Can you guys explain this?

Discussion in 'Bible Study' started by Juk, Jan 24, 2015.


    These folks are a lot smarter than me..and they are SCIENTISTS! Although they are rejected because of their belief in the Bible.

    After all; we are in the 'age of faith' until the LORD returns....
    Juk likes this.
  2. I'm not going to read all those web sites, I just quickly scanned the first one.
    It seems to me that when someone who wasn't actually there says that a past event didn't happen, they are showing the world just how abysmally stupid they in actuality are.
    Just one example from that first site:
    The Tower of Babel and the confusing of tongues.
    Who was there to record how long these things took to happen?
    Anyone from our time that wants to put their hand up should be given a huge bag of peanuts.
    Even if a language can be shown to have evolved over time (and the English Language would be a good example), that language had a finite starting point, where the original would not now be recognized due to change over time.
    But here is the dividing point, there is no living person that can say with even a microscopic amount of credibility that languages started out with a few crude grunts.
    I could give these skeptics a simple experiment to conduct that will prove beyond doubt that this is so.
    KingJ and Juk say Amen and like this.
  3. #4 calvin, Jan 24, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
    I just had a peek in the 2nd link.
    Leviticus 11:19,20 as taken from the Septuagint (Greek OT.)
    19 and the heron, and the lapwing, and the like to it, and the hoopoe and the bat. 20 And all winged creatures that creep, which go upon four feet, are abominations to you.
    The verse numbers have been added in an attempt to break up the text into easy to handle packets.
    The hoopoe is a bird, ironically it seems to be the national bird of Israel...go figure.
    Now consider if the translators had emphasized a little differently.
    the bat. 20 And all winged creatures that creep, which go upon four feet, are abominations to you.
    The 'and' you read in between 'hoopoe' and 'the bat' could and likely was not a conjunction but rather a sentence marker.
    This is both legitimate Greek grammar and makes much better sense of the text. So.......19 and the heron, and the lapwing, and the like to it, and the hoopoe. The bat and all winged creatures that creep, which go upon four feet, are abominations to you.
    If people want to dig, they should dig for the truth and not get caught up in their own folly.
    The point is that the original autographs are without error, but sometimes copyists and translators over time can introduce minor errors. These errors are only a problem for the intellectually lazy or dishonest.
    KingJ, Major and Juk says Amen and like this.
  4. YEC's are rejected because they aren't makes no difference if they believe in the bible.
    Please please pleeeaasee don't use any YEC "argument" to an atheist. Anyone that buys it would have been convinced by better arguments, and those who see through it will only be pushed away.
    As I said in another thread, apologetic arguments are a poor alternative to relation. To meet an imperfect person where they are, as you - your unshielded, also imperfect self - is where real communication and true humanity can be found. There is no trying to convince the other to believe as you do, but a genuine dialogue between equals in search of Truth.
  5. #6 calvin, Jan 25, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2015
    But when it comes to faith and world view there is no such thing as a level playing field.
    You are right in as much as you will never bring anything new to the table.
    Atheists have tried to use the unicorn argument so much and for so long that its horn has been worn down to a stump.
    Similarly the argument of burden of proof has been used so often and so unskillfully that it is not even burdensome anymore.
    You see Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Christians have found Jesus therefore they have truth. You have according to your profile, rejected Jesus. You have no truth anymore.
    You have laid aside the burden of belief and opted for a seemingly lighter load...No level playing field.
    You sort to introduce the unicorn argument in another thread did you not?
    That argument is probably a sine qua non of atheistic apologetics, you then want to argue (discuss) as an equal?........Can't happen.
    You also tried to introduce that tired argument for the burden of proof.
    I asked if you were an atheist, but you more or less denied it
    As they say, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck then it is a duck.
    You do not like young Earth Creation, as an atheist you would not be expected to.
    But what is it exactly you are afraid of? Juk might have it in mind to dialogue with someone who will be more receptive of the truth than you are?
    Why might that be a threat?
    Why do you want to dismiss the help he is being offered as no good?
    KingJ and Major say Amen and like this.
  6. Hey Calvin, I'd enjoy it if you would message me so I can respond to some of your points. :) I don't want to derail this thread.
  7. One of the stratagies they like to use is to immediately bog down the discussion with page after page of criticisms (it is not possible for you to answer all these even in a year). Secondly even if you get close to answering one in a way they cannot argue with they immediately jump to another and a multitude of others ("Yeah? Fine! Then what about this or that"). Just the fact that this person threw you onto all these links tells me they are either immature or skilled in their craft.

    I have spent many hours and days discussing with atheists many of the problems with their perspective and answering their questions (my having a scientific background and working in the scientific community as well as having been raised by a naturalist father helps). My experience has been that all the evidences in the world will not convince them as their mind has been slammed shut to considering other alternative views and alternative interpretations of the evidence. One of the thngs i always find is when the discussion begins they claim an open mind and then as time passes they build a box by limiting what can be allowed, who one can quote, what examples may be used (even as to what defines "evidence") until if you allow this manipulation process you are left trying to prove your position only from the pool of consensus that is comprised of scholars of their view and only those recently published in what they will accept as legitimate Journals from the most recent times. The sad thing here is that the history of science proves that much of what is now accepted as fact (and I say "accepted" because it is often not actually proven) will eventually be considered obsolete and incorrect. Science can help us move toward truth and provide us with much benefit but many positions held by the majority of scientists are erroneous because they have interpreted the facts to fit the theory rather than having the data alone (void of presupposition, as hard as this is) shape the theory.

    For the most part all you can do (and pray for this as you speak with them) is get them to move their position from atheist (there is no God) to honest agnostic (there COULD BE a God only I do not know this, and have no evidence thus far). But remember so you do not grow discouraged...flesh and blood cannot reveal it to them....only God can make Himself known.

    In His love

    brother Paul
    Big Moose, KingJ and calvin says Amen and like this.
  8. Then you ought not to have posted in it.
    Very few here have access to my PM service.....I'll keep it that way.
    If you want to discuss something, the accepted way is (subject to forum rules), open a thread on the appropriate public board.
  9. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. What I would like to communicate is that in any conversation - between similar Christians, between dissimilar Christians, between Christians and people of different beliefs etc. - the ideal goal is not a superficial argument of party-lines and cliches that pigeonhole each individual into predetermined opposing camps. This is dehumanizing, and I believe that to be in union with God one must fully actualize their humanity through relation to that of the Other.
    What I mean to say is that we all seek the Truth and it is arrogant to think that any one of us has a monopoly on it. Progress towards this unifying goal is achieved when we stop villainizing and demeaning each other in our similar paths.
    A person who has seen Truth will not - cannot - turn away from it, it has been ingrained in and fundamentally changed their very nature. But this is is not what happens in petty debates and arguments, where both parties make poignant claims not so much expressions of truth rather than reactionary truisms spewed reflexively from having their toes stepped on. It's important to note the difference here; rather than uniting with the Other, this is opposition to the Other, dehumanizing and reducing the actualization of both Self and Other.
    I see two different scenarios here. Yes, there are dogmatic atheists, obstinately spouting regurgitated arguments. These of course must be not addressed with arguments in turn, because as I said before, such confrontation removes us both from God and each other.
    But there may be genuine cases of people who are earnestly struggling between the absurdities of either poles: a person who rejects the idolatrous church she has been raised in. (I imagine it is equally possible to be in the inverse situation: a person who cannot honestly accept a shallow atheistic conception of reality.)
    I believe in a dialectical truth between both extremes that can only be accessed by honest searching. In addressing, rather than hiding from, the hardest questions.
    First, it is in poor taste to make personal attacks. Second, you misunderstand me. I have rejected fundamentalist christianity, the christianity of my youth, but I in no way reject Truth. I think the essence of Truth permeates all things.
    Perhaps this is my own downfall of too easily falling into reactionary, dehumanized debate roles, abandoning any real chance of communication. For this I must apologize. But at the same time, both parties must seek to be understanding as well as understood.
    I hope that after my long-winded explanation here it might be a bit more clear what I was trying to say, but I'll kind of try to summarize.
    Often times in apologetic debates there is this false dichotomy of an Us vs. Them attitude that is divisive and thus anti-Christian. Something like "I was Them to become like Us, because They are all wrong, ignorant buffoons to not see how clearly right We are and how horribly wrong and evil They are" from both sides. This does no good for anyone and takes everyone further from God, who is the Good and the Truth, which is only fully present in unity.
    The YEC websites are equally guilty of this as the belligerent atheist websites. To respond in kind will only be lowered to the same level and remove any redemption from the conversation.
    I don't think it is easy to properly respond, and I have at times been the biggest failure to do so, but it is something that we must strive for.
  10. OKAY
  11. Why? Your not suppose to Argue with an atheist. Obey scripture, get results.
  12. #13 KingJ, Jan 26, 2015
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
    Those links look like a list of every atheist argument against the bible :giggle:.
    Any specifics you want to discuss?

    I liked the one contradiction: ''God can do anything'' Matt 19:26 / ''God was with the Jews, yet they still had to flee because the enemy had chariots Judges 1:19''. :D:D:D

    That means 1. God does not exist? 2. God has a phobia for chariots? 3. God lied, He was not with the Jews? 4. We are not even trying to consider God's position on the situation?

    Fully understanding God is very difficult Job 9:3. What we do know is that His promises always come to pass (Jews get their nation). But human intervention from free will always has the ability to prolong God's plan or make the path thereto uncomfortable for us. The Jews never needed to wonder the desert for 40 years if they were close to God. I am imagining the Jews were not always close to God in their battles / Moses was not always with them to get God to trust him to part the red see / drown those chariots with brimstone and fire from heaven.

    + God is always for us using what we have. Ie brains. If the Jewish commanders were too dumb to run from chariots, God would have had to miraculously intervene.
    + God always wants an element of faith from us. If God reigned fire and brimstone on all the enemies of the Jews... nobody would ever oppose the Jews / everyone would always kneel to their God....God would have no reason to sit in heaven / He could visit earth / all would be robbed of their free will, space and time to hate or love Him.
  13. In addition, anybody knows it is harder to take the hill country, so Judah's sucess there is all the more miraculous.
    Having been fighting in the hill country, it is highly unlikely that Judah and his men would have been hampered by the possession of chariots...they would have been on foot with maybe a few donkeys carrying supplies
    It is never stated that the plainsmen defeated Judah and his men or inflicted any casualties, they just out ran them.
    We are told that the Lord was with Judah, not that the Lord was handing over the plains men to Judah.
    So Judah won the hill country and did not suffer loss when engaging a vastly more mobile foe in the plains.
    It becomes evident then that the person who compiled the material at that url is not displaying much in the way of investigative skill.
    KingJ likes this.
  14. I disagree. Not everyone searches for the truth. It is actually quite ironic that those claiming to be free thinkers are so closed minded.
  15. Looking again at the first three urls, I think it fair to say that they are spiritually blind.
    2Cor 4:4. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
    So the person supplying you with these articles is one being led along by a blind guide.
    Mat 15:13. He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.
    Mat 15:14. Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."

    So if your friend wants to be guided by blind people, so be it. They will all finish up in a pit.
  16. Blind leading the blind :) = Nail on the head Calvin.

    Whenever someone starts the conversation with ''there is no god'' they have already conceded to not being interested in searching for the truth.

    β€œHe who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.”
    Isaac Newton
  17. very true.
    There lies one of the numerous problems with you.
    You seem most assuredly to be espousing a different gospel than the gospel of Jesus as the Christ of God.
    And of such folk. Paul says Anathema. Twice in fact.
    Gal 1:8. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
    Even of those do not love Jesus he also writes:
    1Cor 16:22. If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed. Our Lord, come!
    ........................................................................................Anathema . Maranatha ! in some translations
  18. Must you make personal attacks instead of addressing or considering what's been said?
    By Faith likes this.
  19. I already gave the answer to the question on how to argue with an athiest. I gave the answer, now that should settle it.

    Tit 3:9-10 kjva 9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

    We are not suppose to get into debates with the unsaved. They are blinded and full of pride and we won't win that arguement no matter how much truth we show.

    We are to reject them and be done with it.

    If we disobey scriptures, or don't believe the answer in scripture then we make comments about people insulting us because we did not recieve the answer to the original op to begain with.

    So consider what I said, I gave scripture, we are not to debate truth with the unsaved............that settles it.

Share This Page