Biblical errors

Jesus was the LIVING word of God. In other words He was the perfect "manifestation" of Gods word...or will. He was the "FULLFILLMENT" of Gods perfect word. He was NOT God. Jesus said before He gave up the spirit "Father it is finished". It is clear that He was here to "complete" the prophecy...i.e. word of God...the plan of salvation.
Tony you shouldn't be hard on Muslims if they atleast have understanding of the word where you are lacking in it.
 
Tony1, your words are truly empty

Right about there I note your total and complete inability to separate observation from fantasy, and the total inability to reason.
Click to expand...

You of all people should not invoke the word fantasy. That is the most apt description for your book. There is less fantasy in the Lord of the Rings.

For starters, your comment about "before" as related to the fossil record isn't something you observed.
You actually only observed "under."
Hence, I question your ability to observe AND your ability to reason.
Click to expand...

Just because you are ignorant, doesn't mean that others are incapable of opening their eyes. Aspeciation is observable to all. The most common representative, the man/ape similarities are undeniable. Not much seperate our genetic material from them. But when you look back into history, variations on the two have come and gone. If you actually bothered to look back through the records, you would find that the lines become increasingly similar while going backward. Time is the only factor. Seperate two groups of a species for a sufficiently long period and they will begin to differ. That you hadn't noticed speaks to the gravity of your psychosis.

Not only that, I got much higher marks in school than you did, and I was tested on the theory of evolution the same as every one else.
Click to expand...

You are a very pathetic creature. Now you are compensating for your lackings by imaging that you received higher marks in school. On who's authority did this information come to you? I find it difficult that you should prove knowledge of something you have yet to show here. Display even a hint of true awareness on the subject, I dare you.

Unfortunately, you are in the position of not being able to ignore the ToE for the useless piece of trash it is.
Click to expand...

Again you display ignorance.
 
I've said this in another thread, but I thought I'd throw it in here, too, since it's relevant:

tony1,

Please realise that <i>ad hominem</i> attacks do nothing to advance your position. They just make you look childish and support the view that you have no substantive answers to the arguments put to you.
 
*Originally posted by Markx
Oh so now Taken is Muslim??.....*

It's hard to tell.
She may be Isduddhuwhaleian.

*Tony1, I really would like to get another or different Version of Quran since I have never had it.*

You read it and you don't have one?
Do you have a djinn whispering the words in your ear?

I have one version by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and I use one by M.H. Shakir, and I also have a hard copy version which was translated by some English guy, from what I recall, since I can't find it at this moment.

That's actually three different versions.

*Also since you said that Quran didn't explain who jesus was can you tell me what did Quran said about Jesus???*

It says that Muslims make no distinction between Jesus and any of the prophets.

See The Family of Imran [3.84].

*As far as I know Quran mention that he was a messenger of God and he brought the message( word ) of God. *

It sort of does say that, but Jesus didn't bring the word of God, he IS the Word of God.

*Originally posted by Taken
Jesus was the LIVING word of God.*

Jesus IS, repeat IS, the living Word of God.
This kind of thing is how I know you are out to lunch.

*He was NOT God.*

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:1, KJV).

*Tony you shouldn't be hard on Muslims if they atleast have understanding of the word where you are lacking in it.*

I'm not being hard on Muslims, just YOU, since you make some claim to be Christian, but instead are Isduddhuwhaleian.

*Originally posted by Teg
You of all people should not invoke the word fantasy.*

I'm actually the most qualified here TO invoke it.
You're the guy who essentially claims that "under" means "millions of years before."

*But when you look back into history, variations on the two have come and gone.*

Nobody has looked back into "history."
They've looked into fantasy and imagination and have imagined these so-called "variations."

*If you actually bothered to look back through the records*

What "records?"
The imaginary "records" of your feverish mind?

*That you hadn't noticed speaks to the gravity of your psychosis.*

Luckily, I DID notice the "records" are purely imaginary and exist only in the minds of evos and in clever graphics in TV documentaries purporting to "explain" evolution.

*Now you are compensating for your lackings by imaging that you received higher marks in school. On who's authority did this information come to you?*

The instructors who marked the papers.

*Display even a hint of true awareness on the subject, I dare you.*

OK.
You are living in dreamland, nay, fantasyland.

*Originally posted by James R
Please realise that ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance your position.*

I don't do ad hominem attacks.
I do ad dementem attacks.

*you have no substantive answers to the arguments put to you.*

Of course, given mere hot air to debate, I see no need for substantive arguments.
In any case, you demonstrated your own inability to think, so that hardly qualifies as an ad hominem attack, unless you're referring to your own effective demolition of your own position.
 
Ordinarily, a person rests his case AFTER he builds one, not before.

Thus, my point about your arguments being hot air is well taken, and the need for substantive arguments is obviated.

What substantive argument can there be opposing the masterful "I rest my case," when no case has been built?
 
It's moments like these ...

... that compel me to question your reading comprehension, Tony1.
Ordinarily, a person rests his case AFTER he builds one, not before.
Click to expand...
I believe that you're missing a vital point of the chronology. After positing an argument that your dismissive, infantile regard for the topic A) advances your point none, and B) makes you look childish.

I generally would oppose (A) on the grounds that I'm not sure you ever have a point. At least, not one that has anything to do with the topics you post in. It's not uniformly true, but it's damn consistent.

As to point (B), I think it's fair to rest his case: you built it for him in your response. I mean, really, Tony1, when the best response you can manage is, you have demonstrated your own inability to think, it pretty much indicates that you are incapable of seeing the issues to which those thoughts are oriented. Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because you're not paying attention.

What more can be said to drive home the point of your demonstrative behavior? The childishness of your argumentative approach is quite apparent and quite useless.

Or like your exchange with Taken? Is You're not a Christian really, really, really the best you can do when you're confused?

The point of your childishness was proven before JamesR made the point upon which your response allows him to rest. I think he was trying to tell you, as so many people have tried, that you're being ridiculous and making a joke out of Christianity.

--Tiassa :cool:
 
Tony1
First of all I think you have three different Translations not Versions. I believe version is something which has modifications or changes made however I may be wrong. But again the one I have is by Yusuf Ali also.


Yes Quran didn't differe Jesus then any other Prophet. Which make perfect sense to me according to Quran.

Now what the heck is this term?? " Isduddhuwhaleian "?.


"Do you have a djinn whispering the words in your ear"


I have only one What I meant was I never read other version or translation. Now what is Djinn??? You mean Jinn??? Correct?.


" It sort of does say that, but Jesus didn't bring the word of God, he IS the Word of God."


Not sort a it clearly stated it. Now he is word of God or God's word I care less. The point is Christianity failed to prove the authenticity of Bible. I can't believe books and stories by So and so and so and so.. Some one saw a dream and some one heard by so and so etc. You don't even follow jesus's teachings you follow what matthew, paul and mark etc wrote. You take their words on Jesus's word. That is your choice. Absurd however.


Now since you are a devouted christian I believe you have number of bibles if you have noticed, I believe it was KJV Saying by Jesus are marked in red. That make only probably 5% of whole Bible. Rest is all by different people and for many books of Bible we don't even know their writers. Now they are added, subtracted and fixed . You know that and I know that. It is your belief and I have no problem with it. But admit it that you are beliving in not what Jesus try to preach but what Paul, mark, matthew etc preached.



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Re: It's moments like these ...

*Originally posted by tiassa
I think it's fair to rest his case: you built it for him in your response.*

Admittedly, it is "fair" for a person to rest his case any time he deems it necessary to do so.
I just felt that James R chose an unusually poor time to do so, not that there's anything wrong with that.

He made his case, namely...

*"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks...."[snip]

... or perhaps I'm not one of those people. *
James R, 01-06-02 09:16 AM

Rather than gloat over such a definitive proof of one's own, well, antireasoning, I thought it would be more civilized to suggest that he try to build a better case, or a case.

*The point of your childishness was proven before JamesR made the point upon which your response allows him to rest.*

It is just so dashedly difficult to convince anyone of "my" childishness, when the convincer has laid it all on the line and has stated that he is not one of those people who actually thinks.

*I think he was trying to tell you, as so many people have tried, that you're being ridiculous and making a joke out of Christianity.*

I think you are a Johnny-come-lately attempting to jump on JR's antithinking bandwagon.
For a person who is "trying" to tell me something, why would he be so obviously successful in telling me he doesn't think?

*Originally posted by Markx
First of all I think you have three different Translations not Versions.*

Since they are all different, I have three versions which happen to be three translations.

*Which make perfect sense to me according to Quran.*

Ah, so you see the purpose of the Quran, then?
It is designed to make that which makes no sense seem to make perfect sense.

*Isduddhuwhaleian*

Taken's religion - "Is"lam, Hin"du," Bu"ddh"a, q"u"estions, "whale" worshipper, "ian."

*You mean Jinn?*

Djinn, Jinn.

---jin·ni or jin·nee also djin·ni or djin·ny (jn, j-n)
n. pl. jinn, also djinn (jn)

In Muslim legend, a spirit often capable of assuming human or animal form and exercising supernatural influence over people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Arabic jinn, demonic, demon, from jinn, demons, from janna, to cover, conceal. See gnn in Semitic Roots.]---

*I can't believe books and stories by So and so and so and so.*

The Quran was by so and so.

*That make only probably 5% of whole Bible. Rest is all by different people and for many books of Bible we don't even know their writers.*

That's what I was saying earlier.

*But admit it that you are beliving in not what Jesus try to preach but what Paul, mark, matthew etc preached.*

They agree, though.
So what one says, they all say.
 
tony1,

Let's just clarify things and get this particular bee out of your bonnet.

You said:

<i>Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks....
1. that there aren't any corollaries to anything you say
2. that other people can't figure out the ramifications of what you say</i>

I did not want to quote all of that, so instead I quoted enough so that you would be able to follow what I was replying to. Specifically, I quoted the first line - i.e.

<i>Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks....</i>

and replied "...or perhaps I am not one of those people."

Stupidly, I credited you with enough intelligence to be able to realise that I was responding to your particular allegations (numbered 1 and 2 above), and not to a general statement (which you didn't make) regarding my ability to reason.

Clearly you are <b>not</b> intelligent enough to pick up this level of subtlety, and I shall be more careful in future to explain things in a way that your limited mind can understand.

I hope that, having had this point explained at length to you, you will now stop repeating my statement as if I meant something different by it. I must say, though, that I will not be surprised if I discover that you lack the maturity to do that.
 
*Originally posted by James R
tony1,

Let's just clarify things and get this particular bee out of your bonnet.

You said:

"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks....
1. that there aren't any corollaries to anything you say
2. that other people can't figure out the ramifications of what you say"

I did not want to quote all of that, so instead I quoted enough so that you would be able to follow what I was replying to. Specifically, I quoted the first line - i.e.

"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks...."

and replied "...or perhaps I am not one of those people."

Stupidly, I credited you with enough intelligence to be able to realise that I was responding to your particular allegations (numbered 1 and 2 above), and not to a general statement (which you didn't make) regarding my ability to reason.*

And being "stupidly" as you describe yourself, you didn't seem to notice the extremely subtle effect of snipping those two particular "allegations" out of my statement.

You actually proved that what I said was true, and by saying what you said, you actually proved that you don't actually think.
If you did actually think you would have been able to see the ramifications of "snipping" at the critical point.

*Clearly you are <b>not</b> intelligent enough to pick up this level of subtlety, and I shall be more careful in future to explain things in a way that your limited mind can understand.*

Clearly, you are not as intelligent as you think and the level of subtlety in my statements completely escapes you, so you can count on looking foolish in the future.

*I hope that, having had this point explained at length to you, you will now stop repeating my statement as if I meant something different by it.*

I find it truly amusing that you would continue denying that you "meant something different" when it is clear from the statement you edited that you had no idea what it meant and that editing it like that would in fact both prove my point and reveal your faliure to think EXACTLY as you yourself state it.

*I must say, though, that I will not be surprised if I discover that you lack the maturity to do that. *

Aww, appeal to emotion.
I wonder if you truly do not understand what you did.
Given your previous track record, I'd say you have no clue, which is why I will repeat it from time to time whenever you get to thinking that you have some ability to think.
 
<i>And being "stupidly" as you describe yourself, you didn't seem to notice the extremely subtle effect of snipping those two particular "allegations" out of my statement.</i>

*sigh*

Wrong again, tony1. You really are very thick. Of course I knew it could be interpreted that way, if somebody was childish enough to want to do it. I credited you with far too much intelligence and maturity, but I've learnt my lesson now.

<i>Clearly, you are not as intelligent as you think and the level of subtlety in my statements completely escapes you, so you can count on looking foolish in the future.</i>

You've never made a subtle statement. Most of your statements are knee-jerk reactions to things beyond your comprehension. I can picture you sitting at your computer, slicing and dicing posts and adding in a sentence here and there which you think actually addresses a point, whereas in fact practically everything you write consists of easy shots at matters of exact wording and composition - something your average eight year old could do with little training. Since you have no originality yourself, you need to draw on the originality of others for whatever limited inspiration you have.

<i>...I will repeat it from time to time whenever you get to thinking that you have some ability to think.</i>

Yes, I expected that of you, tony1. You're a very simple creature to predict.
 
*Originally posted by James R
You really are very thick. Of course I knew it could be interpreted that way,*

It's a little late to argue that now.
I laid a trap for you and you fell into it, and now you are trying to make it look as though you "understood" my comments.

I wonder if you realize that you are now proving that you still don't understand my statements.

*I credited you with far too much intelligence and maturity, but I've learnt my lesson now.*

That is called "argument by appeal to emotion."
I mention that so you won't do it in the future.

*You've never made a subtle statement.*

They're all subtle.
You are merely too stupid to recognize that, oh excuse me, you react to the subtlety by accidentally missing it.

*Most of your statements are knee-jerk reactions to things beyond your comprehension. I can picture you sitting at your computer, slicing and dicing posts and adding in a sentence here and there which you think actually addresses a point, whereas in fact practically everything you write consists of easy shots*

If they're so "easy" why don't you try a few?
Claiming "superior" maturity at this point will make you look like an idiot, since you made the claim that they were easy.

*at matters of exact wording and composition - something your average eight year old could do with little training.*

I have to admit that an 8 year old could in fact make all the statements an evolutionist with multiple PhDs could.
I admit that it takes little training to turn your average 8 year old into a PhD in, say, evolutionary biology.

*Since you have no originality yourself, you need to draw on the originality of others for whatever limited inspiration you have.*

There is something to be said for playing off what others give you in the way of comedic material.
It's like improv, it hones the senses.

Speaking of originality, the concept of the crap mountains isn't one you've run across before.
Where was your originality when you really needed it?
"Pooh-pooh," doesn't qualify as original, you know.

*Yes, I expected that of you, tony1. You're a very simple creature to predict. *

"Predict" actually refers to the future.
Saying you predicted something after the fact is called something else.
 
I said: <i>... whereas in fact practically everything you write consists of easy shots</i>.

The whole of your previous post just goes to prove my point once again.

<i>If they're so "easy" why don't you try a few?</i>

Because I have this thing called integrity. You might want to look it up.
 
*Originally posted by James R
Because I have this thing called integrity.*

I'd beg to differ.
In actual fact, since this is a debate, if I present arguments, you shoot them down if you can, and vice versa.

When you define my "shots" as easy, you're pretty much telling the world what is happening.
If you could take easy shots, you would, since you've been trying to, anyway.

The point of all this is that, integrity doesn't consist of calling your opponent "thick," "silly," "childish," etc. anyway, so your "integrity" argument goes nowhere.
Furthermore, your debating style appears to be to complain about your opponent's style as though that has something to do with anything.

Real integrity means ignoring potential slights and dealing with the issues at hand.
It also doesn't mean complaining because your opponent rejects your thoughts, since that is what happens during debate.
Otherwise, it would be called "agreement."
 
tony1,

<i>In actual fact, since this is a debate, if I present arguments, you shoot them down if you can, and vice versa.</i>

1. You haven't debated anything so far.
2. You have presented no arguments - just unsupported assertions.
3. When there is nothing to shoot down, no shooting is needed.
 
And you're complaining that I'm taking easy shots?
What heavy-duty arguments have you presented that should require, uh, difficult shots?
 
Teg said:
Some time ago a huge list of biblical contradictions was posted. None of these were ever disputed. KalvinB complained of some difficulty with the size of the piece. Well this one is short. I only hope that its brevity pleases KalvinB.

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20

"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5

So what can you offer to shed light on these two statements, both from your book and in obvious opposition? The language is similar but the concepts are diametrically opposed.
Click to expand...

Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

So how do I respond you now?
 
enton: Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

So how do I respond you now?
*************
M*W: You don't. You've been caught resurrecting really old threads in order to make stupid comments. If you don't have anything new to say, then get lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top