responding to common objections to bible part 7

[Kadagar_AV]

Got to remember that science is also full of prophecies (theories) that are predictions that have been proven true again and again both during the lifetime of the writer and beyond.

Has a creation story that accurately describes the start of the universe and why we have so much hydrogen and even the ratio of neutrons to hydrogen in the universe.

Refreshing perspective, cheers :)

[HoreTore]

no idea were your getting that from, plus has nothing to do with biblical authority. I simply said another time i have and will yet again, answer anyone's top 3 objections like these on another thread. Your objections you bring up are well know and long ago refuted, easily found online.Over and over you ignore points, than try to attack me personally, to avoid the arguments you first come up with. This is a logical fallacy.


this would do you well, not just this thread but over and over
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

lol, the point of using that website is to specify which logical fallacy was committed, not linking to its front page.

Knowledge of the Greco-Roman world is fundamental when dealing with two claims of how the Greco-Roman world works. You don't need biblical knowledge to decide the validity of the Matthew and Luke claims, you need knowledge of the Roman Empire in order to do that. You do not have this knowledge, and so you are completely unable to decide wether or not the claims in Luke and Matthew make any sense.

As Pannonian said, try reading something besides the bible.

[total relism]

This will be my last post related to anything involving creation vs evolution, it is so hard as it my fav subject and there is so much claims and misinformation out there, but i must save for that as a topic thread.

TR, you can have a PHD and still be a complete religious nutter.

Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.

It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily...

I agree fully, but your moving the goal post


What Is “Moving the Goalpost?”
The “Moving the Goalpost” logical fallacy is another one that has a fairly descriptive name. It is the case when Person A makes a claim, Person B refutes it, and Person A moves on to a new or revised claim, generally without acknowledging or responding to Person B’s refutation. Hence, the goalpost of the claim has been shifted or moved in order to keep the claim alive.


read your previous post. I will show many a religious nut job evolutionist on my thread.



you said
"It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily..."

i could not agree more, i will post debates between phd vs phd when i do my thread. We will see who gets to laugh more.

Well, duh. If they say something that goes against the infallible bible then they are just atheist evilusionists who spreads satanic lies.

There is nothing like a good case of science denial and religious fanaticism. Yummy!

please provide examples of this from creationist when i do my thread, specific examples, otherwise you look like a indoctrinated bigot. I however will take this and turn it on your belief system, I will show many clear cases of science denial and religious fanaticism, Delicious.

Got to remember that science is also full of prophecies (theories) that are predictions that have been proven true again and again both during the lifetime of the writer and beyond.

Has a creation story that accurately describes the start of the universe and why we have so much hydrogen and even the ratio of neutrons to hydrogen in the universe.

amen to that sister, science is great, people and certain models have made bad predictions and false ones [evolution] but science has not nor can it. You also unkowigley bring out a false prediction and minor problem for the big bang here lol. Biblical predictions will be part of my op on thread. I am glad so many seem interested, it always is my best most posted on thread topic, no matter what forum.

[HoreTore]

I agree fully, but your moving the goal post


What Is “Moving the Goalpost?”
The “Moving the Goalpost” logical fallacy is another one that has a fairly descriptive name. It is the case when Person A makes a claim, Person B refutes it, and Person A moves on to a new or revised claim, generally without acknowledging or responding to Person B’s refutation. Hence, the goalpost of the claim has been shifted or moved in order to keep the claim alive.

You even failed at understanding a fallacy.

It would have been a case of moving the goalposts if Kadagar stated that "noone with a PHD can believe in creationism", or something along those lines. He made no such statement, and so did not commit the fallacy you claim. In fact, your claim that he did so is a....

Strawman.

Don't play with fallacies until you're older, son.

[total relism]

You even failed at understanding a fallacy.

It would have been a case of moving the goalposts if Kadagar stated that "noone with a PHD can believe in creationism", or something along those lines. He made no such statement, and so did not commit the fallacy you claim. In fact, your claim that he did so is a....

Strawman.

Don't play with fallacies until you're older, son.

b-4 you get to excited, please read what i was responding to. he said this



To be able to think the Bible explain physics, I for one think one have to be insane, uneducated, or religiously brainwashed.

Quite possibly a combination of more than one factor.

The universe is a great and wondrous thing, and I must quite frankly say I get upset when people try to diminish the sheer WORK of humanity's combined intelligence to reach where we are today.




the bolded section is what i was responding to originally, before he than re-posted this




TR, you can have a PHD and still be a complete religious nutter.

Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.

It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily...




notice it is no longer uneducated or about science, science discovery. But a supposed peer review process that suposidley creationist have not done [false] and laughing.

[HoreTore]

Yes, thank you for making it clear how little you understand.

Kadagar's original claim was that P was true if A, B or C was present. You disproved B, and claim that this disproves P(strawman). When he then responds by expanding on C, you make a false claim that he is moving the goalposts.

[Kadagar_AV]

I admire your patience at times, HT.

[HoreTore]

I admire your patience at times, HT.

I've been dealing with a lot of parents this week.

He's hardly any worse....

[Pannonian]

Yes, thank you for making it clear how little you understand.

Kadagar's original claim was that P was true if A, B or C was present. You disproved B, and claim that this disproves P(strawman). When he then responds by expanding on C, you make a false claim that he is moving the goalposts.

I found a video online where some creationist nut claimed that there are too few fossils to account for the difference between lizards and man. Quite apart from how this demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about, I also found his looks hilarious. Blond slicked back hair, smirking face. Exactly the kind of face that would seem attractive to believers, but would make me think, me if I'm going to listen to this smug .

I miss that time when Navaros admitted that creationism wasn't the whole story.

[CBR]

Oh yes, I will provide examples of creationist using such terms. Just not sure why I even have to...like asking me to provide examples of the sky being blue.

[HoreTore]

Guys, look!! I found this website chock full with prophecies, and they almost always come true!!

[total relism]

Yes, thank you for making it clear how little you understand.

Kadagar's original claim was that P was true if A, B or C was present. You disproved B, and claim that this disproves P(strawman). When he then responds by expanding on C, you make a false claim that he is moving the goalposts.

HT, please read entire posts and my responses. I showed B [uneducated and scientific knowledge]not to be true as you admitted, i never disagreed with him on C [religiously brainwashed] I said [read my post to him] i agree fully and will even provide many examples of such [evolutionist]. A [one have to be insane] was a completely baseless false opinion that i did not think needed responding to. So i never attack anything that was not his position as you claim [straw man] I simply refuted one, agreed with one, and ignored another baseless claim that is easily false. Unless of course you followed his moving the goal post in the next email, and think i was saying i refuted his second email with responce below that he said

"Try making an actual scientific peer revised report on the matter? It has been tried, you know. In all manners of ways.
It's just that your case gets laughed away just so easily..."

if that is the case i earlier said

"i could not agree more, i will post debates between phd vs phd when i do my thread. We will see who gets to laugh more."

also i will respond/refute the rest of his claim when the thread topic has to do with comment.

[total relism]

Guys, look!! I found this website chock full with prophecies, and they almost always come true!!

do they have hundreds of years in advance?

[HoreTore]

HT, please read entire posts and my responses. I showed B [uneducated and scientific knowledge]not to be true as you admitted, i never disagreed with him on C [religiously brainwashed] I said [read my post to him] i agree fully and will even provide many examples of such [evolutionist]. A [one have to be insane] was a completely baseless false opinion that i did not think needed responding to. So i never attack anything that was not his position as you claim [straw man] I simply refuted one, agreed with one, and ignored another baseless claim that is easily false. Unless of course you followed his moving the goal post in the next email, and think i was saying i refuted his second email with responce below that he said

First off: stop believing other people do not read the relevant posts they are responding to.

The point he was maintaining in his second post, which you claim was a case of "moving the goalpost", was in defense of the actual point he made in his first point: that in order to believe the bible explains physics, you have to be either a, b or c. You responded with the intent of countering his point, and you can't do that by simply refuting one of the three assumptions; you have to take all three down for Kadagar's statement to be shown false.

Your post thus remains a strawman. Or, it could be simply irrelevant and not an argument at all. In either case, Kadagar's point that you have to be insane, uneduated or religiously brainwashed to believe the bible explains physics still stands, and you have offered nothing to counter it.

I also find it hilarious how you apparently rate "debates of phd vs phd" to be a better source of knowledge than, you know, actual sources of knowledge. Like a book. A debate is a show, books are for knowledge.

And no, creation scientists are not published in scientific journals. Their "theories" are lunacy, and are not included in journals dealing with reality.

do they have hundreds of years in advance?

Now looks who's moving the goalposts? How cute.



By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.

[Empire*Of*Media]

horeTore
im not offending you friend ........but you even justify yourself by somethings you think its "Reasonable"? why you always think your the right?! why you always think that those that dont accept your believes are fools and the wrong and must be offensed?!
as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.

[Pannonian]

horeTore
im not offending you friend ........but you even justify yourself by somethings you think its "Reasonable"? why you always think your the right?! why you always think that those that dont accept your believes are fools and the wrong and must be offensed?!
as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.

Because he knows about Roman history and the other bloke doesn't? It's not a matter of ethics, but knowledge, and TR has demonstrated a palpable lack of. If I say that 2+2=4 and the other bloke says it's something else, it doesn't matter what his holy book says or how much you sympathise with him, I'm still going to be right and the other bloke who says otherwise is still going to be wrong.

[Brenus]

“as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.” I don’t intervene anymore in TR posts as they stop to make me laugh.
Now, as you spoke of me: I don’t “believe”. I came always with facts. Well, I do believe in few things (Justice, Freedom, and others concepts). But when some (as you did few time) come with absolutely no evidences at all, about subjects you have absolutely no clue (i.e. Forrisson being an historian in the WW2 and Holocaust), or me being a US citizen, I have to react, When you pick all revisionist theories you can find in Internet (none of them given a single little proof of what they implies (never came once with invoices testimonies, plans or witnesses), I challenged you. You are the one who went for insults and other smoke screen tactic in order to deflect the need of answers.

Like TR in the religious domains, you carefully avoid facts. You are not alone to do this.
Have to go shopping, will come back on the subject.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Guys, look!! I found this website chock full with prophecies, and they almost always come true!!

Did you know you can get them delivered daily to your phone, as well?

[Sigurd]

By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.

I did make a long post as a rebut to your last, but thought better of it. I realized that I debated something I don't really believe and that the onus is on the believer to make their arguments.

However, even though we "think" we know Roman history, there aren't much material that survived the ages. We don't have a surviving census for example, besides the two scraps found in Egypt that were rather late censuses (104 AD and 119 AD). We don't know much about the censuses that Augustus ordered - only that he mentioned it in his 35 feats in office. Censuses for tax purposes was a local thing and ordered and executed by local officials (the Qurinius one in 6 AD). Why would the Emperor call for an extra-ordinary census? And we don't really know why - other that he was doing a count and posted the result as a great feat in his career. Must it have been a tax census or simply a head count? We are only assuming it was a tax census.

True - that in Rome censuses was conducted by current residence. But in Judea people had to travel to their ancestral home. I don't think this is refutable. Question is - did the Romans allow it, respecting Jewish customs?
I read one scholar's opinion on this. He basically said that traveling to the city of David for the census was just the excuse. Mary tagged along because the future King had to be born in the city of David. Which begs the question - Why did Luke make all the fuss about the census mixing in the wrong references? He is supposed to be THE historian of the gospel writers and would have had access to better sources than we have today.

Damn... did it again.

[total relism]

First off: stop believing other people do not read the relevant posts they are responding to.

The point he was maintaining in his second post, which you claim was a case of "moving the goalpost", was in defense of the actual point he made in his first point: that in order to believe the bible explains physics, you have to be either a, b or c. You responded with the intent of countering his point, and you can't do that by simply refuting one of the three assumptions; you have to take all three down for Kadagar's statement to be shown false.

Your post thus remains a strawman. Or, it could be simply irrelevant and not an argument at all. In either case, Kadagar's point that you have to be insane, uneduated or religiously brainwashed to believe the bible explains physics still stands, and you have offered nothing to counter it.

I also find it hilarious how you apparently rate "debates of phd vs phd" to be a better source of knowledge than, you know, actual sources of knowledge. Like a book. A debate is a show, books are for knowledge.

And no, creation scientists are not published in scientific journals. Their "theories" are lunacy, and are not included in journals dealing with reality.



Now looks who's moving the goalposts? How cute.



By the way, my post on the question of Herod and the census was taken directly from a statement from your OP, yet you have not responded to it. I'm not waiting in anticipation, given that you do not have the knowledge required to attempt to counter it.

first off [lol] i said maybe this is why you thought were my strawman was[not reading my two post just one].


on his 3 points, as i said i refuted 1, agree with one [no reason to refute what i agree with him on] and third was competeley baseless and clearly false as [that they are insane] that was baseless opinion that he provided no evidence for, so deserves no response. If i were to answer or not it still would not be what you claim a strawman. Not to mention not one did he support. he claimed, all three however will as i have been saying, be handled when brought up on thread of topic.


debates vs books
i will be providing both, both are sources of knowledge despite your claim. there is much that can be learned from both. I think debates are great [as do creationist you will see why if you watch] generally creation views are censored, and evolution only taught. We are taught many things prove evolution and disprove creation and there is great evidence for evolution. What i said i would post debates for is if you remember laughing, creationist will laugh in debates at what evolutionist present when they can be challenged, and when there views are attacked. Because evolutionist are so confident and teach such a way, that when they get there butts kicked, its very funny. So i was simply saying that it is creationist that laugh at evolutionist when challenged, not the other way around as claimed in earlier post.


creationist peer review
not only is your statement demonstrable false, but commits multiply logic fallacies in your wording. These however will have to wait when you confidently assert them on the creation evolution thread.



goalpost moved?
please provide? do you mean that they must be clearly about advances foretelling? I have maintained from beginning this is the case and what makes bible unique. Not to mention your missing another big qualifier [ i wont give away to help you] ,just another example of you not reading post and coming with your opinion/conclusion before reading posts. So just how do you say i moved posts?

Because he knows about Roman history and the other bloke doesn't? It's not a matter of ethics, but knowledge, and TR has demonstrated a palpable lack of. If I say that 2+2=4 and the other bloke says it's something else, it doesn't matter what his holy book says or how much you sympathise with him, I'm still going to be right and the other bloke who says otherwise is still going to be wrong.

please provide a specific example related to anything said on any of my threads.

Like TR in the religious domains, you carefully avoid facts. You are not alone to do this.
.

please provide one specific fact i avoid as you claimed. i will be keeping your quote above for later thread on creation vs evolution to compare and see who does avoid facts. I will ask for any one example from you that i ignore, than i will provide for you one you must ignore, than well keep score, as i said above creationist get to laugh most. Evolutionist so confident, never able to defend their faith, i say indoctrination is the reason.

[Brenus]

"one specific fact" Book of Gilgamesh, written before the Bible (Clay Tablets) and describing the Deluge (with several Gods). proving that the Bible is not written or even not from your god.
That should be enough.
By the way, evolutionist (if you want to use this word) is not a faith, but a scientific hypothesis.

[Empire*Of*Media]

“as Brenus too! but your much better than him his far far worse.” I don’t intervene anymore in TR posts as they stop to make me laugh.
Now, as you spoke of me: I don’t “believe”. I came always with facts. Well, I do believe in few things (Justice, Freedom, and others concepts). But when some (as you did few time) come with absolutely no evidences at all, about subjects you have absolutely no clue (i.e. Forrisson being an historian in the WW2 and Holocaust), or me being a US citizen, I have to react, When you pick all revisionist theories you can find in Internet (none of them given a single little proof of what they implies (never came once with invoices testimonies, plans or witnesses), I challenged you. You are the one who went for insults and other smoke screen tactic in order to deflect the need of answers.

first of all as once i think Pannonian said you are Imperialists Lover and Support of hatred & Colonialism and you will even justify the most evil of their works! anyway....

Really Facts?! huh you know yourself as The Perfect Truth !!
facts...hmmmm....lol....bringing some vents of hate and Anger and Falsification of a Killer & Imperialist English Officer from Criminal East India Company about a great man like gandhi that millions and Even Billions people adore his Personality is FACT ?!

if thats Fact, i never even look at Facts!!

[Kadagar_AV]

TR, you would be right, if only "and" and "or" were the same thingy.

Unfortunately it isn't, and that gives room for more than one shiver up ones spine when it comes to your reading comprehension of other more advanced texts.

Basically, I give you a 0/10 in reading comprehension.

You could have got one point, if you acknowledged you haven't got the faintest idea of what you just read.

[total relism]

"one specific fact" Book of Gilgamesh, written before the Bible (Clay Tablets) and describing the Deluge (with several Gods). proving that the Bible is not written or even not from your god.
That should be enough.
By the way, evolutionist (if you want to use this word) is not a faith, but a scientific hypothesis.

sorry you must have missed what i replied with, i said please read under

16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...nal&highlight=

that would be the perfect place to talk on it, may i suggest a little skepticism instead of unquestionable faith in what you hear may do you well. There you will find some facts and references to fully refute the claim. Just to let you know, there are actually hundreds of creation accounts that include a global flood, i am sure we will get to this in the creation vs evolution thread, we as creationist see this as positive to our side.




as i isated earlier

TR, you would be right, if only "and" and "or" were the same thingy.

Unfortunately it isn't, and that gives room for more than one shiver up ones spine when it comes to your reading comprehension of other more advanced texts.

Basically, I give you a 0/10 in reading comprehension.

You could have got one point, if you acknowledged you haven't got the faintest idea of what you just read.

thanks for the kind words jerk....lol. well your stupid, so take that you big bully.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I did make a long post as a rebut to your last, but thought better of it. I realized that I debated something I don't really believe and that the onus is on the believer to make their arguments.

However, even though we "think" we know Roman history, there aren't much material that survived the ages. We don't have a surviving census for example, besides the two scraps found in Egypt that were rather late censuses (104 AD and 119 AD). We don't know much about the censuses that Augustus ordered - only that he mentioned it in his 35 feats in office. Censuses for tax purposes was a local thing and ordered and executed by local officials (the Qurinius one in 6 AD). Why would the Emperor call for an extra-ordinary census? And we don't really know why - other that he was doing a count and posted the result as a great feat in his career. Must it have been a tax census or simply a head count? We are only assuming it was a tax census.

True - that in Rome censuses was conducted by current residence. But in Judea people had to travel to their ancestral home. I don't think this is refutable. Question is - did the Romans allow it, respecting Jewish customs?
I read one scholar's opinion on this. He basically said that traveling to the city of David for the census was just the excuse. Mary tagged along because the future King had to be born in the city of David. Which begs the question - Why did Luke make all the fuss about the census mixing in the wrong references? He is supposed to be THE historian of the gospel writers and would have had access to better sources than we have today.

Damn... did it again.

True, so far as it goes, but as a historian who focuses on the Republic, I have to say that there are many things with can be inferred with confidence.

The censuses ordered by Augustus in the res gestae are not exceptional in and of themselves.

In my fifth consulship [29 BC] I increased the number of patricians on the instructions of the people and the senate. 2 I revised the roll of the senate three times. In my sixth consulship with Marcus Agrippa as colleague [28 BC], I carried out a census of the people, and I performed a lustrum after a lapse of forty-two years; at that lustrum 4,063,000 Roman citizens were registered. 3 Then a second time I performed a lustrum with consular imperium and without a colleague, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius [8 BC]; at that lustrum 4,233,000 citizens were registered. 4 Thirdly I performed a lustrum with consular imperium, with Tiberius Caesar, my son, as colleague, in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius [AD 14]; at that lustrum 4,957,000 citizens were registered.

The reference to the lustrum indicates that Augustus was, in essence, holding the Republican office of censor (though with added perks in the second and third instances). This indicates that these were censuses held in the city of Rome itself and Italy, and ought to have no relevance to the wider empire.

There is a the difficulty of a sudden increase in the number of citizens recorded (1000000 ~85 BCE; 4000000 ~28 BCE), but the inclusion of women, children and old men, could account for this. The point is that the people recorded were citizens. There is a plausible political motive for this revival, but it does not impact the NT cnensus.

This must be related to that of Quirinius in 6 AD, the 'local census': now this must be for taxation purposes, since there is no other reason for the state to make a record of the number and wealth of inhabitants of a newly acquired province. Also, as HT has mentioned, the is no reason why Joseph, as a Galilean under the rule of Herod Antiphas, would be effected. It would be reasonable, then, to assume that Luke has simply connected the birth to a well-known event, and sought to account for the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in the 'City of David'...

please provide one specific fact i avoid as you claimed. i will be keeping your quote above for later thread on creation vs evolution to compare and see who does avoid facts. I will ask for any one example from you that i ignore, than i will provide for you one you must ignore, than well keep score, as i said above creationist get to laugh most. Evolutionist so confident, never able to defend their faith, i say indoctrination is the reason.

With respect to the word 'fact': from 'factum' a thing done. Literally, the latin root means something that was done, but in English something that is verifiably true. The problem arises in the verification. TR would, I presume, argue that Biblical text in itself is verification enough for the status of fact, though he he would deal with different readings I do not know. Brenus, again I presume, would suggest that something which is generally accepted by experts in a given scientific or historical field would be a fact, hence the Gilgamesh reference.

My own view is that all facts, and 'truths' are subjective. If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements and be convinced that we were correct. CCTV footage might give you the answer, and you might argue that a record of something is a fact, but records can be faked/mistaken. A record of an event proves only that someone recorded that event in that way.

Hence, these irreconciable differences: each has his own truth, and if unwilling to accept that his truth could be false: deadlock.

[Brenus]

"sorry you must have missed what i replied with, i said please read under"
Perfect example of what I said. Thanks. You duck answer again. So here, without any smoke screen, diversions or deflections, do you acknowledge that the Bible copies and Pastes from others Religions, so the Bible is not the Word of God, but just a book of Jewish Legends, like we have the Legends from Scotland, France and others...
Answer is simple:
a) Yes, I do knowledge that the Bible is not the Word of God but a human fabrication as it is known (as one example) from 1870 first modern translation of the Sumerian Legends known under the title "the Book of Gilgamesh", and you can add a but (it doesn't matter because whatever reason you what)
b) No, against all evidences, I carry on to pretend/believe that the Bible is the Word of God, source of all knowledge even when facts are against it

"If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements" But we would agree that it was a Robbery. TR would deny the robbery if it not in the Bible, or if the Robbery is mentioned in the Bible but was reported before the Bible will just ignore this fact (not the robbery, the fact that someone told the story before).

[total relism]

With respect to the word 'fact': from 'factum' a thing done. Literally, the latin root means something that was done, but in English something that is verifiably true. The problem arises in the verification. TR would, I presume, argue that Biblical text in itself is verification enough for the status of fact, though he he would deal with different readings I do not know. Brenus, again I presume, would suggest that something which is generally accepted by experts in a given scientific or historical field would be a fact, hence the Gilgamesh reference.

My own view is that all facts, and 'truths' are subjective. If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements and be convinced that we were correct. CCTV footage might give you the answer, and you might argue that a record of something is a fact, but records can be faked/mistaken. A record of an event proves only that someone recorded that event in that way.

Hence, these irreconciable differences: each has his own truth, and if unwilling to accept that his truth could be false: deadlock.

I actually agree with you very strongly. Worldviews are strong, i was simply saying his claim facts that must be ignored by christian because the epic has a global flood or that it is claimed the bible copied from it, are no such thing and do not refute the bible.

"sorry you must have missed what i replied with, i said please read under"
Perfect example of what I said. Thanks. You duck answer again. So here, without any smoke screen, diversions or deflections, do you acknowledge that the Bible copies and Pastes from others Religions, so the Bible is not the Word of God, but just a book of Jewish Legends, like we have the Legends from Scotland, France and others...
Answer is simple:
a) Yes, I do knowledge that the Bible is not the Word of God but a human fabrication as it is known (as one example) from 1870 first modern translation of the Sumerian Legends known under the title "the Book of Gilgamesh", and you can add a but (it doesn't matter because whatever reason you what)
b) No, against all evidences, I carry on to pretend/believe that the Bible is the Word of God, source of all knowledge even when facts are against it

"If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements" But we would agree that it was a Robbery. TR would deny the robbery if it not in the Bible, or if the Robbery is mentioned in the Bible but was reported before the Bible will just ignore this fact (not the robbery, the fact that someone told the story before).

perfect example, you duck my response again, without any smoke screen, diversions or deflections, do you acknowledge that the bible has not copied and pasted from other religons, so does not ignore any facts you claim? answer is simple

1] yes you agree the bible does not copy from any legends as you orginally claimed because you read my link
was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...nal&highlight=


2] no against all evidence you will still claim is so because you enjoy the conclusion.


"If all of us witnessed a robbery, we would probably give different statements"

but Brenus would claim the robbery was copied from a later robbery and took the ideas on how the robber stole it from a earlier account. He would ignore all the differences and evidence refuting such a claim and talk about this other robbery that was off topic, than when its time to talk about the earlier robbery he does not want to.
16] was the bible influenced by other local religions?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...nal&highlight=


notice his complete silence on his objection when it is topic, he does not want to confront his claim being faced with truth.

[Rhyfelwyr]

"one specific fact" Book of Gilgamesh, written before the Bible (Clay Tablets) and describing the Deluge (with several Gods). proving that the Bible is not written or even not from your god.

If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.

[Sigurd]

If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.

Yeah.. If you want to prove the Judeo-Christian religion false -the worst thing to do is to dig up stuff predating the Bible that supports the events recorded there.
The Judeo-Christian religion claim to be the original religion taught the first men. The second men - Egypt,Sumeria etc.. fashioned their religion after the religion of the first. Christians aren't using this trump card at all. Was Adam a Christian?

[Brenus]

“If anything, that would surely support TR's claims? If there was an ancient flood, you would expect other cultures to have records of it.” Oh, the flooding thing is very common indeed. Sumerian civilisation was dead when the Jewish one came in. So it contradicts his claim that that the Bible was written by the Jewish version of god as it didn’t exist at that time: Except of course if he agree that the Sumerians had the knowledge of the Biblical God (but more than one) and before the Bible.