Why is the Bible wrong? (page 5)

Xander

By the way we are not an "Atheist society" in fact religious revival has occured as recent polls show. As much as 93 percent believe in a God in the U.S This compared to 67 percent in 1972 poll

Kinda OT, but this always does torque me off. It's a very common argument among the bible-thumpers..."Well, prove just doesn't exist because 'our atheist society' is holding it back" or "You just doubt because of the pressure from 'our atheist society'" blahblahblah.

Sorry, but the sad and frightening truth is, most Americans claim to be christian, or at least, believe in god.

There IS no 'atheist majority' here. If all science and archeology finds counters the bible, it's not because of the 'atheists', it's because IT DOESN'T EXIST.

StinkyPantz

Hooberus-

You said:

StinkyPantz, you would probably have more success getting your friend out of the JWs if you concentrate on disproving the WT Society than on trying to disprove the Bible. The issues of faith in a religious organization vs, faith in the Bible are two separate things

You are right, a religious organization and faith in the Bible are TWO separate things. Just like I was speaking of TWO separate people. One person was a JW friend and I am in the process of telling him why the Watchtower is wrong. Then get this, my other friend, not a JW was asking about why the Bible is wrong. I didn't think I said it was one person.

As far as the Ark's dimensions not being able to hold all the species of animals, I have researched this. But just like most arguments between evolutionists and creationists, you can find research for both sides, so don't act like the research is only on your side.

hooberus

rem, here is your complete post from which I quoted from:

Hooberus,
Read the scripture again:
Matthew 1:21-23
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, [3] because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" [4] --which means, "God with us."
Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture. The writer of Matthew is just trying to force a prophecy in the story where there is none. He is trying to emphasize the point that Jesus was born of a virgin, not that he is called Immanuel. As was brought out before, even this interpretation is based on a flawed translation of the word 'virgin'. This has already been discussed in this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=44171&site=3&page=2
If you would like to go into any one of these alleged prophecies in detail then please provide your evidence and we can discuss it. Let's do one at a time, though.
rem

I then posted this part of it here on this topic:
Matthew 1:21-23
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, [3] because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" [4] --which means, "God with us."
Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture.

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 18:12:35

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 18:16:13

hooberus

You then said the following and accused me of being "intellectually dishonest."

hooberus,

I like how you selectively cut and paste my quotes. You have proven to be an intellectually dishonest apologist. I recall from that thread that you could not back up your assertion that I was wrong. I stand by my statement - Jesus is not called Immanuel in the NT by his contemporaries. The book of Matthew was written years after the alleged events. You have never provided any evidence that Jesus' contemporaries called him Immanuel. Here is the thread for all to see:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=44945&page=2&site=3

Here is my quote from that thread which you never rebutted:

The writer of Matthew did not directly call Jesus Immanuel. He juxtaposed the alleged prophecy against the account of Jesus' birth and let the reader make the inference, as you are clearly doing.
The problem is that even if the writer of Matthew did directly call Jesus Immanuel, it is immaterial because he provides absolutely no evidence that his contemporaries did (the 'they' in the scriptures). Remember, Matthew was written well after Jesus' death, so even if the writer of this book called Jesus Immanuel, it means nothing.

With the full context, Tower Man can make his own mind up over who is objective and who is not.

rem

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 18:20:6

Edited by - hooberus on 3 February 2003 18:21:46

rem

How, exactly, is posting the thread URL so that anyone can read the entire exchange and then augmenting that reference with my own words from that very same thread, which you never rebutted, in any way dishonest? All I did is provide added context where you selectively misquoted. There was no more context to provide from your end because you never rebutted the assertion!

rem

hooberus

Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture. The writer of Matthew is just trying to force a prophecy in the story where there is none. He is trying to emphasize the point that Jesus was born of a virgin, not that he is called Immanuel. As was brought out before, even this interpretation is based on a flawed translation of the word 'virgin'. This has already been discussed in this thread:

While I did not quote your complete paragraph (this is not necessary when quoting someone), the three sentences which I quoted accurately represent your basic beliefs.

hooberus

How, exactly, is posting the thread URL so that anyone can read the entire exchange and then augmenting that reference with my own words from that very same thread, which you never rebutted, in any way dishonest? All I did is provide added context where you selectively misquoted. There was no more context to provide from your end because you never rebutted the assertion!
rem

I never said that posting the thread URL is dishonest. Remember you are the one accusing me of being dishonest by misquoting you (which I did not.)

rem

Hooberus,

I'm accusing you of being intellectually dishonest because you are guilty of using a Straw Man argument. I never claimed you misquoted me, just that you made my position look weak by not providing the other supporting evidence I provided in the thread.

It's obvious that you were trying to demonstrate that I was not objective in my posts about messianic prophecy. By posting my remarks out of context you nearly succeeded. I posted the 'rest of the story' so there would be no confusion.

This is silly. You are so plaguy sometimes.

rem

p.s. I blelieve I was responding to some remarks that you have since edited out, so that's why there may be some confusion.

Edited by - rem on 3 February 2003 18:56:28

hooberus

How, exactly, is posting the thread URL so that anyone can read the entire exchange and then augmenting that reference with my own words from that very same thread, which you never rebutted, in any way dishonest? All I did is provide added context where you selectively misquoted. There was no more context to provide from your end because you never rebutted the assertion!
rem

rem, you did claim that I misquoted you!

rem

Hooberus,

My bad. I meant to say "selectively quoted". I think it was a typo. You are correct, you never misquoted me (in this thread, hehe ).

rem

Why is the Bible wrong?

Share this