What if the athiests are wrong & there REALLY is God?

Um, yes you do. Your position is (and always has been) that the bible is true. That is the affirmative position. In a debate, the person (or side) making the affirmative claim must prove first.

I am merely telling you that whenever you think you have some evidence, bring it forth. I already know that the bible is wrong on these points, and I want to hear how you can explain the claims in light of the data that contradicts them.

Heh. Nice try.

EL911, you did more than just pose the original question. You have claimed (in this thread, as well as in other threads) that the bible is true. Fine. I've identified a minimum of five areas where science, history, and archaelogy demonstrate the bible is wrong.

Yeah, right. "Just scientific opinion/editorials". That's like saying, "just an atomic bomb - nothing to worry about." You're a riot.

Science, history, archaeology are the only ways to establish that these claims are true or false. Your contempt of them indicates that you don't care what the data says at all, in which case your mind is made up and proof is irrelevant to you. Which I already suspected, by the way.

But in any event - if I were you, I would first consult the Biblical Archaeology Review, and index it by subject. It will quickly demonstrate that there is no evidence for Hebrews in Egypt, nor for any Exodus.

Then after that, you should consult Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000 – 586 BCE,. This book was the winner of the 1991 Biblical Archaeology Society Award for Best Scholarly Book on Archaeology. It is also a volume in the Anchor Bible series. It should be pointed out that its author, Amihai Mazar, is the head of the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Again: no evidence for Hebrews in Egypt, nor for any Exodus.

As for the creation of the world and the timelines, there is exhaustive evidence from several fields (biology, physics, geology, astronomy, etc. This evidence shows that not only are the details of Genesis flatly incorrect, but the imeframe (whether meant as duration of the event, or as the sequence of each event) is also wrong. There is an abundance of evidence posted at talkorigins.org, if you have the courage to read it.

But now that I've told you why these biblical claims are wrong, will we be seeing your defense of the bible anytime soon?

Perhaps you'll even get brave, and post it on infidels.org? Hmm?

 

Rabbits chew cud: http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm

Don't see athing about the "first" rainbow:

An insect's four legs: http://www.tektonics.org/buglegs.html

We all have our opinions, don't we?

 

1. First, it is not a rabbit. It is a hyrax.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan00.html</a>

2. Second, "cud" is not poop; if it were, there is a perfectly good Hebrew word for it. The word here, 'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does not mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again.

Rainbows require rain. Before that time, there was (supposedly) no rain:

GEN 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
GEN 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

The author of this site has made a key error. First, he claims that:

The "feet" are being differentiated from the "legs above the feet" because of their difference in function. They are legs, but in a different sense than the "four" legs which are just called "feet." We are being told of two types of legs: The "on all four" legs (which are nowhere called legs; they are only called "feet" [v. 23]), and the "leaping legs."

The author is trying to say that the two jumping legs of a grasshopper or cricket don't count as feet, because of their different function. The problem with this defense is that it backfires on him.

If we accept that the word "foot" only applies to non-jumping legs that are used for walking, then grasshoppers have four feet, and two jumping legs. Flying insects such as bees and wasps would be unclean, because they lack jumping legs. So they are not permitted to be eaten.

If that is the case, then this next verse makes no sense:

23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Using the definition from this website, where jumping legs don't count as feet: since bees and wasps don't have jumping feet, that means they fall into the category of "all other flying things". But bees and wasps have six feet - not four, as the verse states.

Therefore the bible verse is in error.

I think the point was that history shows that languages evolved in a totally different fashion. Comparing that history to the Tower of Babel story is what prompted the poster to say "ridiculous".

[ March 27, 2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Big John Trapper ]

 

It must be hard to keep all that knowledge in your head John! I mean, really, now your an expert on ancient Greek as well??? I mean, not just the language, but the culture as well! That's amazing. You should work for NASA or a government think tank or something! Or maybe you'll just argue any point to get a rise out of someone. I'll flip a coin and see.

I mean, hey, I'm just a dumb ol' hillbilly and I own a rabbit (the next one I'll name Hyrax) and the ancient Hebrews were no better than I at observing animal behavior!

But just to clue you in, it doesn't require rain for a rainbow. It only requires water vapor.

Now, if you like I'll find some other websites with the same info by different writers that may please you more, because after all, I do want you happy!

 

The Old Testament is a Hebrew document, Clint. Of course, the Sept. and MT are both in Greek, but the original text is Hebrew - as well as the Qumran texts we have.

As for keeping all this knowledge in my head - it isn't really that hard. I heard these same arguments from creationists and fundamentalists while growing up. And then, after seeing those same arguments re-appear on the internet for years and years -- well; it isn't that hard to keep the rebuttals in mind.

Maybe if christians had better arguments, it wouldn't be so easy to "keep all this information in my head".

I think the more important question is: if you think the bible is inerrant, then how can you explain the mistakes and contradictions?

1. Name your animals whatever you like.

2. Perhaps the ancient Hebrews weren't tht good at observing animal behavior. People have strange beliefs about animal behavior. And the farther back in history you go, the stranger some of the beliefs can be. It used to be believed in England as late as the 17th century that men and animals mated to form mermaids, and that dragons roamed the hillsides. There was a belief in colonial America that dark colored geese came from plums that fell from a plum tree. Even in this century, my grandmother used to tell me that the reason an animal's eyes shined when you pointed a flashlight at them was because the animal was empty; it has no soul. She also used to warn us not to point at a pumpkin on the vine, because it would wither and die if we did that.

Yessir. There are lots of strange beliefs. And some of them make it into holy books.

Or, perhaps the original text did say "six" - but the first scribe who wrote the text down simply made a mistake and put "four" down instead. That's possible, because the word "four" occurs several times in the preceding verses. If that scribe made a mistake and his attention wandered for a little bit, who knows what? And maybe the rest of the Hebrews were too scared to fix the mistake, because they felt it would be tampering with the holy text. In that fashion, many mistakes have been transmitted in the biblical text.

Any of these explanations is preferable to standing there, insisting that this really isn't a mistake - when clearly it is.

Well, thanks for "clueing me in", Clint. But a rainbow does require rain - provided you want that rainbow to appear in the sky, which is a requirement of the text. And considering that the earth had (allegedly) just suffered torrential rain showers for 40 days and 40 nights and was covered with water for even longer than that - well, I doubt that the author had "water vapor" in mind when talking about a rainbow. The connection between the judgement of rain, and the promise of no further destruction by rain (the rainbow) is pretty obvious.

But if you think that water vapor is all that was required, then why the big announcement from God that he was going to put a rainbow in the sky? Surely the inhabitants would have seen one before.

If you want to make me happy, then search scientific journals and peer-reviewed materials for such information.

 

Who said I thought it was inerrant?

One other thing:

So you are saying that rain has to strike the earth for water vapor to be present in the atmosphere?

 

You did get me on the "Greek," though. I knew it but mistyped it. It would be hard for anyone to claim to be an expert on either culture.

 

Standard Baptist theology. You own a Scofield Reference bible, don't you? Autographed by someone from Tennessee Temple?

Do I have to report you to the Baptist Police, Clint?

To form a rainbow? There has to be enough water vapor in the clouds to form rain. A little bit of moisture isn't going to do it - especially not in the Mideast. But of course, if that amount were present, then the rain would be able to go ahead and fall.

You and I know that water vapor in the atmosphere can cause rainbows (under certain conditions). But in those conditions, the clouds have enough moisture to quickly turn into rain. If you really want to get technical about it, you could get a rainbow from the fog and mist that rises in the morning - if you viewed it at the correct angle to the morning sun. But in the text here, the rainbow is defined as "my bow in the cloud". So I think the location of the rainbow is pretty clear.

3. And again: if water vapor in the atmosphere had ever formed a rainbow during Noah's time, then why the big announcement from God that he was going to put a rainbow in the sky? Surely the inhabitants would have seen one before - from the water vapor. Look at the text again:

The phrase "I do set my bow in the cloud" indicates that it was the first time that the bow would have occurred.

I have the sinking suspicion that I have not answered your question, though....?

[ March 27, 2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Big John Trapper ]

 

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you...busy at work for the most part and Internet at home was down last night.

1. You ask the wrong questions. You asked me to provide evidence of the above events. The problem is not in providing evidence, but in providing suffienct evidence to form a correct deduction. Lack of evidence in an event does not imply it did not happen. In addition, not having the evidence yet (we just haven't advanced enough or gathered enough information to formulate that theory) also does not imply it did not happen...just that we can't PROVE or DISPROVE it happened.

2. The same goes for the Hyrax you suggested. The entire premise behind the II argument is that we know every animal that inhabited that area. That is simply impossible to determine by the very spotty fossil record and other sources.

3. Almost every culture has a story of a world wide flood. This is purely circumstantial, but it is pretty good for starters. These might give some insight into other valid theories.

http://www.trueorigin.org/cfjrgulf.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v8n1_chalk.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm

4. The tower of Babel and Isrealites in Egypt has plety of evidence...unfortunately...the one piece I wanted to give you I can't find my bookmark for. Must be at home. Here are some others as well.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n1_moses.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html (Lots of articles)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4215cen_s1998.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n2_jericho.asp

Someone also posted something about languages.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4190cen_d1999.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv14n2_language.pdf

Also, you are making some assumptions about the bible.

1. Everything has to be literal. This may not necassarily be so (6 days could be figurative)
2. There are errors in translations, so the original must be faulty as well.
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_02_02.html
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_01.html

I think this post is long enough for now.

Again, I apologize for the length and not getting back to everyone sooner.

jason

 

David,

You are absolutely correct. I was rather rude and condescending in my post (was not my intention, but regardless). I apologize.

jason

[ March 28, 2002, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;But just to clue you in, it doesn't require rain for a rainbow. It only requires water
vapor.&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;

I think you are mistaken on this, Clint. Light is separated into its colors, the rainbow, because it is bent as it passes through liquid drops of water, that serve as a prism. Water vapor alone won't make a rainbow.

 

What is water vapor if not fine droplets? Fine, I'll concede water droplets to vapor if it makes the explanation more rational for you, but either way, they are suspended not falling rain. Here's a link from Scientific American that states the same thing. http://www.sciam.com/askexpert/physics/physics45/physics45.html

One ususally does not see a rainbow DURING the rain. They see it after and they most certainly do occur without rain. If anyone is still in doubt when I get home from work, I'll look around some more, but we can only split the hairs so long. Prismatic effect is not reliant on precipitation.

 

And I responded: your "what if" question is impossible to be true, because of the errors we know in the text. So I answered your question.

Did you have another question to ask?

There are no consequences when the threat is non-existent.

Yes. Faith is what religious people use to convince them that facts are not true.

God does not exist (at least, not the God described in the bible). Given that fact, why would I be angry at a non-existent entity?

Actually, I answered this on another thread - the closest I come to belief is a respect and awe for nature, and a feeling of how precious and fleeting every moment in life is.

 

In the interest of balance, here is the opposite view:

http://answering-islam.org/

A Christianity website to answer Islam.</font>[/QUOTE]However, this is not quite balance, for at least two reasons:

1. The website that I gave is merely an information resource about Islam. It compares the views of Islam and Christianity, because they come up frequently as a "frequently asked question" (FAQ). The website that EL911 gave you is specifically targeted at trying to refute Islam and shoot down its beliefs. It's similar to anti-Mormon sites run by the same kind of narrow-minded people. In that respect, her website is not a "balance" of the one I presented. Had I presented a website that shot down Christianity, then hers would be balanced - http://www.answering-christianity.com/, for example.

2. The original question revolved around what Islam thinks about such-and-such. To find out what a Muslim thinks about a topic, you need to go directly to the horse's mouth (a Muslim book or website) and ask them. Going to a christian website to find out what a Muslim thinks is totally backward. I would not go to a Muslim site to ask about basic christian beliefs; I would go to a christian site instead.

So as we can see, instead of providing balanced information about the question of the Trinity, for example, EL911's site is actually intended to refute the belief without presenting it objectively.

Not surprised.

 

(1)

Incorrect. The problem is most certainly in providing evidence. That is the burden of proof for someone taking the affirmative position. And, for the first four items above, the evidence will have to be extraordinary. WHy? Because they claims are absolutely fantastic; and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Wrong, for at least two reasons:

1. In this case, you are taking the affirmative position that these events did not happen. If you are arguing your point from the view that the event in question happened, but there is simply no evidence available to support it, then you cannot establish the affirmative truth of a claim in that fashion. Moreover, you are sticking an I.O.U. into the "evidence pot", and asking your audience to just trust you on it. You can't get away with that in a courtroom; and it also doesn't work to establish the truth of any scientific or historical claim.

2. Second (and more to the point) there is an abundance of contradictory evidence (i.e., evidence which could not exist, if your alleged events had taken place). So in that case, a lack of evidence, combined with contradictory evidence, most certainly does mean that the event(s) in question did not take place.

Yes it does. See the above.

I might also point out that, given your extremely loose and flexible guidelines, we could never rule *anything* out. "The world was created by a giant dodo egg that cracked and the universe came spilling out. No, I don't have evidence, but that's not a problem - I'm sure it's out there, we just haven't found it yet. As soon as we do, we'll be able to formulate a theory." Or, "Napoleon Bonaparte was really a space invader from Alpha Centauri. I haven't got evidence right now, here today, you understand, but I'm sure that I'll be able to find it sometime in the future." Obviously both claims are nonsense. But under your guidelines, scientists and historians would be required to treat such preposterous nonsense with the same respect as skilled research and peer-reviewed material. There is a point where we can say that a particular claim is so full of BS that it should be soundly rejected.

Well, in the first place, no one except you (and some other fundamentalists) are suggesting that this animal is extinct. The animal in question, the hyrax (shaphan), has been indentified as a hyrax and continues to exist today. Here is a picture:
http://www.awf.org/wildlives/142

The fact that the hyrax is the named animal in Leviticus is made clear even in Britannica:

Everyone is satisfied that this animal is a hyrax, and that the hyrax exists. The only reason you are suggesting a hypothetical extinct animal that no one has ever found any evidence for, is to rescue this verse from being labeled as incorrect.

So if you think that this Hebrew word means some never-before-discovered extinct animal, then you need to show:

1. some linguistic proof that it refers to an extinct animal;
2. proof that the extinct animal ever lived - and the "spottiness" of the fossil record is not a defense for you here, since the animal would have been alive during historic times in Israel and the surrounding areas, so there would be references in written texts of Israel and other surrounding nations;
3. if "shaphan" does refer to this hypothetical extinct animal, then the Hebrew word for "hyrax" must be something else besides shaphan, so you'll have to find that other Hebrew word and produce it for me as well

Good luck.

[ March 28, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Big John Trapper ]

 

[ March 28, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Joseph Botwinick ]

 

See ya later Omnidon.

[ March 28, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Joseph Botwinick ]