Contradictions in the Bible...

timberlandko wrote:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No more extraordinary claim may be imagined than the existence of the supernatural. Despite incessent claim and assertion by the proposition's proponents, no proof thereof, extraordinary or otherwise, has been presented....

Your post indicates that you realize asking for natural proof of the supernatural would be absurd.

What have you done to investigate the existence or non-existence of the supernatural (which proof you seem to indicate you would accept if it were possible to obtain, or if it was offered) ?

(Let's keep in mind that any 'investigation' which purports to determine the existence of the supernatural, but is limited to naturalistic methods and assumptions, would be a sham.)

Sorry, Neo, I did miss that. It mostlikely would have been Duetero Isaiah, writing in the latter half of the the 6th Century BCE, the period encompassing the fall of Babylon to Cyrus and the consequent return of the Jews from The Captivity, with some considerable indication of even later editing. It should be noted that while Cyrus indeed displaced the Babylonian regime resonsible for The Captivity, and returned the Jews to their homeland, Cyrus did not "tke" Babylon, the city was surrendered to Cyrus without a fight, Cyrus did not topple Babylon's gods, but rather embraced them, and that Babylon never was destroyed, it merely withered following the post-Alexandrine transfer of power and influence to Seleucia. Well into the 1st Century CE, the city, though greatly diminished in comparison to former glory and perhaps barely qualifying to be termed a city rather than a town or even village, was a regional center of commerce and minor administration, with habitation - diminishing to be sure, but habitation none the less - continuing into the 7th Century CE. . . .

So it became a wasteland long after the prophecy was written. . .

Correct?

neologist wrote:

So it became a wasteland long after the prophecy was written. . .

Correct?

Not even a nice try, Neo, just a desperate stretch - c'mon, now - you know better than that.

timber-

What do you think of the idea that Psalm 46 has a Shakespeare fingerprint in it?

The question long has fascinated me, and I have over many years - several decades, in fact - given the matter considerable attention, ranging from incidental reading to diligent, objective study across a spectrum of disciplines involving a broad sampling of analysis, criticism, comparison, and history, including everything from original source material to the most recent of contemporary commentary, from unquestioning affirmative aplogetics to hateful, deranged, vituperative screed (of assorted points of view).

. . . The question long has fascinated me, and I have over many years - several decades, in fact - given the matter considerable attention, ranging from incidental reading to diligent, objective study across a spectrum of disciplines involving a broad sampling of analysis, criticism, comparison, and history, including everything from original source material to the most recent of contemporary commentary, from unquestioning affirmative aplogetics to hateful, deranged, vituperative screed (of assorted points of view). Throughout this course of action, I've encountered no proof whatsoever, one way or the other, but have seen only claims and counter claims, preferences and prejudices, agendas and assumptions; much style, no substance. . .

timberlandko wrote:

. . . The question long has fascinated me, and I have over many years - several decades, in fact - given the matter considerable attention, ranging from incidental reading to diligent, objective study across a spectrum of disciplines involving a broad sampling of analysis, criticism, comparison, and history, including everything from original source material to the most recent of contemporary commentary, from unquestioning affirmative aplogetics to hateful, deranged, vituperative screed (of assorted points of view). Throughout this course of action, I've encountered no proof whatsoever, one way or the other, but have seen only claims and counter claims, preferences and prejudices, agendas and assumptions; much style, no substance. . .

I can certainly understand why you have rejected religion, considering its record of bloodshed and oppression. But if the Genesis account of Eden is correct, we may expect God's opposer to use every means available to obfuscate the truth, including the establishment of uncountable religious dead ends. That you have apparently researched them all, while it is a testimony to your diligence, in no way excludes the truth you may have overlooked.

neologist wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

. . . The question long has fascinated me, and I have over many years - several decades, in fact - given the matter considerable attention, ranging from incidental reading to diligent, objective study across a spectrum of disciplines involving a broad sampling of analysis, criticism, comparison, and history, including everything from original source material to the most recent of contemporary commentary, from unquestioning affirmative aplogetics to hateful, deranged, vituperative screed (of assorted points of view). Throughout this course of action, I've encountered no proof whatsoever, one way or the other, but have seen only claims and counter claims, preferences and prejudices, agendas and assumptions; much style, no substance. . .

I can certainly understand why you have rejected religion, considering its record of bloodshed and oppression. But if the Genesis account of Eden is correct, we may expect God's opposer to use every means available to obfuscate the truth, including the establishment of uncountable religious dead ends. That you have apparently researched them all, while it is a testimony to your diligence, in no way excludes the truth you may have overlooked.

What makes you believe the Genesis account is correct? The only thing that is accurate about the story is that there was a landmass where it sayed it would be found. (It is now covered over by water--one would expect the Bible, if the authors were indeed inspired and could foretell the future, to make a reference to such an event due to the value of such information but it doesn't.) The theory of evolution makes it blatantly clear that humanity did not begin by two people of which one was made of dirt and the other a dirty rib. One would have to be fairly unknowledgable of the archaeological and paleontological record and radiocarbon dating to not accept the the basic truth of the theory of evolution. We are clearly the descendents of the Cro Magnons--another example of where the Bible possibly could have authenticated itself just by a mere mentioning. The completely inaccurate order of appearance of certain animals--we know reptiles and insects appeared before birds and whales--is another indicator that the writers were not inspired and had absolutely no idea what they were writing about. The mere idea of snakes with legs talking to people should ring the alarm that is firmly placed on every BS-meter.

Actually there is an interesting line of scientific investigation concerning the descent of all living human beings from one woman. This would not be inconsistent with the Biblical record in Genesis, would it?

real life wrote:

Actually there is an interesting line of scientific investigation concerning the descent of all living human beings from one woman. This would not be inconsistent with the Biblical record in Genesis, would it?

I know which woman you're talking about, and may I remind you that even then, real, that woman would not have been alone. There would have been countless others of her kind. To suggest otherwise would be foolish.

Why?

Why don't I seal you off with one woman and see how well your lineage does if you can only reproduce with your own offspring? We'll come back in say, a thousand years time and see how you go.

So evolution would have to postulate that AT EACH STEP along the way, each new species of all organisms counts all of it's subsequent descendants from one original, right?