tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post114791018014062712..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Let's do betterUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148061973286512402006-05-19T14:06:00.000-04:002006-05-19T14:06:00.000-04:00Yes, Daniel Morgan, I know I should start another ...Yes, Daniel Morgan, I know I should start another blog. I simply hate that format. I like a clean blog, with comments that follow. The “blog…comment…new blog…comment…new blog” becomes difficult for me to follow the train of thought back to the beginning.<BR/><BR/>People on the ‘net are free to post and write in whatever style they choose. I just do not prefer that particular style.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul, thanks for the comments. I did not mean to be confusing, in that I was talking about inerrancy. But I find inerrancy a boring topic, really. Those that subscribe to it will often hold on regardless of the arguments. As you aptly point out, it is a constant moving target.<BR/><BR/>I do think, though, that once one understands that a methodology has to be established to determine whether there is error or not, one can equally understand that similar methodologies must be put in place for inspiration and literalism. Nor should we label it as “garbage” and toss it to the side, either.<BR/><BR/>I propose open-mindedness with a healthy dose of skepticism. And why limit it to the Bible? What about the other Jewish writings, or Christian writings?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148052246610420022006-05-19T11:24:00.000-04:002006-05-19T11:24:00.000-04:00sorry for the typos in my first post. someday I'll...sorry for the typos in my first post. someday I'll learn to proof read.<BR/><BR/>Dagoods states:<BR/>"We can do better. The bible is rich in lore, and myth and even history. But to shoehorn it into a box, whether inerrancy, or literalism, or inspiration, or even claiming it has no value and insist on that box, regardless of the facts does it a disservice in my opinion."<BR/>I may have misunderstood, but I thought you originally singled out inerrancy? In that case, I don't think "we can do much better." Your argument seemed exhaustive (to me) putting the innerrancy believer in an untenable position. You observe this in your profession (and gave example) when you find people using a profussion of words in the absence of facts, substance. You, here, raise objection but there is no judge to overrule or sustain it, so you end up shooting at a moving target. <BR/><BR/>You have also observed that the goal, with many, is to 'win' the argument, not ascertain the truth. This is emotional, not reasonable. I think when you expose and and make one vulnerable, you invoke the survival instinct. My wife has told me that when she was young and she and her sister would get into it, she'd sometimes pin her sister down. Her sisters response would be to yell at her, "do you give up?" In the context of inerrancy, it seems to me that you are, quite simply, right. <BR/><BR/>I would agree with you that the bible is done a disservice when put in a box. I would say that's true about most anything. I think what you are advocating is open-mindedness?paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148047625057712882006-05-19T10:07:00.000-04:002006-05-19T10:07:00.000-04:00This is good stuff.YOu ought to repost this as a s...This is good stuff.<BR/><BR/>YOu ought to repost this as a separate post.<BR/><BR/>A lot of people miss the most potent refutations because they are hidden within the comments sections. THe triabloguers never make this mistake. They always make new posts of the comments I leave in their comments sections, rather than just responding within the comments, as we often do.<BR/><BR/>I think we can take a cue from them.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>Dnsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1148047064455819902006-05-19T09:57:00.000-04:002006-05-19T09:57:00.000-04:00steve over at triablogue has written a response po...<A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/05/dagoods-deadwood.html" REL="nofollow">steve</A> over at triablogue has written a response post that is so demonstrative of the very problem I observe, it is instructive to review. Rather than address every word and sentence, a few points and broad brush should set the reader on a course to understanding the issues involved.<BR/><BR/><B>Name</B> We are told that the difference between the Jebusite’s name is that “Ornan is a regular variant of Araunah.” (All of the other issues about the Jebusite, like the price, the place and the fact David didn’t kill him are not responded to.) At first this <I>sounds</I> like an acceptable response.<BR/><BR/>But ask yourself, how does anyone know the variants of Jebusite names from 3000 years ago? We have no Jebusite writings from that time period, let alone names, let alone the name, “Araunah.” Frankly, whoever proffers this hasn’t a clue as to the variants (regular or irregular) of the name “Araunah.” It is <I>presumed</I> that Ornan is a variant. Why? Because the Jebusite has a different name in 1 Chron. The attempt to remove the contradiction by rationalization is evident.<BR/><BR/><B>Numbers</B> Steve readily admits that the numbers conflict. Good-bye inerrancy. (Oh, it is couched in fancy terms to avoid what is being said, <I>”In other words, there are several variant readings in play. So we have specific textual evidence that the numerical transcription is unreliable in our extant MSS.”</I>)<BR/><BR/>At least steve makes lemons with lemonade by forcefully and positively asserting that we cannot trust our current Bible when it comes to numbers. If we can’t trust it there, where else should we abandon our trust?<BR/><BR/>An engaging side-issue is the claim that “’eleph,” the Hebrew word for “thousand” may also be translated “military unit.” So your Bible, that has been translating ‘eleph as “thousand” for thousands of years, is wrong. Why the change?<BR/><BR/>Because of the lack of archeological support for the numbers claimed in the Bible which has developed in the last Century. Now that we are learning David could never have an army of millions, nor could the Exodus comprise of millions, apologists are “re-defining” terms, to avoid the problem, but somehow maintain the Bible as historically accurate.<BR/><BR/>Kinda makes you wonder what we will find out in the next century which will require further “re-defining.”<BR/><BR/>Oh. Since there was no Hebrew word for “million,” 1 Chron. 21:5 says Israel had ’elaph ‘elaph plus one hundred ‘elaph. This meaning One thousand one thousand (or one million) plus one hundred thousand. In order for the apologist to work this, they must state the second and last ‘elaph must mean military units, but the first ‘elpah means one thousand. Of course, there is no methodology provided for why we switch in and out. Nor, more specifically, why we must switch ONLY when it just happens to be the most convenient for the apologist.<BR/><BR/>Notice how each point is dissected and a possible resolution proposed. If it was <I>just</I> the numbers or <I>just</I> the name, perhaps we could see it. The problem is that there are too many items that conflict in all three accounts.<BR/><BR/><B>Will the real author of 1 Chronicles stand up?</B> If you can follow the argument, it presents no real solution. Steve is claiming that the 2 Samuel we have came from the Massoric Texts. But there was a different version of 2 Samuel floating about--a Palestinian version. And it was from the Palestinian Version that 1 Chronicles derived its information regarding the census.<BR/><BR/>The question we should therefore be asking, is NOT whether 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles contradict, but whether 2 Samuel Masoric version or 2 Samuel Palestinian version conflict. Hello! The issue is not where 1 Chronicles obtained its information, it is that it conflicts! Saying the contradiction occurred earlier does not remove the contradiction!<BR/><BR/>Do you see how the apologist has lost the big picture in minutiae argument? I thought the point of arguing on behalf of the Bible was that it was <I>different</I> not the same as all other books. I thought the point of inerrancy was the uniqueness of coherency, not that alternative stories were both recorded. Whether originally from the author of Chronicles, or originally from the author of another book of Samuel, we have the same principle in effect—a very human look about it.<BR/><BR/>And, in keeping with losing the forest for the trees, in this vein, steve states: <I>So some of the differences are deliberate editorial differences rather than inadvertent mistakes.</I><BR/><BR/>How do deliberate changes (couched as “editorial differences”) rather than mistakes, <B>help</B> the proponent of Biblical accuracy? I think, regardless of where the author obtained his source, we all agree that 1 Chronicles (or 2 Samuel, Palestinian style) was written closer in time to David then our current century. If a person, closer in time, disagrees with how the story is recorded, should we as well?<BR/><BR/>1 Chronicles (both census tales) are contradictory, not complementary. A complementary story is one that adds facts, not changes them:<BR/><BR/>Person One: The car was red.<BR/>Person Two: The car was a Corvette.<BR/><BR/>We now learn it was a red Corvette. Instead what we have is:<BR/><BR/>Person One: The car was red.<BR/>Person Two: The car was green.<BR/>Apologist: The car was two-tone, red and green, and person Two obtained their information from another person that could only see the green portion of the car, and Person one obtained their information from a person that could only see the red side of the car, and why don’t you see that these two reports are not contradictory at all, but very complementary?<BR/><BR/>Huh. Look what this argument is stating. The second author, in making these changes…(excuse me) “editorial differences,” is not adding facts. They are <B>changing</B> facts! In reading the 2 Samuel tale, it would look like this:<BR/><BR/>New Author: ’God got angry at Israel’….Nope, can’t have that, cross it off. Continuing, ‘God incited David’…ah, but that is a sin. No, let’s cross out ‘God’ and replace it with ‘Satan.’ Hmmmm. These numbers seem a bit small. Maybe boost them up a bit? Oh, dear. Can’t have him counting the Levites. We will say they weren’t counted. Since the Benjamites were all but wiped out, we can leave them off, too.<BR/><BR/>“Hey, everybody KNOWS the Jebusite’s name was Ornan, that needs correcting. Three years of famine? We just had that, let’s boost that one, too, to seven. A measly 50 shekels of silver? Chump change. Make it gold. Lots of gold….<BR/><BR/>Do you see how making it deliberate rather than a mistake does not help the position? <BR/><BR/>We can do better. The Bible is rich in lore, and myth, and even history. But to shoehorn it into a box, whether inerrancy, or literalism, or inspiration, or even claiming it has no value and insist on that box, regardless of the facts does it a disservice, in my opinion.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147958524197951322006-05-18T09:22:00.000-04:002006-05-18T09:22:00.000-04:00Dagoods,Wonderfully thorough, as always.You have d...Dagoods,<BR/>Wonderfully thorough, as always.<BR/><BR/>You have debunked both christian apologetics and the notion of biblical inerrancy, at least on one level.<BR/>Christian apologetics is an oxymoron. "Christians" who indulge in apologetics have a bigger problem with unbelief than you or I. Having to find a reason for their belief is directly opposed to Gods method of salvation through faith (Eph. 2:8). Faith is a "substance" (Heb.11:1) that God gives so people can believe in Him (any other basis for belief is of works, self thus worth of "boasting" and unacceptable to God). Faith is the evidence of things unseen (e.g. God). But apologists are not content with this gift of faith(without which it is impossible to please God), and in their unbelief strive for a 'reason' to believe. But God is not manipulated thusly, He won't allow anyone to reason their way into heaven. He's set up a sort of plausible deniability, particularly in the bible, so people cannot base their belief on what is 'seen', but rather have to rely on His gift of faith. "Jesus asked" will I find faith on earth when I return? It only takes faith the size of a mustard seed to move a mountain, it takes a mountain of faith to believe when the mountain is unmoved. The bible is a spiritual book, it's foolishness when read with 'natural' eyes, because it's spiritually discerned (I Cor.2:14). 'Christian apologists' are not hear to convince you of anything, they're hear to convince themselves.paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04437206493901034134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147954914299059112006-05-18T08:21:00.000-04:002006-05-18T08:21:00.000-04:00I'm surprised no other comments have rolled in. Da...I'm surprised no other comments have rolled in. DagoodS has raised questions concerning my favorite mythological character for which I have a love-hate relationship... and the talking snake <I>morph</I> dragon is <B>only</B> a <I>mythological character</I>. <BR/><BR/>At least the <A HREF="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/TNACK01.JPG" REL="nofollow">the Jewish Tnakh</A> says so.<BR/>This translation of the Bible does not use "Lucifer" at all, but rather, uses "O shining one, son of the dawn!" and further, footnotes it with <I>"a character in some lost myth"</I>.<BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/KJV01.JPG" REL="nofollow">King James</A> concurs with "Lucifer" simply means "O day star" and <A HREF="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/NIV01.JPG" REL="nofollow">the NIV</A> too, does not use "Lucifer" at all, but rather, uses "O morning star, son of the dawn!"<BR/><BR/>Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia states that Lucifer means phosphorous or "light bearer" and that the early church fathers, made the association to Satan.<BR/><BR/>Was the Bible the first place where "war in heaven with the dragon" took place?<BR/><BR/><I>Rv:12:7: And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.</I><BR/><BR/>Not according to <A HREF="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/HELEL01.JPG" REL="nofollow">Archaeology</A>.<BR/>Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 1 "Canaanite Deities"<BR/>States that "Helel" is the god found in Isaiah 14:12, referred to as "Lucifer". (Isaiah was prophesying against the King of Babylon, not the "Devil".)<BR/><BR/>Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia: "One of the most perfect specimens of Babylonian literature is the tablet describing the <A HREF="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/images/TIAMAT01.JPG" REL="nofollow">war in heaven</A> between Merodach and the demon Tiamat..."<BR/><BR/>I need to drag out my "Monumental Inscriptions" and look for the Egyptian account of Pharoah, who rides the fiery chariot every day in pursuit of the serpent [or was it a dragon]... and this explained to some Egyptians [who bought the myth] why the sun "rises and sets".Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1147911859341809052006-05-17T20:24:00.000-04:002006-05-17T20:24:00.000-04:00Again, if God was mad, why involve Satan-->David--...<I>Again, if God was mad, why involve Satan-->David-->Joab?</I><BR/><BR/>Contrary to popular belief, Satan is God's most faithful subject; i.e., Garden of Eden. Satan <B>shall also fulfil</B> every word of Revelation projected on him, else make God into a liar.<BR/><BR/><I>...And this makes God and Satan having a mutual goal. Can we identify other mutual goals of God/Satan?</I><BR/><BR/>A god after god's own heart.Scriveningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01350122934990690700noreply@blogger.com