Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 22:37:46 GMT -5
Ha! I am going to look more into your and wally’s explanations to see if they’re plausible or simply born of desperation. There are so many good ones on the list to choose from. I’m going to get a physical bible out tomorrow and look at some of them to see if the listed contradictions are really the product of delusional non-believers. Here is a list of contradictions taken from the list that look very promising (I’ve renumbered them): 1. The holy spirit was with John from before he was born. Lk.1:15,41. The holy spirit was with Elizabeth before John’s birth. Lk.1:41. The holy spirit was with Zechariah. Lk.1:67. The holy spirit was with Simeon. Lk.2:25. The holy spirit did not come into the world until after Jesus had departed. Jn.7:39; Jn.16:7; Acts 1:3-8. 2. Believers do not come into judgment. Jn.5:24. All people come into judgment. Mt.12:36; 2 Cor.5:10; Heb.9:27; 1 Pet.1:17; Jude 14,15; Rev.20:12,13. 3. Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14. Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true. Jn.5:31. 4. Men can choose whether or not to believe. Jn.5:38-47. Only God chooses who will believe. Jn.6:44. I love #4 because it’s one I’ve already brought up in this thread as a biblical inconsistency that I know for a fact is a point of contention for Christians. The reason it is a point of disagreement among Christians is because there are different verses that support opposing viewpoints. The side that supports the view of predestination is Calvinist and the other side (which emphasizes the role of man’s free will in salvation) is referred to as Armenian. I suspect most of the friends and workers would fall on the Armenian side but not all. I have heard very Calvinistic messages on salvation from a few workers. Anyway, I’m getting tired and I’m going to bed. I’ll dig in tomorrow and see what I find. 1. just because there were a few instances of the HS being there for people before Christ departed doesn't mean the HS was released to the general population... 2. a believers judgement will be different from an unbelievers or a disobediant believer... 3. i THINK that we may be dealing with 2 kinds of witnessing here one is his own personal testimony and the other is referencing being witnessed by others or john or the HS... 4. ummm i think your john 5 reference is wrong....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 22:53:58 GMT -5
“Just because you believe there is only one god.....”
2x2s are generally beautifully simple folks who pay about THAT much attention to anything said to them, so take years to figure out WHAT 2x2 clergy is teaching them. I did not say “I believe there is only one god” - I said that God said there is only one God.
And with that simple goomba early in a longer post than was necessary, if any post was necessary at all, I'll stop right there because the rest is obviously more parroting of a list of 'contradictions' where there are no contradictions, replied to already in my last post – obviously to a parrot who WILL not examine the text of the Bible him/her self in case any 'contradiction' in such a parrot-list might turn out to be no contradiction. If the parrot figured on wasting my time answering multiple alleged 'contradictions' in ever-increasing gobs of them, that was very nicely taken care of for me by ignoring the last 'contradiction' I wasted my time showing as not a contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 20, 2020 23:14:49 GMT -5
There is no way you can claim that the bible is the absolute unadulterated truth. Or that god is omniscient. So your entire worldview is not based on reality. Jesus said that he was the Truth, so I believe him. Its not a worldview, but a divine view. Jesus said that he came to "Bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (John 18:37). Sometimes the best way to recognize the truth is when you can find nothing false within it. That's a reality that supersedes worldviews, which are often chucked-full of lies and deceit. I believe God is omniscient because assuming He created all that is, He must also have all-knowledge of everything that exist, e.g; If I built a house myself from start to finish, odds are that I'd know everything about that house. So yes, God is omniscient about everything but us.
Sorry to inform you but the Bible isn’t the absolute, unadulterated truth. It’s filled to the brim with nonsense and contradictions, which is a reflection of the scientific ignorance and superstitiousness, as well as the outright deceptiveness/dishonesty of its authors. One of the biggest sins of religious believers is the argument from ignorance—they don't have a sound (reality based) explanation for phenomena so they just make one up and say that’s good enough. It’s the entire basis for religions actually. No contradictions in the bible, its authors were honest and inspired.
I'll agree that the bible cannot be scientifically substantiated (Matthew 11:25), but that's due to the inefficiency of science, which is limited to physical observation to explain anything, and God is not an observable phenomenon.
Putting one's faith in science to define and prove God is nonsensical.
What you don't seem to understand, Dan, -is that is NOT even in the "job description" of science to define "god" nor to TRY to prove that a god even exists!
So why do people even try to present what they call are "scientific facts " for the existence of god by using science?
|
|
|
Post by benar on Mar 20, 2020 23:45:48 GMT -5
The bible is absolutely full of contradictions and inconsistencies and if you say there is nothing false within it your doing something wrong. The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources that do not always agree. Scholars will be the first to say that this is to be expected. Inconsistency’s or downright contradiction with in single books or between books in probably because the writers changed their mind over time or discovered new sources of information. The Bible has been formulated, assembled, edited, modified, censored, and transmitted orally and in writing over a long period of time. The individual books of the Bible are a layering of different sources, writers, editorial and authorial hands as the books grow over the time. The books are multi layered. If you can’t see this, you are most certainly doing something wrong in your readings of the bible..
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
|
|
|
Post by benar on Mar 20, 2020 23:48:33 GMT -5
You did not answer my question. If DNA shows you are related to your ancestors, why does it not show humans and trees had a common ancestor?
For the same reason genetic incompatibility of DNA would reveal that someone is not my father. Your obviously trying to indicate that humans sharing genes with all living organisms is evidence of common ancestry, but that is a concept I don't accept. Because something could be remotely possible, does not make it likely. The fish to fisherman hypothesis is a hard line to swallow. Millions of years ago, a tree was a tree, and today a tree still produces exact copies of its own kind. There's no direct or convincing evidence that anything has ever evolved into a completely different species.
I think you're hand-sweeping the issue. Do you contest that you can be shown to be related to your great-great-great-grandfather via DNA?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2020 2:53:12 GMT -5
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
THOUSAND-YEAR-OLD SEGMENT OF HEBREW BIBLE DISCOVERED – PART 1 professing.proboards.com/post/877144/threadSo much for that OLD garbage regarding the KJV translation - the wordings of newer translations from much older manuscripts are close enough to wipe out that OLD crapola. And here is just one more recent discovery/re-discovery to compare even the Elizabethan English KJV translation with. Ah - I see the benar banner (attachment) did not quote with his post, but THAT is the OLD junk that this comment refers to. And here's a really good book on yet another ancient manuscript of the complete Hebrew Bible (Old Testament to us English speakers) www.amazon.com/Aleppo-Codex-Pursuit-Coveted-Mysterious/dp/1616202785/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=ALEPPO+CODEX&qid=1584018782&sr=8-1
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 21, 2020 6:48:27 GMT -5
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
Pure conjecture my ass. I’m not going to go through them but here is a list of only some of the contradictions in the Bible: www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/William Burr has found 144 contradictions in the bible (source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Biblical_criticism_and_criticism_of_the_Bible). There are MANY lists out there of contradictions in the Bible so obviously many people do observe them. The fact that you can’t see them because you choose not to or use distorted logic to explain them away doesn’t mean they are not there. Edit: I can’t believe I failed to address one massive whole in your argument. Whether the Bible has remained unchanged for 2200 years (and I’m not stating it has), is completely irrelevant to whether the Bible contains inconsistencies and contradictions. There is no relationship. According to the dictionary inconsistent means “not staying the same throughout.” I’ve already addressed contradictions in the Bible but there are many inconsistencies too. To give two examples the Bible is inconsistent on whether people are predestined to be saved or have a role in choosing their salvation. Many verses come down on the side of predestination but others such as the verse that states god desires all to be saved is a huge inconsistency in the Bible, and as a result this is an issue that Christians themselves do not agree on. Another matter the Bible is inconsistent and unclear about is whether works such as obedience play a role in salvation. The orthodox Christian position is held to be that Christians are saved by grace through faith and not by works (good works supposedly follow “salvation”). However, an article I linked to in another thread (I’ve provided the link to the article again here: relearnchurch.org/praying-strength-quit-pornography-wont-help/) about how viewing pornography has the power to send Christians to hell quotes a massive number of verses from the Bible that make it clear obedience is necessary for or a requirement for salvation. The Bible is unclear on whether good works are necessary for salvation or not.
I heard about most of those 'contradictions' and have found nothing credible about the ones I've researched. I can't very well address them all though, not without writing a book here.. No inconsistencies either.
Some individuals like Paul were predestinated, God used him because God new him, just as He did with Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5).
All Christians are saved by grace through faith, but the willful sinner is not faithful, but a hypocrite. God is not mocked. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the LORD Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Faith is not a word void of substance, obedience demonstrates faith. One important distinction is that we aren't saved by our works (deeds), but rewarded by our works on earth, "They were judged every man according to their works" (Revelation 20:13).
Comparison of a few of the current English bibles should make it clear that there are many uncertainties in the biblical text. Part of this reason is that translation involves interpretation, and that adds to uncertainties. A perfect copy of the original text does not exist. All we have are copies made centuries after the texts were originally composed, and those copies differ among themselves. Have you ever studied the bible, outside of the bible?
I've studied it extensively and am convinced that the KJV is the best uncorrupted and authenticated NT, taken from well over 5000 Byzantine type manuscripts (Textus Receptus). When you have that many copies, its not difficult to get an exact text of the original. Consider that a single verse was miscopied by a scribe, but since you have thousands of other copies of that same verse, its not difficult to get the exact wording and correct any individual errors. While I don't agree with every Greek/Hebrew to English translation per se, we can still get the exact meaning from a good concordance (Strong's).
Yes, there are differences in the KJV and new age bibles. Modern 21st century bible editions have inaccuracies, but I'm convinced the authorized KJV is accurate. I don't agree with the findings of Westcott and Hort who subscribe to the Alexandrian manuscripts (minority text) as being more reliable than the Byzantine text-type simply because they're older. I also think there are inaccuracies (corruption) in the Roman Catholic manuscripts Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. That's an in-depth study that everyone can research on their own, but the Bishop of Caesaria 'Eusebius', being a devout student of Origin's work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the Syrian text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text found it's way into the Vatican manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into today's newer bible versions. Nevertheless, there's less than a 5% variation between all bibles, and 4% of those variables don't alter the message in any way,
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 21, 2020 7:35:28 GMT -5
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
Really? The authors of the books in the new testament have been authenticated? Who wrote the Matthew? Or Mark? Who did the authentication? There are a number of lists showing the contradictions in the NT. Some are factual. Things like: He was to be called Emmanuel. Matthew1:23. He was called Jesus. Matthew 1:25.
Extensive research and careful examination indicates that 'The Gospel according to Matthew' was written by Matthew Emmanuel means "God with us", Yeshua (Jesus) means "God's salvation or Savior". So the etymology of both names apply, Christ the anointed was both God manifested in the flesh (Emmanuel), and for the purpose of salvation (Yeshua). I've been called Dan, Danny, & Daniel, none of which are contradictions
4. Men can choose whether or not to believe. Jn.5:38-47. Only God chooses who will believe. Jn.6:44.
God calls us and we choose to believe, God cannot believe for us. God does not call a person who will not believe, but the invitation is "Whosoever believeth". "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (John 6:44). This is not an indication that God chooses who will believe, but that God draws a searching soul.. Sometimes we tend to interpret something our way and then conclude its a contradiction.. I have found that most seemingly contradictions are a result of a confused reader who has spun something to mean something that it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 21, 2020 9:36:25 GMT -5
It does in so far as it is primarily interested in power, as opposed to existential ideals. One of your primary goals in expressing yourself seems to be obfuscation but I’ll try breaking down what you seem to be saying in an attempt to make sense of it (assuming it makes any sense at all). I think it goes something like this. You’re saying science’s supposed interest in power is analogous/runs parallel to the Chinese government’s interest in power. I’d argue that’s a false analogy but that would be a completely different “discussion” with more of your rhetoric (and here I am using rhetoric in its more informal sense—“language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.” source: Dictionary definition provided by google search www.google.com/search?rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS734US735&hl=en-US&biw=320&bih=452&sxsrf=ALeKk01ma60B8xfP1y9GRYvafxnZhVJd1g%3A1584756572002&ei=W3d1XujQPIGMtAbxsoyYCg&q=rhetoric+definition&oq=rhetor&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.1.1.0i273l2j0l6.683140.687976..688848...1.1..1.263.2022.0j14j2......0....1.......8..0i71j0i67j0i131j35i39j0i20i263j35i362i39j46.SNMUJmK2IXU). If this is what you’re attempting to say, it’s stated incorrectly. The Chinese government doesn’t worship science. Correctly stated, the Chinese government operates (in your view) in the same manner as science. Next you’re harping on science/the Chinese government as a constraint on free will. I would agree with you about the Chinese government but applying this claim to science is nonsense. It’s the “scientific consensus” argument all over again. You’re free to believe whatever rubbish you like (people do all the time); just don’t complain when science doesn’t back you up on it. science is primarily concerned with how to do. Religion is primarily concerned with what to do. An atheistic government is more likely to promote and protect science over religion, which it does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2020 17:43:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 21, 2020 18:56:29 GMT -5
If the Christian god is omniscient and the Bible is the inspired word of Christianity’s god, then the Bible should still be free of “simpleminded lists of contradictions” as you nearly put it. The NT list of contradictions provided DOES contain obvious and undeniable contradictions, not “contradictions” as you put it. To take one example from the list: Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13. Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1. These both cannot be true so which one is it? The fact that you're forced to refuse to acknowledge the contradictions in the Bible or try to rationalize them away is simply a sign that the Bible is highly flawed and not the inspired word of a god. First off, there is no "Christian god." God is not "Christian." God is, according to God, the ONLY "God." Well now, that one is not as simple minded as rational's was, but WHAT in the text of the Bible disallows Jesus to have immediately after baptism gone into the wilderness alone for 40 days – and then, after He called His disciples according to John 1:35-51 to be at the wedding in Cana three days after calling His disciples. Nothing I see in the text of the Bible even suggests that Jesus was 40 days in the wilderness AND at the wedding in Cana at the same time. One HAS TO want contradictions DESPERATELY to make the claimed 'contradiction' made in the quoted post. And if one WANTS 'contradictions' in the Bible that much, it is still a nobrainer, especially when no Bible training is obtained, as is the case with 2x2ism, to create 'contradictions' where there are no contradictions. And once again, every list of alleged 'contradictions' in the Bible I have ever seen is prepared by someone that does not examine the text of the Bible to find an answer to such 'contradictions' - i.e., someone who WANTS to find 'contradictions in the Bible desperately enough to play the Bible illiteracy game to his/her own shame. “The NT list of contradictions provided DOES contain obvious and undeniable contradictions ....” But then, the parrot of a list of alleged 'contradictions' is just a parrot, not the creator of such a 'contradiction' – if that excuses the poster for failing to examine the alleged 'contradiction' by examining the Bible text itself. Ho hum. Wrong. The OT God acknowledge other gods all the time. In fact, the first commandment acknowledges other gods. It just says that they shouldn't worship the other gods and just him.
|
|
|
Post by benar on Mar 21, 2020 20:46:46 GMT -5
I have found that most seemingly contradictions are a result of a confused reader who has spun something to mean something that it doesn't. Oh, the irony of this statement...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2020 5:16:06 GMT -5
Back to the thread topic - ho hum As shown plenty of times on this board the practice of calling the kettle black that is performed routinely by 2x2s throughout 2x2 history plays out once again in the instance of some on here pointing up creation as the pseudoscience when evolution fits the definition of “pseudoscience” to a “T.” The accusation made against creation is AT BEST drawing a distinction where there is no difference, another illogical practice of 2x2ism historically. Here is Dr. Lisle's reply – by all means, if creation is pseudoscience to you and you want to remain wilfully ignorant on that point, don't read it. Science vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 22, 2020 5:40:49 GMT -5
Back to the thread topic - ho hum As shown plenty of times on this board the practice of calling the kettle black that is performed routinely by 2x2s throughout 2x2 history plays out once again in the instance of some on here pointing up creation as the pseudoscience when evolution fits the definition of “pseudoscience” to a “T.” The accusation made against creation is AT BEST drawing a distinction where there is no difference, another illogical practice of 2x2ism historically. Here is Dr. Lisle's reply – by all means, if creation is pseudoscience to you and you want to remain wilfully ignorant on that point, don't read it. Science vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/Biblical science institute.. yep, everything went down hill from there 🙄
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 22, 2020 5:43:00 GMT -5
I’ve seen this posted elsewhere in TMB. Kent Hovind is hardly an authority on the bible..
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 22, 2020 13:14:58 GMT -5
I’ve seen this posted elsewhere in TMB. Kent Hovind is hardly an authority on the bible.. Or anything else for that matter...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2020 16:52:52 GMT -5
“Kent Hovind is hardly an authority on the bible.” Of course - what would a former 2x2 expect to see from former and professing 2x2s on here, but such an example of mere ad hominem - huh. Another case of the pot calling the kettle black no doubt – or just maybe the poster is an “authority on the Bible.” For myself, without even getting close to being an “authority on the Bible” one glance at the first so called Bible contradiction on an atheist list showed that the author of the list was causing 'contradiction' out of the vast difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant – kind of like comparing an offered one dollar bill to an offered thousand dollar bill and dismissing both of the two offers crying “contradiction.” And it looked from numerous following so called “contradictions” of obvious total Bible illiteracy that the list author(s) were no “authority on the Bible.” So if the claimants of Bible contradictions can gather parrots to spread their junk, one must conclude that the TMB parrots of their junk are no “authority on the Bible” either – BUT some on here obviously set the standards ambiguously high for anyone who dares to refute even one so called Bible contradiction, dismissing the refutation on trumped up 'requirement' that any refutation of the mind-dead stuff on such lists be an “authority on the Bible” that the TMB parrots would recognize as an “authority on the Bible” without being “authorities on the Bible” themselves – just parrots. I witnessed similar 'qualities' in workers' sermons throughout my childhood, most especially their 'expert' rendition of the 'deity of Jesus,' setting it up for themselves to shoot down in RIDICULE, so it is no surprise to me to see such pot calling the kettle black stuff coming from former 2x2 and 2x2 sources on this board – ho hum. So if any 2x2/visitor is looking for help, they might take a look at Kent Hovind refuting so called Bible contradictions, and Dr. Lisle's comparison of evolution to its own definition of "pseudoscience". And don't be surprised by the stupid double-standards posted clearly by the TMB demolition - ah, team? - ah, parrots - no doubt they will continue to cast anything other than their own parroting of 'lists' down in their wonderful 2x2-like ridicule. Contradictions in the Bible - Kent Hovind www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CY-jX9juoQScience vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/And with that I put the thread right back on topic, just to get a smile watching the TMB demo team take it off topic again ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 22, 2020 23:07:30 GMT -5
Really? The authors of the books in the new testament have been authenticated? Who wrote the Matthew? Or Mark? Who did the authentication? There are a number of lists showing the contradictions in the NT. Some are factual. Things like: He was to be called Emmanuel. Matthew1:23. He was called Jesus. Matthew 1:25. Nice try, but no lollypop for rational; The one we English speakers call "Jesus Christ" was neither named "Emmanuel" or "Jesus" in the Bible. So that so called 'contradiction' shoots itself through its very 'heart.' And THAT level of simple-mindedness permeates every list of so called "contradictions" I have yet seen. Wow. That is a weak answer. Using your logic the one english speakers call Jesus is not the son of god. Your reply needs to be preserved in the Trash Pile!
|
|
|
Post by iam on Mar 23, 2020 0:18:41 GMT -5
“Kent Hovind is hardly an authority on the bible.” Of course - what would a former 2x2 expect to see from former and professing 2x2s on here, but such an example of mere ad hominem - huh. Another case of the pot calling the kettle black no doubt – or just maybe the poster is an “authority on the Bible.” For myself, without even getting close to being an “authority on the Bible” one glance at the first so called Bible contradiction on an atheist list showed that the author of the list was causing 'contradiction' out of the vast difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant – kind of like comparing an offered one dollar bill to an offered thousand dollar bill and dismissing both of the two offers crying “contradiction.” And it looked from numerous following so called “contradictions” of obvious total Bible illiteracy that the list author(s) were no “authority on the Bible.” So if the claimants of Bible contradictions can gather parrots to spread their junk, one must conclude that the TMB parrots of their junk are no “authority on the Bible” either – BUT some on here obviously set the standards ambiguously high for anyone who dares to refute even one so called Bible contradiction, dismissing the refutation on trumped up 'requirement' that any refutation of the mind-dead stuff on such lists be an “authority on the Bible” that the TMB parrots would recognize as an “authority on the Bible” without being “authorities on the Bible” themselves – just parrots. I witnessed similar 'qualities' in workers' sermons throughout my childhood, most especially their 'expert' rendition of the 'deity of Jesus,' setting it up for themselves to shoot down in RIDICULE, so it is no surprise to me to see such pot calling the kettle black stuff coming from former 2x2 and 2x2 sources on this board – ho hum. So if any 2x2/visitor is looking for help, they might take a look at Kent Hovind refuting so called Bible contradictions, and Dr. Lisle's comparison of evolution to its own definition of "pseudoscience". And don't be surprised by the stupid double-standards posted clearly by the TMB demolition - ah, team? - ah, parrots - no doubt they will continue to cast anything other than their own parroting of 'lists' down in their wonderful 2x2-like ridicule. Contradictions in the Bible - Kent Hovind www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CY-jX9juoQScience vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/And with that I put the thread right back on topic, just to get a smile watching the TMB demo team take it off topic again ASAP. Would someone please get off topic again? This is getting really boring!😄
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2020 0:55:40 GMT -5
“Kent Hovind is hardly an authority on the bible.” Of course - what would a former 2x2 expect to see from former and professing 2x2s on here, but such an example of mere ad hominem - huh. Another case of the pot calling the kettle black no doubt – or just maybe the poster is an “authority on the Bible.” For myself, without even getting close to being an “authority on the Bible” one glance at the first so called Bible contradiction on an atheist list showed that the author of the list was causing 'contradiction' out of the vast difference between the Old Covenant and New Covenant – kind of like comparing an offered one dollar bill to an offered thousand dollar bill and dismissing both of the two offers crying “contradiction.” And it looked from numerous following so called “contradictions” of obvious total Bible illiteracy that the list author(s) were no “authority on the Bible.” So if the claimants of Bible contradictions can gather parrots to spread their junk, one must conclude that the TMB parrots of their junk are no “authority on the Bible” either – BUT some on here obviously set the standards ambiguously high for anyone who dares to refute even one so called Bible contradiction, dismissing the refutation on trumped up 'requirement' that any refutation of the mind-dead stuff on such lists be an “authority on the Bible” that the TMB parrots would recognize as an “authority on the Bible” without being “authorities on the Bible” themselves – just parrots. I witnessed similar 'qualities' in workers' sermons throughout my childhood, most especially their 'expert' rendition of the 'deity of Jesus,' setting it up for themselves to shoot down in RIDICULE, so it is no surprise to me to see such pot calling the kettle black stuff coming from former 2x2 and 2x2 sources on this board – ho hum. So if any 2x2/visitor is looking for help, they might take a look at Kent Hovind refuting so called Bible contradictions, and Dr. Lisle's comparison of evolution to its own definition of "pseudoscience". And don't be surprised by the stupid double-standards posted clearly by the TMB demolition - ah, team? - ah, parrots - no doubt they will continue to cast anything other than their own parroting of 'lists' down in their wonderful 2x2-like ridicule. Contradictions in the Bible - Kent Hovind www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CY-jX9juoQScience vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/And with that I put the thread right back on topic, just to get a smile watching the TMB demo team take it off topic again ASAP. Would someone please get off topic again? This is getting really boring!😄 Public information regarding Kent Hovind.Ahh - Good old Kent Hovind. Full of the milk of human kindness.Another list of contradictions found in the bible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 1:38:06 GMT -5
Well now, it looks like we are getting somewhere at last – already back off topic back onto so called “Bible Contradictions” with a lone ad hoimem on Kent Hovind again – not one refutation of Kent's refutations of so called Bible contradictions – ho hum. Did rational perhaps forget his big hatred of Dr. Lisle and his write up on the pseudoscience known as Evolution – not likely, it just looks like rational hates Kent Hovind more than Dr. Lisle for the moment and had to get this thread back off topic within just three posts - in keeping with one TMB demolition team request to do so out of those three posts - and here I thought rational was the head of the TMB demolition crew, not the tail that would wag on one such request. So if any 2x2/visitor is looking for help, they might take a look at Kent Hovind refuting so called Bible contradictions, and Dr. Lisle's comparison of evolution to its own definition of "pseudoscience". And don't be surprised by the stupid double-standards posted clearly by the TMB demolition - ah, team? - ah, parrots - no doubt they will continue to cast anything other than their own parroting of 'lists' down in their wonderful 2x2-like ridicule. Contradictions in the Bible - Kent Hovind www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CY-jX9juoQScience vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/And with that I put the thread right back on topic, just to get a smile watching the TMB demo team take it off topic again ASAP. Oh, and I see how “boring” this thread has been with its average 188 visits per day since opening post - the thread has not gone off page one since the day it was created.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 23, 2020 15:00:57 GMT -5
Well now, it looks like we are getting somewhere at last – already back off topic back onto so called “Bible Contradictions” with a lone ad hoimem on Kent Hovind again – not one refutation of Kent's refutations of so called Bible contradictions – ho hum. Did rational perhaps forget his big hatred of Dr. Lisle and his write up on the pseudoscience known as Evolution – not likely, it just looks like rational hates Kent Hominid more than Dr. Lisle for the moment and had to get this thread back off topic within just three posts - in keeping with one TMB demolition team request to do so out of those three posts - and here I thought rational was the head of the TMB demolition crew, not the tail that would wag on one such request. I don't hate either of the people you have named any more than I hate you. It is the questionable material posted I, and others, respond to so that readers can read about the topics from sources other than creationist sites. And they can also look at the background of Kent and see if this seems like the kind of person you can trust. Would you let your child visit his "amusement" park? And don't be surprised if Jason Lisle doesn't publish research supporting ASC as promised. This is a good tact to take when you have no answers. Like @gratu, most contradictions are dismissed as being word meaning differences. Not unlike claiming a bat to be a bird or a hare to chew its cud - strange mistakes for an omniscient being. Science vs. Pseudoscience by Dr. Lisle | Jun 7, 2019 | Apologetics, Origins | biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/science-vs-pseudoscience/And with that I put the thread right back on topic, just to get a smile watching the TMB demo team take it off topic again ASAP. Oh, and I see how “boring” this thread has been with its average 188 visits per day since opening post - the thread has not gone off page one since the day it was created.[/quote] A sad demonstration by a once talented astronomer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 15:36:32 GMT -5
I’ve seen this posted elsewhere in TMB. Kent Hovind is hardly an authority on the bible.. Or anything else for that matter... He's the smartest person he knows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2020 15:40:03 GMT -5
This "TMB demolition team" you keep adding people to... is that code for "TMB member list minus gratu"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 20:39:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 25, 2020 6:58:19 GMT -5
Origin of Life "Professor Tour corrects some mischaracterizations of his thought in the last program, and one wild oversimplification of the origin of life, as it is taught in high school, to which Cronin seemed to give a stamp of approval. Tour describes attempting to “track” Cronin’s discussion, watching the earlier debate four times over, and asking Cronin for additional information. Tour has a way with vivid images: “Narrative” and “Ideology”? He does compliment Cronin for his courage, though. Most others have run from this debate. Professor Cronin is the Full article (and video clip) here: evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 25, 2020 7:01:48 GMT -5
Oh look, more gratu nonsense..
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2020 10:28:55 GMT -5
Origin of Life "Professor Tour corrects some mischaracterizations of his thought in the last program, and one wild oversimplification of the origin of life, as it is taught in high school, to which Cronin seemed to give a stamp of approval. Tour describes attempting to “track” Cronin’s discussion, watching the earlier debate four times over, and asking Cronin for additional information. Tour has a way with vivid images: “Narrative” and “Ideology”? He does compliment Cronin for his courage, though. Most others have run from this debate. Professor Cronin is the Full article (and video clip) here: evolutionnews.org/2020/03/finally-an-origin-of-life-scientist-debates-skeptic-james-tour/You might find it more illuminating to read these things unfiltered by evolutionnews.org.
|
|