| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" |
| Date: |
28 Nov 2003 12:59:36 AM |
| Object: |
Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
Hello,
I was able to convert the VHS tape to mp3 and upload the entire 104 minutes
of my debate with Stan Kohls from the Ventura Freethinkers. It was a great
debate and it got emotional and loud, at times, because the crowd asked
questions, made comments, etc.
Link: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=111303173856
Interestingly, several of the people in the Ventura Freethinkers have
decided to leave their group because of the way the people behaved on that
night. I didn't find anything overly offensive, but I have pretty thick
skin. Gene Cook asked them to quiet down a couple of times and he even
fielded a couple of questions. Pastor Cook is a seasoned debater and he was
also the moderator; although this debate had a loose format.
The Ventura Freethinkers were unable to produce even one biblical error.
Enjoy the debate.
Jason Gastrich
--
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 50,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
MSN:
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
28 Nov 2003 07:06:23 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:59:36 GMT in alt.atheism, Dr. Jason Gastrich
("Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Hello,
I was able to convert the VHS tape to mp3 and upload the entire 104 minutes
of my debate with Stan Kohls from the Ventura Freethinkers. It was a great
debate and it got emotional and loud, at times, because the crowd asked
questions, made comments, etc.
Link: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=111303173856
Interestingly, several of the people in the Ventura Freethinkers have
decided to leave their group because of the way the people behaved on that
night.
Ref?
I didn't find anything overly offensive, but I have pretty thick
skin. Gene Cook asked them to quiet down a couple of times and he even
fielded a couple of questions. Pastor Cook is a seasoned debater and he was
also the moderator; although this debate had a loose format.
The Ventura Freethinkers were unable to produce even one biblical error.
I don't wish to be mean about this, Jason, *but* there is no way any
secular evidence would con[ince you of that. Or if I'm wrong on that,
perhaps you can give me a hint as to what fact would convince you that
the Bible is in error.
Enjoy the debate.
You know you really want a pro to encode this kind of thing you really
should ask me. Nicely.
Jason Gastrich
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
28 Nov 2003 07:16:41 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:59:36 GMT in alt.atheism, Dr. Jason Gastrich
("Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Hello,
I was able to convert the VHS tape to mp3 and upload the entire 104
minutes of my debate with Stan Kohls from the Ventura Freethinkers.
It was a great debate and it got emotional and loud, at times,
because the crowd asked questions, made comments, etc.
Link: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=111303173856
Interestingly, several of the people in the Ventura Freethinkers have
decided to leave their group because of the way the people behaved
on that night.
Ref?
What is Ref? If you want, you can see the Google Groups archive of
free.christians and scan for the old Stan Kohls debate thread. I posted
several messages from the Ventura Freethinkers. Here is a shortcut for you:
http://read.freechristians.org.
I didn't find anything overly offensive, but I have pretty thick
skin. Gene Cook asked them to quiet down a couple of times and he
even fielded a couple of questions. Pastor Cook is a seasoned
debater and he was also the moderator; although this debate had a
loose format.
The Ventura Freethinkers were unable to produce even one biblical
error.
I don't wish to be mean about this, Jason, *but* there is no way any
secular evidence would con[ince you of that. Or if I'm wrong on that,
perhaps you can give me a hint as to what fact would convince you that
the Bible is in error.
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an error.
Enjoy the debate.
You know you really want a pro to encode this kind of thing you really
should ask me. Nicely.
Heh. I'm borrowing a cord from my Dad and I may be able to transfer it from
VHS to mp3 in a better-sounding way. Not sure, though.
Are you in England?
Sincerely,
Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
28 Nov 2003 09:32:35 AM |
|
|
On 28 Nov 2003, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:ZUHxb.54584$t01.31729@twister.socal.rr.com:
Therion Ware wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 06:59:36 GMT in alt.atheism, Dr. Jason Gastrich
("Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Hello,
I was able to convert the VHS tape to mp3 and upload the entire 104
minutes of my debate with Stan Kohls from the Ventura Freethinkers.
It was a great debate and it got emotional and loud, at times,
because the crowd asked questions, made comments, etc.
Link:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=111303173856
Interestingly, several of the people in the Ventura Freethinkers
have decided to leave their group because of the way the people
behaved on that night.
Ref?
What is Ref? If you want, you can see the Google Groups archive of
free.christians and scan for the old Stan Kohls debate thread. I
posted several messages from the Ventura Freethinkers. Here is a
shortcut for you: http://read.freechristians.org.
I didn't find anything overly offensive, but I have pretty thick
skin. Gene Cook asked them to quiet down a couple of times and he
even fielded a couple of questions. Pastor Cook is a seasoned
debater and he was also the moderator; although this debate had a
loose format.
The Ventura Freethinkers were unable to produce even one biblical
error.
I don't wish to be mean about this, Jason, *but* there is no way any
secular evidence would con[ince you of that. Or if I'm wrong on that,
perhaps you can give me a hint as to what fact would convince you
that the Bible is in error.
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an error.
"Harmonized" -- kind of like the axe murderer who claims that multiple
nervous tics in succession forced him to chop his victim into little
pieces? That's about how you "harmonize" Biblical errors, Jason. I've
seen you do it so don't try to ***** me or anyone else.
Enjoy the debate.
You know you really want a pro to encode this kind of thing you
really should ask me. Nicely.
Heh. I'm borrowing a cord from my Dad and I may be able to transfer
it from VHS to mp3 in a better-sounding way. Not sure, though.
Are you in England?
Sincerely,
Jason
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
28 Nov 2003 07:54:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:16:41 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an error.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 04:12:44 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:16:41 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an
error.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Is this question bombing or are these rhetorical? Surely, you aren't
proposing a deep discussion regarding all four of those. Are you?
I'm happy to give a rapid fire response to your rapid fire questions.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Untrue. See Answers in Genesis at http://answersingenesis.org. Check out
Dr. Steve Austin's work from ICR. http://icr.org
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
I've researched this. See my page here:
http://www.jcsm.org/misc/TheExodus.htm
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Do you have any evidence for this? I'm assuming you'll post a link to some
geocities atheist site or something, but I hope you impress me with
something more substantial.
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Once again, please provide some proof for this "question."
Sincerely,
Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 12:55:18 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:wi_xb.58090$t01.33014@twister.socal.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
Untrue. See Answers in Genesis at http://answersingenesis.org. Check out
Dr. Steve Austin's work from ICR. http://icr.org
Both sites are by definition not scientific sites. They require you to
deny any science that in any way questions the bible.
If science was done this way Einstein would have been executed for defying
Newton. I'm uncertain about what they would have done to Heisenberg.
.
|
|
|
| User: "lizzard woman" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 01:05:37 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:qY5yb.128466$Ec1.5359165@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
I'm uncertain about what they would have done to Heisenberg.
Excellent.
--
sharon, aa #2153
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 02:34:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:55:18 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:wi_xb.58090$t01.33014@twister.socal.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
Untrue. See Answers in Genesis at http://answersingenesis.org. Check out
Dr. Steve Austin's work from ICR. http://icr.org
Both sites are by definition not scientific sites. They require you to
deny any science that in any way questions the bible.
If science was done this way Einstein would have been executed for defying
Newton. I'm uncertain about what they would have done to Heisenberg.
Burn him of course. Better be save than sorry.
The inquisition much rather burned 100 righteous catholics than let
one possible heretic go free.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 04:49:53 PM |
|
|
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:wi_xb.58090$t01.33014@twister.socal.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:16:41 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an
error.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Geological textbooks in evolutionist schools contradict geological evidence.
They show diagrams of rock formations following the ages of the earth as
they see them all nicely set down one on top of the other. IN fact that
hardl;y ever happens, They are all twisted and rent like plasticine. It is
obvious a catastrophe happened. Geology is so unpredictable that it was
always a gamble wildcatting for oil, and still is, even with modern methods.
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
You twat. Don't you know about the climate change in the Levant area?
Haven't you ever heard of the fertile crescent?
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
You'll be telling me next Berlin wasn't a walled city next, just because
archeologists going there now wouldn't be able to dig up any bits of wall.
You atheist guys are so fucking gullible it's untrue.
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. It was around even at the time of Micah.
The point is it was little, it didn't have to be a city. Why don't you
listen to the Word?
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
That's Micah 5,2, that is, pig head. Do you think Micah dreamed it up?
These are all stupid points, you've come up with.
Better get some better reasons to send your own ***** to hell.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 07:09:51 PM |
|
|
"Constance Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote in message
news:bqb7qk$as6$0@pita.alt.net...
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:wi_xb.58090$t01.33014@twister.socal.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:16:41 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an
error.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Geological textbooks in evolutionist schools contradict geological
evidence.
They show diagrams of rock formations following the ages of the earth as
they see them all nicely set down one on top of the other. IN fact that
hardl;y ever happens, They are all twisted and rent like plasticine. It is
obvious a catastrophe happened. Geology is so unpredictable that it was
always a gamble wildcatting for oil, and still is, even with modern
methods.
Please post a list of evolutionist schools.
Please explain what geology has to do with evolution.
Please explain how you differentiate between a disaster and say 100 millions
of year of earth movement.
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
You twat. Don't you know about the climate change in the Levant area?
Haven't you ever heard of the fertile crescent?
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
Don't read much do you. Hell it's even been on TV.
You'll be telling me next Berlin wasn't a walled city next, just because
archeologists going there now wouldn't be able to dig up any bits of wall.
You atheist guys are so fucking gullible it's untrue.
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. It was around even at the time of Micah.
The point is it was little, it didn't have to be a city. Why don't you
listen to the Word?
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands
of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
That's Micah 5,2, that is, pig head. Do you think Micah dreamed it up?
These are all stupid points, you've come up with.
Better get some better reasons to send your own ***** to hell.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
In Love, the foul mouthed person says.
Thank you. Again you show us and the more rational christians, the dangers
of being a fundamentalist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 06:56:18 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:49:53 +0100, "Constance
Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> let us all know that:
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:wi_xb.58090$t01.33014@twister.socal.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:16:41 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an
error.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Geological textbooks in evolutionist schools contradict geological evidence.
No, they don't. But thanks for lying.
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
You twat. Don't you know about the climate change in the Levant area?
Haven't you ever heard of the fertile crescent?
The geologic evidence shows no such record.
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
You'll be telling me next Berlin wasn't a walled city next, just because
archeologists going there now wouldn't be able to dig up any bits of wall.
Nah, we're just telling you reality.
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. It was around even at the time of Micah.
The point is it was little, it didn't have to be a city. Why don't you
listen to the Word?
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
Bethelehem Ephratah was a TRIBE, not a CITY, you fucking moron.
Get a fucking clue, you fucknut.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Constance Vigilant" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 07:06:24 PM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:nufisvgg8ifvaipor50bmf7qshogcs0dh4@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:49:53 +0100, "Constance
Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> let us all know that:
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:wi_xb.58090$t01.33014@twister.socal.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:16:41 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
<news@jcsm.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an
error.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Geological textbooks in evolutionist schools contradict geological
evidence.
No, they don't. But thanks for lying.
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
You twat. Don't you know about the climate change in the Levant area?
Haven't you ever heard of the fertile crescent?
The geologic evidence shows no such record.
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
You'll be telling me next Berlin wasn't a walled city next, just because
archeologists going there now wouldn't be able to dig up any bits of
wall.
Nah, we're just telling you reality.
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. It was around even at the time of Micah.
The point is it was little, it didn't have to be a city. Why don't you
listen to the Word?
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
Bethelehem Ephratah was a TRIBE, not a CITY, you fucking moron.
Get a fucking clue, you fucknut.
Don
So why is it quoted as a place name in Matthew then, when that whole passage
of Micah is quoted and put in context? You would think the Jews at the time
would have realised it was a tribe it really one, and not just in your
excuse for a brain, perverted beyond hope by your rebellion against the
creator.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 02:46:40 PM |
|
|
"Constance Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote in message
news:bqcju6$j4j$0@pita.alt.net...
<snip >
Don
So why is it quoted as a place name in Matthew then, when that whole
passage
of Micah is quoted and put in context? You would think the Jews at the
time
would have realised it was a tribe it really one, and not just in your
excuse for a brain, perverted beyond hope by your rebellion against the
creator.
Perhaps because Matthew was ignorant of the fact that the town did not
exist.
Considering the average that people lived at the time there is a very good
chance that Matthew was not alive or a young child at the time of Christ's
death
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/tax_census.html
is an interesting place to start.
"There Was No Universal Census at the Time of Jesus' Birth
Jesus was not greater than two years old when King Herod made his death
decree for all of Bethlehem's children under two years of age. Since Herod
died in 4 B.C., the earliest year of Jesus' birth would have been about 6
B.C. As pointed out by historians, the only census by Quirinius when he was
governor in Syria was conducted in A.D. 6-7 [2-3], which was twelve or more
years after the birth of Jesus. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Davey" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 03:02:47 PM |
|
|
Użytkownik "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:QGsyb.133005$Ec1.5492102@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Constance Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote in message
news:bqcju6$j4j$0@pita.alt.net...
<snip >
Don
So why is it quoted as a place name in Matthew then, when that whole
passage
of Micah is quoted and put in context? You would think the Jews at the
time
would have realised it was a tribe it really one, and not just in your
excuse for a brain, perverted beyond hope by your rebellion against the
creator.
Perhaps because Matthew was ignorant of the fact that the town did not
exist.
Considering the average that people lived at the time there is a very good
chance that Matthew was not alive or a young child at the time of Christ's
death
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/tax_census.html
is an interesting place to start.
"There Was No Universal Census at the Time of Jesus' Birth
Jesus was not greater than two years old when King Herod made his death
decree for all of Bethlehem's children under two years of age. Since Herod
died in 4 B.C., the earliest year of Jesus' birth would have been about 6
B.C. As pointed out by historians, the only census by Quirinius when he
was
governor in Syria was conducted in A.D. 6-7 [2-3], which was twelve or
more
years after the birth of Jesus. "
They must be pretty poor historians to ignore the Biblical account.
Uncle Davey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 03:40:58 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:02:47 +0100, "Uncle Davey"
<noway@jose.com> let us all know that:
Użytkownik "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:QGsyb.133005$Ec1.5492102@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Constance Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote in message
news:bqcju6$j4j$0@pita.alt.net...
<snip >
Don
So why is it quoted as a place name in Matthew then, when that whole
passage
of Micah is quoted and put in context? You would think the Jews at the
time
would have realised it was a tribe it really one, and not just in your
excuse for a brain, perverted beyond hope by your rebellion against the
creator.
Perhaps because Matthew was ignorant of the fact that the town did not
exist.
Considering the average that people lived at the time there is a very good
chance that Matthew was not alive or a young child at the time of Christ's
death
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/tax_census.html
is an interesting place to start.
"There Was No Universal Census at the Time of Jesus' Birth
Jesus was not greater than two years old when King Herod made his death
decree for all of Bethlehem's children under two years of age. Since Herod
died in 4 B.C., the earliest year of Jesus' birth would have been about 6
B.C. As pointed out by historians, the only census by Quirinius when he
was
governor in Syria was conducted in A.D. 6-7 [2-3], which was twelve or
more
years after the birth of Jesus. "
They must be pretty poor historians to ignore the Biblical account.
Or just very good historians to read the Roman account.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 05:18:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:02:47 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Użytkownik "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:QGsyb.133005$Ec1.5492102@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Constance Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote in message
news:bqcju6$j4j$0@pita.alt.net...
<snip >
Don
So why is it quoted as a place name in Matthew then, when that whole
passage
of Micah is quoted and put in context? You would think the Jews at the
time
would have realised it was a tribe it really one, and not just in your
excuse for a brain, perverted beyond hope by your rebellion against the
creator.
Perhaps because Matthew was ignorant of the fact that the town did not
exist.
Considering the average that people lived at the time there is a very good
chance that Matthew was not alive or a young child at the time of Christ's
death
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/tax_census.html
is an interesting place to start.
"There Was No Universal Census at the Time of Jesus' Birth
Jesus was not greater than two years old when King Herod made his death
decree for all of Bethlehem's children under two years of age. Since Herod
died in 4 B.C., the earliest year of Jesus' birth would have been about 6
B.C. As pointed out by historians, the only census by Quirinius when he
was
governor in Syria was conducted in A.D. 6-7 [2-3], which was twelve or
more
years after the birth of Jesus. "
They must be pretty poor historians to ignore the Biblical account.
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey thinks to prove the Bible is accurate, you only have to
consult the Bible.
Nice try Uncle Davey, but doing so proves you are a crooked man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: aa TQOTM Nomination! |
30 Nov 2003 03:57:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:02:47 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Nominated for sheer obtuseness:
In response to:
Użytkownik "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:QGsyb.133005$Ec1.5492102@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"There Was No Universal Census at the Time of Jesus' Birth
Jesus was not greater than two years old when King Herod made his death
decree for all of Bethlehem's children under two years of age. Since Herod
died in 4 B.C., the earliest year of Jesus' birth would have been about 6
B.C. As pointed out by historians, the only census by Quirinius when he
was governor in Syria was conducted in A.D. 6-7 [2-3], which was twelve or
more years after the birth of Jesus. "
"Uncle Davey" replied (in classic bleater fashion):
They must be pretty poor historians to ignore the Biblical account.
Sometimes there are no words. Seconds?
---
ROT-13 on Email to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Blast Femur" |
|
| Title: Re: aa TQOTM Nomination! |
30 Nov 2003 05:32:19 PM |
|
|
raven1 <cflpurqryrcunag@synfuznvy.pbz> wrote in
news:0opksvk9uifpb1ovneif2dg7t8p3547tt5@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:02:47 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Nominated for sheer obtuseness:
In response to:
Użytkownik "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:QGsyb.133005$Ec1.5492102@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"There Was No Universal Census at the Time of Jesus' Birth
Jesus was not greater than two years old when King Herod made his
death decree for all of Bethlehem's children under two years of age.
Since Herod died in 4 B.C., the earliest year of Jesus' birth would
have been about 6 B.C. As pointed out by historians, the only census
by Quirinius when he was governor in Syria was conducted in A.D. 6-7
[2-3], which was twelve or more years after the birth of Jesus. "
"Uncle Davey" replied (in classic bleater fashion):
They must be pretty poor historians to ignore the Biblical account.
Sometimes there are no words. Seconds?
---
ROT-13 on Email to reply.
Seconded.
--
Blast Femur
______________
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes
talking to people and guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-Paul Provenza
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: aa TQOTM Nomination! |
03 Dec 2003 03:05:42 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns94439E0D5FCC9blastfemur@204.127.199.17>,
Blast Femur <you@wish.com> wrote:
raven1 <cflpurqryrcunag@synfuznvy.pbz> wrote in
news:0opksvk9uifpb1ovneif2dg7t8p3547tt5@4ax.com:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:02:47 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Nominated for sheer obtuseness:
In response to:
Użytkownik "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:QGsyb.133005$Ec1.5492102@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"There Was No Universal Census at the Time of Jesus' Birth
Jesus was not greater than two years old when King Herod made his
death decree for all of Bethlehem's children under two years of age.
Since Herod died in 4 B.C., the earliest year of Jesus' birth would
have been about 6 B.C. As pointed out by historians, the only census
by Quirinius when he was governor in Syria was conducted in A.D. 6-7
[2-3], which was twelve or more years after the birth of Jesus. "
"Uncle Davey" replied (in classic bleater fashion):
They must be pretty poor historians to ignore the Biblical account.
Sometimes there are no words. Seconds?
---
ROT-13 on Email to reply.
Seconded.
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: aa TQOTM Nomination! |
02 Dec 2003 10:03:27 AM |
|
|
raven1 <cflpurqryrcunag@synfuznvy.pbz> wrote in message news:<0opksvk9uifpb1ovneif2dg7t8p3547tt5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:02:47 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Provide the text of the original bet and show me where I bet gen2rev .
Then apologize for slander.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: aa TQOTM Nomination! |
03 Dec 2003 01:44:30 AM |
|
|
On 2 Dec 2003 08:03:27 -0800, (J McCoy) wrote:
raven1 <cflpurqryrcunag@synfuznvy.pbz> wrote in message news:<0opksvk9uifpb1ovneif2dg7t8p3547tt5@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:02:47 +0100, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
wrote:
Provide the text of the original bet and show me where I bet gen2rev .
Then apologize for slander.
JM
What are you referring to, nameless? You kind of forgot to include
that. Raven1 wrote what in his message?
Michelle Malkin (Mickey)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Hands that work are better than mouths that pray -
Robert Ingersoll
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 03:45:19 PM |
|
|
Uncle Davey wrote:
Użytkownik "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> napisał w wiadomości
news:QGsyb.133005$Ec1.5492102@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Constance Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote in message
news:bqcju6$j4j$0@pita.alt.net...
<snip >
Don
So why is it quoted as a place name in Matthew then, when that whole
passage
of Micah is quoted and put in context? You would think the Jews at the
time
would have realised it was a tribe it really one, and not just in your
excuse for a brain, perverted beyond hope by your rebellion against the
creator.
Perhaps because Matthew was ignorant of the fact that the town did not
exist.
Considering the average that people lived at the time there is a very good
chance that Matthew was not alive or a young child at the time of Christ's
death
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/tax_census.html
is an interesting place to start.
"There Was No Universal Census at the Time of Jesus' Birth
Jesus was not greater than two years old when King Herod made his death
decree for all of Bethlehem's children under two years of age. Since Herod
died in 4 B.C., the earliest year of Jesus' birth would have been about 6
B.C. As pointed out by historians, the only census by Quirinius when he
was
governor in Syria was conducted in A.D. 6-7 [2-3], which was twelve or
more
years after the birth of Jesus. "
They must be pretty poor historians to ignore the Biblical account.
They'd be foolish historians indeed to take the Biblical accounts for
granted.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 09:01:25 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:06:24 +0100, "Constance
Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
news:nufisvgg8ifvaipor50bmf7qshogcs0dh4@4ax.com...
In alt.atheism on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:49:53 +0100, "Constance
Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> let us all know that:
"Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
news:wi_xb.58090$t01.33014@twister.socal.rr.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:16:41 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich"
<news@jcsm.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an
error.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Geological textbooks in evolutionist schools contradict geological
evidence.
No, they don't. But thanks for lying.
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
You twat. Don't you know about the climate change in the Levant area?
Haven't you ever heard of the fertile crescent?
The geologic evidence shows no such record.
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
You'll be telling me next Berlin wasn't a walled city next, just because
archeologists going there now wouldn't be able to dig up any bits of
wall.
Nah, we're just telling you reality.
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. It was around even at the time of Micah.
The point is it was little, it didn't have to be a city. Why don't you
listen to the Word?
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
Bethelehem Ephratah was a TRIBE, not a CITY, you fucking moron.
Get a fucking clue, you fucknut.
So why is it quoted as a place name in Matthew then
Because Matthew liked to make up *****.
Here, I'll show you.
Matt 4:12-16 (NRSV)
12: Now when Jesus heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew to
Galilee.
13: He left Nazareth and made his home in Capernaum by the sea, in the
territory of Zebulun and Naphtali,
14: so that what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be
fulfilled:
15 : "Land of Zebulun, land of Naphtali, on the road by the sea,
across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles -
16 : the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for
those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned."
Ok, this is supposed to be a prophecy from Isaiah. The relevant
passages are 9:1 and 9:2. Let's look at those.
1 : But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish. In the
former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land
of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of
the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.
2 : The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those
who lived in a land of deep darkness - on them light has shined.
Notice something amiss? Like--9:1-2 are much longer than what Matthew
quoted? Here, let's look at what Matthew chopped to invent a prophecy
where none existed. The brackets indicate the chops.
1 : [But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish. In the
former time he brought into contempt] the land of Zebulun and the land
of Naphtali, [but in the latter time he will make glorious] the way of
the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.
2 : The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those
who lived in a land of deep darkness - on them light has shined.
Now then, given that Matthew clearly invented a prophecy (also with
1:23, that whole silly virgin birth thing that nowhere appears in the
OT), anything that Matthew records is suspect, given his penchant for
lying. Matthew also has no knowledge of the geography of Judea.
You might want to do some fucking research, you illiterate *****.
when that whole passage
of Micah is quoted and put in context?
They did. That's why they laugh at it.
You would think the Jews at the time
would have realised it was a tribe it really one,
They did. That's why they didn't believe it.
and not just in your
excuse for a brain, perverted beyond hope by your rebellion against the
creator.
Ad hom fallacy.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 07:33:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 02:06:24 +0100, "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
So why is it quoted as a place name in Matthew then, when that whole passage
of Micah is quoted and put in context? You would think the Jews at the time
You think the author of the NT was a Jew? That would explain a lot.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 11:50:23 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:56:18 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> posted in alt.atheism:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:49:53 +0100, "Constance
Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> let us all know that:
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
Bethelehem Ephratah was a TRIBE, not a CITY, you fucking moron.
You expect a Christian to actually know the bible?
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 09:01:46 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:50:23 -0500, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> let us all know that:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:56:18 -0600, Don Kresch
<ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> posted in alt.atheism:
In alt.atheism on Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:49:53 +0100, "Constance
Vigilant" <anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> let us all know that:
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
Bethelehem Ephratah was a TRIBE, not a CITY, you fucking moron.
You expect a Christian to actually know the bible?
I know---it's too much to ask to get them to read it.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 11:47:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:49:53 +0100, "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Geological textbooks in evolutionist schools contradict geological evidence.
They show diagrams of rock formations following the ages of the earth as
they see them all nicely set down one on top of the other. IN fact that
hardl;y ever happens, They are all twisted and rent like plasticine. It is
obvious a catastrophe happened. Geology is so unpredictable that it was
always a gamble wildcatting for oil, and still is, even with modern methods.
Spoken like someone who's never even taken an elementary geology
course, let alone someone who knows anything about geology.
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
You twat. Don't you know about the climate change in the Levant area?
Haven't you ever heard of the fertile crescent?
Have you ever heard of the missing 34 MILLION TONS of coprolites?
Enough to cover the entire desert many feet thick?
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
Your actual published evidence that Jericho WAS walled around 1400BC?
Not the bible, but real evidence?
You'll be telling me next Berlin wasn't a walled city next, just because
archeologists going there now wouldn't be able to dig up any bits of wall.
They will. Even 3,400 years from now. They found evidence of the
walls of Jericho before 1500BC, but no walls from 1400BC. No
occupation either. It was a low, uninhabited hill, with sub-surface
ruins, at the time your bible claims Joshua ""conquered" it.
Try learning something about a subject before you make yourself look
like a fool by posting nonsense about it.
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. It was around even at the time of Micah.
But 2,000 years ago it was buried ruins.
The point is it was little
So little that it was unoccupied 2,000 years ago.
, it didn't have to be a city. Why don't you listen to the Word?
Because your Word is incorrect. No Flood. No Exodus. No Jericho.
No Bethlehem.
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
That's Micah 5,2, that is, pig head. Do you think Micah dreamed it up?
Fiction presented as evidence? Are you serious? The bible is a
story, not factual history. Almost every claim that can be checked
has been found to be false.
These are all stupid points, you've come up with.
Translation of "stupid": "Points I can't refute."
Better get some better reasons to send your own ***** to hell.
In Love,
Yes, we know, Christian love. Sane people call it hatred.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
30 Nov 2003 02:34:37 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:49:53 +0100, "Constance Vigilant"
<anyoneleft@arthurandersen.com> wrote:
Geological textbooks in evolutionist schools contradict geological evidence.
They show diagrams of rock formations following the ages of the earth as
they see them all nicely set down one on top of the other. IN fact that
hardl;y ever happens, They are all twisted and rent like plasticine. It is
obvious a catastrophe happened. Geology is so unpredictable that it was
always a gamble wildcatting for oil, and still is, even with modern methods.
Constance, the words 'evolutionist schools' give your blatant lack of
geological knowledge away.
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
You twat. Don't you know about the climate change in the Levant area?
Haven't you ever heard of the fertile crescent?
Yes, I have. Besides being ignorant in geology, you don't know what a
desert is? You forgot the Hebrews were semi nomadic goatherds, not
being able to live in that fertile crescent? Even the weakest settled
tribe easily kept them out. Only later they are able to interbrete and
set up shop themselves.
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
Now that sounds a wee bit rich...
You'll be telling me next Berlin wasn't a walled city next, just because
archeologists going there now wouldn't be able to dig up any bits of wall.
At the time of the assumed conquest, the city was deserted... Not
fucking difficult to conquer, wouldn't you agree?
You atheist guys are so fucking gullible it's untrue.
Ignorance cannot be measured. If one is a fundy...
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. It was around even at the time of Micah.
Bethlehem, I don't know about. Bethlehem Ephratah was a tribe, not a
city or village. Anyway, Nazareth did not exist. If found conflicting
statements: some sources I found mentioned it existed until 200 BCE,
disappeared, and was resettled after 70 CE. Others say it was never
settled before 120 CE. Still working on that.
All sources I found are unanimous in that no village of Nazareth
existed during 4 BCE-50 CE.
The point is it was little, it didn't have to be a city. Why don't you
listen to the Word?
Because the 'Word" is wrong.
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in
Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
That's Micah 5,2, that is, pig head. Do you think Micah dreamed it up?
Yes. There are several villages and cities with the name Bethlehem.
These are all stupid points, you've come up with.
Better get some better reasons to send your own ***** to hell.
In Love,
Constance Vigilant
Why do you write 'In Love'? You're hateful and spiteful. Or about as
loving as Mother Theresa...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
29 Nov 2003 11:33:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:12:44 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:16:41 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an
error.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Line the fact that there was no city named Bethlehem in the Middle
East 2,000 years ago?
Is this question bombing or are these rhetorical?
No, they're some of the errors you claim aren't in the bible.
Surely, you aren't proposing a deep discussion regarding all four of those. Are you?
No, I never read long apologisms. I'm just pointing out that,
contrary to your assertion, there ARE contradictions in the bible.
I'm happy to give a rapid fire response to your rapid fire questions.
Like the fact that the claims of the Flood contradict geological
evidence?
Untrue.
It's true. I'm asking how a flood could have occurred without leaving
evidence, not apologistic assertion that there's evidence.
See Answers in Genesis
AIG is a load of crap from beginning to end. I'm asking for evidence.
That means something published by someone recognized in the field, not
someone self-proclaimed to be an expert in the bible.
Check out Dr. Steve Austin's work from ICR.
The ICR is nonscientific nonsense masquerading as science.
Like the fact that the claims of the Exodus contradict the desert?
I've researched this. See my page here:
http://www.jcsm.org/misc/TheExodus.htm
So where are the many thousands of tons (actually something on the
order of 17 million tons, and that doesn't include the droppings of
their animals, which would have added at least another 17 million
tons) of coprolites that would have to be there? Not there, yet we
should have trouble finding the sand among all that stone. Yet
there's no sign of it.
Like the fact that Jericho, at the time of Joshua, wasn't a walled
city?
Do you have any evidence for this?
The ruins.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2000-June/007646.html
http://www.galilee.com/jericho.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/joshua.html
http://www.dutchpal.com/pal/history-04.html
There are many more.
Most of the claims in the bible that can be checked have been shown to
be false.
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW! |
28 Nov 2003 12:03:26 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:16:41 GMT, "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org>
wrote:
I don't wish to be mean about this, Jason, *but* there is no way any
secular evidence would con[ince you of that. Or if I'm wrong on that,
perhaps you can give me a hint as to what fact would convince you that
the Bible is in error.
Something that contradicts and cannot be harmonized would be an error.
Who went to the tomb on Easter morning, what did they see there, was
the stone already rolled back or not, and what did the one man/two
men/one angel/two angels say to them? Where did the risen Jesus first
appear to the eleven?
---
ROT-13 on Email to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
