saying "don't believe that bit".


Bringing someone from death into eternal life with the Father in heaven, is literally greater then healing a person who is lame.
Literally "the works that I do" are healing lepers and the like. Greater works would be presumably more impressive in some way, but still in the leper-healing, mountain-moving ball park. It seems you are calling metaphor again, though do bear in mind it starts with a double "verily, verily" which makes your argument particularly hard to swallow.


It just hit me that the problem your having with my believing the Bible literally even though I understand its use of metaphor, phenomenological language, anthropomorphic language, hyperbole, poetry, and spirituality, isn’t that you have difficulties with a claimed Word of God using such language. The problem is that you don’t believe that God exists literally. Am I way off on this?
Hopefully I have explained my take on literalism and metaphor. My concern is that metaphor is called without rhyme or reason, to sweep problems under the carpet (putting it metaphorically :) ).


“2 Chron. 1:7, 12 God said the following to Solomon: "Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee: and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like."
The bible says solomon was the richest man ever and the evidence that proves the bible right is there for all to see in the, er... bible.


I wonder how the author of “Pi is 3” came to their conclusion?
Like all mathematicians he used 2 times PI times radius = circumference. This mathematical truth is independent of the units used (Roman, Egyptian cubit or whatever). The quote talks of the radius and brim of a sea, not a vessel, and the brim of a liquid is simply its outer edge (or circumference).


“(a) the bat is a bird (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);”
Scientific error? Today, yes, but thousands of years ago?
One would expect god to be above momentary human cultures. This suggests it is a book merely made up by men of the time.
Doesn’t God have the right to classify the bat as he wants to?
So might makes right. Bats have no feathers and do not lay eggs but god says it is a bird so it is a bird. The same might-is-right principle holds for (b) Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21); and (c) Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23).
BTW amusing to my ears that you cite Orwell's Animal Farm. Firstly it affirms your "might-is-right" stance. And did you know that Snowball soon dies and a pig called Napoleon then takes over and rules with by arguing that words do not mean what they mean?
Your bat difficulty is a difference in classification criteria, not a scientific error
Classification is an essential part of science.

“* (d) Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);”
Hares double-digest and in a superficial sense a limited analogy with ruminants can be drawn. Hares do not, however, chew the cud.


Leonard R. Brand Chairman, Department of Biology Loma Linda University
Oh! the breathless glee of theists when a scientist can be unearthed who says something not incongruent with the bible! Of course when scientists say something you don't like your attitude is "god is above science" (e.g. Doesn’t God have the right to classify the bat as he wants to?).
*****EDIT: I knew there was something dodgey about that url. Loma Linda University is an adventist university for goodness sake! Do you know much about adventists? I do. I know adventists, I have been to adventist church and I have been to a degree ceremony at an adventist university. The article is bogus and also is published only in the bullshit non-academic journal "origins". The hare chews the cud, my arse! What science is that? Let's see you find an authoritative, scientific source that says that.******

Since you don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God, maybe you should look into it with more then a casual observation.
Au contraire! I think I have heard enough already. You argue that words do not mean what they mean, silly things are 'metaphor', that might makes right, that 6 times radius = brim; and it is becoming tedious. Perhaps another athiest has the inclination to wade through a thread of specious abusrdities but I am bored. Perhaps should go on a muslim forum and have them long-windedly make up stories to cover the cracks in the koran. Then perhaps you will see how silly, pointless and tiresome such an activity is.

The word of a perfect god should be perfect itself. So long as there is a single whiff of absurdity or nonsense it is thoroughly blown out of the water. This thread alone is enough to leave the bible utterly devastated beyond hope or repair. You have only reaffirmed how dreary and silly the bible is (and the aplogetics are sillier still) and I won't bother addressing any more problems you post here.

Originally posted by stark
Dan, do you really not understand what the point is?
If the Bible is the Word of God, it will demonstrate it. One bit of evidence is the knowledge it possess will be correct.
-----------------
Yes, Stark I understand what you are trying to do. I was just being a smart-ass.
Although I do have difficulty in believing a book was written by God merely because it contains some true facts.
Sure, when the books of the Bible were composed into one binded edition, I am sure the best minds of the time were used to compile the information into a believable product of the time.
All religious writings have their believers. The Koran, the Torah, the Bible all have believers that are ready to prove without a shadow of doubt(in their minds) that there's is the one and only true written work of God.

I believe they all have some truth. Wonderful stories as examples of how to live a safe life. Examples of what to eat and what not to eat. How to prepare food. Like the example of not to eat pork at a time when food was cooked over open fires and the center of the meat not reaching a proper temperature to kill the platelets that contained disease. Prudent men say people get sick from such practices and tried to warn others.
Words and phrases were used that people of the time could understand.

I have trouble believing that God would have been interested in real-estate. Caring where a people lived or what land they occupied or returned to. I believe these were the desires of men and men only.

Temples would be of no use to a true God. Ownership of temples and 'holy ground' would be indicative of the greed of men and the want of possessions.

Modern medical science seems to be more in agreement that a 'religious' person seems to recover from illness at a better rate than non-religious persons. The power of positive thinking is a powerful thing therefore not a bad thing.

Note this post is rather long, so I’ll just break it up into two or three posts
Okay, we have a response from Blob, and I’ll start where he said:
“I see. However, it is fallacious to prove the biblical god exists using the bible,…”

The reason I worded my answer like this: “My aim is to bring the unbeliever to a point where they may at least ponder the idea that the Bible is special, and that the God revealed in the Bible may actually exist.” is that I understand that some, no matter how reasonable the evidence, will deny the evidence. That’s why my goal is to at least get some out there, on the forum, to open mindedly ponder the evidence and hopefully come to a life changing, and life saving decision.
Next you said:
“…so I assume you mean ponder the idea that the bible presents a coherent god.”

Pondering the idea that God exists is to ponder the idea of a coherent God, a non-existing God is not a coherent God.
Next you said:
“Firstly the word 'henceforth'. Henceforth means 'from now'; or 'from this time' as you prefer - though never 'from that time'.”

As I said: that prophecy is spoken in the context of a future fulfillment, placing the reader in that future time. Read Isaiah 52:13 through 53:12 which speaks of a future servant (the Messiah) who pays for everyone’s sins. Look how it speaks in the past tense as if the event had already occurred, but it hasn’t, it’s instead, putting the reader in the future, as does 52 verse 1.
Next you said:
“If there is a reliable, objective methodology for identifying metaphor in the bible please reveal it.

Well, you could read the Bible objectively, and discover for yourself, using your reasoning skills, that the metaphor is obvious. For instance, you can gather that God doesn’t really have wings, but the meaning is that he protects His people like a hen protects her young.
Next you said:
“Otherwise it seems to be that you dismiss silliness (like eating dust), gruesomeness (chopping off hands) and so on by saying "don't believe that bit".”
Funny, I really don’t remember saying “don’t believe that bit.” What I do remember is telling you about speaking of the spiritual, using the physical, and I remember speaking of hyperbole, but saying “don’t believe that bit“? Nope. Hmmm, I wonder if you already knew that?
I'll end it here and start again.

I'll start where blob said:
“Literally "the works that I do" are healing lepers and the like. Greater works would be presumably more impressive in some way,…”

Of course, that’s the problem; you see people accepting Jesus Christ, as Lord of their life, in only a negative light, and to you it’s at the least, ridiculous. So of course seeing someone healed physically is, in your world view, far, far greater then receiving, what you would call, an empty, untrue, promise of eternal life in heaven. Well in that vein, let me try a different angle, check out Acts 19:11-12
“God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.”
Does that sound greater? Not, do you believe it, but does that sound greater?
How about: Acts 8:13 “Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.”
Great signs and miracles. Could these signs and miracles be greater then the ones Jesus did while he was on earth?
How about the other apostles, the Bible doesn’t say that they didn’t do greater miracles then Jesus, silence doesn’t indicate they didn’t, it only means that it wasn’t recorded in the pages of the New Testament.
Anyway, I say all that for those who think that accepting Jesus is no great thing. I, on the other hand, think that receiving eternal salvation is a greater miracle then receiving a physical healing. Jesus highlighted this when he said: “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?” Mark 8:36.
Next you said:
“The bible says solomon was the richest man ever and the evidence that proves the bible right is there for all to see in the, er... bible.”

This is an interesting response…no it’s an amazing response. It appears that you have forgotten what the problem was. Here let me remind you: the claim is that the Bible is wrong about Solomon being the richest king in history. What’s interesting is that you seem to condemn my use of the Bible to point out what the Bible is saying. Now, why is that? The claim that the Bible is wrong about the wealth of Solomon does not bring any facts on the exact amount of Solomon’s riches, and I explained and demonstrated that the Bible records him receiving great riches, but doesn’t say exactly how much he received. The unbeliever misses the fact that the Bible doesn’t say exactly how wealthy Solomon was, and so they assume Solomon couldn’t have been very rich. My job is to point out, in the Bible, what the unbeliever missed, But you seem to think I shouldn’t use the Bible to demonstrate what the Bible says. Blob it sure does sound like you are flailing about desperate to hold on to any contradiction. Maybe, from now on, instead of just grabbing at anything to “prove” the believer has no ground to stand on, you should just do what some of the other atheists do, and that is just ignore the answer and use the problem later on against a Christian who won’t know, and won’t research the problem.
That's enough for this posting, I'll finish it in the next one.

Here's the last of it and I'll start where Blob said:
“Like all mathematicians he used 2 times PI times radius = circumference. This mathematical truth is independent of the units used (Roman, Egyptian cubit or whatever). The quote talks of the radius and brim of a sea, not a vessel, and the brim of a liquid is simply its outer edge (or circumference).”

Look up “brim”, hint, “the upper most edge of the vessel,“ and then tell me what the shape of the vessel was.
Next you said:
“One would expect god to be above momentary human cultures. This suggests it is a book merely made up by men of the time.”

I’ve always suspected one of the greatest hindrances that the Agnostic and Atheist (weak or strong) has, that prevents their acceptance of God, is assumption. This is highlighted in your post when you started your rebuttal, of something I’d said, with; “One would expect god…”. When we, as finite beings (in all aspects of the word), decide what we expect God would do, in any given situation, we assume the possession of infinite knowledge that only an infinite being would have. God works the way He works. By the way, God seems to be doing fine working out His plan of salvation through the history of mankind. The problem isn’t culture, the problem is what people have put their faith in.
Next you said:
“Classification is an essential part of science.”

Absolutely, and the classification of the bat, during the writing of Leviticus, took place thousands of years before Carolus Linnaeus did his thing in the 18th century A.D. During the time of Leviticus the bat was classified in relation to it’s wings, not it’s mammalian characteristics. Interesting to note that Linnaeus was a Christian with great respect for the Bible…well it’s interesting to me.
Next you said:
“Hares do not, however, chew the cud.”

So, apparently you are demanding that the phrase in Hebrew, that has been translated, “chew the cud” focuses on the way the balls of partially digested food got back into the mouth, and not the act of chewing the partially digested balls of food. I guess as an Atheist ,who claims the chewing the cud question a Biblical problem, would have to go that route. I guess the other readers can decide for themselves.
Next you said:
“Oh! the breathless glee of theists when a scientist can be unearthed who says something not incongruent with the bible!”

Oh how quickly the non-theists condemns and rejects the scientist who has committed the heresy of defending the Bible. Observe the next comment:
“The article is bogus and also is published only in the bullshit non-academic journal "origins". The hare chews the cud, my arse! What science is that? Let's see you find an authoritative, scientific source that says that.******”

It seems as though Leonard R. Brand Chairman, Department of Biology Loma Linda University has been excommunicated for his wretched heresy.
Next you said:
“The word of a perfect god should be perfect itself. So long as there is a single whiff of absurdity or nonsense it is thoroughly blown out of the water.”

So should I just sit and wait for you to come up with an actual absurdity?
Next you said:
“This thread alone is enough to leave the bible utterly devastated beyond hope or repair. You have only reaffirmed how dreary and silly the bible is (and the aplogetics are sillier still)”

Wow, you don’t even sound like you’ve convinced yourself, much less the other readers of this thread.
Finally you said:
“…and I won't bother addressing any more problems you post here.”

Well, maybe you will maybe you won’t, I can’t predict the future, but it’s interesting to note that the religious leaders, a few hundred years ago, wouldn’t address Galileo’s telescope.
Maybe it’s time I address that belief faith and atheism thread of yours.

Originally posted by stark
It seems as though Leonard R. Brand Chairman, Department of Biology Loma Linda University has been excommunicated for his wretched heresy.
Welcome to the web pages of Loma Linda University Adventist Health Sciences Center (LLUAHSC). We are pleased to share with you our special mission to further the healing and teaching ministry of Jesus Christ.
You don't suppose that maybe, just maybe, there could be some bias there?

Stark.

I understand that some, no matter how reasonable the evidence, will deny the evidence.
Evidence that has merit and has been around for decades or centuries stops being denied; consider Pythagorus, Gallileo, Newton etc. It seems the word of god stands the test of time less well than the word of these mere mortals.

Pondering the idea that God exists is to ponder the idea of a coherent God, a non-existing God is not a coherent God.
The human mind can ponder things whether they exists or not and whether they are coherent or not.

“The word of a perfect god should be perfect itself. So long as there is a single whiff of absurdity or nonsense it is thoroughly blown out of the water.”
So should I just sit and wait for you to come up with an actual absurdity?
It seems you agree god is perfect, and that his word should be too. Obviously 'perfection' is a difficult concept, but for a practical working definition we can use 'unimprovable' - afterall, something cannot be 'more perfect' than 'perfect'. If the bible can be improved then it is indeed absurd to say it is the word of a perfect god.

As I said: that prophecy is spoken in the context of a future fulfillment, placing the reader in that future time.
I see you have stopped arguing 'henceforth' means 'thereafter'. All the same, 'thereafter' is the word for "placing the reader in that future time". Let me remind you of why:
Neither henceforth nor thereafter is context dependent. For example, consider:
"I have an important meeting next month. Henceforth I will prepare myself."
...as opposed to:
"I have an important meeting next month. Thereafter I will prepare myself."

So an improvement to the bible would be Isiah 52:1 reading "Thereafter blah blah..." rather than "Henceforth blah blah...." Then there would at least be a degree of consistency with your dismissal of the prophecy as unfulfilled as of yet.

So there we go. One imperfect holy book irreversably torn to shreds, as requested.


Will post again when I get another chance.

Well, you could read the Bible objectively, and discover for yourself, using your reasoning skills, that the metaphor is obvious.
Reasoning skills are applied within the framework of a methodology in order to make an objective analysis. It seems you have none to offer. Besides, Christians vary widely on where the literalism stops and the metaphor starts so it seems there is nothing obvious about it at all.

Funny, I really don’t remember saying “don’t believe that bit.”
I'm paraphrasing you. Funny you didn't pick up on this, what with your sharp ability to detect meatphor, hyperbole and the like. Anyway, consider my paraphrasing a gift: the gift of my perception of your arguments.

you see people accepting Jesus Christ, as Lord of their life, in only a negative light
Utterly untrue. My mother is a christian. It suits her well and gives her a lot of comfort. I view her acceptance of Jesus in a very positive light. I do not come with the prejudices and stubbornness you wish to project on to me. Remember, I am not the one claiming to know the meaning of life or suggesting others must adopt my perspective in order to avoid a horrifying consequence.

Does that sound greater? Not, do you believe it, but does that sound greater?
To be in the ballpark of Jesus's works it must be objectively demonstrable (a leper cured without medical attention, a mountain moved without physical labour) and to be greater the number of people cured must be larger, the mountain bigger or moved further and so on. All religions claim some form of spiritual salvation but it is not demonstrable and therefore nothing more than assertion.

“The bible says solomon was the richest man ever and the evidence that proves the bible right is there for all to see in the, er... bible.”

This is an interesting response…no it’s an amazing response.
I'm delighted to have provided you with a new perspective. However, all I'm doing is pointing out the blatant circular logic in your reasoning.

No one is saying Solomon was not a very rich king. For all I know, perhaps no richer kings have existed since then and this is one of the many places where the bible is indeed not silly (other than the passage containing a big invisible magic person talking of course). Provide independent, authoritative evidence that there has been no richer king since Solomon and you will find I concede the point without ignoring it or resorting to pedantry.

Blob it sure does sound like you are flailing about desperate to hold on to any contradiction.
Hardly. And why would anyone do that? If I suspected the bible is right and that I can live forever in bliss why on earth would I argue against it? I am not a gambling man and don't buy lottery tickets but if I did and my numbers came up I would not "flail about desperately" to deny such wonderful news, would I now?

However, for you to believe that the bible is not the word of god means losing out. Disbelief comes with no promises, no future golden age, no reassurance that everything will be just hunky-dory. Stark, don't you see that you are the one with a strong motivation to cling stubbornly to your preconceived opinions?

I’ve always suspected one of the greatest hindrances that the Agnostic and Atheist (weak or strong) has, that prevents their acceptance of God, is assumption. This is highlighted in your post when you started your rebuttal, of something I’d said, with; “One would expect god…”.
It is said an atheist is someone who truly understands god. Here is a case in point. One would indeed expect god to be above momentary human cultures, which is the sentence you have partially quoted there. Or are you saying god is culture specific - a 17th century frenchman perhaps?

Look up “brim”, hint, “the upper most edge of the vessel,“
Unlike 'henceforth', which has only one definition, the word brim has several definitions. One is indeed the upper most edge of a vessel; another is the edge of a hat; another is full capacity; and yet another is simply 'a border'. If the brim of a sea is refered to, as in the bible, then it is clear that one and only one of these definitions is applicable.

So, apparently you are demanding that the phrase in Hebrew, that has been translated, “chew the cud” focuses on the way the balls of partially digested food got back into the mouth, and not the act of chewing the partially digested balls of food. I guess as an Atheist ,who claims the chewing the cud question a Biblical problem, would have to go that route. I guess the other readers can decide for themselves.
I agree with the final sentence. And for clarity let's remind readers that cud is defined as "Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant". Readers, decide for yourselves if hares are ruminants.

Oh how quickly the non-theists condemns and rejects the scientist who has committed the heresy of defending the Bible.
If they have done so in the line of their work, as opposed to as a private out-of-work matter, then quite right too. An academic who studies the bible in the course of his work is not a scientist but a theologian (or at a push a philosopher).
It seems as though Leonard R. Brand Chairman, Department of Biology Loma Linda University has been excommunicated for his wretched heresy.
Absolutely. And good riddence. A scientist who argues that hares are ruminants has no business being a scientist.

BTW when the Big Bang model superseded the Steady State theory did atheists cry "heresy" and "lies" as theists do when it comes to evolution and the like? Afterall, it would suit the atheist viewpoint much better if Steady State Theory still stood. No, the truth is always welcome with atheists. Only if a scientist genuinely talks crap do we denounce them, irrespective of whether that crap supports our views or not.

Wow, you don’t even sound like you’ve convinced yourself, much less the other readers of this thread.
A cheap shot indeed Stark. Or does "greater than the works of Jesus" include mind-reading skills too?

it’s interesting to note that the religious leaders, a few hundred years ago, wouldn’t address Galileo’s telescope.
Oh dear. Now who's flailing? Note that Galileo's ideas are now universally accepted after a few centuries whereas the bible, which has had even longer to catch on, is not. It seems the ideas of those mere mortals are standing the test of time better than god's word yet again.

Blob, I look forward to answering your post, but I feel I should keep with the intention of this thread and that is to discuss the "Biblical problems" that are given on the lists.
As always the readers of the thread can check out the problems, the answers, and our rebuttals to each other, and decide for themselves whether the Bible is worth looking into.
I do, however, think that when I'm done going through the list you provided, I'll pop into your belief faith and atheism thread, and when I'm done I'll finish the list Vilepagan started.

Okay, back to the problems next up is from Leviticus 11:5:
“* (e) Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);”
Here’s the verse:
Leviticus 11:5 “The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.”

Okay, I’ve got a quote for you, but I still maintain that the question of cud chewing is on the focus of the Hebrew phrase for chewing the cud. Is the phrase pointing to the process of getting the food or is the phrase pointing to the act of chewing little balls of partially digested food? Now having said that here is the quote and the link:
“The Biological Abstracts are thick volumes containing tens-of-thousands of concise summaries of biological research done throughout the world. Abstract 72891 for 1967 says:
72891 HENDRICHS, H. Vergleichende Untersuchung des Wiederkau-verhaltens. [Comparative investigation of cud retainers.] BIOL ZENTRALBL 84(6): 67l-751. Illus. 1965 [recd. 1966]. -- All artiodactyl families and about 80% of the spp. were investigated. Chewing regurgitated fodder is an idle pastime as well as an instinct associated with appetite. Characteristic movements were analyzed for undisturbed samples of animals maintained on preserves. Group specific differences are reported in form, rhythm, frequency, and side of chewing motion. The ungulate type is characterized as a specialization. The operation is described for the first time for the order Hyracoidea. On the basis of 12 spp. of the marsupial subfamily Macropodinae rumination is inferred for the entire category. Advantages of the process are debated.
--D. S. Groschi
Notice the sentence: "The operation is described for the first time for the order Hyracoidea."
"Order Hyracoidea" is the scientific name of a category of animals that includes the Hyrax. The full report, including photos of the Hyrax, appeared in the German journal Biologisches Zentralblatt. (1965 Nov-Dec pp. 671-751)
In 1964 zoologist Hubert Hendrichs observed hyraxes at the Munich zoo in Germany and noticed swallowing movements. He subsequently investigated more closely.
Hendrichs discussed hyraxes on pages 736 to 739 of his report. He admitted that Moses anticipated his discovery by 3000 years.
The reason the Hyrax’s cud chewing behavior remained unconfirmed so long is that the animal chews cud as little as 30 minutes a day and usually at night. Unless hyraxes are held in captivity their cud chewing would not be noticed!”
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BHyrax18May1991.htm

Next up is this from Leviticus 11:4:
“* (f) Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);”
Here’s the full verse, Leviticus 11:4 "'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.”

Isn’t is strange that with all the contact that the Israelites had with camels, they would have glanced at the camels feet… wait, did I say feet?
Okay, raise of hands: how many people think Camels have hoofs, split or not?
Part of the rules set out in this verse is saying if an animal only chews it’s cud, but doesn’t have a split hoof don’t eat it. See, they have to have or do both. Sorry, but no matter how desperate you are to find a scientific error in the Bible; this isn’t it. The camel doesn’t have a hoof period, it chews it’s cud, but has feet. Feet means no hoof. No hoof means no split hoof. No split hoof but chews cud means no eat.
Now, the obvious question is why bring up the camel at all? Well, I suspect God would have known that there would have been a question in the Israelite camp. They would have seen the camel chewing it’s cud, but would now that it doesn’t have a hoof period, so was it okay to eat? To clarify God mentions the camel and points out that it doesn’t have a split hoof.

Stark! Hello! Yoo-hoo! I'm here! Can you see me? You haven't put me on ignore have you?

The reason I ask is you are repeating things I have addressed. You did it earlier regarding 'henceforth' and 'therefore' and I had to repaste; and now this:
Sorry, but no matter how desperate you are to find a scientific error in the Bible
I think you missed my previous post:
Blob
And why would anyone do that? If I suspected the bible is right and that I can live forever in bliss why on earth would I argue against it? I am not a gambling man and don't buy lottery tickets but if I did and my numbers came up I would not "flail about desperately" to deny such wonderful news, would I now?

However, for you to believe that the bible is not the word of god means losing out. Disbelief comes with no promises, no future golden age, no reassurance that everything will be just hunky-dory. Stark, don't you see that you are the one with a strong motivation to cling stubbornly to your preconceived opinions?
Now I know you wish to just continue with the apologetics for now but really that should involve saying fresh new things; not just repeating things I have already addressed.

Leviticus 11:5 “The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.”
Coney can mean rabbit but arguing rabbits chew the cud would get you no where. Coney also means hyrax so let's allow the fallacy of insertionism for now and consider that this might be the animal the bible refers to. Let's isolate the part of your italics quote that is the actual science (as opposed to the biblist's misinterpretation):
All artiodactyl families and about 80% of the spp. were investigated. Chewing regurgitated fodder is an idle pastime as well as an instinct associated with appetite. Characteristic movements were analyzed for undisturbed samples of animals maintained on preserves. Group specific differences are reported in form, rhythm, frequency, and side of chewing motion. The ungulate type is characterized as a specialization. The operation is described for the first time for the order Hyracoidea.
(Excuse me missing the final couple of sentences, but they referred to the rumination of marsupials and that is irrelevant here. We wouldn't want to confuse readers of this thread now would we, Stark?)

As with hares a superficial, limited analogy with cud chewers can be made (though even less convincingly here). However, coney's, be them rabbits or hyraxes, do not chew the cud:
Unlike the even-toed ungulates and some of the macropods, hyraxes do not chew cud to help extract nutrients from coarse, low-grade leaves and grasses. They do, however, have complex, multi-chambered stomachs which allow symbiotic bacteria to break down tough plant materials, and their overall ability to digest fibre is similar to that of the ungulates.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracoidea

You are asking me once again to believe the bible by ignoring the words therein. You stretch and bend words that in reality have precise, scientific meanings to fit your expectations.

Unless it is the word 'hoof'! Suddenly we have a word for which sticking resolutely to the strict scientific definition of hoof suits your purposes!
Leviticus 11:4 "'There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.”
You said:
how many people think Camels have hoofs
Well, in a superficial, limited sense a hoof is a foot (in fact camel's feet evolved from hooves). But this time you'll have none of it! And me neither. I will not resort to your low tactics of butchering words to make a point. I concede. The word of god, clumsy as ever because grammatically 'not' acts on the preceding adjective 'split' rather than the noun 'hoof' thereby implying a hoof exists that is not split, is technically, if pedantically, correct on this one. An improvement to the imperfect verse would be "camels do not have hooves" or better still "don't eat camels".


Stepping back a moment, do you know your strategy of bending words or ignoring strict grammar rules to defend the bible shows it to be unscientific by definition? This is because of the scientific principle of falsifiability:
Any theory that is not falsifiable is said to be unscientific.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

By twisting the words and grammar of the bible to make it fit reality you are ignoring the principle of falsifiability and are therefore being unscientific. You simply reinterpret the bible to match the real world and thereby show it to be meaningless.

This is the technique psychics and astrologers use. That is why they are always 'right': they keep predictions so vague and use words so hazily that their predictions can never be falsified. Rather they are reinterpreted to match what actually happens and so their predictions are in fact meaningless. As a christian I'm sure you'll agree that psychics etc are all fakes.

Oh dear lost Stark! Why can you not see you use exactly the same strategies?

Blob let me be the first to say: welcome back to the thread, for a second I thought you weren't going to respond to any more of these contradictions. I should have known better, silly me. I suspect that you have as much of a desire to spread your beliefs as I have to spread mine. So let’s not have anymore of that silly talk of not responding to anymore of my post in here, I don’t believe it and neither do you. Besides we need you here for balance. I don't have the time to respond to all of your last post right now, but I'll get to it next. I just wanted to clarify something you said:
“The reason I ask is you are repeating things I have addressed. You did it earlier regarding 'henceforth' and 'therefore' and I had to repaste; and now this:”

What? I guess I’m not sure what you are talking about here. I saw your answer to my rebuttal about henceforth and I posted that I was going to allow the reader to decide for themselves and not answer your rebuttal until I had done a few more “problems.”
You did see that post, right? It’s the seventh post down on page 2
Finally, I wanted to point out that when I said this:
“Sorry, but no matter how desperate you are to find a scientific error in the Bible”
You said:
“I think you missed my previous post:”

I wasn’t speaking to you, I was speaking to those so desperate to have a scientific error in the Bible that they would put the camel foot problem in the list. By the way this list I’m working on; I don’t even consider it your list because you’ve already disavowed it as not your style.

Oh, and I noticed that trick you did where you equated my explanations of the Biblical questions, with the vague predictions of the psychics and astrologers. Good show, some people not paying attention to the debate may even buy it…I don’t, but some may. We’ll talk about it later.

Originally posted by stark
Blob let me be the first to say: welcome back to the thread, for a second I thought you weren't going to respond to any more of these contradictions. I should have known better, silly me. I suspect that you have as much of a desire to spread your beliefs as I have to spread mine. So let’s not have anymore of that silly talk of not responding to anymore of my post in here, I don’t believe it and neither do you. Besides we need you here for balance.
lol. In for a penny in for a pound.

Originally posted by stark
What? I guess I’m not sure what you are talking about here. I saw your answer to my rebuttal about henceforth and I posted that I was going to allow the reader to decide for themselves and not answer your rebuttal until I had done a few more “problems.”
You did see that post, right? It’s the seventh post down on page 2
Follow the thread: I post that 'henceforth' is context independent; then you post without acknowledging this and saying something to the effect of "the context of the passage means..."; then I repasted that 'henceforth' is context independent.


Originally posted by stark
Finally, I wanted to point out that when I said this:
“Sorry, but no matter how desperate you are to find a scientific error in the Bible”
You said:
“I think you missed my previous post:”

I wasn’t speaking to you, I was speaking to those so desperate to have a scientific error in the Bible that they would put the camel foot problem in the list. By the way this list I’m working on; I don’t even consider it your list because you’ve already disavowed it as not your style.
No one would desperately argue against eternal bliss just as they wouldn't argue against winning the lottery. It's generalisable.

Originally posted by stark
Oh, and I noticed that trick you did where you equated my explanations of the Biblical questions, with the vague predictions of the psychics and astrologers. Good show, some people not paying attention to the debate may even buy it…I don’t, but some may. We’ll talk about it later.
I pointed out that your defense of the bible is rendered meaningless by you ignoring the principle of falsifiability. That was my point. The reference to psychics was merely an illustrative appendage.

EDIT: Actually my wording in my previous post is a bit muddled. Let me clarify it is your aplogetics that are not falsifiable, not necessarily the bible itself.

Okay Blob, I’m starting back where you first thought I’d ignored your post. So right out of the gate I’ll start where you said:
“Evidence that has merit and has been around for decades or centuries stops being denied; consider Pythagorus, Gallileo, Newton etc. It seems the word of god stands the test of time less well than the word of these mere mortals.”

Is that your criteria for reality; it’s only true if know one denies it? Doesn’t that throw evolution right out the window? You believe evolution is reality yet there are many people, and some of them scientist, that think evolution (macro-evolution) is wrong.
Wow, you said close to a good old fashioned argumentum ad populum with that kind of thinking.
Next I had written:
“Pondering the idea that God exists is to ponder the idea of a coherent God, a non-existing God is not a coherent God.”
And you responded:
“The human mind can ponder things whether they exists or not and whether they are coherent or not.”

Sure, but I’m not saying that if you ponder God; He automatically exists. I’m asking that they ponder that God may exists, and if they ponder that God may really exist they are pondering the fact that He is coherent. Which is why I added “a non-existing God is not a coherent God.”
Next you said:
“It seems you agree god is perfect, and that his word should be too. Obviously 'perfection' is a difficult concept, but for a practical working definition we can use 'unimprovable' - afterall, something cannot be 'more perfect' than 'perfect'. If the bible can be improved then it is indeed absurd to say it is the word of a perfect god.”

You assume that the Word of God can be approved. I contend that if you change it at all, to fit your idea of perfection, you will have made it imperfect. Now, let me let me point out that what you probably are talking about is the translation of God’s Word. I agree any translation can be approved upon.
Next you said:
“I see you have stopped arguing 'henceforth' means 'thereafter'.”

Henceforth always means henceforth, even tomorrows henceforth. See, I’m just trying to explain to you that the use of “henceforth” is in relation to the time of when that Biblical prophecy will take place. Personally, I think you understand that the Bible is putting the reader in the future during the time of the prophecy. Why you keep acting as if this is some failed prophecy is what I’m curious about.
Next you said:
“So there we go. One imperfect holy book irreversably torn to shreds, as requested.”

Blob, do a favor for your ol’ debating buddy, print out this thread, take it down to your friends at the local pub, and over a bit of fish and chips ask them to read it over. I’m really interested about what they would say. I’d be interested to see if they think that indeed your posts have torn the Bible to threads.

I’m going to post this now and continue on later. Sorry for being so slow at answering back, I’ve got a lot to do, so I can only do a little bit at a time, as I get time.

Originally posted by stark
Is that your criteria for reality; it’s only true if know one denies it? Doesn’t that throw evolution right out the window? You believe evolution is reality yet there are many people, and some of them scientist, that think evolution (macro-evolution) is wrong. Are you in America? Maybe not, but the two groups of people I understand to deny evolution are fundamentalist americans and fundamentalist muslims. You don't seem like the latter.

Considering evolution is only 150 years old, and the really compelling genetic evidence only 50 years old; and that evolution directly confronts ancient mythologies I think it's doing really rather well. I would hope evolution denial, which without exception is based on arguing from ignorance, will die out in due course.

And please define 'macro-evolution'. (Be careful! I'm setting a trap to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about.)
Wow, you said close to a good old fashioned argumentum ad populum with that kind of thinking.Hardly. Most people on earth believe in some form of god so as an atheist I'm not a fan of that fallacy.

You have the cart before the horse. I'm saying evidence with merit stops being denied, not ask what everyone thinks and that is the truth. This is why the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as evidenced beyond reasonable doubt (it is also observed and simulated). I don't doubt a few crackpots in the scientific community still deny it, happily enough for christian/muslim fundamentalists.

The main point here is that if a perfect god existed and wrote a perfect book then it would blow all other forms of knowledge clean out the water with no room for debate.
if they ponder that God may really exist they are pondering the fact that He is coherent.They are pondering that which is "above our reasoning" according to theists. Therefore how can you say god is coherent with certainty?
Now, let me let me point out that what you probably are talking about is the translation of God’s Word. I agree any translation can be approved upon.Have I got this right? God's perfection can be seen in his hebrew writing skills, but not his publishing, translation and distribution skills? Seems to be a little chink in his omnipotence there. Even the earthly Random House managed to get Harry Potter translated into many many languages without anyone complaining it makes no sense. The mere mortals get one up on god's word yet again.
Henceforth always means henceforth, even tomorrows henceforth. Arrrgggghhhh! (Stop, count to 10, patiently explain again...)
There's no such thing as a future henceforth. That would be a thereafter. Here's why:Neither henceforth nor thereafter is context dependent. For example, consider:
"I have an important meeting next month. Henceforth I will prepare myself."
...as opposed to:
"I have an important meeting next month. Thereafter I will prepare myself."
See, I’m just trying to explain to you that the use of “henceforth” is in relation to the time of when that Biblical prophecy will take place.
Changing "in context" to "in relation" can't redefine henceforth. Sorry. Unlike 'brim' henceforth has one meaning, and one meaning only.
Why you keep acting as if this is some failed prophecy is what I’m curious about.You must be curious. Afterall, I expressed my willingness to concede the Solomon verse pending evidence; and I did concede the camel verse. Could it be I am listening to you objectively and agreeing where I think you are right? But this verse simply does not wash (rather like many people who have passed through Jerusalem in the last 2000 years!). You are redefining the word henceforth. But it is a simple word with a simple definition. To the bible's credit this prophecy is falsifiable; to its discredit the prophecy is falsified.

I am not curious why you keep acting as if the verse said 'therefore' not 'henceforth'. But of course! You are clinging desperately to the promise of eternal life!
Blob, do a favor for your ol’ debating buddy, print out this thread, take it down to your friends at the local pub, and over a bit of fish and chips ask them to read it over. I’m really interested about what they would say. I’d be interested to see if they think that indeed your posts have torn the Bible to threads.Walk in a pub in modern Britain and say the bible has the slightest validity and you'll be laughed all the way to the fish and chip shop. I'm no screaming patriot but when your country gave rise to Darwin, women's rights and punk rock then religion largely goes out the window and that's something to be proud of. A gloriously godless land indeed!

BTW my mother is a christian and sometimes gets fed up with the rare bible literalist who occasionaly goes on an anti-science or anti-rights rant down the prayer meeting. She then comes to me to get advice on how to counter their 'arguments'. Most British christians (when you can find one) consider the bible almost entirely metaphorical.

Originally posted by Blob

Walk in a pub in modern Britain and say the bible has the slightest validity and you'll be laughed all the way to the fish and chip shop. I'm no screaming patriot but when your country gave rise to Darwin, women's rights and punk rock then religion largely goes out the window and that's something to be proud of. A gloriously godless land indeed!

AMEN :)

The only christian in our family is my nan and once she dies there will be no more. None of my freinds are Christians, some of them believe in God but wouldnt even contemplate giving themselves to Christ as a way of getting into Heaven, they simply figure if there good on earth dont do anything too bad its all good. Christ, the bible, and all the human writen nonsense doesnt mean shit to them.

Blob why do you reackon England has managed to progress so well from the simple minded obsessesions of christianity? and yet America hasnt?

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Blob why do you reackon England has managed to progress so well from the simple minded obsessesions of christianity? and yet America hasnt?

Sorry to stick my nose in here, and I'm not trying to derail this thread, but I think it's because the English value education more than Americans do.

In England a man with a degree from Oxford is revered as a learned man, while in the US there's a nasty tendency to regard those with advanced degrees as intellectual snobs, and "elitists", who are "out of touch" with the rest of society.

Britain's godlessness is part of a wider (particularly North West) European phenomenon.

I don't know why and this is strictly speculation.... But the common man of North West Europe has enjoyed an unprecedented high quality of life in material terms for the past half century or so. People just haven't had the hardship that results in hoping things will be better in an after-life. Although America has now replaced Europe as the dominant power the quality of life of many rural and urban Americans still remains relatively tough. The attraction of religion with its easy promises - all you have to do is believe - mean it is particularly prevalent amongst those with little material control over their lives (though not exclusively). This can be seen by the virulence of religion in Africa, India and so on. I lived in Africa 3 years and only ever met a handful of African atheists - and they were cosmopolitan sophisticates (comfortable city-based artists, teachers, journalists and the like). I have met and talked with hundreds of desperately poor people in my life - people who typically have seen their own children and family members die for want of money; people who go a day or two without eating every week to get by - and not one of them was an atheist. Indeed, such wretchedly poor people usually incessently pepper their way of talking with references to the divine. Poor souls. There ain't no justice in the world and I truly wish heaven existed for those who suffer grinding poverty. No wonder it's an attractive belief system - and this is why I honestly don't judge people accepting Jesus (or Allah or whatever) in a negative light.

To clarify - this is just my gut feeling on what is doubtlessly a very complicated issue.

Blob and Vile,

Might I suggest a new thread for this discussion?

I believe this would be an EXTREMELY interesting and informative topic, but I don't want to start discussions and "hijack" stark's Bible problems thread (He's doing a lot of work on his posts).

Just a suggestion...........

thats true, sorry Stark.

Thanks for the thought Old phart, and Loki don't be sorry I think this is an important discussion in the realm of Biblical apolgetics. And it should be important to those trying to reach out and bring people the good news of Jesus Christ.

Blob, I wasn't asking for you to go to the pub and witness to the gang, I just wanted you to show them the debate, and tell me if the Bible has been torn to shreds by your...umm...reasoning?

Originally posted by stark
Blob, I wasn't asking for you to go to the pub and witness to the gang, I just wanted you to show them the debate, and tell me if the Bible has been torn to shreds by your...umm...reasoning?
I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, stark. When I refered to the tendency for high quality descriptions of reality to become, sooner or later, the accepted norm, you accused me of appealing to popularity. Now, richly, it seems you want me to take some sort of informal poll to assess which of us is 'right'.

I say the existance of a perfect, loving god is utterly destroyed by the slightest suffering of the smallest insect for a fraction of a second; by the merest whiff of problem in god's word (translated or not); by the faintest hint of doubt in the mind of a single individual.

If you disagree tell me why, don't worry about the opinions of people I know. (In my very multicultural lifestyle I know muslims, christians, atheists, hindus, sikhs and rastas amongst others. All are thinking people with opinions. So what?)

Okay Blob, Back again with more of your posts:
You said:
“Reasoning skills are applied within the framework of a methodology in order to make an objective analysis.
Well let’s see if we can reason through a problem together: In a praise to God; Psalms 36:6-7 says:
“Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the great deep. O LORD, you preserve both man and beast. How priceless is your unfailing love! Both high and low among men find refuge in the shadow of your wings.”
Here Psalms speaks of God having wings, yet in John 4:24 Jesus says:
“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
Now in one verse God has wings, and casts a shadow. In the other verse God is spirit which would mean, no wings, and He would cast no shadow. We know that Psalms is a book of poetry, so combining that knowledge, with what is given us in John 4:24, we can reason that when Psalms speaks of the wings of God it’s speaking metaphorically, and is picturing God protecting men, who follow after Him, as a hen protects her young.
Of course we know that you already have the reasoning skills to reason metaphor in the Bible.
Next you said:
“Besides, Christians vary widely on where the literalism stops and the metaphor starts so it seems there is nothing obvious about it at all.”

Would you let me see a couple of those literalism/metaphor problems that Christians very widely on? I’m curious to see if they would stump me too.
Next I had said:
“Funny, I really don’t remember saying “don’t believe that bit.”
And you responded:
“I'm paraphrasing you. Funny you didn't pick up on this, what with your sharp ability to detect meatphor, hyperbole and the like. Anyway, consider my paraphrasing a gift: the gift of my perception of your arguments.”

Yes, your paraphrasing skills are keen indeed. In fact, you are so adroit at paraphrasing that you’ve paraphrased my point right off the page, and have inserted “don’t believe that bit.” Which, of course was never the point I was making.
I’ll remember to keep an eye out for more of your… “paraphrasing.”
Next I had said:
“you see people accepting Jesus Christ, as Lord of their life, in only a negative light”
And you said:
“Utterly untrue. My mother is a christian. It suits her well and gives her a lot of comfort. I view her acceptance of Jesus in a very positive light.”

Yet you spend a good amount of time in the religion section of this site trying to disabuse Christians of their belief that the Bible is not the Word of God. Don’t get me wrong, this site needs the views of the unbeliever, keep up the good work.
Next you said:
“Remember, I am not the one claiming to know the meaning of life or suggesting others must adopt my perspective in order to avoid a horrifying consequence.”

Oh, oh, I see a slight paraphrasing problem. Actually, it’s God who claims to know the meaning of life, I just believe Him. And I don’t tell people that they must adopt my perspective; I tell people that they must adopt God’s perspective.
Next I had said:
“Does that sound greater? Not, do you believe it, but does that sound greater?”
And you said:
“To be in the ballpark of Jesus's works it must be objectively demonstrable (a leper cured without medical attention, a mountain moved without physical labour) and to be greater the number of people cured must be larger, the mountain bigger or moved further and so on. All religions claim some form of spiritual salvation but it is not demonstrable and therefore nothing more than assertion.”

So, I’ll take that as a; no you do not believe that eternal salvation sounds greater than a physical healing.
Did you see the part I added that showed people were being healed by just touching a handkerchief that had been touched by Paul?
Next, about King Solomon and his wealth, you said:
“I'm delighted to have provided you with a new perspective. However, all I'm doing is pointing out the blatant circular logic in your reasoning.

No one is saying Solomon was not a very rich king. For all I know, perhaps no richer kings have existed since then and this is one of the many places where the bible is indeed not silly (other than the passage containing a big invisible magic person talking of course). Provide independent, authoritative evidence that there has been no richer king since Solomon and you will find I concede the point without ignoring it or resorting to pedantry.”

Reading your answer here suggests you didn’t get the point of the Solomon problem, or what I was demonstrating in answering it. So what I’ll do is post this and then post the problem and answer again, and the readers of this thread can decide if I’m using circular logic to explain it.
I’d like to see some feed back on this from the readers of this thread.
Just to cheat a bit; in a nutshell what I’m saying in my answer concerning how wealthy Solomon was, or was not is this: if we don’t know exactly how wealthy Solomon had become it would be wrong to say that the Kings of today are richer then him. The Biblical problem doesn’t stand as a Biblical error because we can’t know how wealthy Solomon had become, the Bible never gives an exact figure, no one can say if he had less or more wealth than the kings of today have. So when one says that the Bible is wrong because many kings today have more wealth then Solomon had; they are speaking from ignorance.
Hey, I’m leaving room that my reasoning through this problem is possibly explained inadequately.
You readers can let me know.

Now up from page one; the Solomon wealth problem:

Now, on with more Biblical problems, next up is from 2 Chronicles 1:12, I noticed that the reference posted has listed verse 7 but it’s only from verse 12. Anyway here is the verse:
“2 Chron. 1:7, 12 God said the following to Solomon: "Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee: and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like."
Now the comment for this is almost exactly what skeptic Dennis McKinsey, says about this verse, which is:
“This prophecy has also proved to be erroneous. There were several kings in his day, and thousands since, that could have thrown away the value of Palestine without missing the amount. The wealth of Solomon has been exceeded by many, and is small by today's standards.

Now, that’s a bold statement, but what McKinsey has failed to do is tell us exactly how wealthy King Solomon was, so that we can compare it to today’s wealthy kings. Don’t blame him though, because no one knows for sure how wealthy Solomon was, the Bible doesn’t give us his net worth. Now having said that let’s see if we can at least get some idea of his worth. Look at 1Kings 10:14:
“The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was 666 talents, not including the revenues from merchants and traders and from all the Arabian kings and the governors of the land.”
At that time Palestine was a major trade thoroughfare, so how much did Solomon get in trade revenues?
Looking just at the gold he received yearly we’re looking at 666 talents which is about 25 tons of gold, but moving on from there how much money did he get from the merchants, traders, Arabian kings, and governors? The Bible doesn’t say. 1Kings 9:27 says that he got 420 talents from Ophir. Move down to the beginning of chapter 10, here we find queen of Sheba giving him an unspecified amount of spices, and precious stones, and 120 talents of gold. In verse 11 we see an unspecified amount of lemonwood and precious stones. Read all of 1kings chapter 10 you’ll see he had a fleet of trading ships that returned every three years carrying an unspecified amount of gold, silver, and ivory, plus apes and baboons. Look at 1Kings 10:25 “Year after year, everyone who came brought a gift-- articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses and mules.” Look in verse 26, it says Solomon had fourteen hundred chariots and twelve thousand horses. Think about how much gold Solomon had, how many tons that it added up to, now how much was gold an ounce? Was it more or less then it is today? I could guess that since it took so much more labor to extract it from the ground, that it would be worth more back then. One other thing, did Solomon just sit on all this wealth or did he invest it, and if he did invest it how much did he make from said investments?
Do you think it’s safe to say that King Solomon was worth billions? How about hundreds of billions? More? Who knows.
When McKinsey, the skeptic that was quoted, says that Solomon‘s wealth was “small by today's standards” I have to say “prove it.”
Folks, read 1Kings chapters 9, and 10 add up the wealth that is listed, and then remember we don’t know everything that he had or how he invested it. This is not a Biblical problem.

Okay, back again with more discussions of your different posts Blob. This time I’d like to start where I had said:
“Blob it sure does sound like you are flailing about desperate to hold on to any contradiction.”
And the first part of your response was:
“Hardly. And why would anyone do that?”

I think some will grab desperately at any reason to disbelieve the Bible, and that’s up to them. My question is why would a committed, well educated, Atheist who sets out to prove the Bible wrong, end up believing it and becoming a Christian?

“If I suspected the bible is right and that I can live forever in bliss why on earth would I argue against it? I am not a gambling man and don't buy lottery tickets but if I did and my numbers came up I would not "flail about desperately" to deny such wonderful news, would I now?”

Money does not demand a denial of your own will, a call to moral perfection, and the acceptance of its will in your life no matter where that leads.
Instead money feeds your will, grants your every desire, no matter how perverse, (I’m not suggesting that you are perverse) it brings power, respect, and pleasure. With money the risk is spending it to fast. With enough money the risk is not spending it fast enough.
No, I don’t think many would deny the news of winning big cash.
But, the good news of Jesus Christ, and the promise of a new life, and a heavenly home demands a high price. No longer is it “my will be done, but to God, “your Will be done.
Next you said:
“However, for you to believe that the bible is not the word of god means losing out. Disbelief comes with no promises, no future golden age, no reassurance that everything will be just hunky-dory.

Not only do I agree with your statement, but I’ll back up what you just said with a quote from the Apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 15:19 “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.”
If the Bible is false, the resurrection of Christ is false, and if that’s false it’s all over. Fortunately the Bible has stood the test of men and of time.
Next you said:
“It is said an atheist is someone who truly understands god.”

Bet it was an Atheist who said it.
Next you said:
“Unlike 'henceforth', which has only one definition, the word brim has several definitions. One is indeed the upper most edge of a vessel; another is the edge of a hat; another is full capacity; and yet another is simply 'a border'. If the brim of a sea is refered to, as in the bible, then it is clear that one and only one of these definitions is applicable.”

But what you haven’t done is told me the shape of the mouth of the “sea” that is referred to in the Biblical passage we were talking about.
Next you said:
“I agree with the final sentence. And for clarity let's remind readers that cud is defined as "Food regurgitated from the first stomach to the mouth of a ruminant". Readers, decide for yourselves if hares are ruminants.”

Readers, while you’re deciding that go back and read the post with the whole cud chewing problem. The problem isn’t whether the Bible is claiming that rabbits are ruminants or not. The problem is what the Hebrew phrase chewing the cud is referring to. Is it the act of chewing bits of partially digested food or the process with which the animal got the bits of partially digested food.

This is going terribly slow, and I’m itching to get back to the Biblical problems so I may try to skate through most of the rest of your posts Blob. If I don’t touch on something you found very important hit me again and I’ll give it a go.
So with that; next I had said:
“Oh how quickly the non-theists condemns and rejects the scientist who has committed the heresy of defending the Bible.”
And you responded:
“If they have done so in the line of their work, as opposed to as a private out-of-work matter, then quite right too. An academic who studies the bible in the course of his work is not a scientist but a theologian (or at a push a philosopher).”

Yes, indeed, the scientist walks a very thin line, dare they think outside the strict box of Darwinian naturalism, their condemnation will be quick.
“BTW when the Big Bang model superseded the Steady State theory did atheists cry "heresy" and "lies" as theists do when it comes to evolution and the like?”

No, the Atheists cry “heresy” and “lies” when an Atheist suggests that God had to be the force behind the Big Bang.
As an example, keep your eye on Antony Flew, a rather popular Atheist…or rather former Atheist. He’s changed his mind, apparently he was impressed by Intelligent Design theorists and gentlemen such as Richard Swinburne the Oxford philosophy of religion professor. Flew says Swinburne is the leading figure in the UK and “there is really no competition to him.“
Don’t worry Agnostics and Atheists (weak and strong) Antony Flew still rejects Christ, but he does dismiss views that Jesus never existed as “ridiculous.”
Prediction: Antony Flew is about to suffer the consequences of turning away from Atheism. The Atheists will not be amused. Just watch.

Well that’s it for now, I’ll keep working on your posts at another time Blob.

Not many responses to my posts so far, probably due to the glitch in the site. That’s fine, it gives me a chance to catch up.
So Blob, I’ll start where Galileo had been brought up and you had said:
“It seems the ideas of those mere mortals are standing the test of time better than god's word yet again.”
And also I’d like to add something from a post near the end of page two where you said:
“Have I got this right? God's perfection can be seen in his hebrew writing skills, but not his publishing, translation and distribution skills? Seems to be a little chink in his omnipotence there. Even the earthly Random House managed to get Harry Potter translated into many many languages without anyone complaining it makes no sense. The mere mortals get one up on god's word yet again.”

So the true Word of God would make complete sense to everyone at all times? That’s interesting, especially in light of the words of Jesus in Matthew 13:13-15 where he quotes from Isaiah:
“This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'“

Actually, I think God has done an incredible job in getting His Word out to mankind. Look what He had to do in presenting it to us. He had to make the Bible easy enough to understand for the most simple minded to grasp it’s message of salvation, yet so complex that the most intelligent thinker among us could spend a life time studying its pages, and still learn new truths about God and His character. God had to write His Word so that it would last for thousands of years, yet be relevant in any time period, and culture along the way, whether its a 1st century Ethiopian eunuch, the “17th century Frenchman” that you spoke of earlier, or a 21st century chemist living down the street. God had to design His Word to respect our freedom of choice. It is obvious enough for it’s truths to be open for anyone truly seeking Him, and at the same time veiled to those who do not want to find Him. It is an anvil that has worn out many a hammer, yet it is gentle enough to offer great comfort to the weak, the sick, the hurt (mentally and physically) and the dying. The Bible has done far more then Random House could do, and it’s far more reaching and useful then Harry Potter.

Next up you spoke about the chewing the cud problem, but I’ll just let the reader decide for themselves on this issue. They have my argument and yours.
Next about the camel foot problem you said:
“Well, in a superficial, limited sense a hoof is a foot (in fact camel's feet evolved from hooves).”

I’d accept that a hoof is a type of foot, but the difference between a hoof and the soft foot of a camel is vast. Camels feet evolved from hooves? You calling that a fact are you? You, of course, can show me a camel fossil that has hooves…right?
Next you said:
“By twisting the words and grammar of the bible to make it fit reality you are ignoring the principle of falsifiability and are therefore being unscientific.”

First, let me say that I disagree with your assertion that I’m twisting the words and grammar of the Bible. What I’m doing is demonstrating that what some people see as a Biblical problem, when examined, is just a misunderstanding.
Second, if what I’m doing here ignores the principle of falsifiability, what are you doing. Aren’t you attempting to establish that the Bible is false? Why are you spending so much time attempting to prove the Bible is false, if is not provable?
Next you wrote:
“This is the technique psychics and astrologers use. That is why they are always 'right': they keep predictions so vague and use words so hazily that their predictions can never be falsified. Rather they are reinterpreted to match what actually happens and so their predictions are in fact meaningless.”

Psychics and astrologers are always right? I wonder how Jean Dixon’s prediction that Ted Kennedy would win the presidency in the mid eighties has become right?
Next you said:
“As a christian I'm sure you'll agree that psychics etc are all fakes.”

I don’t know all Psychics, but as a Christian I can tell you that the teachings of the Bible frown on those relying on Psychic and astrological practices.
Next you said:
“Oh dear lost Stark! Why can you not see you use exactly the same strategies?”

Hmmm, I'm a dear lost stark now. In Christianity those who reject the gift of the Lord Jesus Christ are considered lost. Now here we are, I’m rejecting the gift of freedom from believing in the Bible, offered by Blob, I reject it and am considered lost…really Blob, after I get done with the rest of the Biblical problems you posted, I’ll go visit the Faith, Atheism, and religion thread that you started.

Well that about covers it for most of your posts. I really want to get back into answering the Biblical problems, so that’s what I’m going to continue doing…in my next post.

Oh, I forgot one of your posts that I did want to talk about and I’ll start where I had said:
“Blob, I wasn't asking for you to go to the pub and witness to the gang, I just wanted you to show them the debate, and tell me if the Bible has been torn to shreds by your...umm...reasoning?”
And you responded;
“I'm not quite sure where you're going with this, stark. When I refered to the tendency for high quality descriptions of reality to become, sooner or later, the accepted norm, you accused me of appealing to popularity. Now, richly, it seems you want me to take some sort of informal poll to assess which of us is 'right'.”

You seem to be reading into what I had asked you to do. Your statement, basically, was that you had torn the Bible to shreds with your argument. All I wanted to do was have your friends just check it out and see if they thought the same thing. Not to assess which is right, but to specifically assess if you had indeed torn the Bible to shreds. But if you don’t want to do it, well that’s fine also.
Next you said:
“I say the existance of a perfect, loving god is utterly destroyed by the slightest suffering of the smallest insect for a fraction of a second; by the merest whiff of problem in god's word (translated or not); by the faintest hint of doubt in the mind of a single individual.”

Well you may say it, but saying it doesn’t make it true. You base your views on what a perfect, loving, all powerful being should be like, based on the assumptions of an imperfect, finite being. This happens a lot.

Originally posted by stark
You base your views on what a perfect, loving, all powerful being should be like, based on the assumptions of an imperfect, finite being. This happens a lot.

He bases it on what the statement "Perfect, loving, all powerful being" means. Stark your beginning to bore me now.

God isnt loving since his actions contradict what the English language defines love as, so either work your ass off on getting the word Love in the english dictionary changed or stop using that word when speaking about God.

Blob your walking away with this, but be careful cause when you knock Starks biblical crutches away its gonna need someone to hold onto for support.

This is interesting Loki, tell me, what is love? I may be wrong, but you seem to be saying that God does not love because He doesn’t work in keeping with the English definition of love. So if we are going to talk about this I’ve got to get your English definition of love.

Really gang, I do plan to get back to those Biblical problems.

I agree 100% Stark.

For me, God IS the definition of love.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I agree 100% Stark.

For me, God IS the definition of love.

Well its good to know that everything he did in the OT was out of love. Fu*king retard.

Stark -

A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

Stark if you respond it will be falling on deaf ears, Everything ive learnt about christianity has lead me to my hate for it. Everytime you speak i hate it that much more and Jere and Stop well... lets just say id love to meet them somewhere private.

What your doing is like a Mother and her child, the child broke the law seriouslly and was facing arrest however the Mother lied and protected the child. It wouldnt be so bad if you said "Yeh ok God screwed up here and there but i feel that on the whole he/she has done more Good and so i side with them. God isnt perfect but he/she tries their best and realising its all gone to shit down here has made Heaven. Heaven being what would have been, had Eve not took the apple"

But you dont! Its all God is perfect, everything thats Bad is the Devil and its that Ignorance, its that fu*king dumbass thinking that gets me angry.

You know what dont waste ya time replying, you wont take any notice of what ive said, you wont apply an open mind, its all narrow minded tunnel like crap that will spew from your mouth.

THERE IS NO COMPROMISE.

O and if you think im hypercritical there are other religions im learning about that do actually make me happy, they have given my reason to think.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
I agree 100% Stark.

For me, God IS the definition of love.

Love is something you must experience to understand, and the more you experience love, the less you understand it. :D

I think you need to experience life a little more before you can credibly wax philosophical on the nature of love.

Loki, interesting response you made, let me start by asking you a few questions:
Would you protect the one you love? Would you give good things or bad things to the one you love? Would you allow what appears to be a bad thing, but would end up being a beneficial thing, happen to the one you love? If the one you love misunderstood your intentions, grew angry and left, would you pursue? Say you loved someone intensely, but they didn’t return that love. And say you had a magic button that when you pressed it, that person would have no choice but to love you. Would you press that button?
Next you said:
“Stark if you respond it will be falling on deaf ears,”

Yes, I know it will.
Next you said:
“Everything ive learnt about christianity has lead me to my hate for it. Everytime you speak i hate it that much more and Jere and Stop well... lets just say id love to meet them somewhere private.”

This kind of hatred for Christianity has been around for a long time. What can we do except to pray, serve, and live.
Next you said:
“You know what dont waste ya time replying, you wont take any notice of what ive said, you wont apply an open mind, its all narrow minded tunnel like crap that will spew from your mouth.”

I try to take notice of everything someone writes to me. I don’t always agree, but I like to give it a hearing.
It’s interesting, that with many people it’s the other person who is closed minded, and narrow.

Originally posted by stark
Loki, interesting response you made, let me start by asking you a few questions:
Would you protect the one you love?

Yes i would, meaning i wouldnt let them die if i had the power to stop it.


Originally posted by stark
Would you give good things or bad things to the one you love?
I wouldnt knowingly give bad things to the one i loved? would you?


Originally posted by stark
Would you allow what appears to be a bad thing, but would end up being a beneficial thing, happen to the one you love?
If i knew it was a good thing, then its not a bad thing is it. These questions are vague, care to create some examples and we can go from there. Though i feel this is the exact reason why Christ on the cross wasnt actually sacrificing himself if he knew hed go BACK to heaven anyway.

Originally posted by stark
If the one you love misunderstood your intentions, grew angry and left, would you pursue?
If that person truly loved me they wouldnt leave. These things would be worked out.

Originally posted by stark
Say you loved someone intensely, but they didn’t return that love. And say you had a magic button that when you pressed it, that person would have no choice but to love you. Would you press that button?

Does that fall into the same questioning as "If you had a big button to rid the world of cancer" would you push it... since these buttons dont exist and never will, whats the point of discussing this further.


Originally posted by stark
I try to take notice of everything someone writes to me. I don’t always agree, but I like to give it a hearing.

But your not open to compromise,

Not many responses to my posts so far, probably due to the glitch in the site.
I've been on holiday and now have a little backlog at work, but will jump back in the thread when I get chance.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Love is something you must experience to understand, and the more you experience love, the less you understand it. :D

I think you need to experience life a little more before you can credibly wax philosophical on the nature of love.

Rubbish. Love is not wine. It does not just get better with each passing day. We come into this world loving. We love our parents. We love our siblings. We love our best friends. Our companions. Our first kisses. We love from beginning to end.

And most importantly, God loves us.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Rubbish. Love is not wine. It does not just get better with each passing day. We come into this world loving. We love our parents. We love our siblings. We love our best friends. Our companions. Our first kisses. We love from beginning to end.

And most importantly, God loves us.

Love can have ups and downs, and Id like to say that from my experience that you can grow to love something or someone without first loving them.

I fully agree. Someone who professes God, and then grows to love him after seeing his grace, is a perfect example.

Thats impossible though surely, someone who professes GOD loves GOD completely? Since you must give yourself completely to GOD it stands to reason that to embrace GOD one must LOVE him completely and therefore the idea of that LOVE increasing is impossible since LOVE is not a varible.

My question is why would a committed, well educated, Atheist who sets out to prove the Bible wrong, end up believing it and becoming a Christian?keep your eye on Antony FlewRichard Swinburne the Oxford philosophy of religion professor
Psychics and astrologers are always right? I wonder how Jean Dixon’s prediction that Ted Kennedy would win the presidency in the mid eighties has become right?All I wanted to do was have your friends just check it out and see if they thought the same thing. Its getting tedious hearing that poeple exist who think different things. I know, ok? Why do you muse so on what others might say: my friends; hypthetical atheists who converted after inability to find error in the bible despite their desperation to do so; names and anecdotes of people I've mostly never heard of (please provide links when you post such information.) There's nothing wrong with expressing your own point of view and providing authoritative links to evidence/support any claims you make, indeed it's a constructive dialogue method I try myself to adhere to. But where is youropinion, Stark?

You do not tell me what arguments of Flew or Swinburne you find valid and why; you only tell me the names of two people who say godidit, one of whom didn't used to. Why do you think the word god would make a valuable contribution to scientific knowledge, Stark?

As for Jean Dixon's prediction (who she??). Psychics are fakes, and failed predictions like this are evidence. I doubt Jean Whoever-she-is admitted it though. I've never heard of this woman but I'll wager she made up some unfalsifiable, meaningless apologetics** and that "open-minded" people bought it and her psychic reputation was still intact after the failure.
( **twisting the original prediction; using words vaguely and abusing actual definitions; dismissing things as not literal; inserting new details into the prediction; selectively quoting her other 'successes' - Sound familiar?).

First, let me say that I disagree with your assertion that I’m twisting the words and grammar of the Bible. What I’m doing is demonstrating that what some people see as a Biblical problem, when examined, is just a misunderstanding.Not an objective starting point. You will always find your misunderstanding and you will always be 'right': just like psychics who are demonstrably wrong but build elegant house-of-cards st