Eternal Life? YUK!

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To me the Quran is a book of lies and little value. I couldn't care less what it says.

I understand.

I just wanted to see if you were capable of identifying a contradiction.

 

[blü 2]

Mark 6:8 says a staff, as in one
Matthew 10:9 says nor yet staves, as in more than one.

You're misinformed. The text is Matthew 10:10 and says,

μὴ πήραν εἰς ὁδὸν μηδὲ δύο χιτῶνας μηδὲ ὑποδήματα μηδὲ ῥάβδον ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ.​

ῥάβδον is 2nd declension singular accusative of ῥάβδος, a staff. Were it plural (accusative) as you aver, it would have been ῥάβδους.

One staff only. Like I said, a contradiction.

Neither Mark or Acts says Jesus was NOT the Son of God from birth nor does any other scripture.

Jesus had a pet baboon called Donald Trump which went everywhere with him. And he (Jesus, that is) always wore a green bowler hat on the sabbath. We know these things beyond doubt because no book of the bible says Jesus was NOT the owner of Donald Trump (the baboon) and no book of the bible says Jesus did NOT wear a green bowler hat on the sabbath.

Also, the Bible gives no dates for Jesus' birth.

Luke 2 says:

1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. 2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.​

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius became Legate of Syria in 6 CE.

But Matthew 2 says:

1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king ...​

And King Herod died in 4 BCE.

(Matthew is supported by Luke 1:5, 23, 24, 26.)

So ─ was Jesus born in 4 BCE or in 6 CE? Or both?
.

 

[DavidFirth]

You're misinformed. The text is Matthew 10:10 and says,

μὴ πήραν εἰς ὁδὸν μηδὲ δύο χιτῶνας μηδὲ ὑποδήματα μηδὲ ῥάβδον ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ.​

ῥάβδον is 2nd declension singular accusative of ῥάβδος, a staff. Were it plural (accusative) as you aver, it would have been ῥάβδους.

One staff only. Like I said, a contradiction.

Jesus had a pet baboon called Donald Trump which went everywhere with him. And he (Jesus, that is) always wore a green bowler hat on the sabbath. We know these things beyond doubt because no book of the bible says Jesus was NOT the owner of Donald Trump (the baboon) and no book of the bible says Jesus did NOT wear a green bowler hat on the sabbath.

Luke 2 says:

1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled. 2 This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria.​

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius became Legate of Syria in 6 CE.

But Matthew 2 says:

1. Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king ...​

And King Herod died in 4 BCE.

(Matthew is supported by Luke 1:5, 23, 24, 26.)

So ─ was Jesus born in 4 BCE or in 6 CE? Or both?
.

Good try but you have come up short - as do all such naysayers that hate and want to discredit God's word.

Your references as to when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius became Legate of Syria is probably incorrect. Why do you assume it is correct? Only because it helps you make your point that you are so desperate to make that you are willing to accept something as fact that you cannot prove as fact. Sounds familiar, you do the same thing with macroevolution, abiogenesis and the big bang.

Also, your source of when Herod died is by no means set in stone and could/probably is incorrect.

Got anymore or is that it?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Our dates for the writing of the Constitution probably aren't set in stone, blu. Sure, there are lots of ways to verify the year, but we can never know FOR SURE...

 

[blü 2]

Good try but you have come up short - as do all such naysayers that hate and want to discredit God's word.

It says 'staff'. It does not say 'staffs'. So you were wrong and the contradiction remains. Indeed, in your reply you've wholly failed to address it at all.

Your references as to when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius became Legate of Syria is probably incorrect.

What reputable authority gives a different date for Quirinius becoming Legate of Syria?

Why do you assume it is correct? Only because it helps you make your point that you are so desperate to make that you are willing to accept something as fact that you cannot prove as fact.

I take it to be correct because it's the view of reputable historians who've examined the question. What reputable historian do you rely on to say it's wrong? And how wrong, exactly?

you do the same thing with macroevolution, abiogenesis and the big bang.

Goodness me! These are all supported by real science. At least I don't attribute them to an imaginary being.

Also, your source of when Herod died is by no means set in stone and could/probably is incorrect.

If you say it's incorrect, lay out your authorities. But stay aware from creationist 'historians' ─ they have to toe the party line or they won't get published, as we saw in the ICR example. For them, the truth doesn't come into it.

Got anymore or is that it?

That's three biblical contradictions, you've blustered and fussed but offered no evidence to refute any of them, so until you demonstrate error in all three, yes, they're fine for now.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

It says 'staff'. It does not say 'staffs'. You've wholly failed to refute the contradiction. Indeed, in your reply you've wholly failed to address it at all.


Who (other than some creationist sworn to rationalizing) says so? When do you say Quirinius became Legate of Syria? In 4 BCE?

Coming from you, that's rich! You're the one who ducks questions, you're the one who makes unsupported statements, you're the one who ignores arguments against things you say. Remove the chunky mote from your own eye.

Goodness me! These are all supported by real science. You on the other hand attribute them to an imaginary being. (I mean, if your god is real, has objective existence, just give us a satisfactory demonstration.)

If the date for Herod's death was actually four years later, in 1 CE, and Quirinius' appointment was four years earlier in 2 CE, you'd still have a contradiction. And you have no evidence for any such alternative dates. A year here or there at very best.

That's three biblical contradictions, you've blustered and fussed but offered no evidence to refute any of them, so until you demonstrate error in all three, yes, they're fine for now.

Even if you are correct in your assumption Jesus could have been and probably was addressing the disciples for different journeys, one in which they allowed to carry a staff and one in which they were not. One can scarcely conclude that there is a definite contradiction.

The other two supposed contradictions I have already dealt with. Your date(s) must be wrong. Can you absolutely prove they are right? No, you cannot.

"These are all supported by real science." Genesis is supported by real science. You choose to interpret the evidence by making assumption on top of assumption while ICR and others show how science supports the Genesis account.

You assume the big bang happened: assumption.
You assume abiogenesis happened: assumption.
You assume macroevolution happened: assumption.

That about covers it.

 

[blü 2]

Our dates for the writing of the Constitution probably aren't set in stone, blu. Sure, there are lots of ways to verify the year, but we can never know FOR SURE...

Wise words. But we're looking at a gap which on the face of the authoritative record is the nine years between Herod's death and Quirinius' appointment. If Herod died four years later and Quirinius took office four years earlier, that still wouldn't be enough to remove the contradiction.

 

[Akivah]

Akivah

Good luck with that!

But is eternal life involved?

The soul is eternal, but the body is not.

If so, what will you say in the yeshiva ten septillion years from now? (And if it's eternal life then that figure isn't a joke.)

I hope I can say that I've made some progress.

 

[blü 2]

Even if you are correct in your assumption

What, exactly, do you say I've assumed here?

Jesus could have been and probably was addressing the disciples for different journeys

The evidence against that is that the two passages synoptically fall at the same point in the story. On what basis would you suggest that two different journeys were being referred to?

One can scarcely conclude that there is a definite contradiction.

One can readily and reasonably conclude that contradiction is much the most likely explanation. Or one can pretend otherwise because one has an ulterior motive.

The other two supposed contradictions I have already dealt with.

You haven't put a scratch on either. Jesus' baboon is justified in exactly the same way as you justify your 'son of god' claim. So is Jesus' green bowler hat. If you think they're silly, well, they're no sillier than your own argument, since they use your own argument.

So that example, like the staff that that's not staffs, is likewise alive and well.

Your date(s) must be wrong. Can you absolutely prove they are right? No, you cannot.

I invite you to refer me to reputable (non-creo) authority for alternative dates that will bridge the nine-year gap that's asserted in the NT.

"These are all supported by real science." Genesis is supported by real science. You choose to interpret the evidence by making assumption on top of assumption while ICR and others show how science supports the Genesis account.

You've never addressed the point of how a 'creation scientist' can honestly claim to be a scientist and yet be bound to write only what is dictated in advance by people ignorant or contemptuous of genuine science.

You assume the big bang happened: assumption.

I say that Big Bang theory is reasoned honestly from a lot of examinable evidence. No other view of the matter can claim that.

You assume abiogenesis happened: assumption.

I know it happened. I'm here, and you're here, and magic only exists in the imagination, so abiogenesis is a fact.

You assume macroevolution happened: assumption.

Macroevolution is verified and explained by the theory of evolution which as you know differs from creationism by examining the evidence of reality and reasoning honestly and transparently from it. You may recall I ran a thread asking why, in the 56 years since Whitcombe and Morris published The Genesis Flood and started contemporary 'creation science', that 'creation science' has put not one single scientific scratch on the hated enemy the theory of Evolution. And no one could show a single example to the contrary and no one tried to explain this colossal failure on the part of 'creation science'.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

What, exactly, do you say I've assumed here?
The evidence against that is that the two passages synoptically fall at the same point in the story. Nothing suggests that two different journeys were being referred to. One can readily and reasonably conclude that contradiction is much the most likely explanation.

You haven't put a scratch on either. Jesus' baboon is justified in exactly the same way as you justify your 'son of god' claim. So is Jesus' green bowler hat. If you think they're silly, well, they're no sillier than your own argument.
So that example, like the staff that that's not staffs, is likewise alive and well.
I invite you to refer me to reputable (non-creo) authority for alternative dates that will bridge the nine-year gap that's asserted in the NT.

"One can readily and reasonably conclude that contradiction is much the most likely explanation." That's your problem right there. You are willing to accept any assumption that supports your world view without question.

I don't have to give you any references but rather you must prove you're right, else I don't believe you and do not accept your assumption/thinking. Good luck.

 

[blü 2]

"One can readily and reasonably conclude that contradiction is much the most likely explanation." That's your problem right there. You are willing to accept any assumption that supports your world view without question.

I'm not assuming. I'm reasoning from evidence ─ something you're routinely reluctant to do.

I don't have to give you any references but rather you must prove you're right, else I don't believe you and do not accept your assumption/thinking. Good luck.

I present reasoned cases and you refuse to address them, so they still stand. Thus, for example, my ICR quotes above demonstrate that 'creation science' is anti-science, a knowing perversion of the best method we know of finding out what's true in reality.

And the only way you went near that central question was by dishonestly implying that it was somehow no longer true, that somewhere was a creo website that cheerfully published reasoned arguments against those 'tenets'. But as my searches and your sulky silences show, there are no such websites.

If you can't speak openly about your own case, if you're so ashamed of creationism that you're untruthful about what it really says, then I have great sympathy for you ─ I'd be ashamed to the depths of my being to have to defend nonsense so manifestly false.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

I'm not assuming. I'm reasoning from evidence ─ something you're routinely reluctant to do.

I present reasoned cases and you refuse to address them, so they still stand. Thus, for example, my ICR quotes above demonstrate that 'creation science' is anti-science, a knowing perversion of the best method we know of finding out what's true in reality.

And the only way you went near that central question was by dishonestly implying that it was somehow no longer true, that somewhere was a creo website that cheerfully published reasoned arguments against those 'tenets'. But as my searches and your sulky silences show, there are no such websites.

If you can't speak openly about your own case, if you're so ashamed of creationism that you're untruthful about what it really says, then I have great sympathy for you ─ I'd be ashamed to depths of my being to espouse nonsense so manifestly false.
.

You present evidence that is assumed to be something you can't prove it is. You also present opinions of scientists, which I care nothing for. You've got nothing concrete and you know it. At least I hope you do.

I don't care for your quotes about ICR science and I see no reason to debate your "cases" since they prove nothing. I also do not agree with you about creation websites and what you think about them. You haven't read everything on them and even if you have, your opinion about them means squat to me.

You're obviously biased against creation science so unless you've got concrete evidence that you're right and they're wrong I'm not interested in your biased drivel. You don't have any concrete evidence and you and I both know it.

 

[blü 2]

You also present opinions of scientists, which I care nothing for.

Ah, now you're out in the open. What a relief for you!

What makes you think that reading a book written by people who lived two to three thousand years ago will inform you better about reality than science can? I take it you still follow Jesus' advice and never wash your hands before eating?

I don't care for your quotes about ICR science

Your distaste is directly proportional to your inability to answer. But it's not too late to surprise us all, and to deal with the questions in a clear, factual, responsive manner.

I see no reason to debate your "cases" since they prove nothing.

Translation: "I can't answer the problems you raise so as usual I'm going to run away". Meyer Dembski Campbell again ─ Is this the creo way?

I also do not agree with you about creation websites and what you think about them.

Then you'll immediately win the argument by providing me with a link to a creationist site as such that publishes reasoned articles rubbishing the 'tenets'. Great!

You haven't read everything on them and even if you have, your opinion about them means squat to me.

Why don't you try using evidence and reasoned argument? Try it just once. You might like it!

You're obviously biased against creation science

I'm not biased. My dislike for 'creation science' is reasoned from evidence and from the damage it does when taught to children. Its doublethink is indistinguishable from dishonesty. I include in that the fact that 'creation science' is so monumentally impotent that in 56 years it's harmed its enemy the theory of evolution not one single solitary time. And you have no explanation.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

Ah, now you're out in the open. What a relief for you!

What makes you think that reading a book written by people who lived two to three thousand years ago will inform you better about reality than science can? I take it you still follow Jesus' advice and never wash your hands before eating?
Your distaste is directly proportional to your inability to answer. But it's not too late to surprise us all, and to deal with the questions in a clear, factual, responsive manner.

Translation: "I can't answer the problems you raise so as usual I'm going to run away". Meyer Dembski Campbell again ─ Is this the creo way?
Then you'll immediately win the argument by providing me with a link to a creationist site as such that publishes reasoned articles rubbishing the 'tenets'. Great!

Why don't you try using evidence and reasoned argument? Try it just once. You might like it!

I'm not biased. My dislike for 'creation science' is reasoned from evidence and from the damage it does when taught to children. Its doublethink is indistinguishable from dishonesty. I include in that the fact that 'creation science' is so monumentally impotent that in 56 years it's harmed its enemy the theory of evolution not one single solitary time. And you have no explanation.
.

Look, you do the following and I'll hear you. If you can't and I know you can't, then blow your hot air at someone besides me who wants to hear it:

1. PROVE the Bible is wrong. You can't. You've tried.

2. PROVE the big bang actually happened.

3. PROVE there is no God.

4. PROVE abiogenesis.

5. PROVE macroevolution happened beyond all doubt.

If you can do any of those things please reply. If you can't then please just kindly stop blowing smoke up my xxx.

 

[Deidre]

I wonder why the concept of heaven was invented, or the pre-occupation with an after life? It's as though this life shouldn't be enough for us, that's the message I get when I read about different belief systems' views on heaven.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Look, you do the following and I'll hear you. If you can't and I know you can't, then blow your hot air at someone besides me who wants to hear it:

1. PROVE the Bible is wrong. You can't. You've tried.

2. PROVE the big bang actually happened.

3. PROVE there is no God.

4. PROVE abiogenesis.

5. PROVE macroevolution happened beyond all doubt.

If you can do any of those things please reply. If you can't then please just kindly stop blowing smoke up my xxx.

Why do you feign that proof is your standard for belief? Your standard is faith. You believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it. Not a thing that you believe by faith is proven.

Furthermore, proving, or teaching in any capacity, is a cooperative effort between two people. The creationist will not cooperate, and therefore will learn nothing that contradicts that which he believes by faith. You can't teach a man that which he has a stake in not understanding, and there is no duty to try twice.

 

[DavidFirth]

Why do you feign that proof is your standard for belief? Your standard is faith. You believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it. Not a thing that you believe by faith is proven.

Furthermore, proving, or teaching in any capacity, is a cooperative effort between two people. The creationist will not cooperate, and therefore will learn nothing that contradicts that which he believes by faith. You can't teach a man that which he has a stake in not understanding, and there is no duty to try twice.

Exactly. My faith is in God and His word, it is most certainly not in any scientist. Make your choice.

The only way you can get me to change my faith in God is to prove Him wrong, which no one can do because He is never wrong.

 

[blü 2]

quote

1. PROVE the Bible is wrong. You can't. You've tried.

You rather weirdly forget that I succeeded, and that NONE of your rebuttals succeeded, unless you now agree that Jesus had a baboon named Donald Trump and that Jesus always wore a green bowler hat on the sabbath.

All the contradictions I raised are alive and well.

2. PROVE the big bang actually happened.

You ask this in bad faith. I can link you to a great many explanations of the evidence and theory for the Big Bang, which demonstrate that it's a well-founded theory of science. But you've already stated that you don't believe in science and dismissed its findings out of hand. So why would I expect you to act differently next time?

And why do you have two standards of proof, one for those who support science, which science effortless passes, but which you then reject anyway.

And another for your own views, which aren't simply unsupported by the evidence of reality, but overwhelmingly refuted? I mean, you know that's true through the number of times you've been unable to offer reasoned replies to criticisms here.

3. PROVE there is no God.

I'm happy to have a go at this one. First tell me what real thing you intend to denote by the word 'god' and then the test that will tell us whether any being or phenomenon is a god or not.

Then I'll do my best and get back to you.

4. PROVE abiogenesis.

Only if you give us an unconditional promise that if science gets to describe a natural pathway from chemistry to active biochemistry, you'll give up creationism.

Otherwise there's no point.

5. PROVE macroevolution happened beyond all doubt.

This is your two standards of proof again. Anyway, descriptions of the evidence demonstrating macroevolution are all over the net. Come back when you've read them and have specific criticisms of them. Meanwhile for the rest of the thinking world, macroevolution is as much a fact as evolution.

I look forward to your reply.
.

 

[blü 2]

I wonder why the concept of heaven was invented, or the pre-occupation with an after life? It's as though this life shouldn't be enough for us, that's the message I get when I read about different belief systems' views on heaven.

You've probably come across the hypothesis that afterlife stories arose from the emotions of natural grieving (which elephants, and chimps, and no doubt other critters have as well) and the working out of the unbonding process; plus seeing the dead in subsequent dreams and the like.

It goes way back ─ I recall argument over whether proto-Neanderthal remains in a chamber at the bottom of a shaft in Sima de los Huesos ("Pit of Bones") in northern Spain, dated to ~430,000 ya (sic) showed burial ceremonies or not. They certainly showed a repeated burial practice.

The very early Çatal Höyük civilization (from 7,000 BCE) buried their dead under the bedroom floor, it's thought in order to assist divination through dreams of the departed. The Chinchorro Indians (modern Chile) were mummifying their dead ~5050 BCE; and the ancient Egyptians are famous for their obsession with the afterlife. In other words, death has been a big emotional deal to us and our pre-humans over a very long time.

So the answer to you question seems to be, It's what we do.
.

 

[DavidFirth]

quoteYou rather weirdly forget that I succeeded, and that NONE of your rebuttals succeeded, unless you now agree that Jesus had a baboon named Donald Trump and that Jesus always wore a green bowler hat on the sabbath.

All the contradictions I raised are alive and well.

You ask this in bad faith. I can link you to a great many explanations of the evidence and theory for the Big Bang, which demonstrate that it's a well-founded theory of science. But you've already stated that you don't believe in science and dismissed its findings out of hand. So why would I expect you to act differently next time?

And why do you have two standards of proof, one for those who support science, which science effortless passes, but which you then reject anyway.

And another for your own views, which aren't simply unsupported by the evidence of reality, but overwhelmingly refuted? I mean, you know that's true through the number of times you've been unable to offer reasoned replies to criticisms here.
I'm happy to have a go at this one. First tell me what real thing you intend to denote by the word 'god' and then the test that will tell us whether any being or phenomenon is a god or not.

Then I'll do my best and get back to you.
Only if you give us an unconditional promise that if science gets to describe a natural pathway from chemistry to active biochemistry, you'll give up creationism.

Otherwise there's no point.
This is your two standards of proof again. Anyway, descriptions of the evidence demonstrating macroevolution are all over the net. Come back when you've read them and have specific criticisms of them. Meanwhile for the rest of the thinking world, macroevolution is as much a fact as evolution.

I look forward to your reply.
.

You're still blowing hot air instead of proving anything. I already told you I'm not interested in what you have to say unless you can prove it. But we both know you can't.