Dayton3/Tracker/Dayton Kitchen’s Greatest Hits

The Bible is full of very generalist statements meant to convey things like great size or scope

Like "covered all the Earth"

We commonly use such statements in our language today.

People say something like "Lady Gaga is known all over the world".

Does anyone reading that seriously believe that some ancient tribesman in the Owen Stanley Mountains in New Guineau who haven't had any contact with the outside world since World War Two know who Lady Gaga is?

Of course not.

Genesis 7:19 certainly makes that case.

This is dumb even for you, which is saying a lot.

New Guinians absolutely know who Lady Gaga is. Just because you didn't until last night doesn't mean you can disparage the New Guinians.

That's not what that phrase means, you dense idiot.

You're so smart. Explain it then.

You're a so-called teacher and that has to be explained to you??? Sheesh!!

OK, lemme give it a shot. Lady Gaga is an international star. So it can be said that she is known all over the world.

Every person living has heard of Lady Gaga? Did you interview every living person on Earth?

@Kilometres O'Brien said that all the Bible is made up, how does that explain the existence of real countries mentioned in the Bible? If it's all made up, then Egypt shouldn't exist.

You're being as dense as @Dayton3.

For the third time, a fictional story can still have real people and real places. That alone does not make the story true.

In Star Trek, Starfleet HQ and the Federation are based on Earth. Steven Hawking has been on Star Trek.

I'll ask you two simple questions.

1. Do you think Star Trek is real or fictional?

2. How can Earth or Steven Hawking exist if Star Trek isn't real?

Both you and @Dayton3 really don't grasp the English language, do you?

You're the one who said it was all made up. That would include places.

No, it wouldn't.

And with this post, thank you for asking my rhetorical question in my post above yours.

Fuckis the matter wit you? Where do you get that it means every person living?

Come on dude...

Shit is real childish...."but you said...." My god man!!!

That guy is really good with "alternate facts"! He takes ignorance and historical revisionism to levels even Muad Dib couldn't have dreamed of. An excellent example of the principle of "accepting an argument, no matter how blatantly fallacious, as long as it appears to support the conclusion we want to believe" that I mentioned in Mewa's thread.

It that's the kind of ridiculous propaganda it takes to discredit Christianity, then I guess there must be a pretty strong case for Christianity, right?

Pure nonsense. Over 99.99% of what happens in history leaves no trace even a century or two later. To conclude that the events in question were "made up" due to a lack of substatial evidence shows a dismal ignorance of history.

Give it. (And it better not be arguments from silence.)

Please demonstrate such differences. I daresay I know the New Testament better than just about anyone else on the board, and I do not find any of it incompatible with any other part.

The Bible itself is internally inconsistent, and is also inconsistent with what we know about science and history. Some examples:

• In Genesis alone, there is a ton of good material to work with. First of all, the dating of Genesis conflicts with what we know about the history of homo sapiens and the species before us.
• God creates day and night on the first day of creation, but doesn't create the sun until the fourth day (impossible). And also plants arrive a day before he creates the sun--how could these plants have survived without photosynthesis?
• The Earth was allegedly created before the stars, which contradicts what we know about the universe and the formation of stars and planets. Also, the Earth is created to be immovable and fixed, which conflicts with what we know about gravity and the solar system.
• Birds and whales allegedly came about before insects and reptiles, which conflicts with what we know about natural history.
• Also in Genesis, trees were create before humans, and then a chapter later, humans were created before trees. (not only internally inconsistent, but inconsistent historically and scientifically).
• In Genesis/Exodus, Jews were present in Egypt somewhere around 1400-1200 BCE. Technically, Jews weren't around until the Kingdom of Judah, which started around 100-800 BCE. So Exodus is made up. (Beyond this, the sudden disappearance of 600,000 Jews from Egypt would have left archaeological records and caused a massive demographic shift leading to a host of issues in Ancient Egypt--but I digress, because you did not ask for "arguments from silence").
• In the New Testament, the various gospel accounts are internally inconsistent. Add to that the fact that they were largely written an entire generation or two after the alleged life of Jesus, and they are not reliable as primary historical documents.
• Throughout the Bible, the Earth is inferred to be flat (e.g. a mountain or tree so high that it could be viewed by all four corners of the Earth).

I could go on, but it would take more work and honestly I think that's enough to go off of for now.

Why do you take what is written in the Bible regarding very general subjects as literal?

Do you take it literally that "Lady Gaga is known all over the world"?

Thought not.

As for "internal inconsistency".

I've seen more than one history textbook that lists the invasion of Normandy BEFORE the Battle of Stalingrad.

Can you explain that?

And before you make a smart ass comment about my state and its schools remember that virtually all our textbooks come from California and Texas.

Goddamn, do we still have that horse-beating smiley?

I didn't know we had one with your face on it?

I don't take it literally. Again, it's all made up.

You really do not understand words.

No, but we're not talking about that. Try to control your ADD. That other texts may be internally inconsistent does not excuse the litany of inconsistencies in the Bible.

Fair enough, but your education comes from Arkansas. Your textbooks could be published by Oxford or Harvard scholars, and you still wouldn't understand what they say.

We'll start with this. You obviously don't know how to read material written in a culture vastly different from your own.

What do you suppose the governor of Kinshasa province meant a few years ago when he tried to forbid spirits of death from moving around the city?

Have you ever seen a sunrise?

If you can answer those questions correctly, then you will be in a position to read Genesis chapters 1 to 11 without sounding like a totally uninformed person who never even imagined that other cultures might have other ways of expressing themselves.

Pure, made-up nonsense. Genesis and Exodus do not say that Jews were present in Egypt. They say Israelites were. If you have to make up information to prove your case, Mr. Trump, then your case isn't very strong.

Since you made the point yourself, there is little need to belabour the point of how weak an argument from silence is, especially for an event that happened 3500 years ago in a country that wouldn't exactly have made a monument to the event (and about which we have very little informtion from that period other than monuments).

This is simply your opinion. You stated that "there is much conflicting evidence in the historical record" to show that the Bible is not true. The fact that different witnesses see different aspects of events is hardly the same thing.

The synoptics were written 25 to 30 years after the events in question, based on the accounts of eyewitnesses. John was written somewhat later, but also by an eyewitness. In a culture that is not as steeped in reading and writing as we are, acurately remembering events is hardly a feat. (I have had experience with this myself in third-world countries.) And in any case, an unsubstantiated allegation is hardly a demonstration that "there is much conflicting evidence in the historical record." It is just a case of saying, "I will reject this data because it does not suit me."

Again, have you ever seen a sunset? Tell me what it was like.

Yes, it is quite enough to demonstrate the point I made in Mewa's thread about fact-checking: People are willing to accept arguments, no matter how weak, that appear to support the conclusions they want to hold. You have adequately demonstrated that you are no historian, that you have little to no experience in intercultural literary analysis, and that your grasp of the basis science of semantics is spotty.

Please excuse me for not being impressed with your "proof" that the Bible is "all made up."

Well, not ALL.
Just the magical bullshit.
And the acid-trippy shit towards the end.
And I'm sure rapey adultery-y murdery pieces of shit like the biblical kings existed.
Whether they had those particular names, and those exact backstories is up for debate.
And I'm sure they were treated like heroes, because the alternative was death.
No shortage of that bullshit going on in history.
So, yeah, there's probably some truth in there.
Like, in Spider-Man comics.
A city called New York exists.
And Stan Lee is a real guy that you can walk up to and meet.
Doesn't mean I'm gonna try to stick to walls, or demand legislation against pumpkin bombs.

If you ask me for evidence of where the Bible is inconsistent with history, and then you summarily dismiss a few of the many very clear inconsistencies in Genesis as being ignorant of other cultures, then we cannot have a rational discussion on this topic. I'm not talking about sunsets. I'm not talking about spirits in the Congo. I'm talking about very clear instances where humans were very obviously guessing about the origins of the universe and life on Earth, and how demonstrably wrong they were. Other religions in different cultures guessed wrong on our origins as well. That's not attributed to cultural difference, that's being wrong.

And you are splitting hairs on the Jew/Israelite distinction. "Israel" and "Israelites" did not exist during thr events in Exodus. They don't appear in the historical record until around 1200 BCE--well after the alleged events of Exodus.

And the gospels were not written 25-30 years after the alleged life of Jesus. Most dating places them 40-60 years later, well after the deaths of everyone involved. You'll forgive me if I don't take third and fourth-hand accounts ad historical evidence.

^ All mere unsubstantiated allegations. Hardly any kind of proof of anything.

And you wonder why those of us who actually have come to know God do not think that those of you who think you can "prove" we're wrong are not impressed with your claims.

But do tell me about sunsets; that actually interests me. Have you ever seen a sunset? Have you ever told anyone you saw a sunset? (And just because you claim that's not what we're talking about doesn't make it so. That is in fact very much on topic.)