i believe there are many on this forum who are not aware of the many online bibles from which they could almost effortless copy verses to paste into their arguments.
when one refers to a particular verse in a particular book, few readers have the patience to go seach through the whole book.. the online source i use is called "bible gateway.
" it provides several different versions of the bible, and offers word search, which is an indispensible tool for those who take their bible research seriously.. bible gateway is at http://bible.gospelcom.net/.
How could I have forgotten to mention the BlueLetter Bible? If you need the Greek or Hebrew origins of the English translations, this site is indispensible. Also very valuable are written and audio commentaries. This site is a must for serious Bible researchers. Thanks for mentioning it, belbab.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the following is excerpted from an article by frank r. zindler, "did jesus exist?
" at http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html.
emphasis is added.. john e. remsburg, in his classic book the christ: a critical review and analysis of the evidence of his existence (the truth seeker company, ny, no date, pp.
Does anyone know what the proof is of 2nd century authorship of the nt?
You'll find the answer to that question in any number of articles in the "Bible Origins" section of my web page.
As for the gospels, scholarly consensus is that "Mark" was the first gospel, and the authors of "Matthew" and "Luke" largely copied what Mark wrote, much of it verbatim, modified it to suit their personal theologies, and added some material of their own. Nobody knows who these authors were.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
I know you do not like others here answering questions you ask AC.
That's not a problem now; you can take over for the defense, if you wish. You've already seen the many points I've made in the prosecution of my case, so I won't repeat all of them here. Instead, I will focus my attention on what the inspired Bible writers knew, and didn't know.
First, if it's true that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that God guided his writers as they were recording their understanding of one of the most important events since the Creation, then surely the all-powerful God would have made certain that we received an accurate description of his intentions and will.
How many more functions of the Bible are more important than informing mankind all about the circumstances leading up to the selection of the individuals who would be the parents of all of us? It is evident that this function was not served by the Bible, if what aChristian believes is true.
12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. (Genesis 6:12-13)There can be no doubt that based on the Genesis verse above, and the killing flood which followed, countless Bible readers have believed that God intended for all of the people on earth to die except Noah and the seven others; the Bible is virtually crystal-clear on that issue, no matter what some misguided believers may think.
Now, here is my main point: If God had wanted us to know that he really did not want those people to die, but had hoped they would repent so he could save them, he would have made one-hundred percent sure the Genesis writer told us so, don't you think? God would have wanted us to have no doubt that insofar as his selection of those who would restart civilization, he was willing to be a forgiving god, if that's really what he planned to be in the days leading up to the flood, don't you agree? Why would he wish to keep this secret, or at least so well-hidden that only one person and three of his nameless "Bible scholar" friends four thousand years later would see "hints" of his "real" intentions?
It would be immensely important theologically for all Christians to know that God had hoped to restart civilization with more than just Noah and his family; doesn't that make sense? So, why isn't this told to us directly--at least somewhere in the Bible, if it's true? Isn't the likely explanation that it's not true, and that the Bible writers really did want us to know that the ark was large because it was supposed to hold two of every kind of animal on the face of the globe, not because God wanted to have room for a horde of repentant sinners?
The fact that we find no words in Genesis which explain what aChristian thinks was God's true will toward the pre-flood dwellers of the "land of Noah" should tell any objective, clear-thinking person that God probably didn't feel this way at all, that he did not plan to allow repentant sinners into the ark.
Now, Faithful, please try to answer all of my questions above clearly, then choose. Which do you think is the more likely scenario:
1. The Genesis writer told us the ark was large because he wanted us to know that it had to accommodate two of every type of animal on the face of the globe, or
2. aChristian's Peter-Preacher-of Righteousness theory?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
Let me explain why I think aChristian's theory about the ark is so silly.
First, his argument is based on several layers of speculation. To counter the skeptics' claim that evidence shows that the highest mountains on earth could not have been under twenty feet of water, aChristian argues that the flood was local, not global.
As evidence of this he offers Peter's claim that Noah preached righteousness, and assumes that this preaching must have been done to others in what aChristian calls the "land of Noah, " rather than to those who came after the flood.
He furthermore assumes that the message Noah preached to the inhabitants of the "land of Noah" must have included information about the coming flood and the saving ark waiting for them, if only they repented.
aChristian assumes that the reason the Bible doesn't tell us that God really did hope that hordes of repentant sinners would flock to the ark is that there were two tellers of the flood story, and they must not have included all of the relevant details of the story. aChristian admits that the Genesis writers were God inspired, and that the Genesis story is the Word of God, but aChristian evidently believes that his god didn't inspire his writers sufficiently well that they would not forget to tell the world about God's desire to save not just Noah and his family, but perhaps all of the people in aChristian's "land of Noah."
aChristian believes the Bible can be the inspired Word of God, even though this extremely important information about God's attitude toward the people in the "land of Noah" is left out of the Word of God. Actually, aChristian doesn't believe this information was important.
Does this missing information not show that God really did want to all those people to be saved, that he really didn't want to destroy them, as the Bible says? How could it not be important? Anyway, back to the story.
Now that aChristian has Noah preaching righteousness to the people in the "land of Noah," he evidently assumes that Noah told them about the coming flood and the ark which would save them. Noah had to have told them about the coming flood and the ark which would survive the flood--in aChristian's mind, of course--because otherwise God could have had no expectation that any of these people would know about the ark and come to the ark which God made spacious enough to accommodate all the people in the "land of Noah."
aChristian thinks that all of this shows that the huge space in the ark was not meant for two of every kind of animal on the face of the globe, as everyone else since Old Testament times has believed--except aChristian. No, indeed, it was clearly meant for the hordes of people from the "land of Noah."
Thus, aChristian concludes that since only a small amount of space was set aside for the few animals from the "land of Noah," this proves that the flood was local, not global, and there is no problem with the waters covering Mount Everest. Once again, the Bible is proved to be the perfect word of a god.
However, aChristian overlooks Matthew, where the author makes it clear that these people had not the slightest inkling that the flood was coming and that there was an ark waiting (Matthew 24:26-39). Thus, his assumption that Noah told the people about the ark is refuted by Matthew.
But, that is not the worst of his crimes against Christianity. By constructing such a preposterously convoluted scenario under which he can prevent water from being over Mt. Everest, aChristian makes apologists everywhere look silly.
Why couldn't aChristian keep his argument simple? Why didn't he just say that the large space in the ark was meant to provide comfortable living space, and a generous storage area for food, for each of the few hundred or so animal types in the "land of Noah"? That way, aChristian could argue the large ark was consistent with a local flood, and still maintain his dignity.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
Question to aChristian in an earlier post:
8. More importantly, please also tell us how God could have expected any of the sinners to know about the chance for redemption and the escape opportunity the ark presented.aChristian answered:
Because, as I said, and as the Bible tells us, Noah served as "a preacher of righteousness" to the people of his land before the flood. And, as I have also already said, and as others here have had no problem in understanding me to say, the message "preachers of righteousness" have always preached is, "Repent and be saved." So Noah must have preached that message to the people of his land before the flood.Then, how do you explain Matthew telling us that these people had no idea the flood was coming?
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24:36-39)Joseph F. Alward
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
aChristian vows,
So this will be the last time I respond to you in this thread, or probably in any thread, since as some here have just pointed out, there seems to be little point in a Bible believer conversing with you on any subject.Well, this is certainly a first. I'm surprised that you choose to tuck tail and run, rather that stick around to defend your faith. Many others on this list--most notably RWC, Pom, and Larsguy--have willingly submitted to far more rigorous questioning of their beliefs than you have without folding, and they are still willing to stand and fight. I suspect they know the Bible better than you do. Have you not taken to heart the teaching in 1 Peter, aChristian, to be willing always to explain the reason for your beliefs to any man who asks you?
be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (1 Peter 3:15)
years ago i recall hearing theories that the first five books of the bible may not have been written by moses, and that in fact they may have had several different writers.
i know that the wts's stance on this is that moses did actually write these books.
reading my bible this morning, i came across a couple of passages wich may indicate that genesis did have at least two different authors.. following the death of his father, abram was commanded by his god to leave haran.
Every Old Testament scholar in the world knows that the first five books were not written by one man.
The first two chapters of Genesis contain two stories of creation taken from two different cultures and traditions separated not only in space, but in time. The first story is found in Genesis 1:1-2:3; the second one is in Genesis 2:4-25.
It is sufficient here to offer just part of the evidence that two different authors from different times were at work here. The author of the first creation story refers to the deity thirty-five times, always as “God,” while the author of the second creation story refers to the deity nine times, always as “Lord God.” It is almost certainly not coincidental that a second account of creation begins at the exact place in Genesis where the name used for the deity abruptly changes after a long stretch of thirty-five “Gods,” to nine of “Lord Gods.”
The same is true of the flood story; it, too, is a blend of two different traditional stories.
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Two_Flood_Stories.htm
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Creation_Order.htm
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
i believe there are many on this forum who are not aware of the many online bibles from which they could almost effortless copy verses to paste into their arguments.
when one refers to a particular verse in a particular book, few readers have the patience to go seach through the whole book.. the online source i use is called "bible gateway.
" it provides several different versions of the bible, and offers word search, which is an indispensible tool for those who take their bible research seriously.. bible gateway is at http://bible.gospelcom.net/.
I believe there are many on this forum who are not aware of the many online Bibles from which they could almost effortless copy verses to paste into their arguments. When one refers to a particular verse in a particular book, few readers have the patience to go seach through the whole book.
The online source I use is called "Bible Gateway." It provides several different versions of the Bible, and offers word search, which is an indispensible tool for those who take their Bible research seriously.
Bible Gateway is at http://bible.gospelcom.net/
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
the following is excerpted from an article by frank r. zindler, "did jesus exist?
" at http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html.
emphasis is added.. john e. remsburg, in his classic book the christ: a critical review and analysis of the evidence of his existence (the truth seeker company, ny, no date, pp.
I believe there are many on this forum who are not aware of the many online Bibles from which they could almost effortlessly copy verses to paste into their arguments. When one refers to a particular verse in a particular book, few readers have the patience to go seach through the whole book.
The online source I use is called "Bible Gateway." It provides several different versions of the Bible, and offers word search, which is an indispensible tool for those who take their Bible research seriously.
Bible Gateway is at http://bible.gospelcom.net/
I will post this information to "Bible Research," too.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
since the bible makes it clear that jesus believed in the scriptural account of the flood and since the evidence that a worldwide flood as described in that same scriptural account would have been virtually impossible, why should anyone trust jesus to be man's redeemer and the only begotten son of god?.
farkel
As Faithful advised you earlier, let it go.
As I expected, aChristian has, for the third time, refused to answer a direct question which relate to his ridiculous claim that God expected hordes of repentant sinners to come to the ark. He knows that he cannot defend this claim--which he obviously did not give a great deal of thought to, so he's desperately trying to avoid answering my questions.
I repeat, aChristian, nobody on this list--and that includes your supporters Faithful and waiting--really believes that the ark was not made large to accommodate two of every kind of animal on earth. Nobody believes that God planned a large ark to make room for a flood of repentant sinners--except you.
If you don't wish to answer the questions below, then forum members will have the right to assume that you cannot. Here are the questions, for the fourth time. Will you answer them without evasion, once and for all?
1. Why would the Genesis writer not tell us that God had Noah plan for a possibly huge number of passengers, and that the huge space was not meant for the huge number of animals, two of every type over the face of the globe?
2. Nobody on this list seriously believes in your theory, and there isn't a single Biblical scholar anywhere in the world, or from any time in the past four thousand years, who believes what you do, aChristian. How do you account for that?
3. How do you explain why the Genesis writer tells us that God told Noah to put food on the ark for the animals and for Noah and his family, and says nothing about putting enough food on the ark to feed all of the possibly huge number of repentant people who might come to the ark?
4. Do you believe the Genesis writer was inspired by God, or not?
5. Do you believe that he was writing the Word of God, or not?
6. If you believe he was writing the Word of God, then how do you explain the important omissions?
7. Why would God not make sure that his writer made it clear to you and me that the large space was for the repentant sinners who might come, and why did he not tell the writer that he told Noah also to put a huge amount of food on board for those people?
8. More importantly, please also tell us how God could have expected any of the sinners to know about the chance for redemption and the escape opportunity the ark presented.
They didn't know, did they, aChristian? If you believe they did know, will you please say so, and also tell us how you know this?
9. If you choose not to answer all of these questions, why should the forum not assume that you're trying to conceal the fact that your "land of Noah" theory is unsupportable?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
