Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Gandalfs Beard]

decartes is awesome

Ummm...Non-sequitur!???

Care to clue us in about what your posts actually mean?

I'm not sure if you're being satirical, ironic, or actually trying to make a point.

GB

 

[Christian Klippel]

Chris - I think you're forgetting that lying for Jeebus to evil Atheists (and folks who support the wrong religion ("not Mine" in other words) is not only allowable but mandatory...

True, true. But then, hope springs eternal, and maybe, just maybe, there is a chance that he recognizes that he tries to defend the indefensible and admits the error in his thinking.

Yea, go ahead and call me stupidly optimistic in this case

Greetings,

Chris

 

[welshdean]

The red flag in your post is that it required the injection of your wording to make the argument. You added the wording “after” and “before”. Those words are not in the biblical text you used. You're assuming and adding things that are not there to help your argument.

And in Chapter two he is no longer talking about the world as a whole he is talking about a specific place "Eden" (Genesis 2; 8) (Genesis 2:15). And when he says in Gen 2; 19

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air"

He does not give a time when this was done; he could have been referring to when this was done in Genesis chapter 1. And even if he was not referring that, he simply could be referring to new animals and fowl he formed in Eden only and not the world as a whole which was already done in Chapter 1.

Although the above is not easy reading, I see no contradiction unless you assume something that is not there. And there is no law that the writer of Genesis had to be a great writer who made everything crystal clear. I mean Moses was a stutterer, David murdered a man, Peter was awkward and a coward for a while, and Paul hated Christians originally. The bible says God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise:

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/1-27.htm

DOC, fair does mate, you've surprised me with that response. Your dishonesty in this and your 'Mohammed' thread is available for all to see and has been astounding to say the least. But this response is by far the most complete example of squirming, twisting and dishonesty I've ever seen from you. It does however explain how you can stand by this statement you made:

But as I've said before, I have never seen a seeming discrepancy in the NT that can't be logically explained.

Of course, when we talk about logic we follow certain rules, when you talk about logic, well...!

I'm almost afraid to ask you (for the 4th time) to respond to the NT examples of contradiction I've posted here.

 

[DOC]

Liar! Tell me DOC, do you get denser by the minute? Have you been so brainwashed by your religion that you are already unable to read plain english? How hard can it be to compare two snippets of text and see the blatant discrepancy in the timeline there?

I'll repeat it again, maybe it will get into your head some day:





Whats even worse is you blatantly obvious dishonesty...

You're trying to win with shock words. I've already responded, if you feel differently so be it. I don't need shock words to make my point, some skeptics seem to need them as well as overly large print and coloring.

 

[welshdean]

True, true. But then, hope springs eternal, and maybe, just maybe, there is a chance that he recognizes that he tries to defend the indefensible and admits the error in his thinking.

Yea, go ahead and call me stupidly optimistic in this case

Greetings,

Chris

There's also a chance that Wales will win the Rugby World Cup, but I shan't hold my breath .

 

[Filippo Lippi]

You're trying to win with shock words. I've already responded, if you feel differently so be it. I don't need shock words to make my point, some skeptics seem to need them as well as overly large print and coloring.

The fact that you lie and that people are on to you wasn't shocking to me.

 

[DOC]

...Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)
Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

So come on DOC, why are there such obvious differences and which should we believe and why?

Well I've already responded to the part about man allegedly coming first with regards to animals; you injected the wording "before" and "after" there, when those words were not in the bible. I go into more detail about that in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6660618#post6660618


Now with regard to God making a woman you are injecting the word "simultaneously". You're once again assuming something. I see the author simply (summarizing what happened) in Genesis 1:27 and what happened was that yes God did make man and woman but the bible doesn't say simultaneously - you do. He generalizes here and later he will be more specific in Genesis 2: 21,22.

And we even have evidence of the writer of Genesis doing this kind of summarizing before he gets specific -- where you might ask -- in the very first verse of the bible. He summarizes when he states in Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the earth." Later he gets more specific.

This appears to be exactly what the writer is doing above with the creation of man and woman. He summarizes first in Chapter 1, then gets more specific about what happened in Chapter 2. You're twisting this simple act of summarizing to suit your purpose.

One possible reason for the summarizing and some of the difficulty is that these chapters might have been written at different times on different pieces of parchment. It is unlikely the writer wrote all 60 pages of Genesis in one sitting or on one solid sheet of parchment or whatever he wrote on in that era of no paper. He possibly wrote it all in 20 sittings on many different pieces of parchment. And remember Moses was wondering in the desert for many years. He could have wrote one chapter on one piece of parchment, put it away for safekeeping, and then started writing again on another piece of parchment. This could be a reason for some of the difficulties. You just don't keep parchment in your back pocket for a few days while your traveling and then start on the same parchment.

But the bottom line is there is no clear contradiction in my opinion, he was simply generalizing what happened in Genesis 1; 27, and then was more specific the next chapter.

 

[nvidiot]

DOC, I personally know compost worms that would be envious of your squirming ability. First class. Not so much the honesty and brains bit though.

Doc, do you have any idea what you're talking about? At all? Have you actually read any non-apologetic scholarship about the bible?

But I'm wasting my time here. We all know there is only one true god, and one true prophet. And his writings are far more sensible and reasonable, if a little odd to some.

ALL HAIL ABERHATEN!

 

[Mojo]

Well I've already responded to the part about man allegedly coming first with regards to animals; you injected the wording "before" and "after" there, when those words were not in the bible.

But the Bible clearly says that things were created in two different orders. The "injected" words do not change the order of the text, and pretending that they do makes you look more than a little dishonest. Pretending that they do after it has been pointed out to you that they don't makes you look like a liar.

 

[Mojo]

One possible reason for the summarizing is that these chapters might have been written at different times on different pieces of parchment. It is unlikely the writer wrote all 60 pages of Genesis in one sitting or on one solid sheet of parchment or whatever he wrote on in that era of no paper. He possibly wrote it all in 20 sittings on many different pieces of parchment. And remember Moses was wondering in the desert for many years. He could have wrote one chapter on one piece of parchment, put it away for safekeeping, and then started writing again. This could be a reason for some of the difficulties. You just don't keep parchment in your back pocket for a few days while your traveling and then start on the same parchment.

Are you claiming that the Bible is not the word of God?

But the bottom line is there is no clear contradiction in my opinion, he was simply generalizing what happened in Genesis 1; 27, and then was more specific the next chapter.

The bottom line is that your opinion is unsupportable in view of what Genesis actually says.

 

[X]

You're trying to win with shock words. I've already responded, if you feel differently so be it. I don't need shock words to make my point, some skeptics seem to need them as well as overly large print and coloring.

That is because you are so dead-set on ignoring things contrary to your narrow little religious views that it often takes many repetitions of a valid and warranted point in large, bold and colourful print to make you respond to it at all.

Getting you to actually answer such challenges instead of throwing out whatever apologetic bollocks first come up in a quick Google search (we know you don't do any more research than that) is a trick we haven't yet figured out.

The post I quoted is itself an example of this.
Rather than discuss your obviously contrived post-hoc rationalization of a text that is so plainly contradictory, you trot out Muncaster's lame and fault-ridden attempt at reconciliation. When called on it, you play the victim instead of the honest debater. It is a tactic you've used repeatedly, and it doesn't wash.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are two (2) creation stories in Genesis, and they are not the same! They were not even written by the same author! Nor is genesis the only book of the bible with different, contradictory accounts. There are two interspersed stories of the Noachain flood, as well (just in case you ever wondered why your contradiction-free bible cites different lengths of time for the flood and different numbers of animals). And of course, there are the gospels, with their myriad contradictions which have been mentioned previously in this thread. Contradictions which, I should point out, exist no matter how many desperate straw-clutching attempts you make preschool-level apologetics authors you quote.



Over 400 pages, and you still have not provided any evidence that the authors of the New testament wrote the truth.
None.
However, you have provided plenty of evidence that
a) they believed that what they were writing was true
b) regarding what evidence is: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[Wolrab]

Has anyone heard from Akhenaten lately?

 

[Christian Klippel]

You're trying to win with shock words. I've already responded, if you feel differently so be it. I don't need shock words to make my point, some skeptics seem to need them as well as overly large print and coloring.

Shock words? Care to point out where i used words for the purpose of shocking? You see, someone who lies is a liar. Someone who refuses to accepts the obvious is thick. Someone who tries to defend the indefensible doctrine of any system, despite mountains of evidence that show that it is indefensible, can safely be considered brainwashed by that system. Someone who constantly avoids to reply to all of what was written in a post, but instead cherry-picks a paragraph and only answers to that, leaving out the other paragraph that clearly contradicts it, is simply dishonest.

Really DOC, how do you read any book? From back to front? Pages randomly selected? Paragraphs on that page in random order? You know, things like "before" and "after" are quite often implicit, without writing it out. As in the case of the two contradicting Genesis stories.

No matter how hard you try to deny that, fact is fact. Continuing to deny those facts just makes you look more stupid.

Oh, and by the way. There is a certain poster here who just loves to use shock-numbers. For that poster, the number of posts, pages, etc. seem to shockingly make things true.

Guess who that is?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[joobz]

One possible reason for the summarizing and some of the difficulty is that these chapters might have been written at different times on different pieces of parchment. It is unlikely the writer wrote all 60 pages of Genesis in one sitting or on one solid sheet of parchment or whatever he wrote on in that era of no paper. He possibly wrote it all in 20 sittings on many different pieces of parchment. And remember Moses was wondering in the desert for many years. He could have wrote one chapter on one piece of parchment, put it away for safekeeping, and then started writing again on another piece of parchment. This could be a reason for some of the difficulties. You just don't keep parchment in your back pocket for a few days while your traveling and then start on the same parchment.

This is fascinating.

this post perfectly illustrates the weaknesses of DOC's position. No counter argument is needed. I am happy to let lurkers draw their own conclusions.

But the bottom line is there is no clear contradiction in my opinion, he was simply generalizing what happened in Genesis 1; 27, and then was more specific the next chapter.

of course you believe that.

 

[Aepervius]

Well I've already responded to the part about man allegedly coming first with regards to animals; you injected the wording "before" and "after" there, when those words were not in the bible. I go into more detail about that in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6660618#post6660618


Now with regard to God making a woman you are injecting the word "simultaneously". You're once again assuming something. I see the author simply (summarizing what happened) in Genesis 1:27 and what happened was that yes God did make man and woman but the bible doesn't say simultaneously - you do. He generalizes here and later he will be more specific in Genesis 2: 21,22.

And we even have evidence of the writer of Genesis doing this kind of summarizing before he gets specific -- where you might ask -- in the very first verse of the bible. He summarizes when he states in Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning God Created the heaven and the earth." Later he gets more specific.

This appears to be exactly what the writer is doing above with the creation of man and woman. He summarizes first in Chapter 1, then gets more specific about what happened in Chapter 2. You're twisting this simple act of summarizing to suit your purpose.

One possible reason for the summarizing and some of the difficulty is that these chapters might have been written at different times on different pieces of parchment. It is unlikely the writer wrote all 60 pages of Genesis in one sitting or on one solid sheet of parchment or whatever he wrote on in that era of no paper. He possibly wrote it all in 20 sittings on many different pieces of parchment. And remember Moses was wondering in the desert for many years. He could have wrote one chapter on one piece of parchment, put it away for safekeeping, and then started writing again on another piece of parchment. This could be a reason for some of the difficulties. You just don't keep parchment in your back pocket for a few days while your traveling and then start on the same parchment.

But the bottom line is there is no clear contradiction in my opinion, he was simply generalizing what happened in Genesis 1; 27, and then was more specific the next chapter.

Moses is a mythic character. There is no evidence of him having existed, AND, the text about him in the OT appears 3 BCE IIRC, long after the supposed tribulation. Coincidentaly, there are no archeological artifact about the tribulation, and there are no evidence whatsoever of massive Israelite slave population in Egypt. Coincidentaly the myth of the basket is repeated from older myth.

So , get it, if you base your argument on a MYTHICAL person, people laugh at you.

Again, it is not a matter of one writing being about garden of Eden, it is a matter of the SAME story myth, being rewritten in a new form, by two different author, and one making some changes, and even the OLDER story is stolen from neighborhood religion. But instead of just admitting it you squirm around for pages, until you come to say "there is no contradiction".

Pant on fire, DOC.

 

[Garrette]

Are you claiming that the Bible is not the word of God?

Yes, he is.

He will deny it, but that is exactly what his post that you quoted says: The authors of the bible made mistakes.

 

[zooterkin]

Has anyone heard from Akhenaten lately?

He hasn't posted for some time, but he has been reading posts.

 

[Elizabeth I]

And remember Moses was wondering in the desert for many years.

What was he wondering about? (Other than how to get out of the desert.)

 

[Wolrab]

He hasn't posted for some time, but he has been reading posts.

Thanks muchly!

 

[welshdean]

He hasn't posted for some time, but he has been reading posts.

How can he read the shoite from DOC and remain silent, has he smashed his keyboard up in complete frustration?