Good Samaritan Knifed Trying To Stop Gay Attack

[MissileMan]

What standard would you propose for a collection of books by scores of authors, written over several millenia?

You answer my question and I'll answer yours.

 

[glockmail]

You answer my question and I'll answer yours.

I'm not requiring a standard of proof for the Bible.

 

[MissileMan]

I'm not requiring a standard of proof for the Bible.

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

[mattskramer]

1. This is a good source that I have used in the past to debate against the Koran. Pick an example.

Genesis 1:16 says literally that God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun.

2. Genesis Chapter 1 is unrelated to the researched chronology. There is no way to estimate the time differential to Chapter 2.

A day is a day. Creation took 6 days - roughly 144 hours. Then take the birth of Adam and use chronology until the death of Jesus. Then add roughly 2000 years. If you are going to take the bible literally about homosexuality being a sin, you must take everything that the Bible says literally.

 

[glockmail]

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

That's becasue the question does not make sense with respect to my understanding of the Bible. the document is unfallable.

 

[glockmail]

Genesis 1:16 says literally that God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun.

Quote:
2. Genesis Chapter 1 is unrelated to the researched chronology. There is no way to estimate the time differential to Chapter 2.


A day is a day. Creation took 6 days - roughly 144 hours. Then take the birth of Adam and use chronology until the death of Jesus. Then add roughly 2000 years. If you are going to take the bible literally about homosexuality being a sin, you must take everything that the Bible says literally.

I believe the most reasonable explanation is that the story of creation, in fact much of the Bible, is a parable. As you know, Jesus used parables often to explain complex issues to a large and intellectually varied audience. Wouldn’t God do the same to give ancient man a “road map” for the understanding of his origins? In your two thoughtful examples, a “light” is something that presents illumination, and a “day” is a much longer period of time, representing a single but significant work period by God.

With regards to the issue of homosexuality, even in the context of a parable, a bad thing is still a bad thing. Black is not white and wet is not dry.
:cof:

 

[MissileMan]

That's becasue the question does not make sense with respect to my understanding of the Bible. the document is unfallable.

I am already aware of your opinion of the Bible. I asked about your standard of truth for everything EXCEPT the Bible.

 

[glockmail]

I am already aware of your opinion of the Bible. I asked about your standard of truth for everything EXCEPT the Bible.

It depends on the issue. Usually it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". Now are you going to answer the question or continue to avoid it?

 

[MissileMan]

It depends on the issue. Usually it's "beyond a reasonable doubt". Now are you going to answer the question or continue to avoid it?

Are you talking about this question?

What standard would you propose for a collection of books by scores of authors, written over several millenia?

 

[glockmail]

Are you talking about this question?

Yes, the Bible should meet that standard. Now are you going to accept the challenge to you in post 99?

 

[MissileMan]

Yes, the Bible should meet that standard. Now are you going to accept the challenge to you in post 99?

Umm, you were talking to Matts in 99.

 

[mattskramer]

I believe the most reasonable explanation is that the story of creation, in fact much of the Bible, is a parable. As you know, Jesus used parables often to explain complex issues to a large and intellectually varied audience. Wouldn’t God do the same to give ancient man a “road map” for the understanding of his origins? In your two thoughtful examples, a “light” is something that presents illumination, and a “day” is a much longer period of time, representing a single but significant work period by God.

A light and a reflecting orb are two different things. A day is a day. It is nowhere defined as the time for which a significant work is done but in the creative mind and imagination of Bible apologists.

With regards to the issue of homosexuality, even in the context of a parable, a bad thing is still a bad thing. Black is not white and wet is not dry.
:cof:

Why? It is because the Bible says so? I already established that the Bible is technically wrong and inconsistent. It is not to be trusted.

You speak of parables. How convenient. So, some parts of this infallible book are to be taken literally and some parts are not to be taken literally. What a cop-out. Anyway, how is calling the moon and sun both lights a parable?

Here are some ethics. Read Matthew 5:27-30. If you admire a woman’s form are you committing adultery? Read Matthew 5:31-32. A man can only divorce wife for fornication. Do you really hold that belief too? Matthew 19:3-9 says that a man who divorces and remarries is adulterer.

Here are some inconsistent historic “facts”. How did Saul die? According to 1 Samuel 31:4-6 and 1 Chronicles 10:4, he committed suicide. According to 2 Samuel 1:8-10 he was killed by an Amalekite. According to 2 Samuel 21:12, Saul was killed by the Philistines. According to 1 Chronicles 10:14, God killed him.

Oh, yeah. These are just parables. Face it. It is obvious that the Bible is full of absurdities and inconsistencies. I have not even scratched the surface.

 

[glockmail]

Umm, you were talking to Matts in 99.

Correct. Please answer Q in 100.

 

[mattskramer]

What standard would you propose for a collection of books by scores of authors, written over several millenia?

Science, consistency, and logic.

 

[glockmail]

[1]A light and a reflecting orb are two different things. A day is a day. It is nowhere defined as the time for which a significant work is done but in the creative mind and imagination of Bible apologists.



….[2] I already established that the Bible is technically wrong and inconsistent. ….

[3] You speak of parables. How convenient. So, some parts of this infallible book are to be taken literally and some parts are not to be taken literally. What a cop-out. [4] Anyway, how is calling the moon and sun both lights a parable?

[5] Here are some ethics. Read Matthew 5:27-30. If you admire a woman’s form are you committing adultery? Read Matthew 5:31-32. A man can only divorce wife for fornication. Do you really hold that belief too? Matthew 19:3-9 says that a man who divorces and remarries is adulterer.

[6] Here are some inconsistent historic “facts”. How did Saul die? According to 1 Samuel 31:4-6 and 1 Chronicles 10:4, he committed suicide. According to 2 Samuel 1:8-10 he was killed by an Amalekite. According to 2 Samuel 21:12, Saul was killed by the Philistines. According to 1 Chronicles 10:14, God killed him.

Oh, yeah. These are just parables. Face it. It is obvious that the Bible is full of absurdities and inconsistencies. I have not even scratched the surface.

1. Did you expect the story of the creation of man to start with: ‘well, first I invented amino acids’? Ancient man would not have understood. Do you teach your 4 year old calculus first, or simply how to count?

2. I’m sorry but I just don’t see that. Don’t pull an “algore” here and claim that the debate is over when there is a majority that disagrees with you.

3. It’s very easy to tell the difference. When God says “thou shalt not..” it’s obvious that this is a literal meaning. When the words are abstract than there is a deeper meaning.

4. They both shine light.

5. “[NIV]27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” You misrepresented this passage. If you were seeking the truth you would not have done that.

6. Let’s review the end of Saul’s life:

“[NIV 2 Samuel 1]”
6 "I happened to be on Mount Gilboa," the young man said, "and there was Saul, leaning on his spear, with the chariots and riders almost upon him. 7 When he turned around and saw me, he called out to me, and I said, 'What can I do?'
8 "He asked me, 'Who are you?'
" 'An Amalekite,' I answered.
9 "Then he said to me, 'Stand over me and kill me! I am in the throes of death, but I'm still alive.'
10 "So I stood over him and killed him, because I knew that after he had fallen he could not survive. And I took the crown that was on his head and the band on his arm and have brought them here to my lord."

Here you took a passage out of context. If you were seeking the truth you would not have done that. The truth is, that this passage collaborates 1 Samuel 31:4-6 and 1 Chronicles 10:4, just gives more detail, with the Amalekite putting poor Saul out of his misery.

[NIV 1 Chronicles 10] 4 Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and abuse me."
But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it…….. 13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, 14 and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.

Again you take a passage out of context. The Lord had the power to save Saul from capture as well as suicide, but did not intervene Saul’s suicide because of the reasons stated.

Note that I will be on vacation for about 10 days and won't be able to respond further until then, so please take your time with another "inconsitency".

 

[glockmail]

Science, consistency, and logic.

As just presented.

 

[MissileMan]

Correct. Please answer Q in 100.

I would (and do) apply the same standard to the Bible as any other works of mythology from that time period.

 

[mattskramer]

Did you expect the story of the creation of man to start with: ‘well, first I invented amino acids’? Ancient man would not have understood.

Ancient man, or at least men during the time of Moses, understood the difference between a day and many days. If it took a long time for God to create the heavens and the earth, I would expect the Bible to say that it took a long time.

It’s very easy to tell the difference. When God says “thou shalt not..” it’s obvious that this is a literal meaning. When the words are abstract than there is a deeper meaning.

The statements in Matthew are very clear and not abstract. Fornication is fornication. Divorce is divorce.

They (the sun and the moon) both shine light.

The sun and the moon are not both lights.

“[NIV]27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” You misrepresented this passage. If you were seeking the truth you would not have done that.

So is it a sin to watch porn? Why don’t you list all of the things that I’m allowed to do without sinning and all of the things that I am forbidden to do.

“[NIV 2 Samuel 1]”
1 Samuel 31:4-6 and 1 Chronicles 10:4, just gives more detail, with the Amalekite putting poor Saul out of his misery.

[NIV 1 Chronicles 10] Saul took his own sword and fell on it.

Did Saul put the sword through himself or did the Amalekite put the sword through Saul? Perhaps they were both holding the sword handle. Come on. The Bible is inconsistent.

------------------

Here is one contradiction that is not abstract. It deals with specific numbers. See it at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/300or800.html

Perhaps your precious perfect Bible has been corrupted or something or this is merely another parable not to be taken literally. Perhaps 800 or 300 merely mean many people just as a day is not really a day but a long time.

When you finish trying to weasel out of that one, look at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/300or800.html

 

[glockmail]

[1]Ancient man, or at least men during the time of Moses, understood the difference between a day and many days. If it took a long time for God to create the heavens and the earth, I would expect the Bible to say that it took a long time.



[2]The statements in Matthew are very clear and not abstract. Fornication is fornication. Divorce is divorce.



[3]The sun and the moon are not both lights.



[4]So is it a sin to watch porn? Why don’t you list all of the things that I’m allowed to do without sinning and all of the things that I am forbidden to do.



[5]Did Saul put the sword through himself or did the Amalekite put the sword through Saul? Perhaps they were both holding the sword handle. Come on. The Bible is inconsistent.

------------------

[6]Here is one contradiction that is not abstract. It deals with specific numbers. See it at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/300or800.html

Perhaps your precious perfect Bible has been corrupted or something or this is merely another parable not to be taken literally. Perhaps 800 or 300 merely mean many people just as a day is not really a day but a long time.

[7]When you finish trying to weasel out of that one, look at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/300or800.html

1. How do you know what ancient man thought? Without a reference of millions of years a long time could be construed as a much shorter time period.
2. You didn’t comment on specifics, and it therefore appears that you have lost your argument yet are afraid to admit this.
3. You need to address the issue that I raised instead of repeating your old argument.
4. You need to study the Bible yourself. I’m not going to codify it for you.
5. Did you read the links that you referenced? The story is clear.
6. Adino killed 800, one at a time. Jashobeam killed 300 all at once.
7. Ditto.

 

[mattskramer]

How do you know what ancient man thought? Without a reference of millions of years a long time could be construed as a much shorter time period.

When was Genesis written? Moses wrote it. Early man, even earlier than the days of Moses, had a concept of a day. Early Egyptians understood the cycles of light and darkness.

You didn’t comment on specifics, and it therefore appears that you have lost your argument yet are afraid to admit this.

I did not lose the argument. Fornication is fornication. Do you need me to describe the specific and concrete behavior involved in fornication?

You need to address the issue that I raised instead of repeating your old argument.

I already did. The sun and moon are not both lights in the literal sense. The sun radiates light. The moon reflects light. If it were not for the sun or other light source, there would be no light for the moon to provide.

You need to study the Bible yourself. I’m not going to codify it for you.

I already read it several times. So have leaders from different churches and denomination. Some leaders say that this is a sin. Some say that this is not a sin. Some say that that is a sin. Some say that that is not a sin. The Bible is very unclear and can be translated and interpreted in a variety of ways. How about giving me a straight answer. Is it technically a sin to look at porn? Since you are only committing adultery in your heart when you admire other women? I guess that this does not count as a sin.

Did you read the links that you referenced? The story is clear.

No. The story is inconsistent:
2 Samuel 1:8-10 says that an Amalekite killed Saul. In fact, it states I stood over him and killed him.

1 Chronicles 10:4 says that Saul took his sword and fell on it. In fact, it states Therefore Saul took his sword and fell on it.

Adino killed 800, one at a time. Jashobeam killed 300 all at once.

There you go. See? You can’t trust the Bible. Some authors messed up the names. Shucks. Whose translation and interpretation of that translation are we to trust? What Church or denomination is correct. (Catholic or Protestant (Baptist, Methodist, Calvinist, etc.))?