Rapture - 23rd September 2015

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Great, so you confirm that the Bible is as mixed with fact and fiction as the stories of Romulus and Remus and King Arthur. Sorted.

How much wisdom did you get from any of those other books? Do you really think they compare? I think you know better. Chris B.

 

[Craig B]

But that scenario is based on what you would like the book to mean, not on what it actually says. And, you'd also have to go back in time for that to work for you.

David's Goliath was already dead, unless he was to predate Jesus in the resurrection business, so he could be killed again, that's a major problem for the scenario. Chris B.

Respond to my post #269.

Don't write things like that until you address the point being made, that there was only one Goliath, and that credit for his slaying was removed from Elhanan and awarded to David by later writers, working under the dynasty named for David. Just as there was only one Michal.

Anyway if that is so, that there were two Goliaths, where were you originally getting the brother stuff from? Explain that too.

Does the book say, there were two Goliaths? No, one source in the book says that Goliath was killed by David, and another one, that Elhanan was the killer. It is you who are basing things on "what you would like the book to mean, not on what it actually says". And your suggestion is highly improbable, that there were two such warriors.

There are lots of examples of this, and your "it happened twice" which I have already denounced as ridiculous really fails in some cases. Look at this

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. 2 Samuel 24:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. 1 Chronicles 21:1

So did David conduct two separate censuses, one ordered by God, the other by Satan? And in both cases he was punished by God killing seventy thousand Israelites? This story is disgusting in every respect, but the suggestion that it refers to two separate incidents also has the effect of making it hilariously absurd.

 

[Leumas]

First part, the lesson of Abraham and Isaac was done by God.

So now you believe in God?

And what lesson is that... that it is ok to be a cowardly poltroon and pimp off one's half-sister wife or one's first cousin wife and cash in by selling off her "beauty" to kings so as to gain in payment lots of gold and slaves?

Is that the lesson?

Abraham was a COWARDLY PIMP who pimped off Sarah his half sister wife and made tons of money off of her "beauty" being used by Pharaoh.... and did it again with another King.

Isaac took up the family PIMPING business and he too for the coward he was made his first cousin wife lie and say she was his sister so as to save his cowardly hide like his father and sold off her "beauty" and cashed in too.

So are those the lessons we should be learning?

Should we all start PIMPING our wives to become "very rich"?

Or is the lesson that God is a lying moron who TRICKS people and makes them snip off the tips of their genitals to ratify real estate contracts and then the real estate turns out to be WORTHLESS?

God promised Abraham that he will be his FRIEND AND SHIELD...yet Abraham could not rely on that... Abraham did not trust that the almighty creator of everything is in fact going to KEEP HIS WORD and thus had to lie and use tricks to save his hide and resorted to pimping Sarah's "beauty" off.

And Abraham was right in not trusting this LIAR GOD.... he had just seen how this LIAR GOD is a MORON.... because he made him a promise to give him descendants as countless as the stars in the heavens and yet his wife turns out to be barren (or was it him).... this DECEIVER GOD promised a land full of honey and milk and yet he had to flee from it because of a famine and drought... TWICE ... and again his son too and later again all SEVENTY of his countless-as-stars descendants so as to become slaves for 470 years without this IMBECILIC GOD who is supposed to be their friend and shield even blinking with sympathy for them.... and despite all these promises Abraham could not even find a place to burry his half-sister-wife after she died and had to BUY a plot from the OWNERS of the land supposedly promised to him by the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and who did not see fit to give him Hawaii let alone a PLANET out of the entire universe where Abraham would not have needed to pimp off his sister.... a good thing Abraham could afford to pay for the burial plot with all that wealth he made from pimping Sarah off.

So yes... Abraham had to pimp off his wife because he really could not rely on this TRICKSTER God to keep his promises of being a shield when this god has already proven to be an UTTER LIAR on all counts.

And Abraham trying to kill Isaac was nothing to do with God or as a lesson to stop child sacrifice.

Abraham wanted to kill Isaac because Isaac was Pharaoh' BASTARD CHILD after Abraham pimped Sarah to him.

Abraham was a Sumerian/Assyrian lower ranked nobleman who on a diplomatic mission to Egypt found it expedient for one reason or another to pimp off Sarah to Pharaoh as his sister, who later became pregnant.

Pharaoh upon becoming aware that Sarah was in fact Abraham's wife sent them away but being pregnant with his seed he gave them riches and goods and of course sent along spies to keep an eye on the progeny.

On the way back to Haran, Abraham decided to stay in Canaan until Sarah gave birth. The pretense that God ordered Abraham to kill Isaac was an excuse to justify eliminating the bastard son of Pharaoh.

The whole expiation with an entangled stray lamb was nothing but the bodyguards staying off the hand of Abraham to whom Pharaoh later gave even more wealth so as to refrain from assassinating the boy.

Pharaoh, the God of Egypt and all its colonial territories, made a Covenant with Abraham that he will be his shield and friend if he resided in Canaan to raise Isaac whom Pharaoh promised to give those lands to as an inheritance along with his descendants.

Pharaoh of course demanded that Abraham circumcise Isaac and teach him to do so for his descendants in keeping with the Egyptian custom.

To prove Abraham's compliance to the Covenant of guardianship of his son the Egyptian God made Abraham also circumcise himself and his whole tribe too.​

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Respond to my post #269.

Don't write things like that until you address the point being made, that there was only one Goliath, and that credit for his slaying was removed from Elhanan and awarded to David by later writers, working under the dynasty named for David. Just as there was only one Michal.

Anyway if that is so, that there were two Goliaths, where were you originally getting the brother stuff from? Explain that too.

Does the book say, there were two Goliaths? No, one source in the book says that Goliath was killed by David, and another one, that Elhanan was the killer. It is you who are basing things on "what you would like the book to mean, not on what it actually says". And your suggestion is highly improbable, that there were two such warriors.

There are lots of examples of this, and your "it happened twice" which I have already denounced as ridiculous really fails in some cases. Look at this So did David conduct two separate censuses, one ordered by God, the other by Satan? And in both cases he was punished by God killing seventy thousand Israelites? This story is disgusting in every respect, but the suggestion that it refers to two separate incidents also has the effect of making it hilariously absurd.

I already did in post #279.

If you meant for me to address the barbaric things done in that time, I've already covered that with the post that included a small discussion about Baal.

As far as the name game you're trying to play, if you feel it is intelligent to assume that everyone had an individual name that was never used by anyone else, you're free to do that. Though in my view it is as you say above "hilariously absurd" to do so.

You seem to have a preset view and that doesn't work very well as far as increasing knowledge. If you view the Bible as flawed, that's perfectly fine. I'm of the opinion it is likely the "view" that is flawed though. If you would like to pick and choose which parts to accept and which parts to deny, that's fine too. I don't agree with that method, but it's a free country.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So now you believe in God?

And what lesson is that... that it is ok to be a cowardly poltroon and pimp off one's half-sister wife or one's first cousin wife and cash in by selling off her "beauty" to kings so as to gain in payment lots of gold and slaves?

Is that the lesson?

Abraham was a COWARDLY PIMP who pimped off Sarah his half sister wife and made tons of money off of her "beauty" being used by Pharaoh.... and did it again with another King.

Isaac took up the family PIMPING business and he too for the coward he was made his first cousin wife lie and say she was his sister so as to save his cowardly hide like his father and sold off her "beauty" and cashed in too.

So are those the lessons we should be learning?

Should we all start PIMPING our wives to become "very rich"?

Or is the lesson that God is a lying moron who TRICKS people and makes them snip off the tips of their genitals to ratify real estate contracts and then the real estate turns out to be WORTHLESS?

God promised Abraham that he will be his FRIEND AND SHIELD...yet Abraham could not rely on that... Abraham did not trust that the almighty creator of everything is in fact going to KEEP HIS WORD and thus had to lie and use tricks to save his hide and resorted to pimping Sarah's "beauty" off.

And Abraham was right in not trusting this LIAR GOD.... he had just seen how this LIAR GOD is a MORON.... because he made him a promise to give him descendants as countless as the stars in the heavens and yet his wife turns out to be barren (or was it him).... this DECEIVER GOD promised a land full of honey and milk and yet he had to become flee from it because of a famine and drought... TWICE and his son too and later all SEVENTY of his countless as stars descendants so as to become slaves for 470 years without this IMBECILIC GOD who is supposed to be their friend and shield even blinking with sympathy for them.

So yes... Abraham had to pimp off his wife because he really could not rely on this TRICKSTER God to keep his promises of being a shield when this god has already proven to be an UTTER LIAR on all counts.

And Abraham trying to kill Isaac was nothing to do with God or as a lesson to stop child sacrifice.

Abraham wanted to kill Isaac because Isaac was Pharaoh' BASTARD CHILD after Abraham pimped Sarah to him.

Abraham was a Sumerian/Assyrian lower ranked nobleman who on a diplomatic mission to Egypt found it expedient for one reason or another to pimp off Sarah to Pharaoh as his sister, who later became pregnant.

Pharaoh upon becoming aware that Sarah was in fact Abraham's wife sent them away but being pregnant with his seed he gave them riches and goods and of course sent along spies to keep an eye on the progeny.

On the way back to Haran, Abraham decided to stay in Canaan until Sarah gave birth. The pretense that God ordered Abraham to kill Isaac was an excuse to justify eliminating the bastard son of Pharaoh.

The whole expiation with an entangled stray lamb was nothing but the bodyguards staying off the hand of Abraham to whom Pharaoh later gave even more wealth so as to refrain from assassinating the boy.

Pharaoh, the God of Egypt and all its colonial territories, made a Covenant with Abraham that he will be his shield and friend if he resided in Canaan to raise Isaac whom Pharaoh promised to give those lands to as an inheritance along with his descendants.

Pharaoh of course demanded that Abraham circumcise Isaac and teach him to do so for his descendants in keeping with the Egyptian custom.

To prove Abraham's compliance to the Covenant of guardianship of his son the Egyptian God made Abraham also circumcise himself and his whole tribe too.​

I think you have me confused with a church goer. Are you angry about something or what? I would suggest you try not to concentrate on your personal feelings when reading the texts of the Bible. It will interfere with your ability to absorb the lessons being relayed and the comprehension of what you've read IMO. It's almost as if you feel threatened by the Bible? It's just a book. Chris B.

 

[Nihilianth]

Regarding my first sentence above: It's a fact the first regular army was created under King David.

Regarding my second sentence: It is my opinion that the battles after the creation of this regular army are the best described in the Bible. That's why I ended that sentence with "IMO". I'm having a conversation, not writing a dissertation. There is quite a difference you know.


If you feel I am misrepresenting something, please feel free correct me. If you have nothing to add but sarcasm, what's the point?
Chris B.

Your right. It is a conversation, not a dissertarion. However, it is still wierd to say "imo" in this discission, as it is falsiable. It what stephen colbert calls "truthiness." It like a someone sayong "imo, the.climate.is not changing."

 

[Leumas]

That's an interesting opinion you've shared. I wonder, out of all those cultures listed can you show me one that specifically details a procedure of quarantine? One found previously to that of the Bible's specific instructions of it? I'd be interested to know if there are other examples present as I've not been able to find any earlier knowledge of quarantine that predates those listed in the Old Testament books of the Bible. Chris B.

I find it hilarious that you are arguing that quarantine is an amazing unique technology that indicates the Bible's technological advancement.... which is utter claptrap since even ANTS practice quarantine.

workers of the ant species Temnothorax unifasciatus will also walk off to die in solitude, if they’re carrying a fungal infection. In fact, Jurgen Heinze and Bartosz Walter found that workers, regardless of the reason for their demise, take their last breaths in a self-imposed quarantine. A Temnothorax worker may spend its life in the company of millions, but it dies alone.​

The bible would have in fact been miraculous for real if it did something more unique and humane than ants do and taught the Israelites how to make the usually very simple to manufacture medicines to cure the illnesses that required quarantine than to just OSTRACIZE the poor sick and throw them out of camp and burn all they touched.... and to slaughter animals and burn their flesh in atonement for sins.

Maybe if the bible enabled the Israelites to do what these ants do it might have qualified for something distinct from just barbaric practices as practiced by animals and other benighted miserables.

Ants do things differently. When a deadly fungus infects an ant colony, the healthy insects do not necessarily ostracize their sick nest mates. Instead, they welcome the contagious with open arms—or, rather, open mouths—often licking their neighbors to remove the fungal spores before the pathogens sprout and grow. Apparently, such grooming dilutes the infection, spreading it thinly across the colony. Instead of leaving their infected peers to deal with the infection on their own and die, healthy ants share the burden, deliberately infecting everyone in the colony with a tiny dose of fungus that each individual's immune system can clear on its own. Such "social immunization" also primes the immune systems of healthy ants to battle the infection. These are the conclusions of a new study in the April 3 issue of PLoS Biology.
​

But what is amazing is that another "atheist" used the practice of quarantine as an argument for the retardation of ancient societies and an indication of how heinous and cruel they were.

I think my reply to that "atheist" also would serve just as well as a reply to your casuistry.

...

...Blind/sick/diseased people were ostracized and outcast from society whether that be from a religious or a health aspect. That is a fact. But now we keep and care for them and make them better.
....

You saying that it is facts does not, and will never make it true

History of medicine

This article deals with medicine as practiced by trained professionals from ancient times to the present. The ancient Egyptians, Ancient Indians, had a system of medicine that was advanced for its time and influenced later medical traditions. The Babylonians, Indians[1] and Egyptians had introduced the concepts of medical diagnosis, prognosis, and medical examination. The Greeks went even further, and advanced as well medical ethics. The Hippocratic Oath, still taken (although significantly changed from the original) by doctors up to today, was written in Greece in the 5th century BCE....

Egypt

Ancient Egypt developed a large, varied and fruitful medical tradition. Herodotus described the Egyptians as "the healthiest of all men, next to the Libyans",[2] due to the dry climate and the notable public health system that they possessed. According to him, the practice of medicine is so specialized among them that each physician is a healer of one disease and no more." Although Egyptian medicine, to a good extent, dealt with the supernatural,[3] it eventually developed a practical use in the fields of anatomy, public health, and clinical diagnostics.​

Middle East

The oldest Babylonian texts on medicine date back to the Old Babylonian period in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. The most extensive Babylonian medical text, however, is the Diagnostic Handbook written by the ummânū, or chief scholar, Esagil-kin-apli of Borsippa,[10] during the reign of the Babylonian king Adad-apla-iddina (1069–1046 BCE).[11]

Along with the Egyptians the Babylonians introduced the practice of diagnosis, prognosis, physical examination, and remedies. In addition, the Diagnostic Handbook introduced the methods of therapy and etiology. The text contains a list of medical symptoms and often detailed empirical observations along with logical rules used in combining observed symptoms on the body of a patient with its diagnosis and prognosis.[12]

The Diagnostic Handbook was based on a logical set of axioms and assumptions, including the modern view that through the examination and inspection of the symptoms of a patient, it is possible to determine the patient's disease, its aetiology and future development, and the chances of the patient's recovery. The symptoms and diseases of a patient were treated through therapeutic means such as bandages, herbs and creams.[10]​

....

 

[Leumas]

I think you have me confused with a church goer. Are you angry about something or what? I would suggest you try not to concentrate on your personal feelings when reading the texts of the Bible. It will interfere with your ability to absorb the lessons being relayed and the comprehension of what you've read IMO. It's almost as if you feel threatened by the Bible? It's just a book. Chris B.

So in other words you have no casuistry to apply to those "lessons" of utter imbecility and vileness and thus you are reduced to utilizing the age old skulduggery of apologists and casuists who after all their codswallop has been exposed for the onanism it is and they have failed to substantiate their claptrap, resort to sophistic hoodwinking stratagems to obfuscate the issue at which they failed by degenerating the argument to tomfoolery by firing the ad hominem and red herring arrows out of their well-stocked quiver of illogical fallacies.

• Ad hominem
• Appeal to motive
• Straw man
• Poisoning the well

 

[Craig B]

I had already suspected where you were about Goliath and his "brother" reference when you first mentioned him.

It was you who mentioned the "brother", not me. You are in my opinion being dishonest. I have accused you of this: "when you found out I was better informed, and only then, you switched to the 'duplication' explanation." That is, you (not I) first used the "brother" explanation which I now know you don't believe, and didn't believe at the time when you (not I) proposed it.

I am accusing you - so defend yourself.

You may also wish now to tell me how you reconcile the two versions of the David Census, one ordered by God, and one by Satan. Do you say that these are two separate events?

 

[Craig B]

If you would like to pick and choose which parts to accept and which parts to deny, that's fine too. I don't agree with that method, but it's a free country.

Well, by what means except picking and choosing do we decide which parts to accept and which parts to deny? Or must we either deny all, or accept all? Which of these things do you do?

 

[Nihilianth]

Respond to my post #269.

Don't write things like that until you address the point being made, that there was only one Goliath, and that credit for his slaying was removed from Elhanan and awarded to David by later writers, working under the dynasty named for David. Just as there was only one Michal.

Anyway if that is so, that there were two Goliaths, where were you originally getting the brother stuff from? Explain that too.

Does the book say, there were two Goliaths? No, one source in the book says that Goliath was killed by David, and another one, that Elhanan was the killer. It is you who are basing things on "what you would like the book to mean, not on what it actually says". And your suggestion is highly improbable, that there were two such warriors.

There are lots of examples of this, and your "it happened twice" which I have already denounced as ridiculous really fails in some cases. Look at this So did David conduct two separate censuses, one ordered by God, the other by Satan? And in both cases he was punished by God killing seventy thousand Israelites? This story is disgusting in every respect, but the suggestion that it refers to two separate incidents also has the effect of making it hilariously absurd.

Dont hold your breath. He conveniently ignored my "generations" post.

 

[Aepervius]

Thanks, I first started checking out Chinese culture as it is pretty old. I like your thinking, the isolation would likely indicate they must come up with quarantine on their own, but until we have something that predates the OT account, anything's possible (the odd sailor etc). I've been unable to locate anything on quarantine prior mention to that in the Old Testament. It's been several years since I devoted any real work toward this though. I was unable to find anything then and after some recent googling it looks like nothing new has turned up, yet. It would be a big deal among scholars if something was located.
Chris B.

The difficulty is that you will NOT locate something called quarantine. Try looking for book like hansen disease book history or black death book history or similar. The reason for that is that quarantine is a very very recent word, 17th century.

But as said, it stretches imagination that people did not knew to isolate sick folk, since it was done very long before germ theory and even animals do it.

The thing is, the OT as a religious text was preserved by people, whereas normal text were often recycled (paper, papyrus or parchment was pretty damn expansive). So description of a quarantine will not have been deemed worth surviving , while a religious text description might have been. Which is why very often the surviving text are religious text.
That does not mean at all that the religious text were special or more insightful. Not in the least.

 

[Craig B]

The difficulty is that you will NOT locate something called quarantine. Try looking for book like hansen disease book history or black death book history or similar. The reason for that is that quarantine is a very very recent word, 17th century.

But as said, it stretches imagination that people did not knew to isolate sick folk, since it was done very long before germ theory and even animals do it.

The precise practice of quarantine, though the modern word was not then in use, was applied in Italy during the Black Death epidemic in 1347. The principle behind this was indeed known in ancient times.

Hippocrates and Galen ... offered similar guidance, rendered in Latin as ‘Cito, Longe, Tarde,’ which translates as ‘Leave quickly, go far away and come back slowly.’ When the Black Death swept over much of Asia, Europe and parts of Africa in the mid-1300s, such advice was about as good as it got ...

When the Black Death spread through Italy in late 1347, some ports began turning away ships suspected of coming from infected areas. During March the following year, authorities in Venice became the first to formalise such protective actions against plague, closing the city’s waters to suspect vessels, and subjecting travellers and legitimate ships to 30 days’ isolation. This period was extended to 40 days some years later - hence the term quarantine. Further regulations established remote cemeteries for plague victims who in turn were collected, transported and buried in accordance with defined rules ...

Other Italian cities tried similar measures. Further inland, in May 1348 the northern city of Pistoia introduced wide-ranging laws affecting many aspects of daily life. Restrictions on imports and exports, travel, market trading and funerals were all brought in, but again to no effect. At least 70% of the population died. But by contrast, another northern city, Milan, avoided a major outbreak. Whether this was due to control measures taken by city authorities, including sealing up three houses (with the occupants inside) after plague was discovered there, is debatable. The Milanese authorities could certainly be firm. From 1350 they decreed that all future plague victims and those nursing them would be isolated in a designated pesthouse built outside the city walls.

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/publichealth/blackdeath.aspx

 

[Border Reiver]

I had already suspected where you were about Goliath and his "brother" reference when you first mentioned him. That's common among the folks looking for a defect in the Bible. I have been in the exact same spot and know where you're coming from. But the simple explanation is that there was more than one guy with the same name. Nothing contradicts about Goliath, only the same name is repeated. I have a good friend named David. Don't know anyone named Goliath around here though, but I'll bet even today somebody somewhere answers to it.

Your simple explanation defies common sense. Two giants, both from the same city, both champions of the army, living at the same time with the same name? No, a petty king with a track record of deceptive behaviour taking credit for someone else's work is actually more believable.

About the daughter of Saul, I've not looked into her yet. Is that your beef about names? There could only be one of each person for each name ever?

If that's the thing about Saul's daughter I'm now starting to reconsider even looking it up. Chris B.

are you trying to assert that Saul gave two different daughters the same name?

 

[Craig B]

About the daughter of Saul, I've not looked into her yet. Is that your beef about names? There could only be one of each person for each name ever?
If that's the thing about Saul's daughter I'm now starting to reconsider even looking it up. Chris B.

Well, let me do it for you.

2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2 Samuel 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I find it hilarious that you are arguing that quarantine is an amazing unique technology that indicates the Bible's technological advancement.... which is utter claptrap since even ANTS practice quarantine.

workers of the ant species Temnothorax unifasciatus will also walk off to die in solitude, if they’re carrying a fungal infection. In fact, Jurgen Heinze and Bartosz Walter found that workers, regardless of the reason for their demise, take their last breaths in a self-imposed quarantine. A Temnothorax worker may spend its life in the company of millions, but it dies alone.​

The bible would have in fact been miraculous for real if it did something more unique and humane than ants do and taught the Israelites how to make the usually very simple to manufacture medicines to cure the illnesses that required quarantine than to just OSTRACIZE the poor sick and throw them out of camp and burn all they touched.... and to slaughter animals and burn their flesh in atonement for sins.

Maybe if the bible enabled the Israelites to do what these ants do it might have qualified for something distinct from just barbaric practices as practiced by animals and other benighted miserables.

Ants do things differently. When a deadly fungus infects an ant colony, the healthy insects do not necessarily ostracize their sick nest mates. Instead, they welcome the contagious with open arms—or, rather, open mouths—often licking their neighbors to remove the fungal spores before the pathogens sprout and grow. Apparently, such grooming dilutes the infection, spreading it thinly across the colony. Instead of leaving their infected peers to deal with the infection on their own and die, healthy ants share the burden, deliberately infecting everyone in the colony with a tiny dose of fungus that each individual's immune system can clear on its own. Such "social immunization" also primes the immune systems of healthy ants to battle the infection. These are the conclusions of a new study in the April 3 issue of PLoS Biology.
​

But what is amazing is that another "atheist" used the practice of quarantine as an argument for the retardation of ancient societies and an indication of how heinous and cruel they were.

I think my reply to that "atheist" also would serve just as well as a reply to your casuistry.

I don't understand why it's such a big deal to affirm the earliest text to discuss quarantine methods is the Old Testament? It's a fact.

That doesn't mean we must assign a supernatural meaning to it, just that it was a very good practice for that time and the earliest recorded instruction manual for it.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

So in other words you have no casuistry to apply to those "lessons" of utter imbecility and vileness and thus you are reduced to utilizing the age old skulduggery of apologists and casuists who after all their codswallop has been exposed for the onanism it is and they have failed to substantiate their claptrap, resort to sophistic hoodwinking stratagems to obfuscate the issue at which they failed by degenerating the argument to tomfoolery by firing the ad hominem and red herring arrows out of their well-stocked quiver of illogical fallacies.

• Ad hominem
• Appeal to motive
• Straw man
• Poisoning the well

When I study, I try to determine the "why" of events described in the Bible. This requires a cross reference with other cultures in the region when possible. Some things I agree with , some I do not.

Oops, once again a reference to apologist, as before I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't apologize for anything in the Bible and I don't read it with that in mind. There is some pretty bad stuff mixed in with the good. I look at all of it in an effort to learn more about the culture.

It looks like you are more into stone throwing.
Chris B.

 

[Craig B]

When I study, I try to determine the "why" of events described in the Bible. This requires a cross reference with other cultures in the region when possible. Some things I agree with , some I do not.

Oops, once again a reference to apologist, as before I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't apologize for anything in the Bible and I don't read it with that in mind. There is some pretty bad stuff mixed in with the good. I look at all of it in an effort to learn more about the culture.

It looks like you are more into stone throwing.
Chris B.

I think you may be confused about the various meanings of "apologist". The one evidently invoked here is given in The Free Dictionary as

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

That's a good description of your advocacy of the inerrancy of the Bible.

 

[Craig B]

... If you view the Bible as flawed, that's perfectly fine. I'm of the opinion it is likely the "view" that is flawed though. If you would like to pick and choose which parts to accept and which parts to deny, that's fine too. I don't agree with that method, but it's a free country.

Here's another example of "that method" in action. We can infer that the David and Goliath story is phoney because it is stuck into the text without due or sufficient regard to the material already supplied by earlier sources. According to these, how did Saul and David first come into contact?

And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armourbearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight. And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him. 1 Samuel 16:21-23

Then a later hand sticks this in, of Saul first meeting David following David's feat of arms.

And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling is. And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite. 1 Samuel 17:55-58

 

[Donn]

If you view the Bible as flawed, that's perfectly fine. I'm of the opinion it is likely the "view" that is flawed though.

It's perfectly fine but perfectly wrong.

If you would like to pick and choose which parts to accept and which parts to deny, that's fine too. I don't agree with that method, but it's a free country.

Translation: when you do it; wrong. When I do it; right.

It feels... gamey.