request for help with Matthew 24
I’ve been referred to Matthew 24 a couple of times in the last few weeks by Christians. In the first case, anaivethinker thought it proved that Jesus did something original, in predicting the destruction of the temple. On reading the chapter carefully, I thought it odd that anyone could imagine the verse related to the events of 70AD, given that the description given by the character Jesus is clearly part of the same discussion in the continuing passages, which Christians commonly interpret as relating to the hotly anticipated (for 2000 years now) End Times.
So, imagine my surprise when bornfromabove linked to his post on Matthew 24, and actually makes sense of the chapter.
The Greek word for “whole world” in Matt 24:14 is referring to the Roman world, it’s not referring to the planet, therefore Matt 24 isn’t talking about the end of the planet. […]
The gospel had to be preached to the Roman world as a whole before the end of the age.
After the gospel was preached to the Roman world, then the end of the age happened, the “tribulation” that is spoken of in Matthew 24:21 happened when Jerusalem was destroyed, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD. The end of the age that is spoken of in Matthew 24:3, is the end of the age of the law, that age ended when the temple was destroyed in 70AD.
So, I was just wondering what any Christians from a more traditional background than bornfromabove would make of his interpretation. Reading Matthew 24 with an open mind, putting aside all the preconceived notions that come with it, doesn’t his interpretation make a lot more sense? Otherwise why would Jesus have said this?
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Personally, I wouldn’t risk generating even one gray hair over it, as both Brandon (anaievethinker) and BFA7 are totally KooKoo for CocoaPuffs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m so disappointed! I can’t tell now whether the lack of genuine Christian commentary is due to the atheist cheek-fest going on, or because they’re all like, ‘Oh, bornfromabove is right!’, and converting en masse to his denomination. No grey hairs from me, it was one of my fishing posts.
LikeLike
“‘Oh, bornfromabove is right!’” – He’s never been right a day in his life, otherwise he wouldn’t feel he needs the outside help. I suspect his parents really did a number on him.
LikeLike
LOL! Your suspicion is incorrect, my mother never pushed anything on me, in fact I was the only one in my family who was born from above, when it happened, for 18 years I spoke the false doctrine that so many who claim to be Christian today, speak, it was only after God had removed me from false teaching, 2 years ago, that my mother started seeing the truth that I teach, God used me to show my mother the truth about the Bible, growing up I was left to live as I was supposed to live, I was very rebellious, so, no, my parents didn’t do a number on me 🙂
LikeLike
Yeah … what he said.
And I don’t hate anything. Though I am seriously considering it might be time to do so…. even for a short while.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know, you just rant for kicks. Stay chilled dude!
LikeLike
Chilling as we speak.
LikeLike
Quakers say this is the new age instituted by Jesus: that we are to create the Kingdom of Heaven- all treating each other well- here, now, rather than imagine the end of the laws of physics. Retired Anglican bishop N.T.Wright agrees- I am reading his books, still- saying that the End of the World was a metaphor Jews at the time would use for the end of the world as we know it, a revolution, a radical change in the social order.
LikeLike
Thank you Violet for sharing my teaching about Matt 24 on your blog, besides Matt 24:34, Matt 10:23 also shows that Christ would return during the generation of the disciples, & Col 1:23 makes it very clear that the great commission was fulfilled by the time that Colossians was written, which makes sense because Christ said that he would return during the generation of the disciples.
Matt 10:23 But whenever they persecute you [the disciples] in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish {going through} the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.
Col 1:23 Be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard, & which was preached to every creature under heaven.
LikeLike
The book of Revelation also talks about the tribulation that is spoken of in Matt 24, the Greek word for “whole world” in Revelation is referring to the Roman world, therefore Revelation is about the Roman world, not the planet, here is the link to my teaching that will show that truth https://bornfromabove7.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/revelation-is-about-the-roman-world-not-the-planet-3/
LikeLike
I’m happy to share your interpretation with other Christians. I think it’s the kind of view that should make them question their own beliefs and practices. It’s a shame that no-one wants to challenge your interpretation of these particular verses.
LikeLike
Actually what I teach about Matt 24 & Revelation used to be the belief of the church, then a group of people did away with that belief, and said that Matt 24 & Revelation are about future events for our time period, the Roman Empire was considered the “whole world” during the generation of the disciples, the Roman Empire was given its authority by Roman Senate, the Senate is the “dragon” of Revelation 12, if the Senate did not like someone who was given authority to rule the Empire, the Senate would murder him, the Senate was a very powerful force during the time of the Roman Empire.
LikeLike
Violet, if only one person sees the truth about Matt 24 thru your post about my teaching of Matt 24, that’s all that matters 🙂
LikeLike
Violet, I found another verse in Colossians that proves that the great commission had been fulfilled by the time that Colossians was written, further proving the truth that Christ returned during the generation of the disciples when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.
Colossians 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you [Colossian church] in heaven, whereof you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel.
Colossians 1:6 Which is come to you [Colossian church], as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day you heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth.
The “world” during the generation of the disciples was the Roman world.
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Yeshua the Messiah for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Colossians 1:23 be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you [Colossian church] have heard, and which was preached to every creature under heaven.
It is said that Romans was written between 56-58 AD, & it is said that Colossians was written either in 57 AD or 62 AD, which would make sense because the gospel had to be preached to the Jews & the Roman world, and then the end of the age of the law would happen when Jerusalem would be destroyed in AD 70.
LikeLike
What did you think of bornfromabove’s interpretation then?
LikeLike
“Go out and make disciples of all nations”: Christianity got as far as China overland, and their last remnants were persecuted when Catholic missionaries from Europe came much later. There were differences of doctrine. But it is easier to go where you share a lingua franca, koine Greek, and they had to start where they were.
A new age- well, how do humans make ourselves right with God? In Jesus’ time, by sacrifice of animals in the Jerusalem temple, though in the 8th century BC Hosea wrote God’s word “I desire mercy not sacrifice”. The destruction of the temple necessitated a new way of being right with God. So, yes. I am unsure what proportion of Christians would say the new age is here, but I can give authority from the gospels: The Kingdom of Heaven is like a woman who put a small amount of leaven, which worked its way through all the dough. That is a change here, now, in the physical world, not after death.
Some thought Rome was fatally weakened by Constantine adopting Christianity, but Constantinople survived another 1100 years. But the fall of Rome would be another “End of the Age”, a radical change in the way people are together.
So, yeah. We would have differences in nuance, but not fundamentally, I think.
LikeLike
Oh, and- Christ returning: “Surely I am with you”- Christ is in our hearts. God is an intimate part in each human being.
LikeLike
“We would have differences in nuance, but not fundamentally, I think.” That’s interesting to know. I wonder why so many Christians think it relates to a coming end of the world. I found a site that highlighted the sentence about it being THIS generation, as though it applied to now. Wonky.
LikeLike
There are Christians anticipating the Rapture and the literal events of Revelation, even wanting war at Megiddo, God help us.
LikeLike
Luke 21:24 proves the tribulation happened when Jerusalem was destroyed, here is the link to my teaching that will show that truth. https://bornfromabove7.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/lk-2124-proves-the-tribulation-happened-when-jerusalem-was-destroyed/
LikeLike
The Gospel of Luke was written by yet another anonymous author, whose credentials and validity can never be checked, around 82-85 AD – about 60% of his gospel was copied from pseudo-Mark, yet another gospel writer who never met Yeshua.
LikeLike
Not true, if it had been written after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, don’t you think that would have been mentioned, the gospel of Luke was definitely written before AD 70, all the gospels, except John, since it doesn’t mention anything about the destruction of Jerusalem were written before AD 70
LikeLike
Like I said, BFA7 – you trot out the authorities for your point of view, and I’ll present mine.
LikeLike
As a longtime (now former) catholic I’ve never heard the teaching that the “whole world” refers only to the “roman world.”
Does the “roman world” interpretation make more sense? Sorry, nothing in that book makes sense to me…I mean it’s still coming from a guy who claimed he walked on water and was born of a virgin. So consider the source. 😉
LikeLike
It does make some sense though, Ain’t No, as those primitive people didn’t even know the earth was round, so “the whole world,” for them, would have been much smaller than we think of it.
LikeLike
Ummmmmm…no. Faulty logic just leads to more faulty logic. I don’t see how them thinking the world was flat would help us define what they meant by the “whole world” more clearly. Maybe they did actually mean “the whole (flat) world,” which is what I was taught for four decades. This is the problem with the Bible…there are too many interpretations for anyone to ever make sense of it. Does it mean the “roman world” or “the whole world”? Flip a coin; no one can ever know for sure.
LikeLike
Since I’ve seen no evidence that they knew anything about North and South America, the Arctic, or Antarctica, I can’t see how it would take a coin toss to conclude they knew nothing about those continents, and if you see that as “faulty logic,” I’d appreciate it if you would point out the fallacy.
LikeLike
“Sorry, nothing in that book makes sense to me…”
Of course I completely agree. I just find it fascinating that within the overarching story that doesn’t make sense, Christians can even fabricate stories ignoring obvious contradictions within such an important chapter for them.
There’s no way Matthew 24 could be viewed as being about the end of the world, unless the character Jesus thought the end of world was coming within a generation. Bornfromabove does a much better job of getting round it in terms of this chapter than any mainstream Christians. I just wanted to lure someone in to defend it, but I think an Christians who read it were too scared to attempt to defend their wayward traditional interpretation (that’s another attempt to lure them in, with a challenge …) 😉
LikeLike
“I just find it fascinating that within the overarching story that doesn’t make sense, Christians can even fabricate stories ignoring obvious contradictions within such an important chapter for them.”
I’m reminded of a commercial I once saw, I think back in the 80’s, and I don’t even remember what it was for. There was a white floor and background, and in the middle of the screen, you could see the legs of a Great Dane. Running in and out between it’s legs, were a half-dozen fuzzy, yellow, baby ducks. The voice-over dialogue of the ducks went like this:
“Hey, watch out for the dog!”
“What dog?”
“I don’t see a dog –”
“Do you see a dog?”
That’s how I envision theists viewing biblical contradictions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice! 😀 Maybe I’ll do a ‘comment of the month’ post.
LikeLike
The question is not about continents, is about how they defined the “whole world.” There is no way we can know what they meant by “the whole world,” regardless of their knowledge of continents or the if they thought the world was flat, etc. That’s what I meant by faulty logic. I’m new to arguing these issues so perhaps I’m just not explaining it properly. Maybe this is a better way to put it: I think you’re comparing apples to oranges.
LikeLike
While I agree completely that “There is no way we can know what they meant by ‘the whole world,’” we CAN know what they didn’t mean – the continents I mentioned – and that narrows the field.
RE: “I’m new to arguing these issues so perhaps I’m just not explaining it properly. – I just need you to understand that we are not on opposite sides, I’m as atheist as you are, if not more so (if such conditions can be compared), I’m just trying to establish the mindset of an early Iron Age man – as such were the ones who wrote the Bible – when it comes to their worldview.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Might help to read the NT as a critique on religion, on the “religious” mindset. Read it all as if every scene only took place in your noggin. No where else. I only have issue with 24:35 because it confuses the issue. Words pass away, heaven and earth remains. If you can wrap your head around how that quote says both what is says AND the opposite, then you are standing close to the fire, close to the paradox. Reese’s Pieces!
LikeLike
I don’t understand this at all, and I’m struggling to remember what side of the fence you’re on. Is it a prophecy or a riddle?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh boy, if I told you it was either a riddle or a prophecy, you might believe me and belief arrests the mind. 24:28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather. The carcass is any old icon or idol, the vultures are thought, ideology and dogma. Does that help?
LikeLike
“Belief arrests the mind”, he pontificates, as if he believes it. The carcass is… the vultures are… Sounds pretty dogmatic to me.
Dim, you do not explain yourself well. You have the germ of a useful idea, that a belief can stop someone looking further, or understanding more, but a belief can be based on current experience and changed by experience at any time. That is precisely the attitude to the world which the rationalist atheist seeks to cultivate. “When the facts change, I change my mind.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, I’m John. And yes, I am the Pope, I wear slippers and pontificate. Did I say what I wrote was true? Am I an athiest? And could you supply one these ‘facts’?
LikeLike
You used the indicative rather than the subjunctive mood. To add phrases such as “This is the truth”, “To be honest”, or “I’m not lying to you” generally reduces credibility, though someone once got away with “verily, verily I say unto you”.
If you want me to be your fact supplier, you will have to agree to believe in me. Come, see my blog!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will happily believe in you, for ten minutes. And yes, thank you, I will come see your blog. And ditto. Careful if you read my blog, it’s all lies.
LikeLike
I take it all back, Vi – the tone of your blog just lept up, as clearly someone here knows the difference between the indicative and the subjunctive mood (or for that matter, even knows that there IS an indicative and the subjunctive mood!). Possibly I spoke too soon. What’s next, a string quartet? A champagne brunch? Polo?
LikeLike
When I meet Violet in Edinburgh, we take in a string quartet or an art exhibition. I can’t imagine what she does with Ark, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of your blog’s tone, Vi, I’m beginning to think “cuckoo’s nest” might be a little more appropriate than “classy,” it’s beginning to attract quite the collection —
LikeLike
Reply to me and address Vi, and then make shallow remarks about nothing. Okay. You are a cuckoo’s nest.
LikeLike
Good morning to you too —
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, I think it is wishful thinking on the part of Brandon and BFA7, not that is news, but a reading of the explanation Jesus gives to his disciples is the vaguest of explanations. When you start from the end of Chapter 23
then in Chapter 24 the author writes
And then the disciples ask him for an explanation of when these events will occur, that is the time when the blessed one will return and when the temple shall be destroyed, and he goes on a long diatribe of false prophets, Christ, famines and so on.
I don’t see anything in his explanation that points to 70AD
LikeLike
I completely agree, that was my original objection to Brandon. It was all envisaged as happening within a generation by the author. So the Christians can’t take ‘credit’ for the unspecified date of the temple and pretend the rest is for thousands of years later.
LikeLike
That would be a stretch of imagination and I mean a long stretch
LikeLike
“I don’t see anything in his explanation that points to 70AD”—> yes, I agree.
Is it possible Jesus was talking about the end of the world being 70AD? Well, I suppose it *could* be. Do I think that’s what Jesus actually meant? No. Of course Catholics teach the end of the world is yet to come, and I’ve been pounded with their dogma for decades so I’m undoubtedly biased toward this interpretation. Could my interpretation of a book that makes not one speck of logical sense be wrong? Yes.
If the other Violet wants to know what I think of this as a “traditional christian,” I have to say I disagree with BFA7 and anaievethinker. 🙂
LikeLike
I always thought he was referring to himself as the temple, who would be torn down and rebuilt in three days.
OK, long, but more accurate, way around: I always thought that the anonymous author, writing 50 years after the fact, who never met him, was implying by the words he attributed to the hero of his drama, that said hero was referring to himself as the temple. The shorter explanation suggests I believe he existed, and I still haven’t decided about that.
LikeLike
As a catholic I was taught about the dual meaning of the words in that passage…that Jesus was indeed referring to both himself being torn down bodily (his crucifixion), and to the *entire world* being torn down after the time of tribulation. As I stated before, I suppose it could have meant *just the roman world,* but I think that’s a lot of conjecture. Of course this the bible we’re talking about…it’s all conjecture!
Now if we’re going to open the can of worms about jesus existing in the first place, well, that’s more complicated, and I’ve not had a chance to fully develop my views on it. For this discussion I’m assuming he did exist.
Does anyone know what denomination BFA7 is? He seems rather radical in his views of the bible.
LikeLike
“it’s all conjecture!” – FINally, we’re in complete agreement on something!
“about jesus existing” – Yeah, well, that’s about where I am too. I know about all of the prophecies that were pulled out of the OT, in order to concoct his story and make it seem as though they had come true, but behind it all, the skeleton as it were, upon the framework of which the myth was built, there may have been a little 5-foot, 6-inch Jewish guy, whose step-father had berated him throughout his childhood about being a bastard, who through his childish pain, decided that the Hebrew god was his father, and who ultimately got himself crucified for saying so publicly. But the destruction of the temple, in 70 CE, provided a stressor that prompted a rash of stories in an effort to unite certain groups behind a common belief system, and had it not been for that, the little guy would have been allowed to rest in peace.
“Does anyone know what denomination BFA7 is?” – No – you can ask him, but he’s likely say that there are no denominations, just his true belief and all of the false ones.
Theists – you can’t live with ’em, and you can’t shoot ’em —
LikeLike
Can’t shoot em?Why not? They shoot others. I wanna shoot ’em! Pweeeeaze, Uncle Arch I wanna shoot em. Pretend bullets but it would be fun!
LikeLike
I suppose a rubber bullet wouldn’t hurt – at least not the shooter – knock yourself out. Please.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ainlt no shrinking violet.
I think BFA7 is a member of an until now unknown offshoot Essene cult of celibate Lesbians that Jesus set up after Pilate’s wife threatened to expose him after Jesus refused her advances.
According to a recently translated Dead Sea Scroll they were the only Jews publicly allowed to eat bacon sandwiches.
In public they were usually disguised with beards, each marked with a single gray streak.
There is now serious debate among some of the world’s most foremost Biblical Scholars, as to whether Jesus too was a celibate Lesbian, and ”the one whom Jesus loved” was really Agnes Finkelstein,
Caiaphas’ spurned bi-sexual lover.
LikeLike
Speaking of bacon sandwiches, and you were, I’ve often said the person would become rich overnight who invented a bacon-flavored vaginal spray —
LikeLike
Could you two stop lowering the tone on my blog please!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
He started it!
(Your blog has a tone?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Classy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Speaking of classy – “There once was a lassie, with a classy….” I would continue, but I fear I would tarnish your blog tone —
LikeLike
Ain’t No, I am born from above, just as the Apostles were born from above, I am not part of any denomination, there is only one Christian church, everyone who believes that Yeshua is the Messiah that no longer practice sin are the church.
LikeLike
Huh, well that’s interesting. So you believe all the denominations of christianity are united, creating the one true church. While I’m not christian anymore, I kind of like that idea. Though I highly doubt you’ll get other christians to agree with you…the catholics and protestants have been knocking heads for ages and can barely be in the same room together.
LikeLike
I don’t believe that’s what he’s saying, Ain’t No – I think he’s saying he recognized no denominations, that there are those individuals, like himself, who are “born from above,” and everyone else, whether they call themselves Christians or not, are wrong.
LikeLike
Ummmmm….ok. Hum. I’m finding this rather difficult to follow.
So he’s his own (non)denomination? Is there anyone else in his (non)denomination? It seems to be a rather novel approach to christianity.
LikeLike
“It seems to be a rather novel approach to christianity.” – Isn’t religion that teaches you’re evil from birth a rather novel approach to life?
LikeLike
HA! That’s not novel….that’s….CLASSIC. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I don’t believe that everyone that claims to be Christian is the church, there are a lot of people that claim to be Christian that speak false about the Bible, those people are not led by the Holy Spirit, therefore I don’t believe they are the church.
LikeLike
“No, I don’t believe that everyone that claims to be Christian is the church…” With this part I completely agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t this what I predicted?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ain’t no, the New Testament never says that the planet will be destroyed, the New Testament says that the world system will be destroyed, 2 Pet 3:7 is talking about people being destroyed by fire, not the planet being destroyed by fire, the new world system that was created after the destruction of Jerusalem, is a spiritual system, the kingdom of God is spiritual, it is not a physical kingdom, the kingdom of God dwells in all who believe that Yeshua is the Messiah that no longer practice sin, the Messiah is reigning in all who are born from above
LikeLike
Since Noah wasn’t killed in the flood, God didn’t destroy the planet, 2 Peter 3:6 isn’t saying God destroyed the planet in the flood, 2 Peter 3:6 is saying God destroyed the people in the flood, likewise 2 Peter 3:7 isn’t talking about the planet being destroyed by fire, 2 Peter 3:7 is talking about people being destroyed by fire, the “ungodly people” that are spoken of in 2 Peter 3:7 were destroyed by fire immediately after Jerusalem was destroyed. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD, “the day of the Lord” happened immediately after Jerusalem was destroyed (Matt 24:29-30).
LikeLike
“Since Noah wasn’t killed in the flood, God didn’t destroy the planet”
There was no Noah, nor Noah’s flood – the story was plagiarized from the first known work of fiction, “The Epic of Gilgamesh,” which in turn was based on an actual, historical flood that occurred in Mesopotamia in 2900 BCE, when the Euphrates River overflowed its banks to a depth of 15 cubits (22.5 feet), and covered an area about the equivalent of three counties.
The actual, historical king of the city-state of Shuruppak (in what is now Iraq), King Ziusudra, escaped in a trading barge loaded with cotton, cattle and beer.
LikeLike
The point is, 2 Peter 3:7 doesn’t say that the planet will be destroyed by fire 🙂
LikeLike
“The point is, 2 Peter 3:7 doesn’t say that the planet will be destroyed by fire” – Actually, Pete is wrong. In about 4.5 billion years, our sun will have burned all of its hydrogen, converting it, as a by-product, to helium. At that time, the sun will cool considerably, to the red spectrum of heat, and become what is known as a Red Giant. It will swell, as the centrufigual force exceeds the sun’s gravitational pull (due to its mass having been lowered by the consumption of it’s hydrogen), and will swell to roughly the orbit of Mars, entirely evaporating the Earth. The earth will die by fire.
This is one of the reasons that I continue to stress how scientifically ignorant the Bible authors were – any god who created it all, would certainly understand what the man could not, and if he were capable of inspiring anyone, would have imparted the truth to them.
LikeLike
LOL! The point is, those who say 2 Peter 3:7 says the planet will be destroyed by fire, don’t speak the truth
LikeLike
Matt 24:29-30 is about the Lord’s judgment that will happen after Jerusalem is destroyed, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Matt 24:29-30 is not speaking about the end of the planet.
The words that are spoken in Matt 24:29 are a picture of judgment, the stars won’t literally fall from heaven, the Messiah is using words that the disciples knew come from the Old Testament that describe judgment.
LikeLike
Still waiting on your sources, BFA7, that confirm that the gospels were written before 70 AD, when all biblical scholars of whom I’m aware, all say 72-100 AD. If you stall much longer, it’s going to become blatantly obvious that you have no acceptable sources.
LikeLike
LOL! The original gospels were written in Aramaic, all of the gospels except John, were definitely written before AD 70 because the generation of the disciples saw the destruction of Jerusalem, it would make absolutely no sense to write about the destruction Jerusalem after it happened, the destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that the disciples were waiting for that would show therm that the new age had occured
LikeLike
“The original gospels were written in Aramaic” – While it’s true that in the mere 55+ years, Hebrew all but disappeared as the language of the Jews, displaced by Aramaic, the language of Babylon and much of Caanan, but all four New Testament gospels were written in Greek Koine, a dialect of Attic Greek.
And you’ve still offered no sources, other than your personal opinion, that the Gospels were written before 70 CE.
LikeLike
It really doesn’t matter what I say because you will just deny it, if you believe that the gospels were written after Jerusalem was destroyed, that’s great, that doesn’t have any effect on what I believe, it just shows me how you & those who claim to be Christian that speak false, are very similar 🙂
LikeLike
“It really doesn’t matter what I say because you will just deny it” – How would you know? So far, you’ve made no effort whatsoever to present any form of evidence, except to fling scripture, express your personal opinion, and try to steer readers to your blog.
LikeLike
I’m a Bible teacher & I share the links to my teaching for those who are interested, that’s the way people can see the truth about the Bible, you don’t accept what I believe & that’s cool, soi there’s no reason to continue the conversation 🙂
LikeLike
So you have no evidence for anything you say, you don’t want to talk to “strangerthanfiction” or I anymore, and I haven’t noticed that anyone else has any interest in anything you say, so I guess you’re telling us that you’re done here —
Bu-bye – word of caution, do not leave your bubble, you’re safe there.
LikeLike
LOL! I have spoken the truth to you & you can’t see it, instead you agree with people that claim to be Christian that speak false, you are just like them, yoiu are no different than the false church lol! I don’ talk to those who speak false 🙂
LikeLike
So go away, or continue to waste your time (and ours) – your option —
LikeLike
I’m not wasting my time, speaking the truth is never a waste of time 🙂
LikeLike
“I’m not wasting my time, speaking the truth is never a waste of time 🙂” – It would seem to be, as I have spoken the truth to you, and you have called me and all of the biblical scholars and biblical archaeologists I have sited, liars.
LikeLike
LOL! You haven’t spoken the truth to me, you have spoken the lies of man to me
LikeLike
I rest my case.
LikeLike
And by bubble, I mean that bubble of ignorance with which deliberately enclose yourself.
LikeLike
LOL! You speak of yourself 🙂
LikeLike
By the way, what Biblical scholar says doesn’t concern unless it is the truth, it’s funny how you don’t believe God, yet you defend those who speak false about the Bible 🙂
LikeLike
“it’s funny how you don’t believe God, yet you defend those who speak false about the Bible” – I maintain that they don’t speak falsely about the Bible, they base their conclusions on research, far more certainly than you’ve ever done. You base your own conclusions on beliefs, rather than evidence, and it’s MY belief that you have been subjected to false information and choose not to investigate further.
LikeLike
LOL! More lies
LikeLike
Here is a good summary of why Matthew 24 does not speak to the contemporary time period of himself and the apostles:
“What Jesus is saying is that the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations. It will happen within a generation. . . . The tradition reflected in Revelation shows that the consummation comes very quickly once it comes. . . . Nonetheless, in the discourse’s prophetic context, the remark comes after making comments about the nearness of the end to certain signs. As such it is the issue of the signs that controls the passage’s force, making this view likely. If this view is correct, Jesus says that when the signs of the beginning of the end come, then the end will come relatively quickly, within a generation” (from here: https://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/Matthew24andThisGeneration.html)
The main issue is the surrounding context of the rest of the chapter. It does not take a huge amount of effort to find many other statements which were plainly not fulfilled by 70 AD, such as “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened” (verse 22)
“Immediately after the distress of those days, ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken” (verse 29).
“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other” (thru verse 31)
Of course, in order to try and make the entire chapter conform to a first-century fulfillment interpretation, all verses such as these must be attempted to be allegorized away, otherwise they present a very perplexing problem. However, once you start allegorizing pieces of scripture willy-nilly in order to force an interpretation, especially when then there is nothing being said by Jesus to indicate he is using metaphor (as He actually does countless other times, when saying things such as “The Kingdom of Heaven is LIKE”, or, “now learn this lesson from the fig tree….”) leaves one with nothing to prevent even terms like “generation” or “pass away” themselves from being allegorized into whatever we might like as well…
No, in the end, you pretty much have to either take it or leave it. There is really no way, even by means of employing an unwarranted application of allegory, to explain away something like verse 30 if said to be referring only to the “Roman World” of 70 AD. Not even the Roman Empire “mourned” when they saw the “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory”. Not literally. Not metaphorically. So it is either a false prophecy, or yet to be fulfilled…
LikeLike
Wow! Such a false statement
LikeLike
(says the guy who seems oblivious to the implications of the fact that his interpretation of the Bible is being hailed as “making sense” by devout atheists…)
LikeLike
LOL! They see the truth, you don’t 🙂
LikeLike
Funny that you don’t seem realize that the “truth” they are choosing to see is that Jesus was not who He claimed to be, but just a man, who was never raised from the Dead, and ultimately has no hope to offer anyone….
Yet you’re more tickled by the fact that your pet-eschatology is being even remotely buttressed to even care about the bigger picture…
LikeLike
No, some recognize the truth about Matt 24, which is a great thing, I am not here to convert anyone, I am here to speak the truth and those who see it, will accept it, and those who don’t see it, won’t, if someone is to be born from above, God will make it happen, that’s for sure
LikeLike
By the way Mr. arrogant Christian, God can show anyone the truth, a person doesn’t have to claim to be Christian to see the truth in the Bible, also I know by your words to me that you are not led by the Holy Spirit, only few people will see the truth, and it looks like you are not one of the few
LikeLike
Just read the Bible, or at least the words of Jesus, for yourselves everyone. If I am “arrogant” for trying to present a different view, based not on my own opinions or rhetoric but simply based on the entirety of what the Bible says, then so be it I guess…
The bottom line is that Jesus loves us, all of us, He died and rose again, not for His own sin but for ours. Every book in the New Testament testifies to this above all…
LikeLike
Christ died only for God’s chosen people, you are a false teacher
LikeLike
I am a sinner… Who was saved by the Grace of God. Nothing more.
I have not attacked you, but merely offered an alternate explanation of the Bible, in response to the question put forth by the author of this blog. I suppose I could’ve chosen to not have placed my comment under yours, but I suppose I assumed you would simply jump on it anyway, for daring to speak against what you are so very confident of. You’ve made me very sad today….
LikeLike
I hope you will stop speaking false, that is not an attack, it is the truth, everything that you have said is false. I feel sorry for you because God is using you to derceive many people, hopefully God will make you stop
LikeLike
You want me to stop telling people God loves them and has provided a way of Salvation from Sin…? All because you have different approach to prophecy? That is quite a thing to hear.
Ya know… I’ve known plenty of people who disagreed with me on matters of prophecy, yet in the end, the love and Life of Jesus trumped all of it. Why is that not paramount in your own testimony? Why do you seem to believe you are more Saved by believing that Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, than by anything else? I have yet to even hear you explain just exactly what it is you understand it to MEAN that “Jesus already returned in 70 AD”..(?) Where is Jesus now? I honestly don’t even understand your position, in many of it’s implications. You’ve merely repeated a handful of proof-texts, yet never even explained the full Gospel, as you understand, neither to me, or any of these people you keep posting comments for (even though you don’t believe your preaching is “necessary” but that God will simply Save who He chooses to Save…) That’s hyper-Calvinism, another extreme and unbiblical teaching, but *sigh… Not in the mood to go round and round with you on that one now….
Sorry Violet. Wasn’t my intention to start something like this….
LikeLike
Once again you speak false, stop with lies
LikeLike
I have already spoken the truth to you about “New Jerusalem”, but you deny that truth, no one led by the Holy Spirit would deny the truth that everything in the New Testament was fulfilled after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70
LikeLike
God doesn’t love everyone equally.
LikeLike
For the sake of the anyone else reading this thread, I of course whole-heartedly disagree, and can provide copious amounts of scripture to prove it. God loves you. He does not simply tap certain people on the head and magically give them “Faith”. Jesus calls us to Repent, which is nonsense in itself if God is the one ultimately responsible for hand-picking the ones He loves, and the ones He leaves lost.
If nothing else, I suppose, this thread at least goes to show that those who call themselves “Christians” are obviously not monolithic in their beliefs…
Why you would even feel compelled to engage with people who do not know God, only to tell them that they are not all loved and precious in God’s sight, is absolutely BEYOND me, “born from above”…
LikeLike
John 6:65 No one can come to me unless it has been granted from God
LikeLike
YES, because HE initiated our reconciliation. HE sought US out. HE provided a way. HE came and died, and rose again. HE granted us the means to new life in Him. We initiated nothing. But that is not the same as saying that you, or I, just sat there and were required to do nothing in response to what you heard!
Again… You have to be able to understand a single verse, in CONJUCTION with everything else said by Jesus, and the rest of scripture. If it blatantly contradicts something said elsewhere, then either the entire Bible is junk and should be thrown out, or, (just perhaps….) you are taking bits and pieces out and misinterpreting them….
LikeLike
“either the entire Bible is junk and should be thrown out, or….” – I probably don’t need to tell you which choice gets my vote —
LikeLiked by 1 person
(no, you don’t… 🙂 But then, in the end this is why I have more respect for the person who throws it all out, rather than try and twist it into something it isn’t, for self-serving reasons. You are at least being consistent in this regard, and that is not something I scoff at.)
LikeLike
I am not speaking to anyone but you, my comments are directed to you, to show you how deceived you are, you are not led by the Holy Spirit, no one led by the Holy Spirit would ever say, Christ died for everyone, Christ died only for the sheep, not the goats, please stop your lies, you are deceiving a lot of people, with your false doctrine
LikeLike
Rom 9:13 Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. God didn’t love Esau the same as Jacob, so the Christian teaching that says God loves everyone equally is false.
The Greek word for “hate” in Romans 9:13 is miseó, that word means, denounce; to love someone or something less than someone (something) else, i.e. to renounce one choice in favor of another.
For many years I believed the teaching that says, “God loves everyone equally”, because that is what the majority of people that claim to be Christian teach, but that teaching doesn’t agree with the Bible
LikeLike
(and once again, you are taking this verse out of context, as all hyper-Calvinists do, as this is the main proof-text for THAT false teaching…)
Yes, God “hated” Esau by not giving him the inheritance, even though Jacob ended up receiving it only through deception. The context of this verse is talking about the “choosing” of the Jewish people, not about Salvation or God’s love for all of humanity. You are butchering the Word every time you speak. Quite difficult to listen to….
LikeLike
Such a false teacher, you are 🙂
LikeLike
I “teach” simply what the Bible says. Anyone can go and read it for themselves, and see what it says. I don’t continually point people back to my own blog posts in order to be able to correctly understand the Bible.
THAT, sadly, is what false teachers do. Continually point to themselves as the only lens through with the Bible can be rightly understood. I haven’t said a single thing that is any kind of “special, private insight”. There’s nothing unique or privileged about my stance. So once again, if any one else is interested, they can go read for themselves.
Don’t listen to men, just listen to God…
BYE.
LikeLike
I’m a Bible teacher, I refer people to my blog so that people won’t be deceived by your false doctrine, I really hope you stop speaking false, because if you don’t, you will be one of the people that will be denied by Christ when you die, I have nothing more to say to you 🙂
LikeLike
“THAT, sadly, is what false teachers do. Continually point to themselves as the only lens through with the Bible can be rightly understood.” – Isn’t that what the Gospels tell us Jesus did when he said you couldn’t come to the “father” except by him?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point! That’s why Jesus is either a total fraud, or someone completely unique from everyone else who has ever lived…
This is why Jesus also said, “Which is easier to SAY, your sins are forgiven, or pick up your mat and walk…?”
He then did what none of the rest of us can do, demonstrating that just perhaps His insights into the scriptures should merit a little special attention…. 😉
LikeLike
“He then did what none of the rest of us can do, demonstrating that just perhaps His insights into the scriptures should merit a little special attention…. 😉”
No, no – he was reputed to have done “what none of the rest of us can do,” by what most biblical scholars agree were anonymous authors, writing decades later, who couldn’t possibly have ever known him.
LikeLike
I’m tired of reading you lies, goodbye
LikeLike
God loves you Violet, and Archaeopteryx, and John Zande, and Arkenaten, and “bfa7”, and whoever else.
On my life, I tell you, He loves us.
LikeLike
Of course God loves me, you idiot, Christ died for me, don’t speak to me anymore
LikeLike
“Yes, God ‘hated’ Esau by not giving him the inheritance, even though Jacob ended up receiving it only through deception.”
William G. Dever is the son of a fundamentalist preacher. From a small Christian liberal arts college in Tennessee he went to a Protestant theological seminary that exposed him to “critical study” of the Bible, a study that at first he resisted. In 1960 it was on to Harvard and a doctorate in biblical theology. For thirty-five years he worked as an archaeologist, excavating in the Near East. In his book What Did the Bible Writers Know and When Did They Know It, he tells where scholarship regarding archaeology and the Bible has been in past decades and where it is now.
LikeLike
Good for Mr. Dever. Of course, your own example here reveals that his “archaeological conclusions” only followed his being infected by “textual criticism”, a fancy term invented to describe butchering the plain meaning of scripture. Seminaries are indeed saturated with “Biblical scholars” who would have been much better off sticking with their simple roots. The pride of scholastic accolades are a powerful seductress.
The idea that “Canaanite tribes” invented the Hebrew patriarchs, and their foreign God, in order to effectively condemn THEMSELVES and their previous Pagan practices is so ridiculous. If you actually read the O.T. you see that even the Israelites couldn’t stay faithful to Yahweh for very long.
Nobody invents tall tales that effectively paint themselves as whorring failures….
LikeLike
“infected by ‘textual criticism’” – You say infected, I say enlightened. There’s another response to this below, I wrote it before I got notification of this.
LikeLike
I don’t think you find it very “enlightened” if I were to apply the basic principles of “textual criticism”, in order to take the things you have yourself written and deny that you could even have been the author….
“Oh look, he doesn’t use this particular word anywhere else, therefore, it MUST be written by a completely different person only calling themselves “archaeopteryx1″!” I mean, seriously, how do I know you’re not really a whole mob of people all pretending to be one individual….? It’s not like I can see your face and know for sure… 😉
LikeLike
“I mean, seriously, how do I know you’re not really a whole mob of people all pretending to be one individual….?” – Hang on, while I ask the crowd how they want me to answer this —
You keep hanging, now, OK?
LikeLike
God definitely makes the choice.Rom 9:16 So then [God’s gift] is not a question of human will and human effort, but of God’s mercy. [It depends not on one’s own willingness nor on his strenuous exertion as in running a race, but on God’s having mercy on him.]
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, I have raised you up for this very purpose of displaying My power in [dealing with] you, so that My name may be proclaimed the whole world over.
Rom 9:18 So then God has mercy on whomever He wills (chooses) and He hardens (makes stubborn and unyielding the heart of) whomever He wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me, Why then does God still find fault {and} blame us [for sinning]? For who can resist {and} withstand His will?
Rom 9:20 But who are you, a mere man, to criticize {and} contradict {and} answer back to God? Will what is formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same mass (lump) one vessel for beauty {and} distinction {and} honorable use, and another for menial {or} ignoble {and} dishonorable use?
Rom 9:22 What if God, although fully intending to show [the awfulness of] His wrath and to make known His power {and} authority, has tolerated with much patience the vessels (objects) of [His] anger which are ripe for destruction?
Rom 9:23 And [what if] He thus purposes to make known {and} show the wealth of His glory in [dealing with] the vessels (objects) of His mercy which He has prepared beforehand for glory,
Rom 9:24 Even including ourselves whom He has called, not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles (heathen)?
Rom 9:25 Just as He says in Hosea, Those who were not My people I will call My people, and her who was not beloved [I will call] My beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall be that in the very place where it was said to them, You are not My people, they shall be called sons of the living God.
LikeLike
“Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, I have raised you up for this very purpose of displaying My power in [dealing with] you, so that My name may be proclaimed the whole world over.”
Why would anyone worship an entity that s so self-absorbed and self-promoting – these are qualities we would disdain in fellow humans, a god should lead by providing a better example. His outlook seems to be: “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Even the concept of deliberately sacrificing his son as a “sin offering” to himself was a self-absorbed gesture. There are simply no admirable qualities there to even LIKE, much less worship!
LikeLike
You aren’t going to change my mind, the truth is, Christ died only for God’s chosen people so I don’t expect you to accept the truth I teach.
LikeLike
Then that worked out nicely for everyone, didn’t it?
LikeLike
Matt 1:21 says Christ will save “his” people from their sins. Matt 1:21 proves no verse in the Bible says Christ died for everyone, or God wants everyone to be saved.
LikeLike
Well, if it will make you feel any better, Fiction, I don’t think his interpretation makes any sense at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another verse in Colossians that proves that the great commission had been fulfilled by the time that Colossians was written, further proving the truth that Christ returned during the generation of the disciples when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70.
Colossians 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you [Colossian church] in heaven, whereof you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel.
Colossians 1:6 Which is come to you [Colossian church], as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day you heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth.
The “world” during the generation of the disciples was the Roman world.
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Yeshua the Messiah for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
Colossians 1:23 be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you [Colossian church] have heard, and which was preached to every creature under heaven.
It is said that Romans was written between 56-58 AD, & it is said that Colossians was written either in 57 AD or 62 AD, which would make sense because the gospel had to be preached to the Jews & the Roman world, and then the end of the age of the law would happen when Jerusalem would be destroyed in AD 70.
LikeLike
We’ve already been round and round on this. I’ve already pointed that verses of the Bible have to be taken in their entire context. I could point out things like further excerpts from Colossians itself, such as “vote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains”, which show that Paul is indeed STILL preaching the Gospel, and STILL awaiting the Return of Jesus, etc… But I’m not really expecting you to answer it, since you just seem content to ignore my many previous attempts to show you things in full context as well….
In the end, I honestly don’t believe that continuing a fruitless debate over theology, on a blog where everyone is already looking in and scrounging for whatever reason they can find to dismiss the Bible altogether, is really all that profitable.
LikeLike
The last days began on the day of Pentecost and ended when the temple was destroyed in 70AD, we are not in the last days.
In the world today there are many people that claim to be Christian that say, “we are in the last days, so the gospel needs to be preached to everyone on the planet, and then God will destroy the planet by fire”, that teaching doesn’t agree with the truth that is in the Greek New Testament.
LikeLike
Plus I love it when theists cat-fight!
LikeLike
yeah, figured you’d get a kick out of this. But in the end, I guess it shows that I’m not simply going to parrot agreement with someone simply because they are on the “Bible Team”…
Paul even says, in 1 Corinthians 15: “13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.”
It’s all or nothing, this Bible thing… The Words themselves declare that if there is no Truth behind the claim that Jesus really rose from the dead, then it’s all hogwash….
LikeLike
“But in the end, I guess it shows that I’m not simply going to parrot agreement with someone simply because they are on the “Bible Team”… – And I can respect that, I’ve gone up against atheists who didn’t have their facts straight and/or just wanted to cause trouble. On the other hand, knowing how you feel about what BFA7 is spouting, you shouldn’t be surprised that I see most of what the rest of you say in much the same light.
Take the magic out of the Bible, and I can accept the rest as a collection of myths, legends and morality tales, with a bit of inflated history thrown into the mix, as long as no one tries to insist that it promises anyone eternal life. If you live it well, one is enough.
LikeLike
(But doesnt that quote from 1 Corinthians claim the very opposite…?)
LikeLike
Hogwash it is. Well spotted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
(if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then absolutely. Of course, you know I am quite convinced that He did…..) 😉
LikeLike
Yes, but Christians suffer from a mental disorder.
Besides, I am convinced the moon is made of cheese. Gorgonzola to be exact and I don’t give a monkey’s uncle what Neil Armstrong says, it is not Gouda.
I guess based on the evidence for both claims that would make me as frakking idiotic as a Christian.
But I shall make a deal. The day you produce verifiable evidence for your claim I shall endeavour to do likewise for mine.
Fair enough?
Super!
LikeLike
“Yes, but Christians suffer from a mental disorder.”
I love how you don’t even recognize the irony of your own words. Again… “Disorder”? Disorder according to what? Is there some kind of “order” that I can be out of step WITH, in an Evolutionary Universe!?
I find your demands for “verifiable evidence” as hilarious as ever, especially as you continue to be the one controlling what is allowed in as “evidence”. 🙂 okay “judge”. You get to rule over your own little court. I get to say what is permissible as evidence in mine, and in mine, personal testimony is not worthless. My OWN testimony, what I have personally seen and experienced, certainly isn’t worthless either!
Do you have “verifiable evidence” that life can spring up out of nothing? How many times has this been verified? How many times has it been reproduced in a lab? Surely you can point me to the website where it shows how scientists are busily observing life evolve itself out of non-life every other Tuesday or so….
You might as well believe the moon is made of cheese, because you already believe that both the moon, and that which cheese is made out of, can magically poof themselves into existence in the first place. 🙂
LikeLike
“…you already believe that both the moon, and that which cheese is made out of, can magically poof themselves into existence in the first place” – As opposed to your belief that a magical, invisible entity thought it into existence. I know, silly man, isn’t he?
LikeLike
Exactly, that’s the irony of it. Your explanation is no less “silly”, it merely excludes the possibility of there being a Creator who might have any actual say over what is “order” and what is “disorder”…
LikeLike
The laws of physics insist that everything is moving from order to disorder, via entropy – your god really doesn’t seem to have a very firm grip on things, does he?
LikeLike
I use posh terms because Violet doesn’t like me calling her’guests’ Dickheads, so these days I try not to. It is difficult, especially when they continually behave like Dickheads. But I am a gentlemen and I realise, Violet is a sensitive woman, and as she is a new mum I don’t want to have her sticking pins in her baby during nappy change.
I make no claims about things going magically poof.
I simply apply common sense and where I don’t know, I simply say ”I don’t know”
This is called honesty.
Your testimony means jak shit.
Evidence of your claims re your god is what I would like to see.
However, I will settle for this:
How do you square away your faith in the knowledge that the Pentateuch is Historical Fiction?
LikeLike
Is that supposed to be a clever way of calling me a dickhead without calling me a dickhead. I think you missed. 🙂 Call me whatever you like, no skin off my nose.
But is your “I don’t know” really just laudable intellectual honesty, or an example of the absence of the very “verifiable proof” you are constantly demanding of the other side? Why does the burden of proof only apply to the believers in the “silly man”, but not to the believers in the “silly self-creating universe”…?
I’ve already addressed your assertions re: the “knowledge” that the Pentateuch is Historical Fiction. That has to be the most logically-inconsistent and self-defeating argument I have heard in a long time….
LikeLike
I would never not call you a Dickhead if I simply wanted to call you a Dickhead.
That would be intellectually dishonest and only a Dickhead would behave like this.
The ”I don’t know” answer is intellectual honesty.
I try to follow evidence as far as it goes- or as far as I understand – and afterwards say . I don’t know.
Later, I may know a bit more.
Five years ago I ”knew ” Moses was a real historical character because I believed what I had been brought up to believe and had no cause to doubt.
Now, after serious investigation and a lot of study, I realise this is not the case.
So now I know a bit more.
You have not, in fact, addressed the assertions re: the Pentateuch, merely dismissed them.
And thus, your argument is simply the vacuous ranting of a fearful indoctrinated fundamentalist.
Thus, they can be rejected without a moments consideration.
However, if you have an academic answer to dismiss the likes of Dever, Herzog and Finkelstein I would like to hear it please?
LikeLike
Right. Those “academics” who claim that there is no such thing as the Hebrew people, but that they are really just Canaanites who invented a bunch of stories about a non-existent group of people, who came in and pushed them all out, made a mockery of all their inferior gods, and then inexplicably kept turning to those inferior gods and Pagan worship, sacrificing their children in the fire to Molech and having orgies under the groves, until they were eventually judged by this made-up God and taken into captivity with hooks in their noses….?
You really want an “academic” answer as to why such a suggestion is, um, shall we say, tenuous….?
LikeLike
You see, if you are going to behave like a prat then what is the point?
We are talking the entire secular archaeological field that rejects Exodus against … well, basically you!
Goodness knows how many years, how many degrees , how much blood sweat and tears including a flat-out denial of an entire nations biblical history by the self-same archaeologist and scientists charged to scour the Sinai to find the ”Title Deeds” to Israel.
And there was absolutely nothing there and they have admitted this!
Furthermore these archaeologists have also found the evidence that up to 2 million people did not suddenly pitch up on the doorstep of Canaan.
So you are saying, I must flip the bird at all this academia on the say so of … well, basically , you, right?
Er …. are you simply a Dickhead?
LikeLike
Ark, watch your language please. No D word on my classy blog.
LikeLike
Sorry sweets. Don’t take it out on the little one. Not a good time to be practicing acupuncture.
LikeLike
Did someone say Dickhead?
LikeLike
Not me!
LikeLike
Yes, I suppose it must gall you that I am not blown away by all the “blood sweat and tears”, of said (*gasp*) SCIENTISTS! I mean, honestly, couldn’t that have already been assumed, if I’ve just as much been ignoring the “facts” asserted by thousands if not MILLIONS of scientists who also emphatically declare that the entire universe sprang up out of nothing however many gajillion years ago? How are a handful of “esteemed archaeologists” supposed to be more intimidating than the collective mass of almost every “peer-reviewed” scientist and college professor in the world? (yet I guess you could say I’m “flipping the bird” at all of them as well, in your terms…) 😉
I’ve already addressed your points about there being “no evidence” of 2 million people pitching their tents in the desert. I’ve already, (many times now) responded by saying that it confounds me as to why anyone would have EXPECTED to find archaeological remains of a massive camping trip from thousands of years ago! I mean, my goodness. If you want to reach for archaeological reasons to try and dismiss the Bible, I’d be looking to a lot of other places than that one! Where is Noah’s Ark? Where was the Garden of Eden? Where are the remains of the tower of Babel?
I mean, I’m no “archeologist”, but my understanding was that in archaeology, you don’t expect to find much more than buried foundations of stone structures, when digging for evidence of history from several thousand years back. Where in the Bible does it say the Israelites BUILT anything in the desert, or on the “footstep of Canaan”? If the bloody/sweaty/teary archaeologists are first injecting their assumption that there would be structures, and then turning around and declaring “look, there aren’t any structures”, then, wow, kudos to them for debunking their own unwarranted theory…
LikeLike
I think we can stop right there, don’t you?
Super!
’nuff said, I reckon.
LikeLike
Precisely, why put your faith in a silly, imaginary “man in the sky” when you can put your faith in silly men with loads of credentials who will validate what you already prefer to believe….
LikeLike
And to think … I promised Violet I wouldn’t call people Dickheads.
Sigh …
I wonder if I could get away with colossal Arse Hat?
Tell me, have you ever heard of Ron Wyatt?
LikeLike
I’ll get over it. Somehow… 😉
Yes I’ve heard of Ron Wyatt. I know he claimed to have found the Ark in the foothills of the Ararat mountains. He’s quite a “character” indeed, and also made a bunch of claims I think about finding the Ark of the Covenant, and secret tunnels under the Temple mount, etc. I think he watched Indiana Jones a few too many times, as is the case for actually a handful of “Christian archaeologists” out there, right down to the stupid hat. The prevalence of Christians with embarrassing MO’s sure ain’t nothing new though. If the existence of “arse-hats” who call themselves Christians yet do/say things I don’t agree with was enough to make me dismiss the Bible itself, then I would’ve had to jump ship the first day I learned about the Pope….
I live in the United States, remember, where obnoxious preachers and snake-oil salesman are never in short supply. Part of the beauty of it being a “free country” I suppose. We get to see numbskulls like Kirk Cameron stand on his teeny-bopper fame and try to “Save Christmas” for crying-out loud. If I didn’t have a high goofballs-in-the-name-God tolerance I wouldn’t have lasted this long… 😉
LikeLike
So therefore, I rake it, you do have at least one archaeologist you have ”on hand” as it were that will back to the hilt the biblical claims of the Exodus, yes?
LikeLike
If they are a professing theist, would you accept their credibility as an archaeologist, or would you scrub them from the acceptable list of candidates as suffering from a “mental disorder”..?
LikeLike
Let’ see who you have, first.
I presume you have one already whom you have studied. I hope you have not just trawled frakking WIKI looking for one?You’re not that low I hope?
And I beg you don’t say Bryant Woods or Kitchen as I will have to start using the D word again, and I really don’t want to.
And no dead ones either, please!
So no Albright.
Okay …. who’ve you got?
The floor is yours
LikeLike
Well gee, I really hate these sorts of “My archeologist can beat up your archeologist” kinds of debates, but personally, I like guys like Dr. Don Patton (who I’m sure you’d probably have some colorful adjectives ready for), as he is one of the guys who found the carving of stegosaurus on a Cambodian temple. (one of my favorite little archeological “curiosities”….)
Here’s a nice presentation where he actually starts out by addressing your buddy Herzog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPLiKDciPi8
LikeLike
Don Patton. Oh no … please. Say it ain’t so! Still awaiting his phony doctorate from some varsity in Australia …
You didn’t just write this absolute farking wankers name.
The Paluxy river footprints?
And you cite this Creationist Dickhead as your Number one expert for evidence for the Exodus.
Stegasaurus?
Even a five year old on crack would laugh at that.
Which reminds me …you haven’t yet offered any evidence for the Exodus have you?
You poor, delusional credulous nitwit.
How dare to have the temerity to raise a single objection about William Dever and yet you profer this F****** toe-rag.
May you never be allowed inn the gene pool …. even in the shallow end.
LikeLike
and……… there you go. again. not like I expected anything different. not like I would’ve expected YOU to actually go so far as to put forth the effort to discredit HIS findings, or claims, when it’s so much more your cup of tea to simply trot out a parade of clever little potty-names. I’m so very impressed by your haughty reaction. I mean, gosh, if you’re THAT haughty you must be right!
I’ve already told you plainly that I am “Creationist”, so I’m a “nit wit” as well, and in the end you’re only proving my earlier point that you’d simply berate anyone I pointed to as being “deranged” for believing in the historical accuracy of the Bible. Thank you for proving my point I suppose…
LikeLike
He is a supporter of the Paluxy river footprints! They were shown to be a frakking fraud. What is the matter with you?
Don’t you ever do any background checks on these stories and people?
What sort of imbecilic arse accepts this crap?
Now go away and find an archaeologist and stop embarrassing yourself.
LikeLike
a “fraud”, in the sense you think someone fabricated the river bed rock itself? or simply shown to not contain human footprints but simply too types of dinosaurs or “prehistoric” creatures? Big difference.
I of course believe that humans and dinosaurs absolutely co-existed, whether the Paluxy river prints are evidence to this or not. Feel free to mock away, but I do.
LikeLike
You said you had evidence to back the Exodus claims.I have no further interest in continuing this discussion if you cannot provide any.
LikeLike
You have no interest in being provided with evidence for Exodus, or the Bible, in the first place. I think you’ve more than demonstrated that so far. You only accept “evidence” that supports your own pre-determined conclusions, so, yeah, not really interested myself in continuing a discussion whereby your “experts” are expected to be worshipped as infallible while all opposing views are dismissed at the door. It’s a pretty lame tactic, to be perfectly honest…
LikeLike
In case you’re interested ….
Some of the tracks were fake, carved by locals to sell during the Great Depression.[3] These footprints do not represent the way human footprints would look in mud; they also do not accurately reflect the changes in the way giant humans would walk as a result of their size.[6] Other footprints were genuine tracks, but showed features inconsistent with human footprints.[who?] Supporters of the human footprint theory claimed that the tracks showed authentic mud “push-ups” and that the time period for the human and dinosaur trackways had to be the same as the trails intersected. In 1986, Glen Kuban conducted research on the trackways. He found that most tracks formed a wide “V” at the end and showed grooves in places that were not consistent with those in a human footprint. Kuban determined that the tracks were made by bipedal dinosaurs with three toes. These particular tracks showed the dinosaur walking on the soles of its feet rather than on its toes, as is usually found in tracks.[7] Evidence based in human anatomy also refutes the claim that the footprints are of human origin. The foot length measurements were used to calculate approximate heights of the humans; the pace and stride lengths do not match these calculated heights, making it highly unlikely that the tracks are human in origin. The measurements do fit the known values for bipedal dinosaurs.[6]
Other theories include random natural and erosion patterns resembling human footprints, trace fossils of burrows of small invertebrates, severely eroded or partial tracks, and other impressions known to occur in dinosaur trackways caused by different body parts.[6][7][8]
LikeLike
Wow. Thanks for the cut and paste. Don’t see why you think that’s going to knock me over somehow, anymore than I would expect the simple utterance of the words “Piltdown man” would you…
LikeLike
Because it illustrates the work from a genuine scientist. I thought you were all for the truth?
LikeLike
Evolution is not “genuine science”. Period. It’s a joke, an unobservable theory which is attributed the very blind faith you constantly ridicule, yet you somehow avoid this cognitive dissonance in your mind by simply saying, “I don’t know”. Well, if you can’t show it happening, it’s not “science”. Bone fragments and spotted moths and beak-shapes of finches are what are ultimately provided, and it falls short. 😉
LikeLike
evidence for the Exodus please. You said you had an archaeologist who had evidence. Let’s see it.
LikeLike
Humor me and listen to the presentation then, if you’re being serious. Otherwise, you’re just saying “show me evidence”, over and over and over again, and then sticking your nose up at whatever is given to you. (It’s kind of like trying to get my youngest to eat a vegetable…)
LikeLike
I want to read or listen to a real archaeologist. Patton does not qualify on this score.
LikeLike
(Nor would anyone who flatly denies the findings of guys like Herzog, Finkelstein, etc. So it is indeed pointless….)
LikeLike
Patton is not a qualified archaeologist, Herzog Dever and Finkelstein are. Do you see the difference?
LikeLike
The Pope is considered the most “qualified” leader of the “true Christian church”, yet somehow I have the audacity to consider him a total fraud and denier of the Faith, so….
I guess the net sum equation would be “qualifications” don’t = truth.
I’m not a “qualified” anything, and neither are you, (that I know of), yet I’m still able to use my own faculties to assemble evidence and reach conclusions, as do you.
If all it takes to establish something as “irrefutable fact” is a domination of the academic elite, then wow, that’s easily enough accomplished, but it still doesn’t make it true…
I don’t have to be an archeologist to find Herzog’s claims to be ludicrous at face value. Sometimes common sense is plenty.
LikeLike
Fine …
LikeLike
Here you go. This is where it’s at.
LikeLike
(I see… Yes, he’s a very impressive “scientist” there…)
His many mischaracterizations of the Bible, “Old Testament vs. New Testament”, etc., aren’t all that new, or all that clever, from my perspective…
Yawn.
LikeLike
Well, you go ahead an yawn.
LikeLike
“our book”… Still chuckling at the irony there. 😉
LikeLike
You understand irony? Impressive.
LikeLike
It comes in handy when enduring the endless barrages like those of Mr. Black. Like for instance, when listening to folks who are somehow far more determined and invested in disproving the Bible than they are in proving Evolution… 😉
LikeLike
I have no dog in that fight.
You are the one with a lot more at stake.
And a lot more to prove.
LikeLike
“You are the one with a lot more at stake.
And a lot more to prove.”
Ok, well I get that you sincerely believe this, but I confess I don’t at all understand how/why. This has come to be one of the most perplexing and central assumptions that I have continually bumped into during all these exchanges. Honestly, could you help me understand your thinking here? On the one hand, I would agree that from the perspective of my own belief system, there is indeed “a lot more at stake”, if the eternal destiny of every individual is affected by what we do/believe in the here-and-now, but if that all nonsense, as you are convinced, then what is really “at stake” then? I would assume that all their is to win/lose is merely the level of satisfaction one derives from their short time above ground. (no?) Perhaps maybe some altruistic sense of wanting to make the world a better place for our children, etc.? But there are ultimately no answers to the question of WHY, in any of it. WHY does it ultimately matter if I myself, or my future generations, feel any sort of enjoyment or satisfaction or freedom or “happiness” in the end, if in the long run everyone is just the assembled bits of some ancient exploded star (using some quasi-poetic language here, don’t correct me on falsely representing the specifics of Evolutionary cosmology) and whether or not humanity is altogether snuffed by the Universe’s ever-evolving tides, it really doesn’t matter, because I, and my children, and every generation after, will all wind up as nothing more than recycled dirt, forgotten and gone…
If that is what you are basically proposing to me as the true nature of our existence, then why is there even a “stake” in proving anything, to anyone, at all….?
Why are you spending your time online doing your little part to convince the deluded of their delusions, if you and I are both nothing but worm food in the end anyhow?
That’s what I don’t get. You can talk about all the ways that “religion” is infringing upon your ability to pursue that blissful God-free lifespan all you want, but really, all I’VE done is just have a series of conversations with you online. I don’t advocate government-endorsed religion, at all. I don’t advocate forcing beliefs or “values” etc. on people, at all. I simply believe that Jesus is who He said He was, that He is alive now, and I speak to people of that message. Not much of a real “infringement” in the end, if it’s just an exercise of freedom of speech…
But again, why are so convinced that the Theist has “prove” the existence of God to you, (within your incredibly narrowed limits of acceptable “proof”), but you can demand belief in Evolution without the same requirement of “tangible proof”….?
LikeLike
You don’t have to prove anything to me. I dont care what you believe. Do you not understand? This is your sovereign right.
Throw a saddle on a vegetarian dinosaur, donate money to Ken Ham, g on a dig with Don Patton – and send me a postcard -believe in talking snakes, and chatty donkeys. Truly, I do not give a monkey’s uncle.
So far no verifiable evidence has been submitted, and by all accounts the biblical tale is being dismantled to the bedrock, thus I can dismiss your beliefs with impunity.
I only ask that you afford the same rights as you would expect for yourself and do not preach it to children.
LikeLike
Nicely dodged.
LikeLike
What dodge?
LikeLike
You merely come back with your same routine of clowny caricatures, ending with “just don’t preach it to your children”, and totally ignore the question I placed squarely in your lap about how it is that your alternative belief system of dirt–>human–>dirt has any true grounds for objecting to anyone, teaching anything, doing anything, believing anything, one way or another…
If you really believe that you and I and everyone else are just dirt waiting to return to it’s true dirt-state, then why are so worried about what other people are teaching their kids, or saying in the “public arena”, etc.?
Are you worried that somehow anything said or done will jeopardize your dirt-fate? Because that’s the thing. If you’re really, truly CONVINCED of your own beliefs, then you should feel quite safe that no amount of delusion is going to stave off the dirt-hood that awaits us all…
LikeLike
What are talking about: dirt human dirt What sort of crap it that?
I seriously think you are not well.
LikeLike
I’m definitely making a post out of that truly bizarre dirt rant! Thanks for providing the inspiration to the dirt ranter. 🙂
LikeLike
I suppose the only thing one can say is :
Here’s mud in your eye?
You do know how to attract them don’t you?
Brandon,
IB,
Colorstorm
BFA
and now TiSTF.
A veritable Rogue’s Gallery of Dickheads.
Shall I send unkle an email? 😉
LikeLike
They never stick around for long, you always chase them off with your rudeness. At least you extract classic quotes from them before the go …
LikeLike
Oh well, at least I am good for something rather than a good-for-nothing as my mother always says!
I just keep hoping that one of these people ups the ante and produces something to really make us think. Something with substance.
Alas, their arguments are rapidly becoming nuttier by the day and I suspect will eventually be reduced to ”Er …?”
LikeLike
You left out SOM and Tiribulus, nut-jobs all —
LikeLike
Your’re right! How could I do these fine students of Woo such a dishonour
And there was Physics and Whiskey as well!
So many fundies … so little time.
LikeLike
I assumed you would follow my “shorthand” there. Those were intended to be arrows between the words. I.E. “from dirt, to humans, back to dirt”. It was a simple exercise of boiling down the grand Evolutionary cosmology to it’s ultimate, simple, conclusion.
It’s all “dirt”, from your take. So put the burden of proof back on yourself, and explain why anything matters in the end. Who cares what you, or I, or even our children believe, if we’re all just waiting to become nothing more than dirt in the end.
I’ll say it again. If we’re all just waiting to become dirt again, then what does any of it matter….(?)
LikeLike
Dust to dust,ashes to ashes …
Isn’t that what they say at funerals?
It doesn’t matter, in the sense that the inevitable end is death. Death is after all, the meaning of life.
What matters is the quality of one’s life while we ”here”.
Now, if you wish to draw pictures of Dinosaurs pulling a cart with a human that’s fine by me.
If you wish to contribute to Ken Ham’s Ark, that’s also fine.
If you wish to believe in a man good, that too is fine. Nuts, as far as I am concerned, but perfectly fine.
You have that right, as an adult.
But because quality of life is important, you do not have the right to impose this belief on anyone who does not have the faculties to either refute or not in a position to reason.
You do not accept the Islamic rationale or Judaic or Hindu, so why should anyone capable of reason be obliged to accept the Christian rationale?
Otherwise it is all good.
This seems fair enough don’t you think so?
LikeLike
I do think so, yes. I haven’t been trying to “impose” my beliefs on you, or anyone, but argue in favor of them, in order to try and persuade, just as you have.
But the question of “imposition” is really quite central, I agree. That is why I’d say the matter of Evolution being taught in text books, and declared as “fact” to children in schools across my own country (and many other parts of the world) is itself a breach of this very line. Ironic, (once again), that this is the situation, and yet atheists somehow still insist that Christianity is that which is most being shoved down the throats of Americans and the rest of the Western world….
Evolution is itself a thoroughly religious belief system, and yet far more “imposed” upon society than the Bible, or Islam, or Hinduism, or anything else these days….
LikeLike
Wow, anyone ever called you a lost cause? Evolution is a religious belief system?
LikeLike
Thoroughly so.
LikeLike
Evolution is fact. The origin of life is a different matter. What are you arguing against?
LikeLike
The only type of evolution that has been established as “fact” is what is called “micro-evolution”, or, the development of variations within species of organisms. This however does not come close to encapsulating all that is meant by the broader term of “Evolution”, which must account for everything from the origin of the universe, to the evolution of the stars and planets, the evolution of the elements from hydrogen to all the others, and then yes, the development of life from non-life. None of those other areas have been observed to experience Evolution, and neither can any examples therein even be recreated intentionally in a reproducible fashion. Thus, they are quite Unscientific. 🙂
The theist says “God created the world”, to which of course the Evolutionist/atheist responds, “So where did God come from”, and the theist answers “I don’t know”, and is dismissed for his “religious belief”.
The Evolutionist claims the entire universe sprang forth when nothing exploded and produced everything, and when asked what could possibly have caused this he responds “I don’t know”, yet refuses to admit that this entire theory itself relies just as much, if not more, on his own “religious” belief….
LikeLike
You see this where you just become a dickhead at the last.
I am quite prepared t say ”I don’t know.”
What s wrong with this? It’s honest.
The theist says goddidit. Which is simply a heap of steaming horse apples.
And the Christian says Jesus did it and he did in six days and he did 10,000 years ago and we know it’s true because it is in the bible which is god breathed and if you don’t believe it you are going to Hell to be tortured for eternity.
That, my friend is simply stone cold fuck- nuts, and it is this that you have no right to impose on anyone.
I hope you understand what human rights are?
LikeLike
No, it’s actually not “honest”, because the entire emphatic declaration on Evolution being “scientific fact” is predicated on the very issue of it being something that can be empirically demonstrated, (ya know, the very thing you’re always demanded be given for the existence of God….?)
But again, tellingly, you jump to ranting about hell (which I don’t believe I’ve ever gone about waving threats of hellfire in your face, have I?) and talking, once again, about “you have no right to impose on anyone”! Who is “imposing” anything? I’m talking. You’re talking. We’re all just talking.
Your comments are the ones peppered with “dickhead” and “crazy” etc., yet I’m the one trying to “impose”…?
I guess I figured that after this long you might at least be a tiny bit moved by the fact that I am clearly as stubborn and human as you are, prepared to talk about why I believe what I do, and not just crumpling into a weeping heap because you’ve learned how to throw a few Dawkinseque-fastballs at people…
LikeLike
Who’s throwing fast balls?
Let’s take it back.
Where do you derive your belief that the world was created in six days?
Start there …. explain it.
LikeLike
“Explain it”…? I’m pretty sure your internet access allows you to view and read the same portions of the Biblical Creation account that I have. Let God explain it. I’m pretty sure you’ve read it already, so is that what you’re really asking? No, of course not. You’re reverting once again to constantly knocking the burden of proof into the other person’s court, and then sitting back and going “I stand on the side of established fact”. Well, no, you don’t. Especially when you are the one constantly insisting on the painting the lines of the “court” to only include a pre-assumed materialistic universe. (“it’s “science” remember?)
My arriving at conclusion that the testimony of the Bible is true didn’t happen within the bounds of that pre-determined assumption of a materialistic universe, yet this is the very thing you are constantly trying to “take away” in the course of the discussion…
It’s a really old go-around, to be sure. Seems pretty silly to have to go back and restate the obvious logic that the existence of the supernatural is not something that can be mundanely proven by the natural, since, by definition, it is Supernatural…(!)
Anyhow… I was just watching a little bit of one of Kent Hovind’s presentations on “100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid”. Now THAT is some stellar stuff there. I can only imagine what you think about someone like Hovind, of course, but he destroys the theory of Evolution in more ways than Dawkins has time to think up mean names to call him… 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’re done….
LikeLike
(still love ya Ark….)
LikeLike
and you’re still a dickhead.
LikeLike
Sorry, I forgot to ask; are you a YEC or Old Earth Creationist?
LikeLike
Thought you said you were “done”…..? 😉
(Did God say He created the earth in seven literal days, each with a “morning and evening”, or billions of years…?)
LikeLike
Actually it was six days and he parked off on the seventh and had a beer, if memory serves. Unless of course you are reading a different bible to me?
So I take it you are a YEC.
Fine.
Here’s an interesting exercise, explain how a YEC geologist would find oil?
And no cheating, okay?
LikeLike
It matters because of the relationships we have with each other during that brief time we’re mobile, and if you spread a message that makes someone I care about believe that they are evil from birth and need some little Jewish rabbi to get hung out to dry in order to achieve “goodness,” you’re messing with that person’s self-concept, making them feel that they are worthless on their own, and making that brief time for them full of fear and doubt and anxiety that should be filled with joy and happiness – that’s why it matters that you keep your delusions to yourself. Everytime one of you spouts your nonsense, the likelihood increases that some of it will rub off on one of those I cherish.
Like Ark, I don’t care how you choose to assuage your anxieties, as long as you keep it to yourself.
LikeLike
I actually agree with a good deal of what you’re saying actually, up to the point about “living in fear/anxiety” etc. It does indeed challenge your concept of self. Quite right there, yet interestingly enough this still wouldn’t itself be “right” or “wrong” according to your cosmology, because these “infringers on your short bout of self-defined happiness are really just doing that which they’ve evolved to do, aren’t they?
If Evolution is the real truth, then oddly enough there’s no argument left even to defend your complaints against unwarranted religious guilt, because “happiness” and “guilt” are themselves nothing more than bio-chemical reactions occurring in your grey matter before your body shuts down. How can chemistry + matter complain, if that’s all everything is anyways? Your own argument unknowingly is appealing to the notion that you and I are all in fact much more than just matter + chemistry, but true “souls”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are no soles, except on my shoes.
We’re not discussing right or wrong here, we’re talking about what I will and will not tolerate, and I will not tolerate anyone bringing any form of pain to those I care about.
LikeLike
You won’t talk about it, because you don’t want to ponder the realization that such “pain” is really totally meaningless in an Evolutionary universe in the first place.
It’s like trying to walk through a minefield of paradoxes I imagine…
LikeLike
That entire comment made no sense whatsoever. Care to extrapolate?
LikeLike
Extrapolation granted: https://thetruthisstrangerthanfiction.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/the-peculiar-peter-pantheism-of-all-those-biomechanical-algorithms/
LikeLike
Did he REALLY say that he believed humans and dinosaurs coexisted? He was raised on the Flintstones, wasn’t he –?
I still had a little respect for his intelligence, but it’s gone now.
LikeLike
He REALLY did.
LikeLike
Personally, I would look at their credentials, see what they’ve published, see how it was received and check their standing among other archaeologists.
LikeLike
Maybe there’s some hope for your sanity yet.
LikeLike
Fiction, you have me wondering if you’re schizophrenic – one minute you seem highly intelligent, the next, you’re spouting nonsense!
Where is Noah’s Ark?
Noah’s Ark never existed because Noah never existed. The entire story is a plagiarism of The Epic of Gilgamesh, written about 2800 BCE, or roughly a hundred years before the fictional Noah was alleged to have existed. The first known work of fiction, this epic Sumarian poem of a man’s search life included the story of King Utinapishtim, who built a boat to escape the wrath of the Sumarian gods who had decided to cause a flood. The story was based on an ACTUAL Mesopotamian flood that occurred in 2900 BCE, when the Euphrates River overflowed its banks by 15 cubits (the same 15 cubits plagiarised by the Bible authors (22.5 feet) above which they claimed that all of the mountains were covered, and in fact, covered an area about the equivalent of 3 modern counties.
The real king was Ziusudra, king of the city-state of Shuruppak, who escaped down the Euphrates in a trading barge loaded with cotton, cattle and beer.
Where was the Garden of Eden?
It never existed. There were a group of botanical gardens outside the gates of ancient Babylon, however, named the Gardens of Edin – possibly that’s where the Hebrews got their idea.
Where are the remains of the tower of Babel?
The Tower of Babel fable was based on a Babylonian Ziggurat, a temple built to honor the Mesopotamian pantheon of gods. The little room at the top, was for the diety d’jour to put his feet up and rest anytime he deigned to visit earth. Below is a artist’s depiction of one, and to the right, the remains of one.
Any god with a brain in its head and the ability to create a universe and all of the laws that govern it, would know enough to cock back in his Laz-E-Boy, with a plate of nachos in his lap and a cold Bud parked on a nearby cloud, in front of his big screen and laugh his ass off as the stone masons finally got so high that they passed out from lack of oxygen. There was no need for confusion of languages or world-wide dispersion. Of course the anonymous, superstitious, scientifically-ignorant Bronze Age men who concocted the fable, couldn’t have known that.
LikeLike
“Noah’s Ark never existed because Noah never existed”.
Once again, you are inserting your assumptions at the front of the very issue in question. (Circular reasoning, it’s a tough habit to break…)
Those inserted assumptions are what compel you to ONLY consider the explanation that the Flood epic in Genesis is an exaggerated version of the one from the Sumarians, and not the only other way around. There are in fact hundreds of “flood legends” found in almost every culture spanning the globe, and I find it to be one of the most convincing facts which lends support to the idea that all of humanity traces it’s ancestry back to a single family that survived a truly global flood.
Remember, the accounts in Genesis of the Creation, the Flood, etc., do not claim to have suddenly sprang into the minds of the Hebrews when Moses finally had them written down, but are quite universally believed to have existed in the form of oral tradition since the time of them actually having occurred… This would only make sense, in the context of the narrative of Biblical history itself. As such, it would only be presumable even that variations of this oral history would’ve been passed on to lots of Noah’s descendants besides just the Hebrews…
As for the Tower of Babel, I personally do not believe it was just a simple attempt at building a stone tower into the sky to “reach God”, but probably something that I’m sure would only sound rather “X-filey” to your ears, so I’m hesitant to even go there…
LikeLike
“…compel you to ONLY consider the explanation that the Flood epic in Genesis is an exaggerated version of the one from the Sumarians, and not the only other way around”
The actual Mesopotamian flood, covering three counties to a depth of 22.5 feet, occurred in 2900 BCE. The Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains phrases used in the Noah story, was written in 2800 BCE. All Jewish sources of which I’m aware, place Noah at 2600 BCE, while his actual biblical tale wasn’t written until after 1000 BCE. Even accounting for oral tradition, the Mesopotamian flood story – for which, btw, actual geological evidence exists – the oral traditionalists would hardly have begun telling his story 300 years before he was alleged to have existed, in time for it to have been recorded in Mesopotamian annals.
Please make sense – don’t make me lose ALL respect for you.
LikeLike
First, you do realize you’re now arguing against the Bible, using a tale written on tablets that describes gods and mythical monsters, etc.? Ironic that someone who finds the mythology of the Bible so appalling is suddenly turning to other mythological works as somehow being more authoritative… (but again, I suppose the difference is that the Sumarian epic imposes no ultimate moral infringement upon your own autonomy, and thus, can be tolerated?) ‘-)
but anyhow, not sure where you get your timeline of 2800 BC, as I find the Epic of Gilgamesh being claimed to have been written around 2100 BC, while the actual tablets FOUND date to only the 18th – 7th century BC.
But “irregardless” (as Dubya would say), I obviously do not put stock in the specific details of the Sumarian version of the flood being “localized”, nor in the so-called evidence of a regional flood for that matter. Remarkably, many of the details between the Genesis and Sumerian accounts are very similar however, save the “small detail” of Genesis ascribing it to GOD the Creator, and the Sumerians ascribing it to their pantheon of gods….
And at that point, we are broaching the topic of the pagan reinterpretations of the true history, vs. the Biblical account…
LikeLike
“First, you do realize you’re now arguing against the Bible, using a tale written on tablets that describes gods and mythical monsters, etc.?” – No, that’s not first, first is the fact that I billed The Epic of Gilgamesh” in my very first comment regarding it, as “the oldest known work of FICTION” – I don’t know how you could have missed that. Now if you want to say that I’m using one work of fiction to argue against another work of fiction, THAT would be far more accurate. I was using it to demonstrate the fact that the Hebrews plagiarized the basic tale, expanded it considerably, then ascribed it to their god. Note particularly, considering “Gilgamesh” was written at least a couple of hundred years before Noah was even alleged to have existed, and that the biblical story wasn’t written until roughly 1500 years later, plagiarization is the only explanation I can think of that has the Mesopotamian flood at 15 cubits (22.5 feet) and the Hebrews use exactly the same figure, highly exaggerated – 15 cubits higher than the highest mountains.
Further, from the Epic of Gilgamesh, written hundreds of years earlier: “The gods smelled the savor, the gods smelled the sweet savor and collected like flies over a sacrifice.” And two hundred years later, what does our old buddy Yahweh do when Noah disem-arks and offers a sacrifice? (8:21) “the Lord smelled the sweet savor”!
“I find the Epic of Gilgamesh being claimed to have been written around 2100 BC” – Yeah, well, that’s what happens when you don’t take the time to dig deeper than Wikipedia.
“The Epic of Gilgamish”
tr. by R. Campbell Thompson
“It is of great antiquity, and, inasmuch as a fragment of a Sumerian Deluge text is extant, it would appear to have had its origin with the Sumerians at a remote period, perhaps the fourth millennium, or even earlier.”
~~ R. Campbell Thompson ~~
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/eog/eog01.htm
The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh
by Frank Lorey, M.A.
Institute for Creation Research
“The…Epic, which dates back to possibly third millennium B.C…..“
LikeLike
Meant to say, “man’s search for eternal life” – WordPress ate my homework!
LikeLike
The “whole world” during the time of the disciples were the Jews and the Roman world, Col 1:6, Col 1:23 and Romans 1:8 confirm the truth that the great commission had been fulfilled before AD 70.
LikeLike
Matt 24:29-30 is about the Lord’s judgment that will happen after Jerusalem is destroyed, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Matt 24:29-30 is not speaking about the end of the planet.
The words that are spoken in Matt 24:29 are a picture of judgment, the stars won’t literally fall from heaven, the Messiah is using words that the disciples knew come from the Old Testament that describe judgment.
https://bornfromabove7.wordpress.com/category/matthew-2429-30/
LikeLike
Still on your stump, I see —
LikeLike
It is for those who are supposed to see the truth, if you actually care about the truth, then you wouldn’t keep fighting it, those who say Matthew 24:29-30 is talking about the end of the planet, don’t speak the truth
LikeLike
Those who claim there’s a god don’t speak the truth either.
LikeLike
That’s what you believe & I respect that, I don’t agree, but I am not here to make you believe what I believe, all I am doing is speaking the truth about the Bible so that those who are supposed to see the truth will see it & will no longer be deceived by those who claim to be Christian that speak false 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Fiction, I’d love to get your comments on my latest post about exorcisms. I’m confused about what the general Christian outlook is towards this and I know you’re not reluctant to tackled difficult issues like this:
I’ll be sending the same message to other Christians I think could add the conversation here, because I think it’s very serious issue that needs careful consideration and more input.
LikeLike
LOL! They see the truth, you don’t 🙂
LikeLike
LOL !!!
LikeLike
Of course Paul was still waiting for the return of Christ, Colossians was written before Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, the majority of the New Testament was written before AD 70, so it makes sense that the disciples / Apostles were still waiting for Christ to return when the letters in the New Testament were written 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: violet’s bible study: god is love | violetwisp
Sorry, Fiction, but this is a reply to your comment above, a notification for which I seem not to have gotten, and there’s no “Reply” button:
“The idea that ‘Canaanite tribes’ invented the Hebrew patriarchs, and their foreign God, in order to effectively condemn THEMSELVES and their previous Pagan practices is so ridiculous.”
I agree – it’s my theory, and I’ve voiced it here before, that the god of the patriarchs (or at least the era during which the patriarchs were reputed to have lived) was Amurru, god of the Amurrites who eventually conquered all of Mesopotamia during that era. Their original home base was Aleppo, Syria (hence the many references to Abe’s nephew as Laban the Syrian), and thus, not a Canaanite god, although the Canaanites absorbed some of his qualities into their own pantheon. Another name for Amurru was “El Shaddai.”
I think that it wasn’t until the Hebrew tribes, represented by the fictional Moses, joined briefly with the Midianites (Kennites), who worshipped an obscure desert god they called YHWH, that the two gods were merged. Note that in Ex 6:3, the anonymous author has his god saying, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name, JEHOVA [Yahweh] was I not known to them.” Now that’s from the KJV – if you go back to the original Hebrew, you find that the KJV people doctored the text, as it originally said “El Shaddai,” not “God Almighty.”
LikeLike
Whew, seems I’m finally all caught up. Maybe now, I can get back to my porn.
LikeLike
You should take my original advice and watch a video about “partial preterism”. No one here is telling you anything you can’t know just by a straight-forward, non-scholarly reading of the text.
There are many interpretations of this passage called the “Olivet discourse”. Albert Schwietzer many years ago and now Muslim-atheist Reza Aslan think Jesus and early Christians made some predictions that simply failed. Then, there is partial preterism which is much more nuanced and in tune with Jewish ideas. And, there is hyperpreterism, which basically says that all prophecies have been fulfilled already and the whole “New Heaven and Earth” business was metaphoric or spiritualized.
LikeLike
Hi Brandon, I’d love to get your comments on my latest post about exorcisms. I’m confused about what the general Christian outlook is towards this and I know you’re not reluctant to tackled difficult issues like this:
I’ll be sending the same message to other Christians I think could add the conversation here, because I think it’s very serious issue that needs careful consideration and more input.
LikeLike
Pingback: a christian view of atheism | violetwisp
I’d like to hope, Fiction, that from this, you can see how evolution operates,though now that I know you follow such known idiots as Hovinid and Ham, I’m sure my effort s wasted:
LikeLike
And this one’s for the Arkster —
LikeLike
Great rendition of how evolution suggests men are nothing more than glorified apes; devoid of the spirit of man, and explains why men are completely unable to reason and process truth and a God in heaven, therefore giving perfect justification for acting and speaking like animals. (ahem, just read certain comments)
Well done.
By the way, when the apes were brought to Solomon, did they more closely resemble the guy on the left, or the guy on the right? Then again, why would you put the guy on the left in a cage.
LikeLike
Which species of ape was it that was brought to Solomon, CS? Or could it be that because the Bible authors were, as I’ve often told you, scientifically ignorant, they had no idea which species it was?
LikeLike
Uh huh, nice try. Don’t feel too bad, Mr. Dawkins is silenced also.
Would you like to try sports for 200?
(Btw, you would be embarrassed to even open your mouth in the company of King Solomon)
LikeLike
I assume that’s your way of saying you don’t know the answer —
LikeLike
That’s your trouble, you assume things incorrectly.
Now learn a parable of the fig tree. -Mt 24
LikeLike
What do fig trees have to do with which species of ape that was brought to Solomon? Have you noticed how rarely anything you say makes sense? You seem to have turned blithering into a new language. I’ve heard a NUMBER of people complain about that —
LikeLike
Hi ColorStorm, I’d love to get your comments on my latest post about exorcisms. I’m confused about what the general Christian outlook is towards this and I know you’re not reluctant to tackled difficult issues like this:
I’ll be sending the same message to other Christians I think could add the conversation here, because I think it’s very serious issue that needs careful consideration and more input.
LikeLike
That’s just an invitation for him to fling scripture like monkeys fling poo, but then there is some amusement to be had from that —
LikeLike