• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

God enthusiasm

carlitos said:
What he meant to say, and indeed said, is you provided "no source." As in, you have provided no source for your claim. Now that you're moving your trolling game into other topics, you're going to have to start slowly with new participants.
Click to expand...

Ah, well it was my belief everyone has the internet and could do a 30 second search if my word was in doubt that the tablets exist.

But, I'll do the search for you and provide a link nonetheless, not that you're interested in them.

http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html

BTW, this "stalking" behavior you seem to be displaying is a little off the norm. It is evident by your post your interest here is me and not the subject being discussed. Why is that? Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Well modern Christians don't take to killing people, so the belief is the person who commits this act will burn in Hell.

Sorry for the unintentional misquote, yes you are correct the original verse word for word says they will be put to death. The Christian belief is that the person will burn in Hell though. If there is such a place.
Chris B.
Click to expand...

so, the current christian belief is even worse? not just death but eternal torturel pain and suffering?

also, Leviticus is an evil book
 
barehl said:
Can you point out where the Dead Sea Scrolls differ on Genesis?


It's less confusing to me because German still uses these forms.


Aren't you leaving out the part where it says that God hates divorce?
Click to expand...

The difference is in the number of translations. From one language form to another. The fewer the better.

German may use some Old English forms but I was talking about the translation into modern English. I've not studied German texts so cannot offer an opinion.

Absolutely divorce was not a popular action in the Old Testament, but it was not forbidden or considered adultery as it is later in the New Testament.

Remember the part when Jesus explained to the people that Moses had told them (about how they could divorce their wife) that it was because of the hardness of their hearts. But the new suggestion by Jesus was that we should not have hard hearts, love and forgiveness should now take that place in the heart instead. So, no divorce in effect. Work it out. Jesus never met my first wife though.
Chris B.
 
gabeygoat said:
so, the current christian belief is even worse? not just death but eternal torturel pain and suffering?

also, Leviticus is an evil book
Click to expand...

Yea I guess that would be correct, not just death, but eternal suffering.

Leviticus is mostly laws of the time. I agree some seem rather harsh but we're looking into the past though and the people these laws were meant to apply to were primitive people. By today's standards they would also seem fairly evil.

But, you have to take into account the mentality of these folks too. Look at the story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis (22 I think). The entire account is simply a message to the people to stop offering their children up for sacrifices. In effect the entire lesson is "kill the ram, not the children."

So these folks had to be "taught" to NOT kill their children. Talk about evil.
Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
First time you've heard the Bible being referenced as a source of study for military battle strategies? Well now you know.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in this. Exactly what strategies are studied? What relevance do they have to modern military strategy? In what way are they studied? Please be precise.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
No source of what exactly on the Assyrian clay tablets? No source of the battle? Or no source of the defeat? I think what you meant to say was there is no source of the defeat on the Assyrian tablets, but the battle is definitely referenced on them. So the battle happened, it's not my "claim" it's fact literally written in stone(clay). I did not claim the miraculous defeat was due to the "Angel of the Lord" but merely that the battle was referenced in both cultures, as it is.
Click to expand...
Says you. I don't believe you. Please provide some kind of evidence other than your word that the battle was referenced in both cultures. Again, please be precise.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
The Hebrew account has the Assyrians losing 185,000 in one night. Sure they claimed an Angel of the Lord did it, but it has been considered as an alternate possibility it was plague. The Assyrians wore lots of leather and the thought is rats like to chew leather. Other speculations have included possibly one of the earliest applications of biological warfare. I've always considered the Hebrews may have sent out night operatives (their version of special forces) that disposed of as many as they could while the enemy slept.
Click to expand...
Alternatively, it could have been greatly exaggerated as self-aggrandisement by a victorious army, trying to inflate their capabilities to terrify other potential enemies. Or simply via the natural exaggeration that humans as storytellers will do in order to make their oral histories more engaging.

Alternatively, it could have been entirely fictional. You haven't demonstrated that the battle was referenced in the histories of two different cultures.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
נֹדִי or נוֺד, נֹד would be the original Hebrew for "wandering". Taken into English Nod or alternatively Knod, without the vowel taken into English would be "N D" or "KN D".
Click to expand...
Show one spelled with a Kaf in front of the Nun. I haven't seen one like that.

according to the Bible, Adam and Eve were the first and only two humans
Click to expand...
Again, there is nothing that supports this view except the name Eve in Genesis 3 and Genesis 4. If we read it your way then Adam was created male and female. Also, Eve is the mother of all living things.
 
arthwollipot said:
No-one is saying that you can't.

People are saying that you can't be a "proper" skeptic (whatever that means) unless you are a god skeptic, and that's the part I don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Why? And which god should people not be skeptical of? I read your posts about skeptics that said that they believe in a god despite the lack of evidence, those skeptics are still skeptics because they also disclaim that their god's existence is a fact. They are not true believers. True believers claim that their gods exist and that they cannot be wrong about that.

IE... skeptical believers still admit that they could be wrong and that their beliefs are irrational.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The difference is in the number of translations. From one language form to another. The fewer the better.
Click to expand...
We were talking about a book in Hebrew. What was the translation?

German may use some Old English forms but I was talking about the translation into modern English. I've not studied German texts so cannot offer an opinion.
Click to expand...
You have this backwards. English is a Germanic language. And I wasn't talking a translation to or from German to English. We were talking about the formal/familiar forms in Middle English which no longer exist in modern English but still exist in modern German. Again, this is something a highly literate person would know such as when Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote, "How do I love thee?" It is not something that an uneducated man like Joseph Smith would know which is why he specifically tried to match Middle English forms and showed that he was a fraud.

We could easily compare the fraud and character of Smith with that of Patterson. Both were narcissistic con-men without enough technical information to actually create a passable fraud. Mormons practice today because they don't question the source much as footers avoid questioning their sources. These have a high degree of equivalence.
 
arthwollipot said:
True Scotsmen claim that their gods exist they are Scottish and that they cannot be wrong about that.

Skeptical Scotsmen still admit that they could be wrong and that their beliefs are irrational they might actually be some other nationality.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.

True Believer: a person who professes absolute belief in something

Skeptic: a person who questions or doubts something

A skeptical believer is not a true believer by definition.
 
The historical accuracy of the Bible is hit and miss. Some parts have a sketchy connection to the past.

"Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records."
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

It's been used as a guide to the past for a long time and it keeps failing.

"From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. .. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people."
William G. Dever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible#The_Bible_and_archaeology


I'm no expert, but I've never read anything that has convincingly contradicted this view. The Bible is to history what Harry Potter is to physics.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Yea I guess that would be correct, not just death, but eternal suffering.

Leviticus is mostly laws of the time. I agree some seem rather harsh but we're looking into the past though and the people these laws were meant to apply to were primitive people. By today's standards they would also seem fairly evil.
Click to expand...

It's traditionally considered the word of God. If those primitive people were considered evil, what might God think of those who eat at Red Lobster or Long John Silver's or forbid, a crawfish boil?(refer to leviticus)
 
barehl said:
We were talking about a book in Hebrew. What was the translation?
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about why I had said the revised standard edition of the Bible is more accurate than the King James.

barehl said:
You have this backwards. English is a Germanic language. And I wasn't talking a translation to or from German to English. We were talking about the formal/familiar forms in Middle English which no longer exist in modern English but still exist in modern German. Again, this is something a highly literate person would know such as when Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote, "How do I love thee?" It is not something that an uneducated man like Joseph Smith would know which is why he specifically tried to match Middle English forms and showed that he was a fraud.

We could easily compare the fraud and character of Smith with that of Patterson. Both were narcissistic con-men without enough technical information to actually create a passable fraud. Mormons practice today because they don't question the source much as footers avoid questioning their sources. These have a high degree of equivalence.
Click to expand...

Again, I had referred to the translation being more accurate in the revised standard edition of the Bible vs that of the King James. One would be more assured of the Old Testament translation into modern English as it was largely translated directly from Hebrew. If one is studying the Hebrew text I suppose you can do your own translation into whatever language you're accustomed to. (Old Testament)

I've not spent much time on the Book of Mormon. Not that it is not an interesting read, but as you outlined, there are several questions on this fairly modern account of Jesus, and to be polite I will make no negative comment about it. There are many folks perfectly happy to be Mormon and that's a good thing.

Of course to compare Patterson and Joseph Smith is quite a stretch. Joseph Smith wrote a very nice book and claimed it was given to him by divine influence.....without any proof. Patterson went out for proof of Bigfoot and got a film which can be evaluated by science and has little to do with faith. The film is there whether the creature in it is real or not. Smith's accomplishments unfortunately cannot be evaluated by science. And so must be accepted by faith alone. There is quite a difference. Chris B.
 
gabeygoat said:
It's traditionally considered the word of God. If those primitive people were considered evil, what might God think of those who eat at Red Lobster or Long John Silver's or forbid, a crawfish boil?(refer to leviticus)
Click to expand...

LOL Yes some of those food related laws are pretty funny. I liked the one about not cooking a young goat in its mother's milk. Similarly, it also says not to slaughter an animal AND it's offspring the same day. Respect for the animals I suppose.

Some of the funniest food laws (like those you mention from Leviticus 11-9) were likely to prevent parasitic infections though. So they do seem rather silly when looking back, but at that time, pretty clever actually. It is an entertaining exercise looking up Mosaic laws that seem odd today and trying to figure out the why of then vs now. Chris B.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I've not spent much time on the Book of Mormon. Not that it is not an interesting read, but as you outlined, there are several questions on this fairly modern account of Jesus, and to be polite I will make no negative comment about it. There are many folks perfectly happy to be Mormon and that's a good thing.

Of course to compare Patterson and Joseph Smith is quite a stretch. Joseph Smith wrote a very nice book and claimed it was given to him by divine influence.....without any proof. Patterson went out for proof of Bigfoot and got a film which can be evaluated by science and has little to do with faith. The film is there whether the creature in it is real or not. Smith's accomplishments unfortunately cannot be evaluated by science. And so must be accepted by faith alone. There is quite a difference. Chris B.
Click to expand...

Smith's book makes a good analogy with the Patterson film, I think. The book makes many historical claims which can be evaluated compared to archaeological and other evidence, just as the film can be evaluated compared to films of primates and humans.

There are many people who have faith in the truth of the book or film, regardless of any contrary evidence, and start with the asssumption that the book/film is true, then try to explain mistakes in any contrary evidence, to protect their faith.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Joseph Smith wrote a very nice book and claimed it was given to him by divine influence.....
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard the phrase "talking through your hat"? That was literally how Smith wrote the book. He had magic stones called seer stones that he put into his hat. Then he put his face in his hat to get visions. And while still having his face in his hat he would recite what he saw. This is the way all of the frauds at that time did it. Smith had already claimed that he could find treasure using his seer stones. His laughable Urim and Thumin device was two stones that had been ground into hollow rings that were held together with wire, making crude spectacles. Oddly enough, Mormons often make the same claim about Smith that footers make about the PG film. They claim that Smith was too uneducated to have written it without divine guidance much as footers claim that Patterson wasn't sophisticated enough to have faked the PG film.

Very similar.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
LOL Yes some of those food related laws are pretty funny. I liked the one about not cooking a young goat in its mother's milk. Similarly, it also says not to slaughter an animal AND it's offspring the same day.
Click to expand...

Yes, like all those customs footers came up with like knocking on trees and howling. There are probably other crazy footer customs that I'm not familiar with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom