Biblical Literalist Christians; What exactly do the Believe?

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Can you identify a single difference between these texts that would have any doctrinal impact on Christianity whatsoever?

Even if it wasn't the bible is still full of ********.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Can you identify a single difference between these texts that would have any doctrinal impact on Christianity whatsoever?

Well there is that whole "Born of a young woman"/"Born of a virgin" thing. That might get a little complicated.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope.

ok then. fyi
Atrahasis was the original version of "the flood story" where an angry God determines to wipe out humanity with a flood and "Ludlul Bel Nimeqi, Tabu-utul-Bel" is the story from which the biblical story of Job is derived.

Of course they make a lot more sense in a polytheistic culture, with one god intent on drowning everyone and another god intent on saving his favourite human from a watery grave, and in the later with one God demonstrating the belief of his devotee and another God determined to change that mans mind by cursing his devotion to the former
ludicrous that you don't know these texts, because they only make sense in the original format, that and the fact that I have detailed them both to you numerous times before, its as if you have decided not to educate yourself to reality

if I gave you links, would you bother to read them knowing that they are the original stories or not ?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The latter. I would be very unlikely to keep my faith in Job's position.

just for a minute, pretend that Satan is actually another deity, do you see why with Job, used as an example between two Gods competing for his devotion, keeping faith isn't even an issue ?

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It's consistent with the rest of the pentateuch; none of the pharaohs are named in Genesis either -- particularly the ones that interacted with Abraham and Joseph.

That's hardly an answer, Avalon.
If the Book of Exodus is historically correct, it must be possible to identify the two Pharaohs who play roles in it.
Yet that isn't the case.

And we're only starting on the problems of literal interpretation of the Book of Exodus.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The latter. I would be very unlikely to keep my faith in Job's position.

Even after God delivers his smackdown "I'm God, so I do what I like. How dare you question me?" argument at the end?

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Marduk

ok then. fyi


if I gave you links, would you bother to read them knowing that they are the original stories or not ?

I would like to see the links please

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

I would like to see the links please

http://www.piney.com/BabTabuBel.html

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Atrahasi.htm

When the gods instead of man
Did the work, bore the loads,
The gods' load was too great,
The work too hard, the trouble too much,
The great Anunnaki made the Igigi
Carry the workload sevenfold.
Anu their father was king,
Their counselor warrior Ellil,
Their Chamberlain was Ninurta,
Their canal-controller Ennugi.
They took the box of lots
Cast the lots; the gods made the division.
Anu went up to the sky,
And Ellil took the earth for his people.
The bolt which bars the sea
Was assigned to far-sighted Enki.
When Anu had gone up to the sky,
And the gods of the Apsu had gone below,
The Annunaki of the sky
Made the Igigi bear the workload.
The gods had to dig out canals,
Had to clear channels, the lifelines of the land.
The gods dug out the Tigris river
And then dug out the Euphrates.
...in the deep
...they set up
...the Apsu
...of the land
...inside it
...raised its top
...of all the mountains
They were counting the years of loads
...the great marsh,
They were counting the years of loads.
For 3,600 years they bore the excess,
Hard work, night and day.
They groaned and blamed each other,
Grumbled over the masses of excavated soil:

Let us confront our Chamberlain
And get him to relieve us of our hard work!
Come, let us carry the Lord
The counselor of the gods, the warrior from his dwelling.

Then...made his voice heard
And spoke to the gods, his brothers:

Come, let us carry
The counselor of the gods, the warrior, from his dwelling.
Come, let us carry Ellil,
The counselor of the gods, the warrior, from his dwelling.
Now, cry battle!
Let us mix fight with battle!

The gods listened to his speech,
Set fire to their tools,
Put aside their spades for fire,
Their loads for the fire-god.
They flared up.
When they reached the gate of warrior Ellil's dwelling,
It was night, the middle watch,
The house was surrounded, the god had not realized.
When they reached the gate of warrior Ellil's dwelling,
It was night, the middle watch,
Ekur was surrounded, Ellil had not realized.
Yet Kalkal was attentive, and had it closed,
He held the lock and watched the gate.
Kalkal roused Nusku.
They listened to the noise of the Igigi.
Then Nusku roused his master,
Made him get out of bed:

My lord, your house is surrounded,
A rabble is running around your door!
Ellil, your house is surrounded,

A rabble is running around your door!
Ellil had weapons brought to his dwelling.
Ellil made his voice heard
And spoke to the vizier Nusku,

Nusku, bar your door,
Take up your weapons and stand in front of me.

Nusku barred his door
Took up his weapons and stood in front of Ellil.
Nusku made his voice heard
And spoke to the warrior Ellil,

'O my lord, your face is sallow as Tamarisk!
Why do you fear your own sons?
'O Ellil, you face is sallow as Tamarisk!
Why do you fear your own sons?
Send for Anu to be brought down to you
Have Enki fetched into your presence.

He sent for Anu to be brought down to him,
Enki was fetched into his presence,
Anu, king of the sky was present,
Enki, king of the Apsu attended.
The great Anunnaki were present.
Ellil got up and the case was put.
Ellil made his voice heard
And spoke to the great gods:

Is it against me that they have risen?
Shall I do battle...?
What did I see with my own eyes?
A rabble was running around my door!

Anu made his voice heard
And spoke to the warrior Ellil

Let Nusku go out
And find out the word of the Igigi
Who have surrounded your door.
A command...
To...

Ellil made his voice heard
And spoke to the vizier Nusku,

Nusku, open your door,
Take up your weapons and stand before me!
In the assembly of all the gods,
Bow, then stand and tell them,
&QUOTYour father Anu,
Your counselor, warrior Ellil,
Your chamberlain Ninurta
And your canal-controller Ennugi
Have sent me to say,
Who is in charge of the rabble?
Who is in charge of the fighting?
Who declared war?
Who ran to the door of Ellil?&QUOT

Nusku opened his door,
Took up his weapons, went before Ellil
In the assembly of all the gods
He bowed, then stood and told the message.

Your father Anu,
You counselor warrior Ellil,
Your chamberlain Ninurta,
And your canal controller Ennugi
Have sent me to say
&QUOTWho is in charge of the rabble?
Who is in charge of the fighting?
Who declared war?
Who ran to the door of Ellil?&QUOT

Ellil...

Every single one of us declared war!
We have put a stop to the digging.
The load is excessive, it is killing us!
Our work is too hard, the trouble too much!
So every single one of us gods
Has agreed to complain to Ellil

Nusku took his weapons
Went and returned to Ellil

My lord, you sent me to...
I went...
I explained...
...
Saying &QUOTevery single one of us gods
Declared war
We have put a stop to the digging.
The load is excessive, it is killing us!
Our work is too hard, the trouble too much,
So every single one of us gods
Has agreed to complain to Ellil!&QUOT

Ellil listened to that speech.
His tears flowed.
Ellil spoke guardedly,
Addressed the warrior Anu,

Noble one, take a decree
With you to the sky, show your strength-
While the Anunnaki are sitting before you
Call up one god and let them cast him for destruction

Anu made his voice heard
And spoke to the gods his brothers,

What are we complaining of?
Their work was indeed too hard, their trouble was too much.
Every day the Earth resounded.
The warning signal was loud enough, we kept hearing the noise.
...do
...tasks
...
While the Anunnaki are sitting before you
And while Belet-Ili the womb goddess is present,
Call up one and cast him for destruction!

Anu made his voice heard and spoke to Nusku

Nusku, open your door, take up your weapons,
Bow in the assembly of the great gods, then stand
And tell them...
&QUOTYour father Anu, your counselor warrior Ellil,
Your chamberlain Ninurta and your canal controller Ennugi
Have sent me to say
&QUOTWho is in charge of the rabble? Who will be in charge of battle?
Which god started the war?
A rabble was running around my door!

When Nusku heard this,
He took up his weapons,
Bowed in the assembly of the great gods, then stood
And told them

Your father Anu, your counselor warrior Ellil,
Your chamberlain Ninurta and your canal controller Ennugi
Have sent me to say,
&QUOTWho is in charge of the rabble? Who is in charge of the fighting?
Which god started the war?
A rabble was running around Ellil's door!

...
Ea made his voice heard
And spoke to the gods his brothers,

Why are we blaming them?
Their work was too hard, their trouble was too much.
Every day the earth resounded.
The warning signal was loud enough, we kept hearing the noise.
There is...
Belet-ili the womb goddess is present-
Let her create a mortal man
So that he may bear the yoke...
So that he may bear the yoke, the work of Ellil,
Let man bear the load of the gods!
...
Belet-ili the womb goddess is present,
Let the womb goddess create offspring,
And let them bear the load of the gods!

They called up the goddess, asked
The midwife of the gods, wise Mami,

You are the womb-goddess, to be the creator of Mankind!
Create a mortal, that he may bear the yoke!
Let him bear the yoke, the work of Ellil
Let him bear the load of the gods!

Nintu made her voice heard
And spoke to the great gods,

On the first, seventh, and fifteenth of the month
I shall make a purification by washing.
Then one god should be slaughtered.
And the gods can be purified by immersion.
Nintu shall mix the clay
With his flesh and blood.
Then a god and a man
Will be mixed together in clay.
Let us hear the drumbeat forever after,
Let a ghost come into existence from the god's flesh,
Let her proclaim it as her living sign,
And let the ghost exist so as not to forget the slain god.

They answered &QUOTyes&QUOT in the assembly,
The great Anunnaki who assign the fates

On the first, seventh, and fifteenth of the month
He made a purification by washing.
Geshtu-E, a god who had intelligence,
They slaughtered in their assembly.
Nintu mixed clay
with his flesh and blood.
They heard the drumbeat forever after.
A ghost came into existence from the god's flesh,
and she proclaimed it as his living sign.
The ghost existed so as not to forget the slain god.
After she had mixed that clay,
She called up the Anunnaki, the great gods.
The Igigi, the great gods,
Spat spittle upon the clay
Mami made her voice heard
And spoke to the great gods,

I have carried out perfectly
The work that you ordered of me.
You have slaughtered a god together with his intelligence.
I have relieved you of your hard work,
I have imposed your load on man.
You have bestowed noise on man,
You have bestowed noise on mankind.
I have undone the fetter and granted freedom.

They listened to the speech of hers,
And were freed from anxiety, and kissed her feet:

We used to call you Mami,
But now your name shall be Mistress of All Gods.

Far sighted Enki and wise Mami
Went into the room of fate.
The womb-goddesses were assembled.
He trod the clay in her presence;
She kept reciting an incantation,
For Enki, staying in her presence, made her recite it
When she had finished her incantation,
She pinched off fourteen pieces of clay,
And set seven pieces on the right,
Seven on the left.
Between them she put down a mud brick.
She made use of a reed, opened it to cut the umbilical cord,
Called up the wise and knowledgeable
Womb goddesses, seven and seven.
Seven created males,
Seven created females,
For the womb goddess is creator of fate.
He...them two by two,
...them two by two in her presence.
Mami made these rules for people:

In the house of a woman who is giving birth
The mud brick shall be put down for seven days.
Belet-ili, wise Mami shall be honored.
The midwife shall rejoice in the house of the woman who gives birth
And when the woman gives birth to the baby,
The mother of the baby shall sever herself.
A man to a girl...
...her bosom
A beard can be seen
On a young man's cheek.
In gardens and waysides
A wife and her husband choose each other.

The womb goddesses were assembled
And Nintu was present. They counted the months,
Called up the Tenth month as the term of fates.
When the Tenth month came,
She slipped in a staff and opened the womb.
Her face was glad and joyful.
She covered her head,
Performed the midwifery,
Put on her belt, said a blessing.
She made a drawing in flour and put down a mud brick:

I myself created it, my hands made it.
The midwife shall rejoice in the house of the qadistu-priestess.
Whenever a woman gives birth
And the baby's mother severs herself,
The mud brick shall be put down for nine days.
Nintu the womb goddess shall be honored.
She shall call their ...&QUOTMami&QUOT
She shall ... the womb goddess,
Lay down the linen cloth.
When the bed is laid out in their house,
A wife and her husband shall choose each other.
Inanna shall rejoice in the wife-husband relationship
In the father-in-law's house.
Celebration shall last for nine days,
And they shall call Inanna &QUOTIshhara&QUOT.
On the fifteenth day, the fixed time of fate
She shall call...

...
A man...
Clean the home...
The son to his father...
...
They sat and...
He was carrying...
He saw...
Ellil...
They took hold of...
Made new picks and spades,
Made big canals,
To feed people and sustain the gods.
...
600 years, less than 600, passed,
And the country was as noisy as a bellowing bull.
The god grew restless at their racket,
Ellil had to listen to their noise.
He addressed the great gods,

The noise of mankind has become too much,
I am losing sleep over their racket.
Give the order that suruppu-disease shall break out,

...
Now there was one Atrahasis
Whose ear was open to his god Enki.
He would speak with his god
And his god would speak with him.
Atrahasis made his voice heard
And spoke to his lord,

How long will the gods make us suffer?
Will they make us suffer illness forever?

Enki made his voice heard
And spoke to his servant:

Call the elders, the senior men!
Start an uprising in your own house,
Let the heralds proclaim...
Let them make a loud noise in the land:
Do not revere your gods,
Do not pray to your goddesses,
But search out the door of Namtara.
Bring as baked loaf into his presence.
May the flour offerings reach him.
May he be shamed by the presents
And wipe away his hand.

Atrahasis took the order,
Gathered the elders to his door.
Atrahasis made his voice heard
And spoke to the elders:

I have called the elders, the senior men!
Start an uprising in your own house,
Let the heralds proclaim...
Let them make a loud noise in the land:
Do not revere your gods,
Do not pray to your goddesses,
But search out the door of Namtara.
Bring as baked loaf into his presence.
May the flour offerings reach him.
May he be shamed by the presents
And wipe away his hand.

The elders listened to his speech;
They built a temple for Namtara in the city.
Heralds proclaimed...
They made a loud noise in the land.
They did not revere their god,
they did not pray to their goddess,
But searched out the door of Namtara,
Brought a baked loaf into his presence
The flour offerings reached him.
And he was shamed by the presents.
And wiped away his hand.
The suruppu-disease left them.
The gods went back to their regular offerings.

Quote:

The Epic of Atrahasis provides additional information on the flood and flood hero that is omitted in Gilgamesh XI and other versions of the Ancient Near East flood story. According to Atrahasis III ii.40–47 the flood hero was at a banquet when the storm and flood began: “He invited his people…to a banquet… He sent his family on board. They ate and they drank. But he (Atrahasis) was in and out. He could not sit, could not crouch, for his heart was broken and he was vomiting gall.”

The flood story in the standard edition of the Epic of Gilgamesh, Chapter XI may have been paraphrased or copied verbatim from a non-extant, intermediate version the Epic of Atrahasis.[11] But editorial changes were made, some of which had long-term consequences. The sentence quoted above from Atrahasis III iv, lines 6–7: “Like dragonflies they have filled the river.” was changed in Gilgamesh XI line 123 to: “Like the spawn of fishes, they fill the sea.” However, see comments above.

Other editorial changes were made to the Atrahasis text. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, anthropomorphic descriptions of the gods are weakened. For example, Atrahasis OB III, 30–31 “The Anunnaki (the senior gods) [were sitt]ing in thirst and hunger.” was changed in Gilgamesh XI, 113 to “The gods feared the deluge.” Sentences in Atrahasis III iv were omitted in Gilgamesh, e.g. “She was surfeited with grief and thirsted for beer” and “From hunger they were suffering cramp.”[12]

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Brainache

Well there is that whole "Born of a young woman"/"Born of a virgin" thing. That might get a little complicated.

There are no word differences in different documents around this point.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Marduk

http://www.piney.com/BabTabuBel.html

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Atrahasi.htm

Thank you kindly

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by pakeha

If the Book of Exodus is historically correct, it must be possible to identify the two Pharaohs who play roles in it.

Why?

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

There are no word differences in different documents around this point.

Yeah, there are. And one of those it has never been observed for a human being to be born from. Care to guess which one?

Pro tip: It's the virgin. Had Jesus been born from one he'd have been a girl.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Why?

Imagine someone saying that a book pertaining to the history of 9/11 is recorded accurately despite the fact it doesn't name the perpetrators.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Why?

The simple answer is, if you can't demonstrate it it's nothing more than a fairy tale, even if it relates to actual events. There's no way to demonstrate the truth of it, thus it CANNOT be taken as true. At best, it's curious. The reason is, if we can't demonstrate it to be true how can we KNOW it's true?

Originally Posted by Mudcat

And one of those it is impossible for a human being to be born from. Care to guess which one?

Pro tip: It's the virgin.

Not entirely true. Animals can, on rare occasion, give birth to live offspring without fertilization. There was a somewhat sensational event with a snake doing so fairly recently. But it's incredibly rare in mammals.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Not entirely true. Animals can, on rare occasion, give birth to live offspring without fertilization. There was a somewhat sensational event with a snake doing so fairly recently. But it's incredibly rare in mammals.

True, I really should have said 'One of these it has never been observe for humans to be born from'... To the edit button, Robin!

[The Dark Lord]

House once diagnosed someone of having a virgin pregnancy. But the wife was really a cheater and House just made the whole thing up, DNA tests and everything. I think to win some bet with Wilson.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

House once diagnosed someone of having a virgin pregnancy. But the wife was really a cheater and House just made the whole thing up, DNA tests and everything. I think to win some bet with Wilson.

I seen that one too, it was a Christmas episode and I thought he was being uncharacteristically nice... and yeah it was a bet.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Mudcat

I seen that one too, it was a Christmas episode and I thought he was being uncharacteristically nice... and yeah it was a bet.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Marduk

if I gave you links, would you bother to read them knowing that they are the original stories or not ?

?

so I take it by your refusal to respond that to you "Biblical innerancy" is based on ignorance of the facts which prove otherwise

thats weird, because thats the same approach you've taken to the last few times I offered you these details as well I imagine as the approach you take to your belief in general,
i.e.
if the facts don't support your belief, then pretend ignorance of them will see you through,
thats fine, I am ok with that if dishonesty is what gets you off, but don't come here pretending you have a point worthy to defend in a discussion, because you don't

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Marduk

so I take it by your refusal to respond that to you "Biblical innerancy" is based on ignorance of the facts which prove otherwise

thats weird, because thats the same approach you've taken to the last few times I offered you these details as well I imagine as the approach you take to your belief in general,
i.e.
if the facts don't support your belief, then pretend ignorance of them will see you through,
thats fine, I am ok with that if dishonesty is what gets you off, but don't come here pretending you have a point worthy to defend in a discussion, because you don't

Insulting and attacking me on the basis of not responding to your post yet is very uncivil of you.

I got back from actually reading both of the link you sent, to find this post. Very disheartening.

Anyway, I see what you're saying about these passages, but the similarities aren't deep enough to characterize one as the source/origin for the other.

[Dinwar]

Quote:

...but the similarities aren't deep enough to characterize one as the source/origin for the other.

Cladistics and taxonomy have shown how difficult it can be to detect similarities that signify common origins.

[AvalonXQ]

Anyway, I've done my best to respond to questions here openly and honestly, and got repeatedly attacked for it - called dishonest, ignorant, and worse.

It's really not worth wading through all the belligerence and crap to try to find an honest discussion around here.

So, Quad, I hope you got a little bit of what you were looking for. Feel free to try to engage me on other threads where people are acting a little less nasty.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Cladistics and taxonomy have shown how difficult it can be to detect similarities that signify common origins.

Right, so the position of "read this fragmentary ancient poem and if you don't immediately agree with me you are intellectually dishonest" is a little suspect, wouldn't you think?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

The simple answer is, if you can't demonstrate it it's nothing more than a fairy tale, even if it relates to actual events. There's no way to demonstrate the truth of it, thus it CANNOT be taken as true. At best, it's curious. The reason is, if we can't demonstrate it to be true how can we KNOW it's true?

Biblical literalism is primarily a faith-based position. While I disagree that it's inconsistent with the evidence, I also don't assert that there's sufficient evidence to independently corroborate the facts of the Bible.

The point is that the Bible giving insufficient information to name the pharoahs does not disprove the Bible's account is inaccurate. If it can be shown that the Biblical account is inconsistent with any pharoahs of Egypt, then that would be different - but my understanding is that the reverse is true. Several different pharoahs are candidates for the Biblical account.

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The point is that the Bible giving insufficient information to name the pharoahs does not disprove the Bible's account is inaccurate. If it can be shown that the Biblical account is inconsistent with any pharoahs of Egypt, then that would be different - but my understanding is that the reverse is true. Several different pharoahs are candidates for the Biblical account.

False. George Washington (a specific name you might be familiar with) is mentioned specifically in several historical fiction novels, that Washington was a real person of significance doesn't make those fictional stories any less fictional. To prove that Exodus is a truthful account not only do you have to have specific pharaohs named, but you would have to provide evidence that those specific events happened. Which they didn't.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Anyway, I see what you're saying about these passages, but the similarities aren't deep enough to characterize one as the source/origin for the other.

well thats strange, because clearly they are, thats not my opinion, thats the opinion of Assyriologists unburdened by belief

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Insulting and attacking me on the basis of not responding to your post yet is very uncivil of you.
.

but lets make this abundantly clear

you are saying that this

Quote:

And he sent forth a dove from him,
But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot,
and she returned unto him to the ark,

And he sent forth a raven,
and it went forth to and fro,
until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

is not derived from this which was written 1200 years earlier

Quote:

I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.

I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.

what else would you call someone who tried to deny that these are obviously linked
dishonest is in fact extremely generous and you know it
btw, you still have not responded to the information in my posts, just evaded answering by pretending to be insulted
how uncivil of you

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Biblical literalism is primarily a faith-based position. While I disagree that it's inconsistent with the evidence, I also don't assert that there's sufficient evidence to independently corroborate the facts of the Bible.

If being a Bible literalist means being a young earth creationist, that position is certainly inconsistent with craploads of evidence.

[AvalonXQ]

Any more questions about how Biblical literalists interpret scripture?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Right, so the position of "read this fragmentary ancient poem and if you don't immediately agree with me you are intellectually dishonest" is a little suspect, wouldn't you think?

I see I'm off ignore.

You missed my point: it's difficult, BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE, to identify similarities due to shared ancestry (and an ancestor shares ancestry with its descendants). The trick is that the similarities aren't always obvious. I seriously doubt that literary scholars, archaeologists, historians, et al. are saying "read this fragmentary ancient poem and if you don't immediately agree with me you are intellectually dishonest". What I suspect is that this is a reference to a suite of arguments, none of which you are familiar with, calling into question your expertise. Since you're claiming that the Bible (well, some unidentified and possibly nonexistent version of it, since you admit all current ones are flawed) is innerrant, it seems that you should be knowledgeable on the proofs.

Quote:

Biblical literalism is primarily a faith-based position.

And we're done here. No offense intended--it's just that there's literally no argument to counter this. You can simply say "I have faith", and that covers any inconsistency, any contradiction, any logical argument against your position.

You have faith, so you'll automatically win any argument. At least in your mind.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Marduk

is not derived from this which was written 1200 years earlier

That's incorrect.

Wait, why am I talking to you? If I don't agree with you on your time scale, I'm "dishonest" and "deliberately ignorant". What possible incentive would I have to deal with that sort of crap?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Any more questions about how Biblical literalists interpret scripture?

Yes. What's your view of the Medieval (1200~1300 AD) Biblical literalists who thought that the Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally in terms of history and the like, but in terms of inspiration?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's incorrect.

Okay, so you can't subtract 500 from 1700, belief in Jesus obviously makes you incapable of basic math, would you like to try telling everyone here instead that in your opinion, the Jews predate the Babylonians ?
how about just admitting that one of those texts is obviously related/derived from the other
awww, no, that too difficult for you to answer honestly as well, what a shame, I guess you're just another incompetant monotheist.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Wait, why am I talking to you? If I don't agree with you on your time scale

oh so suddenly Ken Ham is your saviour, have you visited him in prison lately ?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm "dishonest" and "deliberately ignorant".

well. thats what I've just shown you to be yes, deny it all you want, the writings on the wall and all you've tried is evasion to answer it

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

What possible incentive would I have to deal with that sort of crap?

well how about the fact that everyone else reading this just saw how incapable you are to defend your faith when presented with evidence against it
that good enough motivation for you or not ?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

I see I'm off ignore.

Yep.

Quote:

You missed my point: it's difficult, BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE, to identify similarities due to shared ancestry (and an ancestor shares ancestry with its descendants). The trick is that the similarities aren't always obvious. I seriously doubt that literary scholars, archaeologists, historians, et al. are saying "read this fragmentary ancient poem and if you don't immediately agree with me you are intellectually dishonest". What I suspect is that this is a reference to a suite of arguments, none of which you are familiar with, calling into question your expertise. Since you're claiming that the Bible (well, some unidentified and possibly nonexistent version of it, since you admit all current ones are flawed) is innerrant, it seems that you should be knowledgeable on the proofs.

I'm not following your point here.

Quote:

You have faith, so you'll automatically win any argument. At least in your mind.

Ah, no, see, that's the problem with this thread (and any other thread someone tries to start on this subject). Check the OP again; the purpose was never to argue, and I wasn't trying to make an argument.
I was trying to explain my position, which I do believe holds together logically. None of you seems interested in the logical consistency of it as you're too busy decrying my ignorance or throwing the burden of proof at me for claims I haven't made.
If people on this forum would quit arguing long enough to discuss, we might actually learn some things from each other.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Marduk

Okay, so you can't subtract 500 from 1700, belief in Jesus obviously makes you incapable of basic math

And you are obviously incapable of basic civility. Why the continual need to insult me? Why can't you just treat me like a human being?

[Mudcat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Any more questions about how Biblical literalists interpret scripture?

Why interpret this specific book literally when it's literally untrue in every sense that it's possible to be untrue in?

[AvalonXQ]

This forum provides the best evidence yet that I'm better off keeping my beliefs.

I'd hate to lose them and find myself treating others the way you guys do.

Thanks for the links and the interesting perspectives.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Any more questions about how Biblical literalists interpret scripture?

Why take the Scripture as true at all? Doing so misled archaeology for decades until someone piped up and said "wait, this book sucks at being correct"

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

And you are obviously incapable of basic civility. Why the continual need to insult me? Why can't you just treat me like a human being?

I tried that, you failed to respond like one, as an example I will submit your inability to answer a straight question by attacking the questioner
FAIL

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This forum provides the best evidence yet that I'm better off keeping my beliefs.

I'd hate to lose them and find myself treating others the way you guys do.

Thanks for the links and the interesting perspectives.

Are we reading the same thread
you were asked if you were aware that your claim for biblical innerancy was proved fallacious by the existence of two original Mesopotamian texts that the human hebrew authors drew their inspiration from
you didn't answer

you were shown an example of the texts in question that were almost word for word the same and you tried to claim they weren't at all similar
now you're running away, obviously scared of the implications
awww, poor you, but still, if you'd like to prove, just using the bible that your innerrant claim holds some water, perhaps you can tell me what the last words of your supposed saviour were on the cross
gotta know that right ?
is it

Quote:

In Matthew and Mark : My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?

Quote:

In Luke: Father forgive them, for they know not what they do
Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise Father, into your hands I commit my spirit

Quote:

In John: Woman, behold your son: behold your mother, I thirst,
It is finished

so which one of these three is correct and which two prove the bible errant ?

And no, he didn't say all of them, all four gospels claim these are the very last words and he died immediately after saying them
so which is it Mr inerrant ?

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Biblical literalism is primarily a faith-based position. While I disagree that it's inconsistent with the evidence, I also don't assert that there's sufficient evidence to independently corroborate the facts of the Bible.

The point is that the Bible giving insufficient information to name the pharoahs does not disprove the Bible's account is inaccurate. If it can be shown that the Biblical account is inconsistent with any pharoahs of Egypt, then that would be different - but my understanding is that the reverse is true. Several different pharoahs are candidates for the Biblical account.

Not actually correct, Avalon.
The case isn't that the book of Exodus gives insufficient information to name the Pharaoh, but that the information given of the two Pharaohs is completely skewed.
Remember, it's not one, but two Pharaohs mentioned.

Several candidates for the 'hardhearted' Pharaoh HAVE been proposed. All of them rebutted.
This means the bibical account is inconsistent with any Pharaohs.

[The Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This forum provides the best evidence yet that I'm better off keeping my beliefs.

I'd hate to lose them and find myself treating others the way you guys do.

Thanks for the links and the interesting perspectives.

If you didn't believe your invisible sky daddy was watching, you would be a jerk?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

If you didn't believe your invisible sky daddy was watching, you would be a jerk?

take away the invisible sky daddy and he'd be out sodomizing virgins and eating babies like the rest of you atheists
allegedly

but thank you for that brief summation of everyone else's approach in this thread Dark Lord, I worship your unholy power of description