Stray from the Flock: Story of a Black Atheist

2013, Society  -   345 Comments
Ratings: 8.25/10 from 69 users.

Andre is an atheist and like so many others he happens to be the only atheist in his family. But why is being a black atheist so much different? Why does it seem that belief in God in black America is seen as mandatory? His family always knew that he was an atheist but he never really asked them how they felt about it... until now.

Andre lives in Canton, Ohio. He has lived there his entire life. The way he sees it, people in Ohio only care about two things: football and God, in that order. There are churches everywhere. You can't go one mile without seeing a church somewhere in Canton.

In this documentary he wasn't trying to travel around the country and ask random black people how they feel about atheists. He wanted to focus on his own family, his religious family. He wanted them to be as open and as honest as they wanted.

Andre remembers the first person he ever talked to about having the feelings of doubt. It was his aunt Eunice. He went to her one day and asked her if God is real why all these bad things happen, especially in his own family? His grandma just had her second brain aneurysm, and a friend of his was shot and killed because of stupid gang stuff. Even though he doubted God he was afraid of what would happen if he didn't believe.

As he got older he let couple of his friends know how he felt about things and some of them were OK with it, but some of them thought that he was "acting white." Apparently for some reason black people see atheism as a "white thing", something that black people just don't do. Since the talk with his aunt Eunice the seed has been planted so to speak, so he started reading the Bible. He quickly realized how absurd it is.

More great documentaries

345 Comments / User Reviews

  1. No disrespect to the filmmaker's family or anything, but what his mother says at 18:50 made me roll my eyes. Its ridiculous to say that black Americans should believe, just because our enslaved ancestors who believed came a long way. We are not living in the year 1800, with nothing but the clothes on our backs in a foreign land- and a forced set of beliefs. We have the freedom to research, to reinvent. I strongly believe that we see the world as we are, and not as it is. If you grow up in, or adopt the Christian faith, then of course you will believe that all good things are blessings from God, as a Muslim will believe they are from Allah, or a non-specified spiritual person will believe it was the universe. In all realness, we'll never know for sure what true "reality" is. As a black atheist, I had a friend who felt discomfort when I shared my beliefs with her. When I asked why she believes in Christianity, her response was "well I never had to question it". Staying idle in anything is inadvisable. In this case, maintaining Christianity as a cultural framework in the black community is absolutely crippling. It prevents individuality and spontaneity for those who fear coming across as heathens.

  2. Nice documentary.

  3. I praise you for your courage. Keep up the excellent works.

  4. There is no evidence for god or anything supernatural. The concept of "god" may make some feel good, but that's it.

  5. religion has allways been the mental enslavement of black people,,being a loving human being is a hard thing to do,,

    1. Tell me about it. I'm African - born & raised Catholic - but no longer practice. Most friends, family and some strangers think it's their destiny to "save" you by preaching to you or trying to get you to join their church or fellowship.

      These people - born-again Christians - are probably the most brainwashed, tunnel-visioned nutcases you'll ever meet. For all the praying and talking to "sky-daddy" that they do, they have a brewing hatred within them that just tells you they're just a happy meal away from full-blown psychopathy.

  6. Big Deal! This ugly dude is not the only Black Atheist. I was one at one point. And you couldn't tell me NOTHING when I was an atheist. Now I am spiritual. As everything ALIVE is.


    1. I'll start by saying, your comment is very childish. Just because you claim to have once been an atheist and are now a believer in spirits doesn't quite justify your oddly placed insult. Since you felt the need to say you once were an atheist and aren't anymore, how about explain what evidence you now have to believe in spirits and the like...rather than calling people ugly and saying "couldn't tell me NOTHING...everything ALIVE is, duh". With no information this is a rant with no basis. Try sharing...this is an adult forum.

    2. Such a misinformed, bitter, and misguided individual.

    3. Lol. Ready to watch yourself stumble and choke? What do you mean by spiritual and how do you prove it exists?
      So rats are spiritual? Lol.

    4. Two years later and your comment still gives off an arrogant, inferior vibe. You think you are better than him because you stopped being an atheist? Good for you. You calling him names shows how much of a bigger man he is than you, because he didn't call anyone out for their beliefs in this doc. Hope you've grown up a bit since you made that comment.

  7. Interesting documentary. I didn't realize how important religion was to a lot of African Americans during and after slavery times. I can imagine it wouldn't be easy for some religious people to critically question their religion and bible out of the fear instilled in them and tradition. Andre asked good questions without attacking anyone. The family where defending belief in their religion but not very well .

  8. OMGAWD,you guys. Put down your anger,your fairy tale books and your jibber jabber. JEEZUS (Hey-seuss) was just some dude that discovered mushrooms,was hella cool and hung like a donkey. The broads LOVED him,but their rude,angry,cavemen partners, did NOT. So,they killed him. But the mushroom discovering,well hung Jeezus legacy,will never die. Unfortunately,they ate a bunch of mushrooms and made all that other nonsense up. Noah's Ark,indeed...

    1. You're an embarrassment to us Atheists, no one's impressed with your ego rant.

    2. If you are embarrassed by something,that's your problem. I'm not trying to "impress" anyone,so wtf are you blithering about?? EGO RANT??? Nothing that I wrote has anything to do with my or anyone else's ego,and it's not even close to a rant. Do you know what ego and rant mean?? You're an embarrassment to yourself,read a book

    3. You don't even speak for all atheists commenting on this page, let alone anywhere else in the universe. Only someone with an inflated ego of his/her own would think they do.

    4. You don't speak for all atheists.

    5. I take issue with you abusing my name ... and also your dragging the argument to their level. Shame on you you godammin Atheist.

    6. abusing WHOSE name?? And what argument are you talking about? Who is "their?" I'm not arguing with anyone and I'm not an atheist. But,"Goddamn Atheist" is pretty funny....hahahaha,what a tool

    7. Jibber jabber ... jaberwokky ... no? ah nevermind, it was funny in my head at the time, guess I'll have to work on it :/

    8. lmmfao.

  9. I have liked this documentary a lot.As an european it is kind of strange to see that his skin colour is here an issue as Well.....André has Some critical questions his family is unable to answer .Like who is holy ghost? No christian can give a logical explenation.Or Jesus died,how can a God die?why does bad Things happen to us? All awesome questions,but he gets no answer.the uncle was kind but unfortunately uninformed aswell.When blacks were taken from africa as slaves and muslims,THE did not workship Idols, since then and now islam is strictly monotheistic.Meaning 1 God,no partners,soms daughters,uncles etc.1 creator, thats iT.not 3 in 1 ,or 2 Gods,just 1 .andre seems very intelligent,hope he does go and look for THE quidance ,proof etc.overall THE documentary was very candid and RAW .

  10. I find it hard to fathom how the billions of believers never took the time to simply look at the premise of what they are believing in. The following statement should utterly shatter this belief. Here is the premise of god: He is an "ALLL-knowing, ALLLL-powerful, inVISible friend who is EVERYWHERE, who is PERfect in every way, who was never born and will never die, and who lives in another dimension called heavennnnnn."

    Even by the mentally challenged this premise should be immediately recognized as utterly ridiculous and completely impossible. The belief in something so far-fetched as this god is an embarrassment to all of mankind (which is supposedly an intelligent species).

  11. I am in the same situation as Andre (Black Atheist and only one in family), but I have it a bit worse. I live in The Bahamas; we have a 95% Christian Population and I am the only Atheist I know. We have a Christian Council that heavily influences the government and religion (guess which one) is taught from Grade 1. We do not teach Evolution in schools.
    My point is that I can directly identify with what Andre has to put up with; but without the bonus of 'Separation of Church and State'. It is really sobering and if not for my various sources of rationality(such as this Website) I do not know what I would do.

    1. I'm from The Bahamas as well and an atheist. While I don't live there anymore, every time I visit I am more and more aware of the vice Christianity has on our society. There are more of us out there but it's hard to tell. I hope you continue to find rationality and community online. As someone who struggled with accepting that I didn't believe and then having a sense of loneliness because of it, I found it really helped to reach out and find like-minded individuals.

  12. I feel badly that the people around you Andre were never taught basic Theology. Every single question you present has solid and satisfying answers from scripture. Your disappointment comes from the people around you are immersed into a mutation of true Christianity that would of lead you to eternal separation form God even if you stayed in it. The basic premise of the Bible was never spoken of or given for your inaccurate question of why "bad" things happen. All of Scripture deals with the fact that you, me, or the relatives or friends you had that died earlier than you thought were not "good"...scripture clearly says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". The entire Bible runs the narrative that because mankind is sinful and can't live up to the standard of the 10 Commandments and that God being just demands punishment for these offenses but instead of condemning you to Hell with no hope, He sent His perfect, sinless Son (Jesus Christ) to come and take the punishment for us and all we have to do is place our faith in His finished work of saving us from the penalty of our sin. Sure is the farthest thing from cruel and mean. Also, if someone would of taught you the attributes of God, you would have known that God is omnipotent meaning He has all power. As you know science is currently studying the atom which components are spinning around quickly; however, they don't understand why they don't fly apart. It is by Gods edict that these atoms and all the atoms that make up you and this universe hold together and if He chose to blow them all apart in the next second and bring it all back again in the following second, first of all you wouldn't even know it happened and second of all when you have that kind of power over life and death, having several billion people people be killed and then if he chose to have them all come back to life and and perfect health and then cause them to die again and come back to life just has no real power over Him. Also, since God is just, there will be no one in Heaven some day accusing Him of not being fair...He also has said that every person on earth is aware in their inner being that God is there and that they have a choice to make of either accepting His gift of forgiveness or rejecting that He exists and choose to go to no one get's sent...they (you) choose to go.

    1. You are the one that needs to do some self educating. Dr. Ehrman would be a great start for you. Try 'Misquoting Jesus'. That blows your whole 'Bible is the inerrant word of God' hypothesis out of the water, which renders the rest of your preach completely absurd.
      I guess you're not aware that there are actually more errors and contradictions in the NT between the old manuscripts we have, then there are words in the whole of the NT?
      I'm also guessing you're not aware that things have been changed and added to your 'word of God' over time, which Dr. Ehrman demonstrates beautifully.
      There is no way of you being able to know exactly what words he spoke by reading the Bible. That's a fact. You're going on a Book that has changed repeatedly over time, no one knows now what Jesus actually said, if in fact he lived at all.
      Let alone reconciling the contradictions contained in your Gospels, which renders your claims untenable.
      I'll give you one example to check for yourself. Read
      Mathew 27:39-44, then Luke 23:36-43. Now how many of the other 2 supposedly on the crosses that day mocked Jesus, 1 or both? Your 'scriptures' disagree and contradict, and are mutually exclusive.
      That is just one of many thousands (no one knows the total, it's in the hundreds of thousands) of errors and/or contradictions whatever version of the Bible you read contains. Yet you claim to know not only that there is A 'God', but it's YOUR version of 'God', and what 'God' can or can't do, what 'He' thinks and wants, etc etc.
      All based on a book that can't even get it's story straight, and we know isn't now what it once was. Do yourself and all that converse with you a favor, and actually study your Bible a little closer. Be honest with yourself, if you want to believe, its because you choose to based on theology, not on logic or evidence. The evidence and the logic doesn't agree with your theology, whether you're honest with yourself about it or not.

    2. Thank you for taking the time to rescue
      me from that ridiculous, error riddled Bible that has been the only place on
      earth where the truth of Jesus Christ (whom I love and will serve till the last
      breath leaves my body) is taught.

      It's really been bothering me over
      the years on how I can shake this calm and peaceful conviction that I will not
      face judgment for the many ways I have violated my conscience and God's law so
      thank you for leading me into the light where you, Bart, and Fred Nietzsche
      have found yourselves...oops...I take that back...Fred parted from the
      delusional path of denying the God who kept his 70 trillion cells replicating
      flawlessly over his miserable guilt ridden 44 years.

      You have no idea how miserable I
      have been over the past decades never fearing death or the coming judgment that
      I had when I hated God and refused to obey Him.

      The millions or maybe tens of millions
      of errors you mention have left me totally confused over what to believe over
      the years like when one translator writes "he said" and another writes
      "said he"....just ruins the idea being conveyed, but I'm sure I'll
      rally after I get a chance to jack myself up with more of the delusional lies that
      I have been clutching to now for so many joyful and happy years as I learn to
      love and obey my God more and more by studying His Word.

      So, now that you and Bart Errorman
      have set me free from loving and reading a Book that I would be willing to die
      for because it brings such joy and contentment. it's time for me to grow up and
      move on...ya got any thoughts on how to find peace with God?...other than
      jumping up and down in the middle of the room plugging your ears and covering
      your eyes saying "errors"....errors...errors...everywhere I look I
      see happy and contented people reading this "error" riddled book?"
      Just don't try to tell me the "truth" is "within" cause I
      know and you know there is nothing of any any value or truthfulness within any other thoughts?

    3. Lol. Nice little sarcastic rant, but there's a couple things. Firstly, where did you cut and paste that from? Is it even your own composition?
      You didn't answer any of my questions, why is that?
      Now, about the errors I mentioned, I didn't say as you claim there is "millions or maybe tens of millions of errors..", I said, "(no one knows the total, it's in the hundreds of thousands)"

      Why make up an exaggeration like that? (why bear false witness against me because I question you?)
      Are you capable of having a rational discussion about your Bible at all?

      As you said and Dr. Ehrman agrees and makes clear himself, there are hundreds of thousands of errors in the manuscripts we have, but the majority of them are insignificant, don't matter, are honest mistakes or obvious errors in the copy process, some, as you say, when reading a translation from the original Greek or Latin into something else, it doesn't matter which way the word order went, it makes no difference.
      But not all of the errors and changes are insignificant, an example of which is the one I asked you about.
      You don't have any thoughts about that problem at all, just sarcasm and try to pass all of it off with just part of the problem mentioned? 'Head in the sand' or 'just not think about it' kind of approach?

      An example, in 1701, John Mill went to print a Greek NT. He had access to about 100 earlier, hand copied manuscripts in Greek to compile his printed one. (note, no translation problem, same language)
      In his final printed version, he added in where he found what he considered to be significant variations between the 100 or so manuscripts he had to work with, and left out what he considered minor errors or changes. He listed about 30,000 differences in that printed version.
      We have around 5,700 Greek Manuscripts or partial Manuscripts of the NT, no complete ones until around about 200 AD (CE).
      30k 'important' errors from just 100 of them, so how many do you think they'll be in 5,000 plus copies? Yes, there is hundreds of thousands, many of them don't matter. But many, many do. In a very big way.
      Care to address any of them in an adult, honest way? Starting with the question I already asked, it is a pretty easy and gentle one to start with.
      How many of the other 2 men on the crosses that day mocked Jesus, 1 or both?

      My first tip to finding peace anywhere, is starting with self honesty. Wanna try some?

    4. You really cant have iT when Some believen in God and shows their love for Him ....Sad

    5. You obviously have problems with self-honesty judging from your posts so far, so your reply doesn't surprise me in the least.
      Blah blah blah... learn to use your shift-key properly ... it makes your posts look and read like shh iT.

    6. Misquoting Jesus is an awesome book!

    7. I agree. It would be really awesome if he wrote a 'Misquoting Mohammad' too, it will have many of the same problems. Not to mention similar types of outlandish claims and errors of fact that the Bible contains. I guess that's up to the Arabic speaking thinkers and writers though.. but considering how a couple of cartoons were reacted to, I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to come out. Just have to look at the Salman Rushdie affair to see how it would be received. Conversion via intimidation... an old trick, but still seems to work where that's tolerated.

    8. THE reason why i think THE book is awesome,even though i do not agreement with everything since THE Jesus pbuh to christians is not THE same as with muslims.I can see how u would think that and actually there are countless books About prophet Mohammed pbuh and his companions.why? Everything muslim must know for sure that everything is reliable and there for accepted.if not,iT is rejected.iT is called chain of narrations.the Quraan is THE last revalations and has no mistakes,therein is a challenge even for 1400 years.The challenge is for anyone to fine one single mistake,error or lie.untill now nobody was able to doe that.people who even try that ended up converting to Islam( biggeest nummer of couverts is among educated/ scientists etc and women

    9. Yep, want your cake and eat it too. Happy to point out the Bible's errors, but oh no, not the Quran.
      Check out 79:30 and 88:20 of your version of the Book of BS.
      One mistake straight up, the description of the Earth is wrong. It describes a flat Earth, mountains as 'pegs' to hold it down, and the sky is likened to a tent above.
      Exactly how you'd expect tent dwelling peoples of the day to think of the Earth. It (your Book of BS) is most definitely inaccurate. (and that's without even looking at your absurd flying horses, cutting the moon in half BS claims)

      And no Alma, the challenge isn't for others to disprove your assertions, you're making the claim, the burden of proof lies with you.

    10. am not happy at all that the Bible is corrupted, what gives you that idea. Your claims of" errors" is proven wrong(source:Earth, Press and Siever, p. 435. Also see Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 157.) A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two
      authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to
      former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National
      Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have
      underlying roots. These
      roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg.Modern earth
      sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the
      ground and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the
      surface of the ground. So the most suitable word to describe mountains on
      the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set
      peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science
      tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in
      the latter half of the nineteenth century.
      Mountains also
      play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth. They hinder the
      shaking of the earth.-Just because you do not understand something ,doesn't make it false.Also ,I assumed this was a civil discussion, without BS etc name calling..You did prove me wrong here ...

    11. I find it amusing that religees can't see the contradiction within there books of lies.

    12. As Jim Jefferies would say, 'Got a live one here ;) ' This one is especially dishonest. My reply to him is awaiting clearance, I posted a revealing link ;)
      What I find much worse then the ones that can't see it, is the one's that openly are dishonest about it. I can kind of excuse being tricked and not thinking for oneself, I can't abide outright liars.

    13. Religees have very little understanding of truth as they have been lied to themselves often enough from their clergy from such an early age that they can no longer seperate truth from BS.

    14. I think you may have a good point there. I've noticed the same logical fallacies being thrown around by them again and again, the same sort of 'twisted logic' that mainly seems to apply when scriptures or theology come into it. Some from pretty intelligent (on other subjects) people at times, which makes it even more of a perplexity to me.

    15. I find it irritating most of the time. I know how it works though, it took me nearly six months before I could admit to my friends that the second Matrix movie was total nonsense. I nearly cried that day. Imagine what it must be like for someone with a lot more invested ...

    16. I'm sorry but what a crock of s4it.

      Even the most cursory of glances around the internet will expose every proposition in your above statement for the outright the lies they are.

    17. You know, iT is not done, calling someone a liar,without proof.glances around THE internet is hardly an sufficiant evidance.if you CANNOT comes with Some legit evidance,THE apology is in order.

    18. Google "contradictions in the quran". Before you reply please have a look through at least the first 5 sites the search throws up. If you find a sticking point then let me know.

      Unlike some of the other and more able responders on here I couldn't be bothered replying point for point when you are arguing so childishly, my contempt won't allow it.

      Edit: As far as I know none of the owners/readers/contributors to any of those sites have been miraculously converted to Islam.

      Still no answer to whether you think it's okay to kill apostates?

    19. Salman Rushdie was bashing ,mocking etc he was hardly writing an scientific researcher book and above all based on truth.not that i agree or disagree with his ruling.however there are people today if u insult their mother for eg they ll. stab u or kill u .its daily in THE nwspaper globally.why would u go and insult or provoce in THE first place....if i go to someone on THE street and insult their Mother,ill also have to live with THE consequences, my 2 cts.

    20. About your excuses of violence for your religion because you're 'insulted' or 'offended'.

      I second Stephen Fry's opinion when he said;

      "It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm
      rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f--k1ng what."

    21. Lool I do not understand this anger from your side.Where do I excuse violence?People can say whatever they want, but if you like me (in your country) in Europe walk up to an cop and insult him, EXPECT a fine and perhaps some beating ,brutality.SO yes, I can can insult or offend whomever, but the consequences are also mine.This is common sense.

    22. You'll understand better when the reply I just posted is cleared by the Mods.
      Lie much mate?

    23. I am not sure how comment applies to anything.I said I do not understand this anger from you ,you replied I ll understand better when ur reply arrives, ,then you said I lied....Am I missing something??

    24. That's one of my favourite observations from Stephen Fry. So much truth and sense.

    25. Not that you agree or disagree? And yet you try to provide what could be read as a tacit justification through a skewed comparison.

      You have no opinion on a religious leader calling for the death of someone who exercises their right to free speech? If that's the case then I know all I need to know about you.

    26. and if I attack you because you have offended me I must live with the consequences of my actions. To allow the threat of retribution to silence opposing perspectives would be bowing to the tyranny of the most easily offended.

    27. C'mon man, tell it like it is. Do critics of Islam deserve the death penalty? Let your truth shine.

    28. How many languages do you speak and read?
      How many years of schooling/education have you had?

    29. Is this the benchmark you really want to use? When Errorman is an intellectual pigmy (which you can also see by his many banal arguments)...When there are tens of thousands of men far more educated embracing the Word of God with all their lives and you find one middle of the packer that found he could become a celebrity for those who hate God? After reading his many arguments I am very pleased he chose to switch to your losing side because I blush at how poor and petty his textual criticism habitually gravitates to. Just because a guy couldn't find a job so he was willing to spend his parents money in school accumulating degrees does not for a second mean he is wise or all hear his intellectual "shtick" and you rally around him without ever stopping to think if his arguments are credible or salient. I think we would put Errorman into the climate denier camp of theologians...good luck with him because ever day you parade him around the intellectual town square the more silly you all look. Stop hiding behind this many embarrassing arguments and criticism...go buy an ESV Bible and read the book of John.

    30. ..I haven't mentioned Dr Ehrman ,but if you would like to have an open discussion about the apparent lies, extra pieces and conflicting accounts that are in the bible, I would be more than happy to...;)

      However could you be the good christian,and try answering my first two questions, as aren't you here pass on your wisdom to your fellow man?

    31. Sorry...just saw this 9 months after you "responded"...I think if you want to discuss textual criticism with Mr. Errorman as your "poster boy" you need to Google "Bart Erhman debates (or should I say is utterly destroyed and made to look like a petulant child) James White"...after Bart's snarky 27 minute subjective straw-man hummer where he creates an alternate universe where he habitually repeats "I don't know, but" and then goes to fabricate how the ancient world operated according to his admission that he actually had no way of knowing and he had no facts to support his conjecture. James reduces Bart's (love using his name because I get a picture in my mind of a great modern day theologian with a cartoon family) smoke and mirrors sideshow into a kind of Wizard of Oz moment...If you studied this subject of textual criticism (for yourself) you will find that you are sitting in a little lonely corner with a sad and empty man who couldn't earn the limelight through cogent evangelical scholarship so he reverted to standing in the town square covering their eyes and ears and stomping up and down crying "God is Dead because various authors and translators spelled their words from around the world differently we're sure to never be able to know what God wants us to know"...gotta be an easier ways of getting attention out their in academia...oh ya, Bart found a willing audience in a Marxist infested University environment away from anyone who knows anything about anything (he's not exactly at the epicenter of Textual Criticism)...and I can't forget his young students who love their sin and would give anything for Bart to be right...even gamble their eternal destiny...seems like some pretty high stakes to me. Tell me again how you plan to stand before a holy and just God and tell him Bart Ehrman stories?

    32. @ Just Thinking (not),

      I'll make this as easy as possible by putting my answer in point form as you appear to have a little problem realizing just how stup*d you are!!!

      1. You have not addressed my actual questions that I put to you... Why is that?

      Would it be that you may have to admit that your good book has the holes in it that you are denying..

      2. James White... The same James White that acknowledges Prof Bart Ehrman as one of the leading experts in the USA in this field. If you recall the documentary he states that... So for you to hold James White in such high regard and for him to acknowledge Prof Bart Ehrman as one of the leading experts in his field. Can you now see how blinded your view is?

      3. Your "God". Can you be positive that the one that you worship is the right one and how are you going to convince me without using the book of lies that you call the bible?

      4. What error in the bible that Prof Bart Ehrman point out that has been shown to be incorrect?

      5. You ask me how I'm going to answer my actions to "god". That's easy I'll be dead I won't be talking to any one.....

    33. I have that debate, parts 1 and 2, and have watched it a number of times. Your claims in your blog here are incorrect. What I would like to ask you is are you genuinely mistaken and deceived, or just outright dishonest?

      Lets examine some of your claims.

      The Title of the debate was "Does the Bible misquote Jesus?", the topic was, '...the reliability of the text of the New Testament".

      You said Dr. Ehrman "found a willing audience in a Marxist infested University environment away from anyone who knows anything about anything". Are you talking about his students, or that debate? Didn't you notice the sign on the podium they both stood in front of for the first hour and a half, or in fact when Dr. Ehrman talks about the makeup of the audience. The debate was held at the Sheridan Hotel, Fort Lauderdale. And the audience was, "by and large mostly evangelical christians". If you happened to be talking there about where he teaches and your claim "his young students who love their sin and would give anything for Bart to be right.", you're still wrong. As Dr. Ehrman has talked about in other lectures, he teaches in a place that he describes as "the buckle of the Bible belt", a very Christian community, and the majority of his students are actually believing Christians. Either way, you are incorrect in your claims, and ironically are putting down your fellow believers.

      You claim that Dr. Ehrman is sitting in a lonely little corner and is a sad little man that changed his views purely to assist his failing career. Apart from mostly biased theologians, the majority of serious, unbiased textual critics today agree with the majority of what Dr. Ehrman says. As with all scholarship there are debates over some areas and very few if any will agree on every point, but by and large most of his comments are not disputed by the top scholars in his field today. As pointed out by another blogger, even Dr. White when asked who is the leader of textual criticism in North America said Dr. Ehrman was one, he mentioned him 2nd out of 3. With regards to his career and faith, as Ehrman said in this debate again, he started loosing his faith when he honestly studied the New Testament as a student and could no longer deny the contradictions and big problems it contains. NOT as you suggest to prop up an ailing career. It started before he even had a career. With regards to "a lonely sad little man", even Dr. White mentioned jealously that Ehrman "gets all the invitations". Once more, you're incorrect, and even your source Dr. White agrees on this one.

      You claim the crux of Dr. Ehrman's argument is "various authors and translators spelled their words from around the world differently". This is grossly incorrect, and clearly demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of textual criticism and Dr. Ehrman's argument. That or you are deliberately being dishonest and misrepresenting Dr. Ehrman. Again, which is it?

      What 27 minutes exactly are you talking about? The beginning of part 2, Bart's part of the one on one questioning with James? Exactly what part are you claiming Dr. Ehrman fabricated? What "strawman argument" from Ehrman?

      That 2nd part did highlight a number of things. It highlighted Dr. Whites attempted dirty little ploy of a move in a debate about the textual tradition, which by far over the majority of time was hand written, Dr. White tries to slip in a red herring in comparing a printed Alexandrian "collation" against a printed Byzatine "collation", and come up with an 'amazing' 95% agreement. As Dr. Ehrman clearly pointed out, there are 2 major flaws in what was Dr. Whites main point, as well as a couple more minor ones.

      Firstly, when talking about the manuscript tradition, it is at the very least disingenuous to attempt to slip by a comparison of printed texts as Dr. White did. Yes, he did say in his presentation they were printed, which only served to point out their unsuitability and irrelevance to those that were actually able to notice the difference. Obviously you are either one that didn't recognize that important distinction, or you choose to be ignorant about it. I feel Dr. White was being deceitful there, especially after he'd tried to suggest that an exact copy is an unreasonable standard as there were no photocopiers yet. (Ironically furthering Ehrman's point about scribal errors in the process). On that point of "reasonable standard", Dr. White fails to recognize the very important difference between other old manuscripts and the Bible. The other manuscripts are not claimed to be the inspired word of God as the Bible is. That makes all the difference in the standard that needs to apply.
      Secondly, as Dr. Ehrman pointed out, the % of changed words isn't really the important point when considering meaning changes. As Bart said, he could speak a 100 word sentence, change only the 1 word, whether he said the word "not" or not. Although it is only a 1% change in terms of number of words, it is a massive (100% in fact) change in the whole meaning of the sentence.
      It was quite amusing to watch Dr. White squirm and duck, and not answer a question pointing to his arguments irrelevance, even though Dr. Ehrman even re-worded his question to accommodate Dr. White's attempted intellectual gymnastics. Dr. White's made up numbers had no relevance as to whether or not we can get the original words and meanings accurate today, comparing printed text's agreement when talking back to manuscripts is irrelevant, and even Dr. White's method of looking at the % of word match didn't fit his argument.. Which was a fine example of the strawman fallacy in action. Despite what you tried to infer, the fact is, to gain a perspective on how many changes and errors, both minor and major, between the 5500 Greek manuscripts we currently have for the NT, there are more changes then there are total words in it. Not just a few spelling errors as you falsely claimed.

      As for who won the debate. The fact is, it was over as soon as Dr. Ehrman asked Dr. White a question along the lines of, "If we still have the originals and can apply scholarship to deduce which of the multiple versions are the original, what is it?" To which Dr. White had no answer other than "I believe its in there somewhere". Clearly displaying what nearly all serious scholars now admit, even if the originals are somewhere in the manuscript tradition still, we can't know exactly which one it is. That alone proves Ehrman's side of the debate, that being the current New Testament cannot accurately be relied on or treated as the original wording. If you wish to claim the same as James White, than I'll ask you the same question. IF the originals are there amongst the different versions, and we can rely that one of the multiple versions is accurate to the original, then exactly which is it? And how do you know that?

      Or you can look at the fact Dr. White compares very unfavorably to Dr. Ehrman as a scholar. For example, when asked about who the top current textual scholars are in England, France and Germany, Dr. White knew not one current name, while Ehrman quoted multiple. James ended up admitting, "I don't follow textual criticism in Germany", obviously not France or England either. Where as Bart obviously does. James also admitted that he took the majority of his argument from the opinion of Dr. Wallace (whom interestingly was not in his top 3 in North America in his earlier reply)and some from past, now deceased textual critics and theologians, mainly Kurt Alund . Dr White more than once disparaged the majority of his current peers using the term 'post modernism', attempting to imply that the old, now almost rejected view that he holds is somehow superior and overrides the more recent scholarship in his area. He admits the majority of his argument is based on these old views. James said it was also consistent with his own studies. It was amusing that Dr. White was so happy to just have a tie with P52 printed on it, when Dr. Ehrman has held the original papyrus in his hands. In questioning, it seems Dr. White hasn't really done much of his own research, but rather just studied older views that are consistent with his preconceptions.
      In contrast, most of the questions James asked, Bart was able to reply to off the top of his head, with his opinion and often differing views. Bart did have that section where he read in Greek and spoke it in English to display his answer. Unlike James, who more than once had to ask if he was to look up the reference material in front of him to properly answer.
      The difference between not only the experience, the standard of scholarship and peer respect, but more importantly the strength of the argument, was clearly with Dr. Ehrman. Which as he himself pointed out, the argument itself and its merits are more important than the people making it.

      Before you wish to argue that, lets examine Dr. Whites revealed studies with regards to his argument, and to further shed light on the quality of scholar he is. It was quite telling that his big point was comparing a printed Alexandrian collation to a Byzantine printed collation and getting 95% agreement, when firstly James couldn't easily properly define a collation RE his field, and second that when Bart asked James if he'd ever compared an Alexandrian v's a Byzantine James had not, in fact he'd not ever worked on a Byzantine manuscript. Confirming that his fallacious appeal to authority was in fact consistent with his originally claimed, nonexistent and fallacious so-called relevant study to his argument.

      You are consistently inaccurate in your claims, your evaluations and your absurd resort to needless ad hominem regarding Dr. Ehrman, who as a scholar, by Dr. Whites own admission, is more respected in their field by their peers than Dr. White is, not to mention more in line with what Dr. White called the 'post modern' direction of Textual Criticism. (where the evidence has led, despite Jame's, and your, dislike of this fact) James displayed his jealousy of Bart's popularity more than once during that debate, not to mention his general lack of knowledge concerning old manuscripts besides the Bible. I don't agree with Dr. Ehrman on everything he thinks, but your absurd evaluation and outright lies against him here just highlights what seems to be your insecurities his work must make you feel. So again, which is it? If you have, as you claim, studied the subject for yourself, why are you so completely inaccurate? Is it by accident or design? Dishonest or just dumb, lunatic or liar?

    34. Thanks "Bart"...or are you his brother in law publicist? First off Every state university is Marxist and if you don't recognize this truth you need to read what Marx wanted to do in life (Kill God and destroy Capitalism) fact Bart couldn't have gotten a job there if they did not think he could be a useful i*iot for their embarrassing "God is Dead" campaign.

      The fact that some of the kids in this great bastion of theological education are "christian" is a gross over generalization for no godly well taught, born again Christian would expose themselves to one sided marxist pablum that is spewed in every course in UNC.

      Then of course we could swerve into the 20 years this bastion of higher learning has been fabricating grades which seems to me to just reinforce the fact that this morally bankrupt institution is both intellectually disingenuous and morally corrupt (and has been revealed to be the sham that it is).
      Then lets go to the "debate"...I have to apologize I only watched Bart's first "fantasy world" fabrication of lacing together "what if" hypotheticals where one must "believe" every single person picking up a writing instrument over the past 2,000 years was a deaf i*iot and those responsible for passing on the doctrines of the Church "the Elder's" were incapable of reading, teaching, or preserving the truths that have been preserved by such sloppily imbeciles.
      The Sheridan was a mute point for I was not referring to the audience there at all.
      The lonely little man persona was unfair of me for I should never mock anyone's pain...I drew the conclusion from his Blog where the last individual commented many months ago...Bart's last Blog seemed to be a sad lonely defense of Christianity being a part of who he was so he seemed frustrated that he wasn't being fully embraced by his Marxists buddies. It sounded like a "don't force me to reject every aspect of my life" broke my heart for I felt like I could hear the 30 pieces of silver hitting the steps of the temple (the Christian Church in this case).
      But...Bart acknowledged that he read everyone's comments.
      Now the problem I had with Barts' opening volley in the debate video was it was void of was clear he was using classical 8th grade debating tactics instead of a sincere attempt to find truth. Of the 5,700 manuscripts he used fuzzy words that were never quantified or specifics documented. He proves the supernatural nature of scriptures preservation when he speaks of all of these hundreds of languages and dialects but still the "core doctrines" remain.

      No one scrubbed the many embarrassingly s*upid things Israel or the Disciples attempts to harmonize the various perspectives from the authors of the Gospels.

      Then we need to speak about the supernatural impact these words have had on people all over the planet over the past 2,000 years...listen to "Unshackled" on the web and hear the homogenous nature of their "born again" experiences of people all over the world over many decades by people who never met.

      And this is the foundation of this entire discussion...I reached out to Bart since he had a very similar upbringing so I needed to know not if he said the little prayer we call the sinners pray where a person tells God that they believe that Jesus Christ came to earth to die on the cross to pay the punishment for our sins and that we believe that Jesus then rose on the third day" because I said this over and over throughout my youth but nothing ever happened...I never changed...nothing but a short emotional kick; however, no ability to see God changing the way I talked, the things I did, the things I could no longer do and most of all, my spirit would never "agree" with the Holy Spirit which is the seal that God gives when we are genuinely "born again"....This happened to me just short of my 20th birthday; however, sadly, this never happened to Bart or this young man who grew up in watered down Pentecostalism.... we call these people "false converts", for a truly born again person could no more reject Christ as they could reject themselves.
      So guys you are speaking of things you currently know nothing of...I know you hate a Holy God who has put within you the knowledge that what I am saying is true and you are "kicking against the goads" which is encouraging since God often reaches down to people like you and says, "you're Mine" and it will be the most exhilarating, pure and wonderful experience you will ever keep trolling about this site so when God finally saves you all you can come here and say "ya, I know what it's like to love my sin so much that I worked overtime to convince myself there was no God"...right now truly genuine Christians have nothing to fear from your arm waving and blustering because those who are "His" can never be "plucked from His hand".

      So sorry you misunderstood me and had to default to the idea that I was being disingenuous or dishonest...I love sharing about the God who loved me (and you) and reached down and lovingly forgave me of my sins and made me right before His judgment seat.

    35. Thank you for your answer. Wow, such a contorted and twisted, up-side-down argument (if that is what you call what you're attempting) that contains as many non sequiturs, false and unsubstantiated knowledge claims, fallacies and apologetic nonsense as does what you just authored, not to mention your personal account of your own struggle with sanity and delusion, is very enlightening indeed.

      Contrary to your final paragraph's statement, if you read my blog again you'll see I did not "default to the idea" that you were being knowingly dishonest, I asked you a question, are you a lunatic or a lair. My "default" after reading your blogs was "this guy is nuts." You did answer that question in your sermon/reply. Lunatic, with a little bit of dishonesty, probably mostly to yourself.

      You've claimed that you have studied the topic of New Testament Textual Criticism, I have read the whole conversation of yours here and you've not made one scholarly comment, claim or statement on that subject. You've only stated your personal beliefs and claimed them as fact, and
      attacked anyone that says anything to the contrary. Evidence notwithstanding. It is no wonder people on here seem to be getting frustrated attempting to talk sense with you.

      It was quite amusing to read you start with more ad hominem, against myself and then Professor Ehrman, then along the way you change, lay on the hypocrisy and claim you're just concerned for Bart. The only person you're kidding is yourself. I must add, how very Christian of you to resort to ad hominem about people that don't agree with your fact ignoring, faith based fallacious claims. What part of your "core doctrine" says the members of the flock (congregation, or sheep, or you) get to do the 'sin judging' (play God)?
      I know the part about you don't have to face your actions and say sorry to the people you 'sin' against, you get a free-pass on that one. That is why you won't apologize for your dishonest claims about people and facts on here. That's why you pretended to have concern for Bart, your conscience broke though your brainwashing for an instant, and you felt the hypocrisy of your position, which instinctively, briefly, allowed you to feel the weakness of your argument. Hence your 'tactical about-face' mid-insult. Consistency, non-hypocrisy and in fact honesty come second to maintaining your untenable position, to maintaining 'the preach'. You are consistent with other apologists there JT.

      Here is a dishonest part that you displayed. You first claimed "Bart Erhman debates (or should I say is utterly destroyed and made to look like a petulant child) James White.." You then carried on with what amounts to nothing more than more trash talk about 27 minutes of that debate, going so far as to claim Dr. Ehrman "fabricated" facts. Again, which facts has he fabricated, exactly?

      Then you later revealed when questioned by someone that knows what you are talking about and claiming, you have only watched 27 minutes of what is a 2 hour and 40 -odd minute debate if you get both part 1 and 2 with the audience question time. Because of your initial claims of knowledge of the debate, followed by you inadvertently advertising your dishonesty by your own admission of not having watched the actual debate, you were being dishonest and misleading. Your following attempt to cover that fact is noted. You still haven't watched all of it and taken note of the scholarly arguments have you? Your pathetic attempt at appearing to know what you are talking about by watching Bart's opening statement and making some more vague comments and drawing a conclusion on the argument and the debate is absurd.
      Unfortunately it seems your preconception from the title of the debate and the topic itself, combined with what you think you know of Professor Ehrman, have rendered you unable to separate theology and personal wishful thinking from fact.

      I also note the glaring contradiction in your argument between Dr. Ehrman being a "poster boy", and your latter claim of him being lonely and not accepted. Can you not see the problem with that paradox? Regarding Dr. Ehrman feeling lonely, watch the audience question time at the end of that debate, note what is said by whom on that topic of feeling lonely. Also note who asks questions, and who is being asked. If you watched and noticed during that debate, one of the Dr.'s expresses jealousy over the others popularity more than once...and it isn't Dr. Ehrman. Contrary to your ongoing assertions.

      Fuzzy words? Again, you haven't watched and paid attention to the whole debate have you? Check out and then explain the 3 times Dr. White shows he uses his own, separate definition to words or terms that are used by his peers in his profession. Can you tell me the three? It is interesting how every one of those 3 occasions, Dr. Ehrman notices and questions Dr. White about it. To help you, I'm talking strictly definitions, not about the other times Dr. White uses different values than is accepted by his current respected peers, in every case the most favorable for his failed argument. Even his best case scenario doesn't work)

      About your ramblings on Dr. Ehrman, I also note it is interesting that for someone that shows and claims both loathing and pity of Bart, you have followed him personally an unusual amount. You follow his blog, which means you follow him more than I do. I visited his website once for a look. One of your errors is you've concentrated on him, his beliefs, and totally dismissed his scholarly argument and all the supporting evidence. Not because of the strength or weakness in his argument, how can you when as you have shown you've not bothered to actually examine the argument fully, but instead proudly declared yourself and other 'real Christians' impervious to reason.
      You are correct, you do need to talk about your "supernatural" claims. First you have to explain your wording, and demonstrate not only that there is some "supernatural" anything (claims, including unsubstantiated old writings, are not evidence). Then you have to demonstrate that this "supernatural" is in fact your claimed version, and then that you are interpreting your version correctly.

      You say many people over the decades have had a similar response to reading the same literature, and therefore that equals your God. OK, using your standard, many people have read Shakespeare over the decades and had a similar response, therefore Shakespeare must also be a 'God'. Or an even harder one for you, Mohammad and the Koran, the response to that book. Again using your logic, that must mean Allah is 'The God' too.... Can you not see the problem with your logic?

      To be honest I can't be bothered addressing the rest of your sermon-like apologetics, they've all been done to death if you care to investigate your own claims, and you are not saying anything I can't hear any given Sunday.

      I'll finish with an observation and couple questions. With the vast majority of the theological reasons you've based your position on, the words "Christian" and "Jesus" can have multiple other religions substitute their chosen names in for your words, and make exactly the same sort of theological argument as you do, with exactly the same sort of, or lack of, supporting evidence, as you have. So what makes your version special and unique from those other religions? 'The Bible', or 'One God, my God' is not an adequate answer.

      If, as you and Dr. White claim, the "core doctrine" is supernaturally preserved, why do you read a Bible, believe and accept that "scripture" that contains what we know for sure are latter additions. If you want to know how we know for sure, I can explain it to you if you want. Dr. White admits to numerous additions and changes during that debate. Why does such a solid, unquestionable, preserved "core doctrine" as you claim, have over 1000 denominations with many differing doctrines? (over 1000 doctrines by definition) What is the "original" core doctrine, and how do you know this?

      Are you capable of answering using sound logic and evidence, and not theology, ad hominem, fallacy, misdirection or outright trash?

    36. You are right...I have been disrespectful towards Bart and yourselves...when
      I stumbled into this site I thought you all were just hanging out here with no
      other cause than to attack people who said they were Christians hoping to
      proselytize them "out" of being one since none of you have ever
      studied the Bible for yourselves to know that truly born again Christians
      cannot lose their salvation.

      So I decided to "answer fools according to their folly"; however,
      it has become clear to me that you all are desperately seeking a way to stop
      sinning against a Holy God that you know in your hearts that you will have to
      stand before the only fool here has been forgive me for
      being flippant and rude...this was wrong on my part.

      You did an excellent job of succinctly describing the reason you don't, or
      don't want to understand me.

      Now for why you hate my words...could it be because Jesus said "they
      have hated me, so they will also hate you"?

      Stop and think about this from a third person's hate the
      Bible though you have never sincerely studied it...

      You hate Christ because he died in your place and offers a free gift of the
      forgiveness of your sins so you don't have to pay the penalty of your sins...
      all He asks is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be
      saved"... do these words hurt?

      No machete ready to saw your head off if you refuse to bow your knee...does
      this make us despicable human beings?

      You hate Christians because we quote the things that a Holy and Just God has
      told you are not good for you and you get mad at Him?

      You tell Him he has no right to tell
      you what is right and wrong; however, if you were to sit down and write some
      suggestions for your children to live by some day would you suggest anything
      different than what the Bible says?

      Can you identify what command could be disobeyed and harm would not come to
      yourself or others?

      Would you be offended if I warned you of a washed out bridge was up
      ahead?...or would you say "Shut up you idiot, who are you to tell me where
      I can drive and where I can't...mind your own business"...would that be
      love on my part?

      If I understand your frustration properly you believe it is not scholarly to
      cite the biggest selling book in the history of this planet?

      Is a book that has revolutionized and comforted the lives of millions and
      millions of people each year not credible enough to use?

      I am relying on the Bible alone for my foundation and you would prefer I
      lower the conversation to the faulty realm of "logic and reason" of men
      who can't get through a single day without lying and being selfish?

      Logic and reason is where every man goes in the fact within
      Christianity every deviation from scripture happens when man reads what God has
      said and then says "well if scripture says this or that, then it only
      stands to reason that this or that also must be true" when it isn't
      supported in scripture...thus all of the different denominational groups.

      You can go to a Catholic's Bible and read the Book of John where Jesus
      clearly tells Nicodemus that he "must be born again" but you will
      find that Catholics discourage the reading of the book of John because they
      want the job of saving men so they added their own doctrines that makes the
      church...the Catholic church, the only true purveyor of salvation (as long as
      you don't go up the street and start giving money to the local Baptist Church).

      They also took Mary and "reasoned" that if Jesus can give us
      favors then what man would deny his mother if she came asking for favors? (ya
      see the human "reason" trumping Scripture?) So,, this is just to show
      there is a lot of people within religion who have gravitated away from
      Scripture to "logic and reason" and bring spiritual destruction

      Scripture says "there is one mediatory between God and man and that
      is Christ Jesus". So when I see all
      the errors in theology comes from man's "logic and reason" I don't
      believe that I or you have anything but wild conjecture or wishful
      thinking"...please don't confuse this with being scholarly.

      So we could go down through history where man has ignored or decided to "one
      up" the Bible just to get messed up and self destructing. Some people have
      made the bold statement that no institution, denomination, or group has been
      able to stay true to obeying Scripture for no more than 100 years;
      consequently, there is ample evidence in history inside of and outside of the
      Church that indicates that man wrecks everything we touch and you want to lower
      our discussion to quoting men? The book of Romans says "for all have
      sinned and fall short of the glory of God" which seems to hit it on the
      head to me.

      This is a fundamental difference why we talk past each other...I say that I (and
      you) are fundamentally flawed...when we use ourselves as the highest source of
      information we make ourselves gods (little "g") and I ain't god and
      forgive me but you too ain't no god fact tonight I was reading that
      those who reject Christ as the Son of God and the sacrifice for our sins that our lives will be messed up and full
      of turmoil, confusion and will be rife with people jockeying for position over
      each other...sounds exhausting to me.

      God has this planet hurling through this universe flawlessly while keeping 7
      plus billion people's 70 trillion cells replicating flawlessly each second when
      you and I can't even get a single cell to jump to life even once with the aid
      of an entire fact you and I can't even cook up a real good
      definition for what life itself fact our definitions for life are kind
      of shabby at best so drawing from our embarrassingly shallow pool of knowledge
      I think we best look to a source that has accurately fulfilled hundreds of
      prophecies, hundreds of years in advance

      where serious statistician have calculated that the chances of a portion of
      them coming true in any one person in history being statistically
      "impossible". One recent statistician used the probability of them
      coming true being one in all the electrons in the if you marked
      one electron and placed in anywhere in the universe and then blindfold yourself
      and fly any direction you chose as long as you chose and then picking the
      marked electron out of the universe full of electrons and you would have a
      comparable probability of Jesus Christ fulfilling all of them.

      So if I am to sit down and look sincerely at 5700 manuscripts written over
      1600 years by over 40 individuals that didn't know each other for the most part
      and have hundreds of prophecies coming true where statistically all
      mathematicians acknowledge that look at the facts shake their heads and say it
      is statically impossible for even a fraction of all prophecies to come true in
      one man in history I'm going to place all my faith in this book alone.

      Then we sift and sort through tens of thousands of men who studied ancient
      manuscripts long before Bart and say there is a stunning continuity of all of
      the core doctrines laced throughout the many variants in spelling and cultural
      vernacular indigenous to specific regions at varying times over he past 1700
      years that there must be a higher power maintaining this continuity of thought.

      Then to address Bart, I too never visited his site until you all brought him
      up...I went to the site and it temporarily ticked me off that a fellow Christian
      would come to such poor conclusions (that scripture can't be trusted) and to be
      used as a useful idiot for those who hate Christ.

      But once I got to his site and saw that he made a big splash in the Christ
      hating Marxist community but then it was
      clear they moved on and left him to the place where no one had read anything he
      had to say for six or seven months my heart broke.

      Then I reached out to him (because he acknowledged he always read every
      comment; however, couldn't guarantee he would have time to return any dialog
      which I understand so I explained how I was very similar to him so all I needed
      so I could communicate accurately was a simple "yes" or
      "no" answer to the question of, "after saying the sinner's
      prayer as a teenager did "everything" change as II Corinthians says"?

      I asked for a simple yes or no if he could several months and several years
      after saying the sinners prayer could he look back over his shoulder and see
      things that he could do before he said the prayer that he no longer had any
      desire to do?

      Or did reading the Bible become alive and exciting where before saying that
      prayer the words were hard and stony and made absolutely no sense"?

      So since I walked in his shoes and knew all about saying the words but
      nothing changing (which indicates that the Holy Spirit was not present so he and
      I were just talking to the walls but not
      to God).

      I know, because I had the same experience saying the sinners prayer hundreds
      of times and nothing changed until I was near 20 years of age Christ saved me
      and the Word of God became alive to me (but no other books) and I started
      seeing behaviors I could do with barely a guilty conscience before I was saved
      that I had no desire to do after...unfortunately Bart could not attest to such
      a change; consequently, we call this exactly what I was that the Bible calls a
      false convert.

      So he went from being what you all you wanted desperately to be as someone who
      was a "Christian" and then got smart and left the faith but it ends
      up he was never born again in the first place.

      Once I took the time to investigate I found a guy who mumbled some words
      under some syrupy "just as I am" invitation where someone told him
      all he had to do to avoid Hell was to "make Jesus his savior" is
      my opinion after studying scripture for 35 years that when someone is looking
      for a "savior" from Hell but have no intention of making and
      declaring Christ as "Lord" Korios (I.e., master over every detail of
      their life) that God does not save that individual.

      When it came to Bart and when I saw what school he attended I have to say no
      one within Christianity would look to his school as being a bastion of
      theological scholarship (not for several hundred years at least).

      As you know it is a bastion of Marxist thinkers who (as you know) Marx had
      two desires in life, "to kill God and destroy capitalism".

      I have one brother two years older than myself that graduated magna cum
      laude in Biblical languages from one of the most respected theological
      institutions in the world. And I'm sorry to say as much as both Harvard and
      Yale started as distinctly Christian institutions they have long fallen into
      ashes and have for hundreds of years lost any credibility within Christianity.

      My brother and I many years ago went
      on this journey to see if all of the manuscripts were corrupted and all meaning
      lost on the scrap pile of history (even though it is the only book that comes
      alive in my hands still today). Because of your limited exposure to this area
      of study you wouldn't and didn't investigate that Bart and a handful of dead German textual critics looked at all the
      evidence and have come to the opposite conclusion as Bart and a small band of
      textual critics. Back to statistics
      here...amongst credible ancient language scholars Bart is the odd man out and
      thus he has been relegated to an institution that has zero credibility.

      So I have seen a handful of Bart's come down the pike over the past 35 years
      with the same shuck and jive arguments that they refuse to apply to any other
      areas of the their lives and it is always those who hate Jesus Christ (and are
      willing to evangelize around documentary sites where they think they can peel
      off those who like Bart call themselves "christian" but only in word.

      Scripture says a true born again Christian cannot lose their salvation so
      really you are actually working for God here as you scrape off those who like
      Bart claim to be Christians; however, were never "born again" in the
      first place so keep up the good are saving people from saying
      "Lord, Lord" at the judgment.

      When it comes to other gods and religions I'm sorry that you misspoke...if
      you study closely (and not read books by written by those who don't know Christ)
      you will find that Christianity is distinct from all other religions.

      Christianity says "mankind is such a sinful mess that they can't begin
      to earn favor in God's eyes so God had to send His own Son to die and take the
      punishment for mankind's sin and by us placing our faith in and accepting Jesus
      Christ as Lord and Savior they can be forgiven...all other religions say
      "man can earn favor in God's eyes and may possibly be good enough to earn
      salvation... but with no guarantees".
      The 27 minutes I was referring to were the I mentioned he used innuendo and cited nothing other than fabricating as hypothetical world where everyone was an idiot...I researched all of Bart's tired old arguments when he was still playing soccer in his backyard so lip-syncing the same tired stuff gets really boring...sorry...I should have listened to the whole thing if I were to comment but since you were citing one person's observations it didn't appear you were very sincere in your quest for truth...but maybe I was wrong....forgive me if I was wrong.

    37. You should go read the commenting rules, you are not supposed to preach like that JT.

      Wow, you are gone aren't you. You even have the arrogance to think you can tell me, and everyone else, what they think and believe. All because your little book tells you. No wonder you don't like people like Dr. Ehrman proving your little book is a fairy tale. Here is a new one for you to check out, he makes Dr. Ehrman seem almost still Christian. Dr. Carrier. Take your pick, but you should probably start with his lecture on 'why Christians are delusional', you can find it online. Or you can examine and try to fault his argument on why there wasn't a historical Jesus, why 'He' is a myth. Better still, get your brother to have a go. Seems at least your brother could do what you claim to but haven't, and if for once you're being honest, may even get a half intelligent response from. Can't live without your crutch is what you're mostly saying, but that doesn't mean everyone else is weak minded too.

      You are wrong, you have no idea what I do or don't believe other than what I've told you. Thank you for your idiotic reply, again, that's very Christian, very arrogant and very ignorant of you. You show it better than I can describe it. You pretty much covered all of the argument fallacies in one go, well done. You even managed to get the 'god of the gaps' argument in too. Nice job JT, covered all your bases fairly well. Wrong and stup1dly, but you covered most of them.

      You have never read the Bible sincerely. You think sincerely means with your 'take' on it all, but in reality sincerely would mean you treat it with the same questioning as you do the Qu'ran. But you've never done that have you. The other scriptures don't "come alive" when you pick them up. What an absolutely absurd argument, it comes alive! lol. Damn, you MUST be right then. Ya got me, that is so convincing. Not.

      I notice again, you can't answer questions about your assertions on that debate you brought up. Still haven't watched it all have you? Or is it just that you couldn't follow it properly to find the 3 errors I asked about? I even gave you one of them earlier. You claimed you knew about that particular debate, now you claim you've studied it all before Dr.Ehrman was even qualified. Oh oo, another lie.

      You insinuated that you have studied Textual Criticism. Now you're saying it wasn't really you, it was your brother. But at the end back to you. Naughty boy JT, you had better go ask for forgiveness some more, you're still doing it.

      Seems you couldn't lie straight in bed you dishonest thing.

      RE Bart Ehrman's site. You pay to see all the comments did you? Surely if you read it properly then you would have noticed, as I noted when I went there, you only see part of the comments unless you are a paying member. So your claims don't match up. If you've only been there that one time, you don't have full access, and can't be sure when the last post was made, as you can't get to see them all unless you paid to have access to it all. Oh oo, notch up another 'get-out-of-sin' pass needed. Or is it just a 'sorry-I'm-stup1d' one needed this time? You all get a permanent one of those upon sign-up to your 'saved club'.

      Don't cut heads off?? Christianity did do stuff like burn people at the stake, mass murder etc etc at the same age as Islam is now. Claiming your religion haven't is just plain dishonest.

      Do you have to ask for forgiveness for each individual lie, or do you get like a 'blanket pass' to cover your whole day? It would take you almost as long to get your free-pass as it does for you to type the lies if it's for each one. What if you forget one? Oh oo, you're risking your immortal soul talking with us walking dead 'unbelievers'. There are more in your posts than I've mentioned. Make sure to get a free pass for them all hey. I would hate for you to end up being correct but missing your ride because you forgot one of your lies... wouldn't like to have you frying next to me for all eternity.. I want one of those good looking hookers next to me..

      I have to quote this one from you, as this just highlights how absurd your thinking, and how disjointed your logic is.

      "When it comes to other gods and religions I'm sorry that you misspoke...if you study closely (and not read books by written by those who don't know Christ) you will find that Christianity is distinct from all other religions."

      So what you're saying is, if I ONLY read stuff written by Christians and no one else, then I'll see that Christians are really different. That is different to saying, 'if you only read the Qu'ran and stuff written by Muslims, you'll see it really is differnent' how exactly, apart from the different religion? The argument and logic is exactly the same, and contains the same problems, and is equally weak for both religions.

      Not to mention the huge problem you have, that being, if you only ever read ONE version, how could you even notice it was different to another religion? How can someone notice a "difference" when they have absolutely nothing to compare it to, no frame of reference, nothing other than the one version?
      That is just plain stupid what you're trying to argue, but it is a good description, (and display) of exactly what brain washing is. Thank you.

      I surely would not teach any child the values of the Bible. I happen to think that things like condoned slavery, torture, murder and ethnic cleansing, raping, jealousy, bigotry, racism etc are not good virtues to have, unlike what you MUST agree with if you follow your Bible by the letter. Not to mention your favorite perk, your 'I don't have to ask forgiveness to the people I 'sin' against', i.e I am not responsible for my actions value you love so dearly. No child should be taught that rubbish.

      You've never even gotten close to university level studies on the topic. Nice try JT, but your ignorance on the topic cannot be hidden as easily as you'd like to think. Who cares what your brother has or hasn't studied, your authority in that 'appeal to authority' is a joke with what you've supplied. Oh, he's your BROTHER, that means he MUST be correct. lol.
      You name Harvard and Yale, yet not his place of study. You talk down about Dr Ehrmans place of study. Could it be that your 'brother', if there is one that actually went to higher education, went to a similar, 'church based' or 'church connected' place as you just finished talking down about? lol Back to the oxymoron time I note, with emphasis on the last part, again.

      You have been repeatedly, and continue to be, knowingly dishonest. Shame on you. Your actions, along with your fellow apologists, speak volumes about your religion, your theology, its absurd hypocrisy and id1otic, twisted logic. You brought up the debate, but you can't back up your claims against someone that has watched it. lol at you somehow thinking you're doing well. Keep telling yourself that JT, keep telling yourself that and one day you might start to believe it like the example you gave about your 'gotcha' question to Bart. lol. 'The bible is true because the bible says it is true, and those wrong bits aren't really wrong, they're really true because the bible says it is true'... and around you go again. lmao

    38. To "Preach" = To earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).

      I would have to say that I am hearing a lot of textbook "preaching" going on by others here.

    39. So you're not advocating your belief? Emphasis on belief. Yeah right, just one more lie for you isn't it, so many now that you don't even see it sometimes it seems. I've advocated looking at the evidence and following it to its logical conclusion, you've replied with bible dribble after dribble... a preach. You have your conclusion, and are desperately trying to twist reality to fit in with your belief, or you've just outright lied about any contradicting evidence. Or attempted to attack anyone that points out any of the many flaws your belief contains.

      I've already demonstrated you were dishonest in your claims about the debate between Dr.Ehrman and Dr. White, that in fact you haven't even watched it let alone have a considered evaluation as you claimed.

      I've already demonstrated that you do not have the education on the subject that you have repeatedly claimed, and when finally pushed you admitted it was 'your brother's' education, not yours. Once more total dishonesty shown by you.

      I've asked numerous, very fair questions of you that you either duck and dodge, reply with nonsensical preaching, or outright lied about.

      You are a very sorry excuse for a Christian, not worthy of any respect whatsoever. Even if you were correct in all your claims, you have clearly booked yourself a seat on the 'going down' ride. You are not worthy of respect because you are willingly, repeatedly being dishonest, you are clearly a bigot as well. You lie and deceive, you verbally assault anyone that disagrees with you. Which if you bothered to actually do some real research, you'll find is much more that just a couple radical biblical historians and their uneducated followers. As I have already shown.

      Yet one more example of your dishonesty... you claim you're not preaching but others are. Which person in the conversation has had an official warning for proselytizing? Only you, d1ckhead. You're such a habitual lair you'll try it on even with something as easily shown to be incorrect as that.

      Its easy to see that you are beyond truly 'saving', which is what one becomes once they break through the non-reality of religion, stops being a 'sheep' as you yourself are proud to claim, and actually take responsibility for your own actions for a change. It's not about the one-way conversation with you, you've never been in the 'debate' from the start once you were proven to be the lair you are and lost all credibility. Its been about others that might read this, so they can check for themselves and think for themselves and decide for themselves, and for that I thank you for just being you. I couldn't have hoped for a more dishonest brand of 'Christian' than yourself, which made it very easy to show you're an outright lair as well as a delusional fool.

      With the walls of rubbish you've posted up now, even I can't be bothered reading all your BS anymore. If you think quantity of BS over accurate quality somehow wins, go for it fool. Surely no one else could be bothered reading it all either, so there is no valid reason to continue talking to an outright lair. So I'll now show you the utter contempt as a poor excuse of a human that you deserve. Someone as dishonest, as brainwashed and clearly delusional as you deserves to be ignored at the least. I don't hate Christians, Muslims or anyone that believes in whatever, as long as they have decent morals. I do hate outright, habitual lairs like you've been shown to be. Go pray to your fairy God-Father to forgive you, and pray your 'the ends justifies the means' BS is good with them. Yep, them, your 3 Gods that you also erroneously claim to be the 'One true God'. Good bye and bad luck, you dishonest twit.

    40. "non sequiturs"...may

      I humbly submit your entire premise here is one gigantic "non

      You say - "Since there is a half a dozen passages out of thousands that we
      have yet to fully

      understand that we can junk everything and live as we wish?" Would that
      not be

      the ultimate assumption?

      Just as the archeological community has repeatedly "jousted with windmills"
      over the years by scoffing at Scripture when it spoke of this or that King or
      civilization when the "experts" had no such knowledge of the people
      or groups (yet).

      Since they operated from the unwise perspective of "if
      we haven't found the king or civilization then it must not exist" they
      continually were made out to be arrogant fools.

      Now archeologists quietly keep a copy of Scripture in the
      bottom drawer of their desks to reference before talking "big" since
      it keeps proving itself to be right... so the half a dozen
      "questionable" passages that "look" like issues (often from
      those who never study these things for themselves) out of thousands will
      ultimately get figured out and all the experts will waltz off without ever
      admitting they were wrong.

      You said - You should go read the commenting rules, you are not supposed to
      preach like that JT.

      I've thought we already discussed this with the moderator (right moderator?)
      and he/she said that when

      the subject is "religion" it only makes sense that people would use
      "Biblical language" if the documentary was about philosophy or
      social issues we could exchange ideas freely and you would never seethe over my
      answers; however, you wandered off the reservation of philosophical discourse
      and came into the arena of Christianity and the Bible where the only document
      used is the 66 books of the Bible.

      Now, you all have wandered from "well I think this and
      you think that but we all have a valid point of view" into a world where
      "my opinion don't mean spit, and your opinion don't mean spit, but the
      only opinion about this subject is found in the only Book that offers a way of
      having our sins forgiven; consequently, you get frustrated because the
      discussion has no room for your opinions or for mine to be equally valid when
      you choose to swerve into the life or death Subject of Christianity...if you
      all want to go down the way to watch the doc on "Ohso" we all could
      share our uninformed opinions and we could walk away after discussing our
      opinions of an enlightened "Guru" and we would probably land pretty
      close to each other in our opinions....with no seething with lots of insults
      and lot's of m1spelled words.

      You said - Wow, you are gone aren't you.

      1Co 2:12-16 NLT says "And we have received God's Spirit

      (not the world's spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely

      given us. When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from

      human wisdom. Instead, we speak words given to us by the Holy Spirit, using the

      Holy Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren't

      spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Holy Spirit. It all sounds

      foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual

      can understand what the Spirit means".

      The Apostle Paul wrote (actually he dictated this to someone who wrote it which
      was common in the 1st. century) around 65 A.d. so we are not navigating here in
      an "intellectual" arena over this particular documentary, we are dealing
      in the spiritual arena.

      Why else would there be such contempt towards a person using
      my precious spare time to talk about, not "joining a church", not "giving
      your money to anyone", not "telling people they have to do good
      things to find forgiveness from God"?

      I think you all need to think deeply on why you get so mad
      at Christ and His Word...ya all have to admit that this is "peculiar".

      You said - You even have the arrogance to think you can tell me, and everyone
      else, what they think

      and believe.

      Nope, Never - I'm telling you all what the God who is currently keeping your
      heart beating said through a man 20 centuries ago...don't shoot the messenger!

      You said - All because your little book tells you.

      Yep...but if it's so "little" why again have you never studied it for

      You clearly have an astounding intellect ( I'm dead serious here).

      You said - No wonder you don't like people like Dr. Ehrman proving your little
      book is a fairy tale.

      First off, I love Bart Ehrman...he, like yourself and just like me for the
      first 19 or so years of my

      life were never "born again" (just quoting the foundation of
      Christianity here from John 3)...but even if he remains hostile towards Christ,
      I will love him and love you enough to sit through your verbal storms and derision
      (along with a whole lot of misspe11ed words).

      Bart, as a handful of men before him have never met God so they feebly kick at
      His shins....again, I

      Corinthians passage above seems to apply for Bart also.

    41. You said - Here is a
      new one for you to check out, he makes Dr. Ehrman seem almost still Christian.
      Dr. Carrier.

      I think I failed to
      communicate effectively that I, my brother and several million other Christians
      have been aware of all the same old
      tired critiques of God's as I mentioned when Bart was going down the old, lonely, dusty trail of coming to
      conclusions that punctuation and spelling variants constitute a faulty source when
      there are millions who look at the overwhelming body of evidence and end up
      falling on their faces and Worshiping the Author, I just can't get too worked
      up since it's all the same old tripe.

      When it comes to others
      who have mastered the art of ignoring the elephants in the living room while
      keeping a straight face, like Mr. Carrier, I don't believe you understand the
      truth that when the Bible says in John 10:27-33 NASB where Jesus Christ says,
      "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give
      eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them
      out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and
      no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. "I and the Father
      are one." that Mr. Carrier and Ehrman have no influence.

      Then for those who
      want to lower Jesus Christ to the level
      of being a "good" man but not God incarnate all we need to do
      is read a little further in this passage where it says, "The Jews picked up
      stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good
      works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews
      answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and
      because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.".

      You said - Take your
      pick, but you should probably start with his lecture on 'why Christians are
      delusional', you can find it online. Or you can examine and try to fault his
      argument on why there wasn't a historical Jesus, why 'He' is a myth.

      These tired old
      plagiarized ideas may seem new, fresh and exciting to you as you all want so
      desperately to pretend that there is no God who you will have to give an
      account to when you die, but instead you sit at the feet of those who
      petulantly jump up and down with their ears plugged screaming "Na..Na...
      Na..." just doesn't seem to be a proper way to approach this subject. Psalm
      10:4 says, "The wicked are too proud to seek God. They seem to think that
      God is dead". Or Psalm 14:1 where God says through King David, that "The
      fool has said in his heart, “There is no God. They are corrupt, they have
      committed abominable deeds".

      You said - Better
      still, get your brother to have a go. Seems at least your brother could do what
      you claim to but haven't, and if for once you're being honest, may even get a
      half intelligent response from.

      You keep thinking that
      "man's reason and logic" is the ultimate authority...always reminds
      me of the old photo of the oval office when JFK was in the office and his son
      (JFK Jr.), then about 2 years old was sitting on the floor under his
      keep wanting to sit at the feet of a toddler (Carrier and Ehrman) when you can
      sit up at the desk and seriously consider the fact that the one who keeps your
      heart beating is also offering you a free gift of the forgiveness of your
      sins... when Colossians 2 verse 8 says, "Don’t let anyone capture you with
      empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and
      from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ". So this
      was written about 60 A.D. so again these men may get you animated because you
      are just learning about them; however, the Ehrman's and Carrier's have been
      walking this planet for nearly a couple thousand years with the same "shtick"
      that thrills those who love their sin and despise those who warn of the
      spiritual "bridge out" just up the way.

      Sorry, my brother too
      is one of those flat earth Christians who looked intently at all the
      manuscripts and all the evidence and came to the same conclusion as myself and
      the vast majority of others (Even Bart's Prof at Princeton, Metzger who also disagrees
      with Bart's misguided conclusions) but with a more gracious demeanor than me, I
      imagine. When we look at millions of people who have over the years been
      radically changed (not made perfect as you can see) and thousands of thoughtful
      scholars look at the evidence and come to the opposite conclusion as B.E. and
      Mr. Carrier I believe it would be intellectually honest to explore and read the
      Word itself so you too can recognize the Bible as the Word Of God.

    42. One of the many contradictions and logical problems your 'scripture' contains is how in Acts it specifically says Peter is illiterate, yet your cannon also contains two books that it claims is written by the very person it said cannot read or write, 1st and 2nd Peter. How does an Aramaic speaking, illiterate person write in a very well educated, 'intellectual' style and language like Greek? Not to mention another problem you have with 1st and 2nd Peter, the styles of the books are very different, and clearly were not authored by the same person as is dishonestly claimed.

      How can you be so blind that you can still claim your book is the 'inspired word of God', even though you know what you read is not what was first written? Even IF the original versions are still in there somewhere amongst the changes and additions, you have no idea what it might be.. Why think He bothered with divine inspiration, when clearly He couldn't do divine conservation? Why believe what you know to be inaccurate when it talks about 'God' at all? Who cares about ignorant old mythical tales, other than for History and Lliterature's sake. When you base your whole 'God idea' on a book that we know for a fact has been altered, that we know for a fact is inaccurate, that we know for a fact contradicts itself in mutually exclusive ways, you are basing your world view on a big fat, 'holey' lie. You know this, but prefer to cover your ears and yell 'the bible says so'. That is not to be respected, that is laughable and outright delusional.

      You deserve to be treated the same as if you're trying to argue Santa Claus is real. In reality, your scripture's contradictions indicate that there is a stronger argument for a sled flying fat man in a red suit, then in a sky daddy that sent down part of himself, to get killed by his own creations, so that you can redeem yourself just for being born as He supposedly made you. Your fairy tale is absurd, your idea of a God is an a$$hole. Your book is just a silly old inaccurate, badly copied book, as is your supposed 'evidence' and your illogical, cyclical argument. Time for you to grow up, let go of your pacifier, and start to think for yourself for a change.

    43. You Said - One of the many contradictions and logical problems your 'scripture'
      contains is how in Acts it specifically says Peter is illiterate, yet your
      cannon also contains two books that it claims is written by the very person it
      said cannot read or write, 1st and 2nd Peter. How does an Aramaic speaking,
      illiterate person write in a very well educated, 'intellectual' style and
      language like Greek? Not to mention another problem you have with 1st and 2nd
      Peter, the styles of the books are very different, and clearly were not
      authored by the same person as is dishonestly claimed.

      First off, this goes back to the basics where one must use a historical,
      grammatical, contextual hermeneutic in order to navigate through the Bible in which
      Bart refuses to embrace as he obsesses over all the variants of Koine Greek as
      it, like all dialects changed over the centuries, and particularly once
      "christianity" (little c) became the state religion of the Roman
      empire. But Bart has learned all this
      but refuses to share a full and accurate view of the evidence with you or
      anyone else....this is antithetical to genuine scholarly pursuit. I could also
      argue that Koine means "common" meaning in the centuries leading up
      to the first century it was the common everyday Greek; however, by the second
      and third centuries it changed (as all languages do but when it happens with
      Greek it reveals thousands of "errors"...pretty disingenuous for a
      scholar heh?)

      Plus, it shows the freedom Bart enjoys in the intellectual vacuum there at
      Chapelhill where if he were chortling these pseudo-scholarly, one sided observations
      where he stacks up wishful thinking upon fabrications, upon reckless, wild
      conjectures that can only exist in a group of people masquerading as scholars
      but are only grinding their Marxist hatchets as the truth silently drifts past
      without a glance.

      If he shared his highly speculative and selective comments amongst clear
      thinking scholars anyplace but Chapelhill (where no one else has read the Bible
      past Genesis chapter 7), he would have been told to sit down and sober up and
      not interact with the group until he was willing to look at all of the facts
      and not just the ones that fits the narrative of "Christianity can't be
      true because there is too much pain and suffering in this world for it to be
      true" world view...he clumsily stumbles past multiple thoughts that
      dismantle his silly selective observations that only exists in his hypothetical
      alternate universe that could never survive scrutiny.

      So, in Acts 4 when it says, in verse 12-13 NASB "And there is salvation
      in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given
      among men by which we must be saved. Now as they observed the confidence (parrēsia
      meaning openness or freedom of speaking) of Peter and John and understood katalambanō
      - to take a hold of or comprehend for
      one's self), that they were uneducated (agrammatos - uneducated since reading
      and writing were not going on here at this time of verbal discourse;
      consequently, reading and writing skills could not be the observation made by
      these men) and untrained (this one you'll like = idiōtēs, yes where we get our
      word idiot; however, at that time in history it never had anything to do with
      reading or writing skills but conveys an idea of being unskilled in any art, or
      ungifted) men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been
      with Jesus".

      Bart had to stop there and not go any further in the passage because he
      again fails to utilize the third cardinal rule of Bible study basics of
      "context"... when just 5 verses later these same men are saying,
      "And when they had summoned them (Peter and John), they commanded them not
      to speak (phtheggomai - verbal communication) or teach (didaskō - to teach or
      to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic
      discourse) at all in the name of Jesus". Wow, these learned men told
      illiterate Fisherman to stop teaching (didasko) the people? Looks to me that
      Bart failed to honestly teach you anything much either?

      Then we can move to the gigantic omission "historically" when he
      fails to bring up the aspect where it was common for individuals to transcribe letters
      and documents for others. These people functioned as virtual "scribes"
      for others during this time in history and some of the individuals were more
      learned and had more classical styles than others.

      In fact there are some very weak agreements out there about the book of
      Hebrews being transcribed for Paul in a very polished classical style; however,
      I personally don't think Paul wrote the book of Hebrews and it sure isn't a
      hill to die on (since the author never revealed who he was).

      So, if Peter did provide the thoughts of his two letters but had two
      different people writing it down (because he could not read or write which
      nothing in scripture indicates he was illiterate other than Bart who sloppily
      assumed one of the two Greek words used in Acts 4 meant that Peter and John
      were unable to read or write) should not be much of an issue considering that
      Paul, being a very well educated man also had people that he dictated some of
      his letter through (other than Galatians where at the end of the letter he
      makes a point to acknowledge that he personally wrote the letter himself).

      In fact many people think Paul had eye problems; consequently, if he had
      someone do his actual writing for him, do we then consider the letter to no
      longer be from him? In no other circumstance would this not be laughed off the
      stage as ridiculous (except the theologically rich Chapelhill)...again, their
      Marxist slips are showing...again.

      You said - How can you be so blind that you can still claim your book is the
      'inspired word of God', even though you know what you read is not what was
      first written?

      This conjecture has been fabricated from an angry guy from Kansas who
      applied a very esoteric hermeneutic taken from a 1970's game played at
      overnight youth group parties in evangelical church basements where someone
      thinks up a silly sentence and then whispers it to the next sleep deprived,
      silly 13 year old girl who thinks it would make for more fun to mutilate the
      idea further so when at the end the last person can speak the
      "secret" out loud and everyone gets to laugh...this is not a very
      thoughtful or scholarly premise to work from.

      As you know, Bart eludes to this silly gaming experience in his
      "lectures" where he fabricates an alternate universe where "hypothetically",
      these individuals copying these letters under the watchful eye of the Church Fathers,
      who had been admonished to protect and preserve the doctrines (which thoughtful
      research of all of the transcripts will verify that all of the core doctrines
      of Christianity have been preserved) was most probably, possibly not correct...but
      I do understand how he would be tempted to capitulate to the pressures he put
      himself under since leaving Wheaton College...from there on he went into
      Marxist saturated environments where the truth had long been jettisoned or was
      never present (at Chapelhill).

      Then there is the pesky doctrine of eternal security that says once an
      individual is truly "born again" that they can never lose their when he says he walked away from Christianity, I agree; however,
      Scripture also says, "he went out from us, because he was never one of us
      (i.e., a born again Christian)"...over the past 40 years there have been a
      lot of what is called "Christ Followers"...people who, like Bart
      mumbled a little "sinner's prayer", and figured they pulled a fast
      one on the God of creation when all they did was say a little ditty but nothing
      ever changed so walking away is no big deal because their
      "conversion" was no big deal either...again, listen to
      "Unshackled" on the net or radio and listen to the radical life
      change that always happens to someone who truly gets "born again".

      You said - Even IF the original versions are still in there somewhere
      amongst the changes and additions, you have no idea what it might be.

      You're concerned with the accuracy of a book that chronicles hundreds of
      prophecies perfectly which statistically have been calculated to be
      "impossible" by scholars within the mathematical community? Kinda
      ignoring the elephant in the room and focusing on the gnats that may actually
      be tsetse flies...little embarrassing if you step away from the subject and
      look fairly and objectively from an all inclusive perspective if you ask me?

      If we honestly approach Scripture,(and not the bogus straw men nonsense Bart
      cooks up about hypothetical, illiterate men that had he has nothing in
      scripture to support, and how, if they were illiterate, were incapable of
      having someone transcribe for them what they wanted said for them, then we will
      have little to honestly discuss here). If you instead chose to honestly look at
      the hundreds of passages that dovetail perfectly with what other authors of
      scripture who often times never knew and often times didn't even live at the
      same time in history, then you can begin to see the astounding accuracy and
      perfect accuracy of this Book that seems to irritate you so.

      You said - Why think He bothered with divine inspiration, when clearly He
      couldn't do divine conservation?

      First off, you are chortling words that you have yet to study for yourself
      and Bart would not be a real safe individual to look to if you are looking for
      the whole story...divine "inspiration" is a reference to Scripture
      being called "God breathed"...again the doctrines are all intact over
      1600 years and over 40 authors...the fact that constantly changing word
      structures over the 600 or so years that Koine Greek was used indicates people
      where capturing the thoughts within the moving target of the naturally mutating
      language. To have variants in spellings, and sentence structure should be
      expected while still maintaining the integrity of the thoughts....which they
      are. Then, to use the word "conservation" sounds cute and pithy;
      however, all it does is indicate again the sloppy way that Bart has gravitated
      to in his communication seemingly again without scrutiny...conservation is the
      maintaining of the original thoughts and that is exactly what has
      fact it was accomplished while navigating through all the spelling and grammar
      mutations over the centuries...pretty incredible if you ask me.

      You said - Why believe what you know to be inaccurate when it talks about
      'God' at all?

      The Word of God is not inaccurate and if you are sincerely interested in
      knowing truth, go ahead and itemize all that you claim to be "errors"
      and once I'm done tearing down these strongholds, will you then throw yourself
      at the feet of Jesus Christ and thank Him for dying for your sins and tell Him
      that you are now ready to make Him alone your Savior and the Master of your
      life for the rest of the days for however many days He chooses to keep your heart

      You said - Who cares about ignorant old mythical tales, other than for
      History and Lliterature's sake.

      You have failed thus far to indicate the Bible possesses "ignorant,
      mythical" tales; however, I am open to learning what exactly is ignorant
      and mythical...bring it on.

      You said - When you base your whole 'God idea' on a book that we know for a
      fact has been altered

      First off, Romans1 says, "ESV For his invisible attributes, namely, his
      eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the
      creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without
      excuse". God has shown us all through nature that He exists so we have no

      And, exactly where would these "alterations" be hiding?

      You Said - that we know for a fact is inaccurate

      Where exactly would the inaccuracies be?

      You said - that we know for a fact
      contradicts itself in mutually exclusive ways,

      Where could we find these mutually exclusive contradictions lurking within
      those scary pages you refuse to go near for yourself?

      You said - you are basing your world
      view on a big fat, 'holey' lie.

      Which statements would be considered lies?...remember, who you are talking
      to... I'm the guy who can't lay straight in my bed...wouldn't know the truth if
      it sat in my lap. But again, tell me how you have figured out how to get rid of
      all you the guilt you carry around each day? ...Bart maybe, or Mr. Carrier?....
      they, as I recall have the words of everlasting life? I understand these men
      have learned to navigate through this world in a flawless manner?
      like you're sitting at the feet of blind guides who refuse to go down the road
      to forgiveness so you are going to huddle with them when you know they are
      angry rebels and the Word of God has said they are heading for
      destruction..."there is a way that seem right to man, but in the end it
      leads to destruction"...I'd suggest finding some new teachers...maybe ones
      who know Scripture and are willing to
      argue both sides of the issues honestly and then let you decide for yourself.
      But always remember, this is a spiritual deal and when the Holy Spirit comes
      and convicts you of sin and righteousness, you will find it overwhelmingly
      obvious that Jesus Christ is the Son of the only living God and Creator.

      You said - You know this, but prefer to cover your ears and yell 'the bible
      says so'. That is not to be respected, that is laughable and outright

      Where have I made these statements?...maybe you are confusing me with someone else?...remember...I the "liar guy", not the, "because the Bible tells me so" guy... suppose us Morons look all the same after a while?

      You deserve to be treated the same as if you're trying to argue Santa Claus
      is real.

      Na, I've never seen you over at the sites that refute Santa...seems it's
      just Jesus Christ and His Word that get's your goat...kinda odd how the ones
      that make you the most angry are the ones who say that God loves you and you
      don't have to do anything to earn favor with Him because He sent His Son to
      come and take the punishment for what you have done and is offering eternal
      life without ever having to receive the wrath of His justice and this angers
      you? Can you not see that Christians should be about the last people on the
      list to have to go so far out of your way to insult and discredit?...kinda
      indicates we're fighting for someone's soul here don't it?

      You said - In reality, your scripture's contradictions indicate that there
      is a stronger argument for a sled flying fat man in a red suit, then in a sky
      daddy that sent down part of himself, to get killed by his own creations, so
      that you can redeem yourself just for being born as He supposedly made you.

      You are getting close; however, it sounds that Bart failed to teach you that
      when God created man in the Garden, he was sinless. It wasn't until Eve
      believed Satan when he questioned God and they ate of the one tree they were
      told not to eat of is when everything changed and God put a curse on us and
      this planet along with throwing Satan down to the earth where he currently has
      reign until the day where God will throw him into a pit for a time and then to
      ultimately be thrown in the Lake of Fire. So yes, much of your observations are
      accurate but it fails to bring out God's justice...the reason He sent His Son
      to die and pay the penalty for you and I is that sin must be punished in order
      to be true to His character; consequently, He saw that you and I were incapable
      of navigating through this world without violating His character (because the
      book of Romans says that once Adam and Eve let sin into this world, that
      everyone after will be born as sinners)...sounds pretty unfair to have the
      failings of two people we never met to have us condemned to Hell the minute we
      are born heh? But tell me honestly, how many minutes or hours, or maybe days
      can you go before you do something you know is wrong? Same here, if I were
      there in the garden I would have been having my wife bake the fruit into a pie
      by noon the first day and I think if you were honest, you too would not have
      lasted very long either.

      It sure would sound barbaric or unfair if He didn't Himself make the sacrifice
      so you have no excuse for rejecting His free gift of forgiveness. And once the
      Holy Spirit comes close to you, He will reveal how God sees your sinfulness and
      it will frighten you and will, as it did for me and many others, caused me to
      see I was in big trouble and I ran into His loving arms and received
      forgiveness of all of my many sins... and like everyone on Unshackled felt
      astoundingly clean for the first time in their life and the Word of God became
      alive and a thrill to read and study (I know how you like that one).

      Your fairy tale is absurd, your idea of a God is an a$$hole. Your book is
      just a silly old inaccurate, badly copied book, as is your supposed 'evidence'
      and your illogical, cyclical argument. Time for you to grow up, let go of your
      pacifier, and start to think for yourself for a change.

      Like you, Bart and Mr. Carrier stumbling in the dark as you curse the Light?

      God has said...

      [Rom 2:5 ESV] 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are
      storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment
      will be revealed.

      [Rom 3:23-24 ESV] 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
      24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in
      Christ Jesus,

      [Rom 10:9-13 ESV] 9 because, if you
      confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God
      raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes
      and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the
      Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."
      12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord
      of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "everyone who
      calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

      No more beautiful words than these have ever been bring on all
      the things that are stopping you from throwing yourself at the feet of Jesus
      Christ and I will attempt to methodically answer each problem that you are

    44. Way too long to read! and no more proselytizing!

      Take heed, warning 1#

    45. Do you not recall that you said "religious" talk is appropriate when the subject matter is "religion"...I spent hours answering each of Bob's questions...when all I did was systematically respond to each of his statements...what type of statements are considered proselytizing so I can purge them from my answers? Thanks for the help.

    46. you are kidding mate all the points that were raised by bob have been confirmed by many of Bart Ehmans peers from all over the globe.
      you have not tried to anwser the question put to you. and your reply in not worth the time you spent writing it


    47. "peers all over the globe" is a pretty weak argument (they are the same "intellectual giants" who think Darwin had the "answer" which now is collapsing as science is learning how complex the "simple cell" as Darwin called it isn't so "simple")...first off, the vast majority of his peers don't agree with his errant, sloppy exegeting of these passages..oops...forgot about all the intellectual "giants" out there who have never spent 30 seconds looking at the original language or even the English Bible but wallow instead in a Marxist "God is dead" worldview that only thrives in communist countries and the university system.

      Since we are criticizing the Word of God I felt compelled to respond exclusively with the Word of God to show (to those sincerely interested in knowing facts)...and you don't like that but reality cannot bow to your wishes.

      Secondly, to meticulously destroy Bart and a handful of "God is dead" fellow Marxists out there using the Word exclusively tends to create responses like "that makes no sense!", or the really deep response of "you didn't even answer" (can you hear yourselves guys? The truth has been laid out before you on a silver platter and you are throwing it on the floor) don't like the fact that Bart is a mirage out on the horizon that you are looking to "kill God for you" but I've been given the job of tearing the mask off an intellectual fraud.

      You all hope that kicking at the shin of the One who is currently keeping your hearts beating, and keeping your 37 trillion plus cells perfectly replicating themselves then maybe the conscience He put in you can be ignored as well....sorry, this has been done by every ex-atheist over the past 19 centuries or so. But the encouraging thing about this is that no one ever remains an agnostic or atheist....since the Word of God in Hebrews says, "it is appointed unto all men to die, and then comes the judgement" chear up, this battle you are waging with God will pass...I just pray it will before you pass.

    48. Pleas provide the evidence to show me that your god is real as to date the human race has invented approximately 28000000 so far so if you are correct evidence is a must.

    49. Sorry talk to our Moderator...I submitted a point my point destruction of his "points"; however, it was too large according to our moderator ...if you would like detailed answers to every point Bob brought up, ask the moderator for permission and I'll be happy to resubmit it (since it took me hours to write).

    50. I read your reply and at no stage have you displayed any evidence to counter the evidence that has been provided to you.
      At best your extended dribble is just that and your argument fails once you investigate your claims. It would appear that you are no thinking at all.

      By all means produce the evidence that confirms that your magic man is more than a figment of your imagination.

      And by the way using quote from your book of lies will not carry any weight in this debate.
      Remembering that all religions have there own story and the latest pope has just openly admitted that the Adam and Eve story is BS. which in turn basically throws out the original sin story. So that really make the christian

      story even less sustainable.

      That being the case there is even more proof that you story in nothing more than a fairytale

    51. Because He saved me from my tell me how are you dealing with all the times when you do that which your conscience condemns you?
      I see you all desperately trying to discredit the Bible (with much anger and derision)...can you think of any other "Book" of which you have never studied and habitually call a "fairytale" invest so much energy and time into attacking?

      You all are clearly educated; however, you have not stopped to ask if those who have "taught" you are right? What was the last time you raised your hand in class and questioned any statement made by your Prof?

      Seeing how important this subject is don't you think it wise to investigate the Book itself so you can make up your mind for yourself?

      The fact you all are bludgeoning a Book that says that you and I have a problem and we are helpless to clear our consciences' ourselves...that says that the One who created us saw how helpless we are so He sent His own Son to come to this world to pay the penalty for our sins so we would not have to pay the penalty for our sins...a Book where all we have to do is to change your mind and direction from depending upon yourself to pay the penalty for your sins and rely exclusively upon Jesus Christ, seems a touch bit odd at best...thus I am compelled to quote Paul when he said, [Phl 3:18-21 ESV] For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

    52. You ask "now tell me how are you dealing with all the times when you do that which your conscience condemns you?" I try not to go against my consience but if it is unavoidable I make amends with those my concience tells me to. Instead of asking forgiveness from an invisible god who might not be there or asking it from the wrong one. I can only get absolved from my "sins" by those I have sinned against. If the actual person(s) involved do not forgive i have to live with that on my concience. The direct route is not as easy or forgiving as the selective reading of the bible(s) you adhere to but it is more realistic.

    53. G'day Edge,

      Hope you have a pleasant day and you will get the chance to enjoy this holiday season.
      Please give my regards to all the other mods as well.

      Cheers Jackmax

    54. right back at you. thanks mate

    55. Seasons greetings to you.

    56. Well I tell you man, you have a weird god/s! YOUR deity that created us? made us little carbon units helpless? so he, her, it, could send a personification to attest and die for our sins? The whole cosmos, and all 10^500 alternate universes do not care one hoot about us and all the millions of man-made gods since recorded history.
      Most of us in the know do not take the easy way out and ask some figment of the imagination to forgive our misgivings. Every sentient being in all the universe/s knows right from wrong! It is about time all you religee's owned up!

    57. It would seem that your knowledge comes from what ever denomination of the christian church you follow.
      It would appear that your knowledge of your book of lies is lacking the most important aspect of any material, that being able to critically think about the text and then investigate and evaluate the information at hand.
      The problem you have is this debate is you have lost all credibility when you tried to present yourself as someone your not (your bother).
      If you recall you claimed that your brothers work as your own and it was not until you were press that you admitted that you lied. (isn't lying a sin)

      I have point out your short coming in the aspect that you attack Bart Ehman rather than the content of the message he was presenting, which indicate to me your knowledge of the subject matter is only what your have been brainwashed into believing.
      You have shown a lack of honesty though out this thread and no doubt in life itself.

      Quoting a passage from your book of lies does little more than to prove to me that you have not got or had an original thought about this subject at all.

    58. I think at this point you all need to go back and read what I said...I studied this tired old subject back in the late 70's and looked at all of the "questionable" passages that have been bantered about for centuries.... Somewhere along the road you picked up on the idea that textual criticism was invented by a guy from Lawrence Kansas who decided to apply the "Telephone" game to his understanding of the integrity of New Testament manuscripts.

      Then it also looks like you are saying that I had to be in college to have studied the subject of textual criticism? This would imply that learning ceases once you left college?

      If I were interested in lying I would have told you some bologna that would allow us to get back onto the subject at hand.

      As I exhausted textual criticism decades ago after finding the same old attacks and the same old thinking by those who don't want to think about the day they will stand before the one who is currently keeping their heart beating, I stopped picking pennies up off the sidewalk and chose to take a page from your book and just discredit the source and imply that your source is not very smart.

      Maybe you aren't aware of what you do here but it is not originate here but has been standard fare since Dan Quail used an alternate spelling for "potato".

      The tired old schtick you ply here is always the same and you adopted it without stopping to analyze if it was the best way to get to the truth of a matter in the remote possibility that Christians are right and the Marxist Profs your worship may be wrong... it's always the same (of which I decided to use with you)...

      Step 1 - You discredit and vilify the source and the more articulate the individual is the harder you work at discrediting them.
      Step 2 - You imply all within the group are unthinking and unintellectual.
      Step 3 - When you hear that which you have no defense of you resort to name calling and lot's of misspelled words.
      So, I decided to see how you all would deal with someone using your tired old strategy with you ...other than calling you names when you put forth something irrefutable...I've kind of left that one to you.
      So, when it comes to denominationalism, no I have no "camp" for I have found Pareto applies to each of the "isms" and movements throughout history...I study the Bible exclusively because it is the only place where I can find an answer to my sin problem (especially lying since I've got a really big problem there) without telling me I have to do something, join some group, or give anyone any no, I am in no "camp".
      I would suggest though that you not look to men for answers...look to the Bible first it and don't listen to those who have a vested interest in pretending that God is dead and His Word has been lost to history.

    59. "I would suggest though that you not look to men for answers...look to the Bible first"??

      Who do you think wrote the Bible, was it not men? and don't give me that much played "it was the word" it was probably "Amanita muscaria" that started all this religious goobly-doc!

      By the way, forget jesus, "the STARS died so you could be born"!

    60. you stated that if you were interested in lying, yet it has already been established that you are a liar by your own admission (taking your brothers work as your own).

      Where in my replies to you have I made any claims about Lawrence Kansa, it would appear that you realize that your argument is flawed and you are now trying to put words in my mouth that I never said!!!

      You do realize that by trying to imply I've said things that I haven't only proves that you have very little knowledge of the subject and you have not studied this subject matter with a complete understanding on how the current text has evolved.

      If you read our debate you will see that you're the one who has attacked the messager and not the message.

      Granted my spelling may not be the best, however my argument is sound and you have been the one that has attacked the person rather than the subject matter at hand.

      If you would like to debate the subject matter then by all means bring it on but understand what ever you write will be taken with a grain of salt due to the fact you're a liar and therefore can not be trusted. You have repeatedly twisted the subject matter to try to manipulate the responds from anyone that has not agreed with you

    61. When I first came across this site I saw you all were working really hard at bludgeoning and discrediting people who I don't necessarily follow; however, do have some strong arguments that I know you don't want to consider.

      So...I wondered just how a liberal, agnostic (which no one actually is because God has put within all men the knowledge that what the Bible says is true) would react when they got a snoot full of their own medicine.

      Somewhere along the road you drank some cool-aid that says the only "truth" on earth comes from a Marxist Prof at some university who has never been exposed to reality or have ever been forced to honestly interact with those who disagree with their often fundamentally flawed views (just ask Bart E., he will tell you that Chapel hill would never allow anyone who disagrees with his positions teach there).

      You spend thousands of dollars to be brainwashed by these people who have trained you to do exactly what I have turned back on you; consequently, I hope this reveals that the methods you have been trained to use prevents reasonable dialog.

      So if you will abandon the disingenuous means and methods that you all have learned from these people and sit and seriously consider what is being said, I will stick in here as long as you would like to talk; however, no slop that you have been taught to use to discredit Christianity and the Bible (and I would also say I see used on conservatives in the political arena).

      So I'll deal with every concern you have if we both put down the Marxist playbook of:

      1. Discrediting the "source" and always deal with the information and not the individual or group that has popularized the idea.

      2. Don't call names and hurl insults when a point is presented where you currently don't have an answer's ok to say "I never thought about that before maybe I have only heard one side of this subject".

      3. Acknowledge that academia is no longer the President of a company I have hired and filed many managers with degrees and advanced degrees; however, some have adopted the same ethos that I see displayed here that implies that "learning" can only happen at a University and anything learned outside of a university is compromised and suspect.

      These individuals (after much coaching and mentoring) often never "get it"; consequently, I shake their hand and ask them to clear out their desks because Universities are doing anything to prepare people for life and everything they learned by these Marxist Profs has to be dismantled and rebuilt by us in the real world.

      So, as I have said, when I first saw you all here I figured that you weren't even interested in knowing the truth; consequently, I answered a fool according to his folly and then got the bright idea of using the methods you all learned form your Marxist Profs on you all to see what type of response I would get...this though has proven to me that I was wrong here for I see people who genuinely want to know the "truth" so I would love to move forward and thoughtfully answer all your questions in a straightforward manner.

    62. Well, I have met a lot of pompous pious lying religee's as you also, you are the religious ones that will try to keep the human race at a standstill in their quest to understand and use all the scientific resources that are and will be available to us homo sapiens in the near future! Sans YOUR invisible god/gods. Yes, in spite of people as you, the "scientific method" will always hold true!

    63. A.R. science is the best friend in the world to the Christian...

      in fact many of the biggest breakthroughs in science have come from us "born again" Christians (this is where academia's eyes glaze over for they hate this thought).

      In fact, the faster science progresses the more it validates the Word of God (The Bible that other religious book).
      Scientifically, all of the Old Testament hygienic guidelines have proven to be thousands of years ahead of modern science.
      Take circumsission being commanded on the eighth wasn't learned until this last century that males prothrombin level is at it's highest level in their lifetime on day eight...this helps in coagulation of blood).

      Geographically (for hundreds of years the cities and civilizations mentioned in the Bible were mocked as patently wrong (I think that's the group than loved calling the Bible a "fairy tale", until each one was systematically "discovered" just as the Bible's proven to be so accurate that this community of "experts"(even those who hate Christ) use the Bible for insights.

      And in every area of chemistry where true scientists work, they quietly laugh and shake their heads at those in academia (you know those Marxist Profs you worship and look to for answers to life even when you can see everything in their lives is out of control and in chaos) for holding onto such a re*arded idea as evolution since professional scientists can't even do their job one day in a laboratory while holding onto Darwin's silly conjectures that violate the 2 law of thermodynamics (and don't say there are "exceptions" to this because of the "open system" argument for it is irrelevant to scientists in the trenches for everything they do is in a "closed" and controlled environment.

      Consequently, the only place on earth where Darwinian evolution is embraced is within the little Marxist vacuum called your university...sorry to destroy their world view but it's better to learn this now than to waste your life cursing the dark with a handful of angry bitter people who are hiding the matches while they curse the Light.

      Evolution is proving more and more each day to be totally incompatible with modern science and is about to collapse under the weight of modern scientific discovery...we Christians say, "bring it on, we love modern science for it will validate over and over that the Bible is the Word of God.

      Eventually the debaters who hide behind the silly upside down idea that Christians are a bunch of Flat Earth anti-advancement zealots will realize those who hate God and His Son Jesus Christ got it all upside down and inside out.

      By the way, one of (not the primary) purposes of Columbus's journey west was to prove to the "experts" of the day that the the Bible was right by saying that the earth was round and not sitting on the back of a stupid turtle...evolution is a "stupid turtle story" and it's wheels are coming off as we speak.

      The bottom line is all of this is not at all about "science" but it's all about the spiritual by those who chose to rebel against God and His Son Jesus Christ they will never be able to make any sense of their lives or the world around them.

    64. Again the burden of proof lays with you to prove your assertions, and do not try to shift your burden of proof to me. "The biggest breakthroughs in science came from born again Christians"?? Show proof!! All the insights came from the great thinkers of civilization, way before the bibles became a collection of manuscripts, round Earth? Atoms etc: were all deduced before your collections of stories, fairy tales were made into bibles from the first council of Nicea in AD 325 and second council in AD 787 when Emperor Constantine decreed what should or should not be included into the bibles.
      And another thing, I do not hate nor rebel against any Gods or their Sons, very hard to hate something that I do not believe in!

    65. Looks like the Marxist echo chamber you have been mistaking as education these days missed a few facts...let's see...and I considered "scholarly" is I quote Wiki?...ah let's start there.
      According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel
      prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes
      Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious

      Overall, Christians have won a total of:

      78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace

      72.5% in Chemistry

      65.3% in Physics

      62% in Medicine

      54% in Economics

      49.5% of all Literature awards

      Nevertheless a poll of scientists in the United States by
      Pew Research Center indicated just 30% of scientists in that country identify
      as Christian, 20% as some form of Protestant and 10% as Catholic, with 41%
      believing neither in God nor a higher power.

      Wow...with stats like this, you all will have us riding camels and living in tents by the turn of the next century...

      U.S. institutions of "higher learning" have already pretty much discredited themselves in the middle of the global town square when they jettisoned Professor Mark Armitage this past year.

      ..but lets now go to one of those "evil" websites where dozens of degreed "Christian" scientists huddle in their dark pathetic corners gathering into easy to understand tables and thus allowing for you all to easily google each name and do your own research to verify since everyone who believes the Bible to be the Word of God have proven to be such a bunch of id1ots (oh can't forget me and "liars") that you will need to carefully fact check every syllable.

      Then you can use your highly sophisticated means of verification by doing nothing but string insults laced with name calling as a response.... I thought we were moving on past this 5th grade playground tactic when you don't have a ready answer?

      It's ok guys to say, "wow, all those Marxist Profs at the University I gave tens of thousands of dollars to sure didn't give me a balanced world view...maybe I need to go out to all those they name call and scoff at without ever engaging and get the full story".

      As far as the impact Christians have had on the world, I will have to place a disclaimer here though...the list is not complete but it's a start at showing what a warped information vacuum you all have been deceived into thinking is "education".

      CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
      CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
      DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
      ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
      GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
      NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)

      TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)

    66. You said "born again Christians", all these people you have cited are not in our present time frame, in those days of yor, check the dates, you either believed in the gods or more than likely you would end up at a barbecue, the main dish? guess!
      I do not have time to see if all these are Christians or not, so you offer inconclusive evidence, (major fail)

      P.S. do not write anything in all caps!

    67. Sorry, you clearly aren't a history major are you?

      There were many contemporaries of all of these men who were like you guys... pretending there is no God...but again, to learn these things for oneself requires courage, one must stop the urge of letting others think for them.

      You said, "I do not have time to see if all these are Christians or not, so you offer inconclusive evidence, (major fail)"

      So now I get it...if a "thought" won't fit between commercials of "Dancing with the Stars" then it can't be true?

      Heaven...oops sorry..."large expanse above the earth" help us!

      Sorry for the caps...I'm still getting the hang of this brave new frontier that you guys are teaching me called "don't think for yourself, just copy and paste and "believe" what someone else has said (as long as it agrees with our desires and accommodates our lusts)...I "think" I get it... but it's gunna take some time to lower the bar to such a place but it appears that with practice one can accomplish great thoughts (but none of their own).

    68. Why is it that you feel the need to manipulate other peoples answers to switch it around that it is you that has been trying to get answers from question that you have presented, (playing the poor me victim card) when you justify your response to the question put to you.

      You have continually expressed the opinion that you know the others on this thread and try to come across as some type of authority on this subject and then try to insult anyone that does not agree with you.

      This is a very interesting subject and it should not matter what side of the fence you sit, being intelligent creatures as humans are we should be able to have as civil conversation/debate without the need to preach, lie and plagiarize to and from others.

      So far there have been many attempts to discuss the text as it is presented as well as older text that you have introduced into the debate.
      Why do you find it hard to study the differences with an open mind and question the information that has been presented.
      You will find that if you were to remove your blinkers and read the bible as any other text you may see why there are so many of us that doesn't believe the stories that have been presented.

    69. I apologize that I haven't emphasized enough that when I am claiming to know you all (and myself) I am just quoting the book of time you visit a the Bible there and read the first chapter of Romans...better yet, read the whole's in the New Testament ...Mathew...Mark....Luke....John...Acts....Romans.

      It's a great read in fact "some" law schools have used in the past the first 9 or so chapters as the most cogent, powerful argument ever written... but maybe I'm preaching to the choir since it is known as one of the greatest bodies of logic and reason ever written; consequently, someone in your circles have probably already brought the subject up.

      In fact, it was this book that blew up the Roman Catholic Church for Luther was teaching the book and the truth of justification by faith alone (ya see the Roman Catholic Church Church had long drifted from Biblical Christianity by adding to faith in Christ alone and thus nullified the blood of Christ being sufficient to save us from our sins) the Roman Catholic church took one of their finest minds to the rail and thus started the happy chapter in history where tens of thousands of people we killed....dark days for sure but when you read history don't mistake the Roman Catholic Church with Christianity...they long left the reservation centuries ago.

      Oops Christmas eve and I gotta go worship the one who is currently keeping my heart, Merry Christmas!

    70. First up d1ckhead, you are talking to 4 other people that have read your 'bible', so cut the smug 'cat got the bird' BS as if you have 'knowledge' others haven't been exposed to, you're not saying anything we haven't heard or read before. If you care to check, you'll find it here on TDF in various threads, from all other 4 you're talking to.

      At least its nice to see someone at least acknowledge that the Christian religion itself, and its associated denominations, have been the sole reason, cause and perpetrator of 'dark days' and murder. Your preferred MO towards 'unbelievers' throughout history, if you care to check your own facts.

      A theological logic problem your stated 'theology' has. If as you say;
      "the blood of Christ being sufficient to save us from our sins", then why are we not all saved with no further action required? You say he died for ALL of us? Does not one also have to admit their sin, and more importantly, ask for forgiveness (NOT from the ones you wronged, but from your '3 = 1' 'God'.)
      Seems him 'dying' for us is NOT 'sufficient' at all... we have to become one of what you call 'sheep', surrender our critical thinking and just accept your 'scriptures' word for it, i.e, have 'faith'.

      Therefore his supposed 'sacrifice' is not, and never has been 'sufficient', as you just claimed.

      Lol, you can't make your own version of the BS work, no matter how you try to twist it around.

    71. So are you saying that we should not hold the bible to the same standard that we do with all other text and if so why??

      You lost me once I'd seen your preaching which I'm sure by now you know is against the rules, but as usual your opinion of the rules is they don't apply to you.

    72. Maybe what you call "preaching" is nothing more than you conscience bothering you?

    73. No d*ckhead you're preaching.

    74. Why don't you answer the question or was it to hard for you as it may require the truth for a change?

    75. I have invested hours in meticulously answering each question...did I miss one?

    76. You answer the question with your evidence that has already been proven to be wrong earlier by someone on this thread, so for you to now quote your "bible" is nothing less than preaching in my opinion.
      Once your evidence has been shown to be incorrect your argument has no valid points and is flawed (wrong)....

    77. no...actually look back at prior subjects... I felt obligated to answer these particular ones because you were the first to copy and paste these exact words from Bart's sales presentation on how "you too in 10 easy steps can be condemn to eternal punishment for the sins you choose to retain accountability for" sermon.

      As an old preacher would say (you'll like this... its not quoting a Bible verse), sin has only two places to go...either it's on you, or it's on appears today, you, Bart, and your three friends have decided to pay the punishment due for your disobedience to God's Law and to your conscience yourselves...sounds like a bad deal if you ask me but that's the part of this world that Bart Ehrman doesn't understand either, and that is God won't force you to do anything.

      Now I think I misspoke... I called the other three who enjoy this site (which kinda seems ghoulish) are actually not your friends at all...for if you turned to Christ and chose to lay your guilt on Christ to pay God's demand for justice, they would take you to the rail as quick as they I being unfair here?

      You could join any loony cult out their like the one who say people came from blue gills (oops sorry, ya all are already a part of that one), but you know what I mean, you could join some eastern "Bogwonish" whack job outfit and your bodies would say "ya that's just jackmax...he's kinda off his nut with his Bogwong weirdness, but he's our friend" let's say that one of those many passages of Scripture Mr. "Not Thinking" posted really hit home and I'm starting to see what we have been mocking is actually the truth"'re history in a New York minute...why? ...may I suggest that they and you know you are currently reveling in an "ubermensch" attitude towards Christ and His Word and it's really exhilarating to blaspheme in this way?

      ..I got a buck that says this is true for no one would invest such religious fervor into attempting to discredit the Bible if what it says didn't make you all profoundly uncomfortable.

      If you read more of Bart's talks you will find his extremely banal textual criticism is a secondary issue (because his arguments are invented and fabricated from a make believe world that only exists in his mind...the community of textual critics by in large have too fluffed of his silly conjectures; however, surprise, surprise, every atheist in the country thinks his arguments are really really sound and credible...even though they know nothing about the subject themselves...and have no interest in thinking for themselves to make an objective decision of their own).

      Which brings me back to the "problems" you told me on Christmas eve as to why you didn't believe you could trust the Bible with your eternal destiny...what are "your" thoughts?

      Did what I said "to you" make sense?

      I've spent so many years now swimming in Christianity that I have at time forgotten to articulate some basics that are common knowledge within our group where someone who hasn't could be confused by what is said.

      When it comes to what Bart admits is his biggest "problem" with Christianity is that he can't reconcile how a loving God could allow so much pain and suffering in this world.

      ....this is whole different subject...Bart said that he mumbled a little mantra prayer that today's American christians call the "sinner's prayer" (which I said many times myself and nothing happened just like in Bart's case), when he was a I recall...he then says he went off to Princeton when he was 22 years old...once I heard that a lot made sense about his problems.

      Modern Evangelicalism in America over the past 40 years (particularly for the teenagers) has for the most part stopped reading or studying their Bibles...there are many theories on this but if you study Israel's history and then compare it to the Church over the past 2,000 years you see the same phenomenon.... God moves mightily in one generation and they walk with God with great joy...then the next generation "forgets" God and walks off and does their own thing often falling into gross sin....this seems to repeat over and over throughout the ages and unfortunately Bart and I came into the Evangelical church at a time in history where we saw all the excitement that sin in America had to offer (for a season) and many walked off but during these times of spiritual decay, those responsible for teaching the Bible to us gravitate to telling cute pithy stories but because their view of God was so limited they taught us a "little god"...our perspective of God in many ways became as your friends have...they invent a little weak and sloppy god who can't write even a single book properly and let's millions of people be slaughtered and maimed for no reason whatsoever... sorry but I have to here but the book of Romans says, "[Romans 9:15, 19-23 NASB] For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."

      ... You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

      The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

      What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

      And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory".

      I'm not sure if you have ever seen the video presentation using photos captured by Hubble, called "How Great is Our God: with Louie Giglio"... (Google it for I know you and your son particularly would enjoy it immensely)... it helped me to begin to understand just how big and how powerful God is.

      Genesis 18:25b (ESV) ..."Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?”
      I quote the Bible because it is the only book that answers all the questions we may have in life...particularly, how we can get rid of the mounding load of guilt that everyone accumulates each day throughout their other "book" provides" an answer to such a big and important dilemma.

    78. "Sorry for the caps...I'm still getting the hang of this brave new frontier that you guys are teaching me..."

      So you are saying you cannot understand the commenting policy? Even though you've been repeatedly told to read it. Do not use CAPS more then is needed is hard to understand how exactly?
      Conclusion, either you're a liar, or have critical thinking issues, or both.

      For one that claims to 'think for himself' you need to be taught an awful lot that is self explanatory and pretty basic to everyone else.

    79. You now claim that because others share PARTS of YOUR delusions that somehow that is 'evidence'.

      These Christian Scientists you have named and claimed... how many are Catholic? Remembering your stated stance on the Roman Catholic Church-- or should I say the anti-Christ? How many hold the exact same beliefs of your particular interpretation of your 'scriptures'? How many are 'real Christians' and how many are not 'real Christians', your often used 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

      Seems you want your cake and to eat it too.
      You want to claim them when it suits, then discard their different delusions when it doesn't.

      And somehow that constitutes an 'argument'? Lol, still wrong. Even if they all had 100% the same interpretation as you, that has no bearing on whether your claims are accurate or not.

      How is following the writings and theology of people that have gone before you 'thinking for yourself' as you claim?

      You say you're thinking for yourself, but offer words of other people, your 'scriptures', then try to twist it completely around to you are somehow thinking for yourself and anyone that questions you is not. Lol, wrong.

      You say we are pretending there is no God, while at the same time you pretend that your personal version is the 100%, only possible correct answer. Using words and thoughts of others as your 'proof'. Another complete twist around of the truth that is here above for anyone to read. Lol, wrong.

      You even claim you know what others believe and 'know', because it's 'in your scriptures'. You haven't answered one of my earlier questions, what about Satyrs? They're in your 'book of BS / scriptures', so what's up with using a different, previous religion's make-believe 'manimals' ? How are you going to BS your way around that one? Lol.

      Upon reading your 'arguments', looking at your 'evidence', you leave only a couple of options for a logical person to conclude. Either you are an outright liar, completely deluded, or a mixture of the two. I personally think it's the last option. I know you are dishonest, you've repeatedly shown that on here. You have also shown you are very deluded, somehow thinking your ass-about twist of most things, coupled with ad hominem and outright preaching, constitutes some form of an 'argument', let alone some sort of 'proof'. Lol, wrong.

      Lol at your BS, all of it. You couldn't be more full of sh1t if you followed a bull around with your open mouth under it's tail 24 hrs a day.

      Lmao that you think your disjointed logic twists and outright lies fool anyone other than yourself and your fellow already deluded ones. Who when it comes down to it 'interpret' your 'all powerful, all correct, all knowing scriptures' very differently to you in many places.

      Lol that you admit there is additions that people incorrectly believe are truth, but then claim the Bible are 'God's words'. You must know you're full of it, that there admits what you're trying to argue is flat out wrong.

      Lmao, you are an entertaining twit, unoriginal but a fine example of the twisted logic and claims and delusions your deity beliefs gives you. Can you get your 'educated brother' to come join in too? Twice the fun. Or is he also a figment of your imagination?

    80. Have you seen the lecture by Arron Ra titled "How religion reverses everything" yet? It is a good insight into exactly what you're attempting here, and why.

    81. You could have saved a lot of time by just stating. "No evedence will be presented. instead i Give you an argument from authority"

      I must point out that some of these people listed above supported slavery and at least one of them was an alchemist. Does their scienntific disocoveries and awards also make those beliefs right?

    82. And I'm confident that some of them struggled with anger, harshness to their children or even of being selfish....remember that us who have placed our faith in Christ alone for the forgiveness of our sins do not become "sinless" (as I have modeled here) it's about "who" we are looking to for the forgiveness of our sins. fact history will be very harsh toward our generation of Christians as we watch the Margret Sanger killing machine churning up 50+ million corpses of innocent fellow citizens which we failed to stop...just hope this doesn't nullity everything we think, say, and do which appears to be what you would like to do here.

      I perceive you all don't know the Bible well enough yet (which unfortunately is the only source of this pesky Christian ethos) to know that "slavery" is at the foundation of our faith.

      [Rom 6:16, 18, 20, 22 ESV] 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? ... and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. ... For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. ... But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.
      Scripture tells us that everyone is a "slave", are a slave to your own lusts and desires to be God and thus you are enslaved to your rebellion toward the one who keeps the electrons in the atoms within your body from flying off into oblivion, or you can chose to be free from that which brings death and separation form God and you can become a doulos (Greek for Bond-slave) to Jesus Christ and find peace, joy indescribable (plus being able to open a Bible and find it "come alive in your hands..I add that because Bob really likes to hear me say that)... but mainly forgiveness which is like taking a 100 lb load off your back.

      I think we all continually filter history through a selective view of the idea of slavery which was an ugly, bizarre, and repulsive form of torture that was prevalent over the past 500 years.

      You and I grew up appropriately with the thinking that the slavery that our country embraced (however, was finally shut down by Wilberforce an Evangelical Christian in the U.K.) was what slavery has always been...there were many benevolent masters over the centuries (even in the south; however, they didn't make it into our textbooks).

      Scripture says we will always be "slaves" to someone or something...we just need to carefully chose what or who that will be.

      But the subject at hand was how, flat earth, imbec11ic, knuckle dragging, m0r0ns who place their faith in Jesus Christ while believing in that error riddled Bible with all of it's 7 verses that are universally identified as being added in, could ever have a cogent scientific thought go through their narrow little minds...right?

      Back again to Marx and the influence he has on your Profs...remember "to kill God and destroy capitalism"...keep this in mind each time you see how these people have created and empty echo chamber that has buried truth and forced a distorted view of reality up your noses (me too for I have been in one state college and one state university and every class they preached that God was dead and capitalism is evil).

      Consequently, I provided a list of some of them to set the record straight, even though I'm sure your Profs in their sincere desire to provide all of the facts have shared with you all to the place where you could lip-synch along with them...." PASTEUR..NEWTON... BOYLE... FARADAY... KELVIN... MENDEL... MORSE...etc. till you were probably tired of hearing about all these men? but these people provide the world with infallible "work" that is genuflected to as if it were a Eucharist and the source of all truth?

      In fact, if we "think" about it (I know you all say I am incapable of such an endeavor)...we wouldn't be able to have this discussion without Faraday and tonight before going to bed, when you are on you knees next to your bed thanking Marx for all of his wonderful insights into life and how it "works" so much better when one pretends that God is dead, drop a little "thank you" to the one who placed the thoughts that ultimately brought you your that's some common ground we all can share.

    83. careful buddy...I was responding with facts that any 1st grader could go to WIKI and verify with all links to sources that shows Christians have made a disproportionate contribution to science and the development of technology.

      The original subject came up when someone implied Christians (no "religies") were incapable of contributing to science and technology and you "real thinkers" were going to go down with your "quasi-scientific ship" no matter how little actual information the gatekeepers are letting you have.

      It's rather odd to see you all vigorously defending your "captors"...those who have clearly been keeping any truth from you over all these years... I'd be mad if I were you all...there is great freedom in looking at all sides of an issue and then making up your "own" mind as to what is true; however, you all are visibly frightened to think for yourselves because you have already seen the contempt all of your Profs have towards Christ so you all know that some thoughts are basically "unthinkable" due to the control your captors have on what you hear, what you read , and what you are allowed to think.

      It's clear the information I provided from WIKI and ISR stunned the whole bunch of you...need I say more when the comments are "but one of them believed in slavery" and "one was an alchemist" when a whole bunch of them were both but it still does not nullify any facts.

      I guess this is a good time again for review guys since you all have lost what one is and what one isn't...Christians are not perfect, at times they disobey, at times they will outright rebel for a time, at times they fail miserably, at times they will ignore Scripture and pay the consequences of their ignorance, and after spending 30 seconds with any of them it will become very clear that they certainly are not sinless.

      But...I must review because again you all have forgotten the technical details of what constitutes a "born again" Christian.

      Real Christians are individuals who saw their sinfulness and knew that there sin must be punished.

      They learned that God saw how sinful they (I too) were and knew we were helpless to save ourselves...

      they realized that God had to punish sin because He is "just"

      They realized that instead of throwing us into Hell for all of the times we chose to deliberately disobey the 10 commandments and our consciences, God sent His own Son, Jesus Christ to come here and live a sinless life and then allow Himself to be nailed to a wooden cross to satisfy Gods wrath in our place,

      Christians know that all those who accept this free gift of forgiveness need to do is to move their faith from themselves to Jesus Christ's sacrifice,

      and simply, through faith, they can have their sins (past, present and future) forgiven

      (never to be brought up again).

      They also will believe that God raised Jesus from the grave and showed that He was the Son of God.

      So, when you sincerely research all of these individuals who I claim were Christians, keep in mind what a Christian "is", and what a Christian "isn't".

    84. I am just going to focus on one part of your tirade (for now at least).

      You stated "violate the 2 law of thermodynamics (and don't say there are "exceptions" to this because of the "open system" argument for it is
      irrelevant to scientists in the trenches for everything they do is in a "closed" and controlled environment.". You are right (sort of) The distinction between open/closed system is not an "exception" it is a RULE. scientific laws are not like passages in your bible(s), you cannot choose to ignore the parts you don't like. No not everything they do is in a closed enviorment.Do you think that scientists do all their testing in complete darkness as light is an outside energy source? While some variables are controlled others are alowed or even introduced. Outside stimuli (or other variables) are often introduced to observe their effect within an experiment. There are even cases where the act of measuring and observing cause a reaction. have you actually read (and understood) the laws of thermodynamics? or are you parroting something from a creationist site?

    85. No, it all started sitting in one of my best friends family room about 28 years ago...he had just been recruited about a year prior out of a university in the mid-south into one of the Worlds premier pharmaceutical company's, a name you would readily recognize.
      As we were catching up on how his new job was going he told me that the scientist that was responsible for getting him assimilated into the research group he was to be a part of (which he still is today), my friend asked this man if he and the rest of the scientists believed in evolution.
      The Phd scientist chuckled and said, "no, nobody here believes that...they couldn't and do their jobs in research chemistry" stunned friend said "then why is it taught over and over in school and at the university?
      The Phd. just shrugged his shoulders (he was not a Christian) and said something like, "ya those in academia believe in that, but none of us do"...this is a large publicly trading corporation and not some pocket of "Christianity".
      This is reality and all the snarky Marxists who parade around their classrooms unopposed are so far from the realities of this world that it is frightening that we still call this "higher education".

    86. That is your response? nothing on thermodynamics? A second hand testimonial that I have no way to check into? Please search for "Support for evolution within scientific community" the actual studies all show support over 90%. If you are telling the truth one advisor (or group of them) is the "excepton" that you were looking for in your earlier post. And even that fact is irrelevant as I do not care how many support something only if they can prove it. Before I go on. Do you have any actual demonstrable proof for your assertions? Or is selective reading of your bible(s) and misrepresenting science and scientists all you have?

    87. lets talk half life or carbon... I "asset" that based upon the half life of carbon that your millions of years is a scientific impossibility...your turn...

    88. Oh yes Mr. Edge...we have all decided that scoffing at, and attempting to discredit "sources" of information is not considered intelligent discourse...also, the classic default of gravitating to name calling when one has no answer back when their position is exposed to be bankrupt.
      Prior to my first commenting here I saw there was a very small group of truly very smart individuals who instead of using the very impressive brains God gave them, they had gravitated to pretty much the classical methodology used today by liberals (be it when discussing politics or religion) ever since they saw what traction they got in discrediting Dan Quail over his alternate spelling of "potato" the same silly embarrassing modus operandi was adopted by all those who hate Christ and His Word (The Bible).
      1. Mock and discredit sources with nothing substantive other than "not them", which as you can see is not exactly a thoughtful statement.
      2. Imply that all truth and all purveyors of truth are exclusively held by Marxist Phds. comfortably tenured and embedded into academia like wood tics into the back of a an old hound dog.
      3. When you get stuck in the corner never humble yourself and say, "you have a point there, maybe I need to study the subject further"...instead the default method created by the blind guides who are leading you away from God is to gravitate to ignoring the subject and revert to insults and name calling (as if everyone around them can't see they are being "owned".
      I am not looking to "own" anyone here, in fact I am doing this because I have seen over the years that those who "rail" loudest against God and His Word the Bible often end up admitting they never personally studied the Bible themselves and open the Book and find the power of it when looked at by an "open heart" is to bring them to the 3rd. chapter of John where a prominent Jewish Rabi asked Jesus, "What should I do to be born again"?
      Another very clear sign of the truth that the Bible is the Word of God and requires being "born again" to understand, is that I got a buck that everyone here has out of curiosity grabbed some Bible somewhere and opened it and attempted to understand it and after about 45 seconds there eyes start glazing over and they slam the Bible shut and say, "that doesn't make a lick of's just confusing nonsense", when a born again Christian can sit and read the same words and be thrilled and satisfied in their (our) souls like no other document can do...I use the words to describe this phenomenon (that Bob here really likes) as "the words come alive" which you will hear something similar to all those who get truly "born again".
      So, I love talking about this as long as we all set the aside those tired old strategies that shut down thoughtful dialog since we are discussing the most important subject on earth and certainly in your life.
      So, this weekend I'll be answering the two questions I think Bob had about some observations someone had made and sounded reasonable to him.
      But just to add a disclaimer you will be getting this from some i*iot who has dropped out of two state universities and two private universities so if we set the rules above aside and sincerely read to know the truth where ever it may lead be watching for my answer to his two questions.

    89. How did we get from thermodynamics to this? I never insulted you or your sources. Your source was anonymous, third hand and unverifyable so I had no other choice but to ignore it. You did misrepresent and selectively stated science so i called you on it (not an insult). And so on. Play the victim all you wish but I will not chase any more red herrings. If you wish to actually answer my questions and back up your assertions with actual proof then we can exchange evidence. Until then I am done

    90. Whatever you wrote about your religion and your bibles et al, that you religee's can sit and read your fairytales for hours does not apply to me and many others, a person needs to be born with a "GOD CHIP" in the brain, thankfully that is something that I am lacking. If you do not know what a god chip is, look it up.

    91. cute..but Mr Jung used to hear voices...sounds kinda like a crazy guy to me...good thing the book was make believe cause I sure couldn't believe in fairy tales built around a schizo who heard voices each night after dinner ....but then again creating a fantasy world that can't work in the real world is quite tantalizing...but that's about it...I chose to hang in the real world where God has put into our kardia the knowledge of Him and that we will stand before Him and give an account...I heard an old preacher yesterday say "sin can only go two places...either on Christ....or on you" that is the real world.

    92. Another incorrect post from you that is quite easy to show where and why.
      I have done many hours study on your Bible, years ago I was required to for multiple years as a school subject. More recently for my own interests sake and self education. Our 'discussion' about the debate between Dr. White and Dr. Ehrman should have shown you I do not claim knowledge about something I've not read or watched. That showed that you do however, you haven't even watched all that debate, as you admitted. I have multiple times. (I found that to be one of the more interesting debates on the subject) There you go again, twisting the truth around 180 degrees. You still haven't answered my question about it... that would require you to watch and listen to it all properly. I understand your 'belief blinkers' make that hard for you to do, but c'mon, if you're going to say you know that debate, at least watch it through once.

      Don't feel over special though, I've also read the Book of Morman cover to cover, an English Translation of the Qu'ran, some Buddhist writings, multiple commentaries and both written, audio and/or video on various religions and differing versions within some. Between us I am not the one claiming knowledge I don't have, you routinely have done and still do.

      I never have claimed only "Marxist Phd's" matter, in fact if you bother to go back and check, I stated I agree with Dr. Ehrman when he said in that debate whoever it is making the argument is irrelevant, it is the strength of the argument itself that is important. Note.. this is a standing requirement in science, contrary to religion's dictates.

      Contrary to your above, once more, backwards assertion.

      An interesting case in point is Francis Collins, former director of the Human Gnome Project. A scientist and a self professed Christian. The only people I've heard disagree with his work is people like you. Many free-thinkers have admired his work, myself included.
      I disagree with the personal religious beliefs of Issac Newton, that doesn't mean I don't believe in the Theory of Gravity.

      A quote from Francis Collins, one of your 'Christian Scientists' ; "It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly
      I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

      Also note, this quote was copied from a religious site, not an Atheist one. beliefnet dot com was the site with that interview with Collins. Go read that interview, educate yourself some. Your feeble attempts at claiming knowledge and your twisting of the truth are blatantly obvious to any that have bothered just to read your posts here, let alone study the topic for themselves.

      Please, if you really do have a brother that is educated on the topic, beg him to join in. I'd at least like someone make me have to look up and learn something new, you haven't been able to so far. :(

    93. When you mentioned that "I have done many hours study on your Bible"...can you share with us what you studied as a young person?

      And then share with us what you learned that you believe is either untrue or inaccurate.

      And I'll go to the debate and listen to the whole thing and then comment on it...but please remember that Bart acknowledges that the foundation of his current "beliefs" are based upon John Mill's work and you can read where I dealt with this on another post...

      Mill mixed a large diverse group of manuscripts of writings by the Church Fathers that were never declared to be a part of "Scripture" and he then extrapolated a big number of theoretical "variants"; however, another Scholar of the day, Bengel combed through his "Work" and found no "variants" disturbed any core doctrines of the faith.

      Then, as I think I mentioned recently, I took another trip to Bart's blog where he articulates that the reason he is no longer a "believer" is because he can't reconcile all the pain and suffering with a Sovereign God; consequently, he has decided to jettison it all.
      This again, brings us to a totally different subject that we can discuss if you want; however, the answers lie in Scripture and not in the ramblings of man.

      But, in the mean time, I'll chip away at all the same arguments of textual criticism that Bart's predecessors were throwing around when I was in college...blast I wish they could come up with something fresh and new instead of plagiarizing Mill.

    94. First up, get it into your skull, I've already stated it repeatedly.. I don't care what Bart Ehrman 'personally believes' about anything. You're the one concerned with what he 'believes', I'm concerned with what he can demonstrate, his scholarly opinion and why he has them. His 'beliefs' are neither here nor there other than understanding any bias he may have. We could talk a lot about Dr. White's bias... I don't care, I stuck to his scholarship and opinions, which is what matters, not his personal beliefs. You're the one with the Ehrman fixation. He is just one of many Textual Critics that have and do contradict you.

      In the more than 3 years I've posted on this site I've already told most of the others in this conversation about some of what I have studied regarding religion. I don't feel compelled to justify myself to anyone let alone you after your claimed 'tactics' here. I was responding to your fallacious claim that you only converse with people that haven't 'studied' the Bible.
      What did I study?.. The Bible ya twit, I already said that. More than one translation, cover to cover. In more than one denomination's schools and Churches. (Note the plural words) Contrary to your assertion you only speak with people that know nothing of your 'scriptures'. My mother was a 'believer', and if she was alive still could put a much better argument together than you, without being dishonest about it. What I have or haven't studied makes no difference to what you can pick up a bible and read for yourself... I implore anyone reading to not take my or your word for it, go read it yourself. The facts are easily checked.

      No, John Mill did not do what you claim. In his 1707 book Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS he reprinted Edito Regia, (the 'flash, royal version' of Textus Receptus, the 3rd edition to be exact), and in the margins added his 30,000 variants from 82 other earlier Greek manuscripts. Which if you had studied Textual criticism as you claim, you'd know Edito Regia was edited by Robert Estienne in the 16th Century. Estienne added in the margins his own version of symbols to try to add in the textual differences he found between his sources, becoming one of the founders of Modern Textual Criticism in the process.

      You should also know that Daniel Whitby was the one that was quick to attack John Mill... he rightly saw the danger to the 'fairy tale' in the truth of what Mill and Estienne pointed out. Pointed out, they didn't invent them.

      Or we could talk about Frederick von Nolan and John W Burgon who favored Textus Receptus as being the more accurate for their stated reasons in their books.

      That is besides the point.

      None of that is relative to the point I've been making, that you keep trying to deny. That being, there are changes in your Bibles, and you have no way to be sure what was originally written, or by whom in many cases. Changes that make a huge difference to your attempted cop out of 'core doctrine' not changing.

      I have already asked you numerous questions R.E some problems in your 'scriptures', if you want some go back and read them, you've repeatedly had them asked already and not replied. Don't try to dishonestly act like you've somehow answered let alone rebuked the questions already asked of you.

      You answer an easy question, which you already have in a round about way.
      Do you believe that every single word contained in the Bible, in any translation / version we have today, is accurate to the original authored writings? Word for word, not 'core doctrine', as that is dictated by the reader / interpreter and varies widely. Hence the major importance of the actual true wordings.

      IF, as you have indicated, you hold the same view as Dr.White that the 'original' is contained somewhere amongst the textual tradition, (translated- even amongst all the different versions of the 'Bible' we have that differ from the originals, the original is still in there somewhere), then what exactly IS the original? And how do you know that?

      Supernatural claims of 'Holy Spirit' instruction / revelation don't cut it.

      When you get honest and admit there is a good reason there is a scholarly activity known as Biblical Textual Criticism (understanding the accurate definition of Criticism in this context), and that is because of all the differences that your 'scriptures' contain, you might get past your Bart Ehrman obsession.

      Until then any half logical theological discussion isn't even possible with you, let alone an honest one.

    95. Even if I granted you your position that somewhere in all the mess it is, the Textual Tradition of the originals of the Cannon are still intact, and even if you were able to accurately say which version it is, you still are no closer to proving any of the supernatural claims of the Bible and your particular interpretation. All you would prove is some people that were not eye witnesses wrote some stuff about their personal beliefs and that was written down for a couple thousand years. If that is the basis for 'supernatural truth' evidence, than the Egyptians, the Sumerian and numerous others hold more weight than yours.... they are older and were recorded in stone.

    96. You said you're going to finally do what you've already inferred you did, and watch that debate. Answer my earlier question about what three words / terms Dr.White admits he defines different to the majority of his peers. Until you do that, you're a flat out liar that is a waste of time even reading anymore.

    97. The easy thing about assertions of absoluteness like yours about your Bible, is only one is needed to be proven wrong to disprove your whole claim.
      Here are just a few of the errors and contradictions that are in your 'scriptures'. I'll even go easy on you and stick to the NT, and this is by no means a complete list. It isn't even close to all of them, not by a long shot. I'm sure I don't know them all. I don't know of anyone that does. I'll even stick to Jesus lineage and birth for you, simple but important stuff considering it's the 'proof' of a 'divine birth' and his supposed 'prophesied' lineage.

      1. Which of David's sons was Jesus' ancestor, Solomon or Nathan? Mt 1:6, Lk 3:31 contradict.

      2. How many generations were there between David and Jesus? Matt says 28, Luke says 43.

      3. Who was Joseph's father? Mat says Jacob, Luke says Heli.

      4. Was 'the announcement of the special birth' made before or after conception? Mat and Luke contradict again.

      5. Did Mary and Joseph know who or what their baby could or would become? Interestingly, Luke contradicts himself, and Matt with one of Luke's assertions. Lk 1:28-35, Lk 2:48-50 Mat 1:18-21

      6. Who did the angel tell, Joseph or Mary? Matt and Luke contradict again.

      I can go on and on, there are many, many more. Half a dozen mutually exclusive contradictions, just about his birth and lineage alone, is plenty enough to show your NT is BS that can't get its lies straight. As stated, one is enough to debunk your claim.

      Why even bother giving Joseph's lineage anyway.... you claim Jesus had no ancestors, he is the 'word' that has always been, apparently. Or at least give the first 3rd of your tri-deity, the Father, seeing as you claim He is the 'Son'. Both Mat and Luke are theologically way off track by giving Joseph's line, not to mention the massive problem of literally contradicting each other. Or that they included some women when that wasn't the norm....
      I can go on and on, and will be happy to give you more examples of contradictions.... you're making it very easy to show you're full of it, just like your scriptures are.
      Do you think 'God' enjoyed impregnating Mary as much as the 'sons of God', the Nephilim mentioned in Genesis, enjoyed banging other 'daughters of men'?
      Or was that also up to the apparent literal 'Son of God' to do?

      This is all from your claimed 'word of God'. Check for yourself.

    98. 1. Which of David's sons was Jesus' ancestor, Solomon or Nathan? Mt 1:6, Lk
      3:31 contradict.

      2. How many generations were there between David and Jesus? Matt says 28,
      Luke says 43.

      3. Who was Joseph's father? Mat says Jacob, Luke says Heli.

      4. Was 'the announcement of the special birth' made before or after
      conception? Mat and Luke contradict again.

      5. Did Mary and Joseph know who or what their baby could or would become?
      Interestingly, Luke contradicts himself, and Matt with one of Luke's assertions.
      Lk 1:28-35, Lk 2:48-50 Mat 1:18-21

      6. Who did the angel tell, Joseph or Mary? Matt and Luke contradict again.

      Your fun!... since when I first stumbled into this site I initially thought
      I'd answer fools according to their folly and thus try out a very embarrassing
      page from the "I hate God and all of His stupid minions", playbook.

      I was confident that you all had heard what the apologetic sites have said
      (and surprisingly rejected every syllable)

      I could see your highly scripted arguments have persisted in spite of some
      very elementary things that every individual who sincerely is in a pursuit of
      truth would have learned and then adjusted their thinking causing many of your
      "problems" with scripture to evaporate; however, it is starting to
      look like you are, "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge
      of the truth".

      If I had a nickel for every time someone has answered this to you (but
      either not to your satisfaction or they have and you have shaken it off and
      kept preaching this old script because so many Christians today have little
      interest or knowledge of the Word so it feels to you that you are scoring
      legitimate points in your jousting with windmills as you think if doubt can be
      raised by weak sheep that you may be achieving your own fabricated "nirvana"?

      ...but I knew when I came in here that bludgeoning Christians was the
      current sport here...which I think is exciting because no man on earth would
      put so much energy into "debunking" the Word of God and Jesus Christ
      unless he were in the midst of a great battle himself for his soul.

      So, I think we can share this with you this one time and then let's see if,
      once learning a very elementary aspect of hermeneutics if you will once and for
      all take the information and be able to model for us how you learn things and
      then have the skill set to apply that new knowledge to answer many of your own
      here we go (I'm sure I'm the 69th. person to say this to you)...the Gospels
      were written by several different men.

      This is one of the best evidences of inherency (however, those who love
      their sin more than life itself habitually ignore this elementary concept that
      these authors didn't huddle in a dark corner and cook up a single narrative...or
      the hundreds of scribes throughout the last 1700 years.

      Instead we have varying perspectives at slightly different times based on
      knowing different things and just reporting what they saw or heard from their think these people we imbeciles who didn't realize from the
      start that they were reporting different complementary things which you would
      like to fanaticize are just blatant errors...

      This is a subject I have heard a half a dozen answers to over the years
      (which I am confident you have also; however, you have chosen to take the wide
      road) so this man has done a slightly different take on the subject and thought
      it had validity.

      Written by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum

      From all the genealogies in the Hebrew Scriptures, two observations become
      apparent. With very rare exceptions, only the male line is traced and only
      men's names appear. The descendancy of women is not given and their names are
      only mentioned in passing. Since biblically it was the father who determined
      both national and tribal identity, it was reasoned that only his line was

      In addition, only one line is traced from the beginning to the end of the
      biblical history, the line of King David. The Scriptures reveal every name
      before David (Adam to David) and every name after David (David to Zerubbabel).
      Since the Messiah was to be of the house of David, this can also be labeled as
      the messianic line. In fact, the genealogies limit more and more the human
      origin of the Messiah. As the Seed of the woman, Messiah had to come out of
      humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, Messiah had to come from the nation of
      Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. As the Seed
      of David, he had to be of the family of David.

      The Jewish Scriptures as Background to the New Covenant

      The pattern of genealogy in the Hebrew Scriptures is followed by the New
      Testament pattern where two genealogies are found: Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke
      3:23-38. Of the four gospel accounts, only those two deal with the birth and
      early life of Jesus. Both Mark and John begin their accounts with Jesus as an
      adult, so it is natural that only Matthew and Luke would have a genealogy.
      While they both provide an account of the birth and early life of Jesus, each
      tells the story from a different perspective.

      In Matthew, Joseph plays an active role, but Miriam (Mary) plays a passive
      role. Matthew records angels appearing to Joseph, but there is no record of
      angels appearing to Miriam. Matthew records Joseph's thoughts but nothing is
      recorded about Miriam's thoughts. On the other hand, Luke's Gospel tells the
      same story from Miriam's perspective. From the context of each Gospel, it
      should be very evident that the genealogy of Matthew is that of Joseph, and the
      genealogy of Luke is that of Miriam.

      The question then raised is: Why do we need two genealogies, especially
      since Y'shua (Jesus) was not the real son of Joseph? A popular and common
      answer is: Matthew's Gospel gives the royal line, whereas Luke's Gospel gives
      the real line. From this concept, another theory arises. Since seemingly Joseph
      was the heir apparent to David's throne, and Jesus was the adopted son of
      Joseph, Jesus could claim the right to David's throne. On the other hand,
      Luke's Gospel gives the real line, showing that Y'shua himself was a descendant
      of David. Through Miriam, he was a member of the house of David, but he could
      claim the right to sit on David's throne through Joseph, the heir apparent.
      Actually the exact opposite is true.


      To understand the need for these two genealogies, it is important to
      understand the two requirements for kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures. These
      were developed after the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.…

      One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in
      Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel,
      with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic
      descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David's throne unless he was a member
      of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house
      of David (Isaiah 7:5-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to
      failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

      The requirement for the throne of Israel was prophetic sanction or divine
      appointment. Anyone who attempted to rule on Samaria's throne without prophetic
      sanction was assassinated (1 Kings 11:26-39; 15:28-30; 16:1-4, 11-15; 21:21-29;
      11 Kings 9:6-10; 10:29-31; 14 8-12).

      With the background of these two biblical requirements for kingship and what
      is stated in the two New Testament genealogies, the question of Jesus' right to
      the throne of David can be resolved.

      Matthew's Genealogy

      In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He
      mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the
      one to whom the pronoun "her" in verse six refers). It was contrary
      to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, "A
      mother's family is not to be called a family." Even the few women Luke
      does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Y'shua. He
      could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming
      these four and no others.

      First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth.
      It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a
      Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the
      main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of
      Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these
      women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was
      guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only
      hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah's coming
      was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament
      genealogy, it is not Matthew's main point.

      Matthew's genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names. He
      traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, by going back into history
      and working toward his own time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (verse
      2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David's many sons, Solomon is
      chosen (verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one
      of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12),
      the line is traced to Joseph (verse 16). Joseph was a direct descendant of
      David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The "Jeconiah link"
      is significant in Matthew's genealogy because of the special curse pronounced
      on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30:

      As I live," declares the

      "even though Jeconiah the son
      of Jehoiakim

      king of Judah were a signet ring on my right

      hand, yet I would pull you off…

      "Is this man Jeconiah a
      despised, shattered jar?

      Or is he an undesirable vessel?

      Why have he and his descendants
      been hurled out

      and cast into a land that they had
      not known?

      "O land, land, land, Hear the
      word of the LORD!!

      "Thus says the LORD, 'Write
      this man [Jeconiah] down childless,

      A man who will not prosper in his

      For no man of his descendants will

      Sitting on the throne of David, Or
      ruling again in Judah.'

      No descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until
      Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of
      David. With Jeremiah, it was limited still further. Now one had to be not only
      of the house of David, but apart from Jeconiah.

      According to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his
      veins. He was not qualified to sit on David's throne. He was not the heir
      apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right
      to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph,
      he would have been disqualified from sitting on David's throne. Neither could
      he claim the right to David's throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since
      Joseph was not the heir apparent.

      The purpose of Matthew's genealogy, then, is to show why Y'shua could not be
      king if he were really Joseph's son. The purpose was not to show the royal
      line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents
      the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth
      which, from Matthew's viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In
      summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph's son, he could not
      claim to sit on David's throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not
      Joseph's son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).

      Luke's Genealogy

      Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he
      omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could
      not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do
      so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents
      for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second
      question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the
      genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case
      the husband's name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies
      with the English language.

      In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article
      ("the") before a proper name ("the" Matthew,
      "the" Luke, "the" Miriam): however, it is quite permissible
      in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name
      mentioned has the Greek definite article "the" with one exception:
      the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand
      by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that this was not really Joseph's
      genealogy, but his wife Miriam's.

      Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: "…being
      supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…," because of the missing
      Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be
      translated as follows: "Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son
      of Heli…".1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so
      that the verse reads that although Y'shua was "supposed" or assumed
      to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was
      the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam's name is quite in keeping with the
      Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy
      to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of
      Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

      Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and
      goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in
      versees 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not
      Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David.
      But unlike Joseph, she came from David's son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a
      member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam's son,
      he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.

      In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since
      Luke's genealogy did not include Jeconiah's line, he began his Gospel with the
      virgin birth, and only later, in describing Y'shua's public ministry, recorded
      his genealogy.

      However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from
      Jeconiah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality
      with Y'shua to the throne of David, for they too did not have Jeconiah's blood
      in their veins. Why Jesus and not one of the others? At this point the second
      biblical requirement for kingship, that of divine appointment, comes into the
      picture. Of all the members of the house of David apart from Jeconiah, only one
      received divine appointment. Luke 1:30-33 states:

      And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Miriam; for you have found
      favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and
      you shall name Him Y'shua. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the
      Most High: and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and
      He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no

      On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member
      of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment
      to that throne: "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father

      While Matthew's genealogy showed why Y'shua could not be king if he really
      were Joseph's son, Luke's genealogy shows why Y'shua could be king. When he
      returns, he will be king.

      Two things may be noted by way of conclusion. First, many rabbinic
      objections to the messiahship of Jesus are based on his genealogy. The argument
      goes, "Since Jesus was not a descendant of David through his father, he
      cannot be Messiah and King." But the Messiah was supposed to be different.
      As early as Genesis 3:15, it was proposed that the Messiah would be reckoned
      after the "seed of the woman," although this went contrary to the
      biblical norm. The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent
      when Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin:
      "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be
      with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." Whereas
      all others receive their humanity from both father and mother, the Messiah
      would receive his humanity entirely from his mother. Whereas Jewish nationality
      and tribal identity were normally determined by the father, with the Messiah it
      would be different. Since he was to have no human father, his nationality and
      his tribal identity would come entirely from his mother. True, this is contrary
      to the norm, but so is a virgin birth. With the Messiah, things would be

      In addition, these genealogies present a fourfold portrait of the messianic
      person through four titles. In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and
      the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of
      God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham,
      it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man.
      As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the
      messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man
      King. Could the Messiah be anyone less?

      I can go on and on, there are many, many more.

      Great....please dust them off, bring em out, and let's see how they dissolve
      in the light?

      Half a dozen mutually exclusive contradictions, just about his birth and
      lineage alone, is plenty enough to show your NT is BS that can't get its lies

      oops...that's Bob's line?...Bob?....Bob? that you? have some
      homework to do...I answered a portion of your prior you answer
      them, I'll paste up the remaining answers.

      As stated, one is enough to debunk your claim....So with all the manuscripts
      and new understandings we are gaining that if I pull down every lie that you
      would still chose to go to reject the forgiveness of your sins?

      Why even bother giving Joseph's lineage anyway.... you claim Jesus had no
      ancestors...I think you have me confused with someone else; however, it is
      clear that when someone was
      "teaching" you some theology pertaining to lineage, you were not as attentive
      as if the lecture was "why we think we have cooked up some bogus arguments
      that will create an alternate universe where we can "pretend" that
      the God who has put this fear of the inevitable coming judgment in our minds can
      be tamped down to a tolerable level".

      he is the 'word' that has always been, apparently...this is kinda good...yes
      Jesus is the "Logos" and yes He was there at the creation (actually
      as the creator) you're learning (kinda)...or should I say, your past
      "education" was kinda weak.

      Or at least give the first 3rd of your tri-deity,..kinda good Bob...ya kinda
      got the Trinity; however, you are right by calling it "mine" is true,
      but let's not forget the tens of millions of other weak cripples who have yet
      to figure out how to navigate without violating our consciences (or the 10 Commandments),
      so when I can cook up a world where justice isn't important and the punishment
      we know we deserve as we accumulate "violations" that require a need
      for retribution of our sins.

      the Father, seeing as you claim He is the 'Son'...not real sure what we're
      saying here; however, Scripture says that we (those who have placed their faith
      in Christ alone for the forgiveness of our sins) the Word has said that we are
      in Christ, and He is in the Father.

      Both Mat and Luke are theologically
      way off track by giving Joseph's line,...not sure about what you mean here.

      not to mention the massive problem of literally contradicting each other....
      I understand this idea of "contradiction" is very exhilarating;
      however, as you turn up the lights, tune into what's being taught, you will
      fill that the authors of the Gospels "compliment" each other's
      observations and brings an intended multi-dimensional depth and beauty where
      each person dovetails flawlessly with each other.

      Or that they included some women when that wasn't the norm....your slips
      showing buddy...wish I had a nickel for every time someone attempted to teach
      you things that contribute to tearing down your "hogwash" arguments....but
      I know it and you know it so it looks like we both know exactly what is
      happening here hey?...he....he...he?

      I can go on and on, and will be happy to give you more examples of
      contradictions.... please bring them on buddy...but just remember, we're
      graduating from our hermeneutic preschool where we read the Gospels as being
      written by different men with different perspectives and at different places
      within the community...should be kinda fun watching you apply your learning in

      you're making it very easy to show you're full of it, just like your
      scriptures are...I feel a sincere need to keep it simple here and I sincerely
      hope that I am "full of the Word".

      Do you think 'God' enjoyed impregnating Mary as much as the 'sons of God', the
      Nephilim mentioned in Genesis, enjoyed banging other 'daughters of men'?

      Or was that also up to the apparent literal 'Son of God' to do?...For this
      cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of
      God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is
      in truth, the word of God, which effectually works also in you that believe.

      This is all from your claimed 'word of God'. Check for yourself....It's been
      thought that these dudes were Demons that were giants...looks like God took
      care of them also. We also have comment about Melchizedek who is a really
      mysterious individual but God clearly didn't give us enough to get too dogmatic
      about...can't say I understand it all but what an adventure to explore!

      The other day I thought of you guys when reading I Timothy that said, "
      [1Ti 1:12-19 ESV]

      I thank him who has given me strength, Christ
      Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service,
      though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent.

      But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the
      grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ

      The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ
      Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

      But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus
      Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to
      believe in him for eternal life.

      To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and
      glory forever and ever. Amen.

      This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the
      prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare,

      holding faith


      a good conscience.

      By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith...So my question
      to any of you who have mumbled the "sinners prayer" at one time in your
      live, and then stop "holding tightly to your faith",

      and / or

      not maintain a "good conscience" during the time prior to your
      spiritual "shipwreck"?

      Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion,
      walks about, seeking whom he may devour: King James Bible "Authorized
      Version", Cambridge Edition

      75 years ago people would roll their eyes and laugh out loud at the idea of
      the "devil" or "satan"; however, the enemy has clearly come
      out into the open these days and the battle lines are being drawn...I think you
      all would have to acknowledge this reality.

    99. Lol. For someone that claims to think for himself, you quote not only your bible but other theologians more than give your own personal thoughts. Way to 'think for yourself'.

      No, you didn't answer anything at all, you cut and paste someone else's answer (and made it difficult to tell exactly what you make out to be yours, and what is a quote in the process)

      You broke 2 commenting rules there that you didn't have to.
      One, you posted a wall of text when a link would have sufficed (you should well know Fruchtenbaum is easily found on your apologetic sites. Which one did you cut and paste that from?)
      Two... another preach. I don't give a sh1t who you think about while reading your 'scriptures', and stating you thought of 'us' here is not an excuse to unnecessarily quote 'scriptures' that are not relevant to the topic at hand.

      There is a massive problem with the work of Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, specifically his dissertation 'Israelology: the missing link in systematic theology'. That being, he is a theologian that wrote his 'Israelology' based on the interpretational principles of Dispensationalism.

      What is dispensatioinalism many will ask.

      From google;
      "Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes these ages ordained by God to order the affairs of the world. Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives:
      1) a consistently literal interpretation
      of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy and 2) a distinction between Israel and the church in God's program."

      He STARTED at a conclusion, then retro-fits his theology to stay consistent with his PRE-concluded beliefs.

      The same way you have. That is not a way to legitimately examine evidence and follow where it goes... that is making your evidence fit your wanted conclusion.

      YOU haven't answered any of my questions, only offered someone else's theological thoughts.
      As I've already said, if you want to believe based on 'theological' grounds I have no problem with that as long as it stays within it's proper bounds... people's personal beliefs, NOT law.
      But you cannot erroneously claim your theological reasons are empirical reasons or based on 'undeniable truths', as you have and still do.
      That is why you personally must dismiss all things like the well proven Evolution, older earth, not to mention other religious and theological claims that either match or better your own.

      Bob??? You're an id1ot. You've already been told about that.. try to keep up. Yes, I'm Bob.... this name stands for 'The Ghosts of Bob's Past' I've already said to you. That's how I know before even checking your claim about first hearing about Dr. Ehrman from Bob.. me.. is a lie. I read you above speak of him before Bob said already pointed out.

      Do you actually have any thoughts of your own, or are you just going to regurgitate the commonly found theologies found on your BS sites. Word for nice 'self thinking' again.

      LOL, another interesting bit of trivia... the first time you posted your BS about coming to this site, you spelled it 'sight'.... and after your little tirade about Dr.Ehrman's 'freudian slip' with 'twit'.... it is very interesting you came to look at our 'sight'... quite a theological and absolute BS thing could be made about your little slip... but that, like your one about Dr.Ehrman, is speculation that is besides the point.. namely your 'scriptures' are full of errors.

      Answer the questions claim you have the education to do so. I call BS, once more you don't think or answer yourself.

      You claim the Bible is the 'inerrant word of God', hence unlike your attempted twist about again, I only have to prove 1 of your 'scriptures' incorrect to disprove your claim. Even if you could prove 99% of my answers incorrect (which you can't), I only need 1, you need all of your 'bible' to be 100% accurate to back your absolute claim.

      I haven't even hardly got started on the errors just in your NT alone... you think 6, none of which YOU answered, is it? lol, you are way short, in your personal thoughts and answers, honesty and integrity, and in your expectations of somehow making sensible, non-theological responses.

    100. Your right (I mean rite), I heard Fruchtenbaum had really bad breath too...thus every thought and word he ever had must be jettisoned from consideration (crumby he's probably a "Bolingerite" ya..."off with his head" wait...Bolingerites don't have a brain so they don't need their I don't have a Bolinger hermeneutic)...but I do kinda think you're kinda disingenuous, this is not 7th grade debate club here guys...we are dealing with eternal matters; consequently, blowing smoke in the face of someone who embraces another perspective kinda seems strange because you fail to acknowledge that the Gospels were written by different men who had different perspectives on the same events can not be considered because of what again?

      You mock me when I think for myself (since I haven't thought about these banal accusations for decades because I watched those who have masqueraded as "intelligent" (30 years ago) when they would get thrown around like rag dolls by those crumby apologists, and they would refuse to come to the truth; consequently, I, long ago realized that these are not "intellectual exchanges" but they are spiritual battles.

      Everyone here knows this to be the truth; however, and you know it for even when you are presented the truth you pretend you can't hear it...or you say, "everything that person has said can't be considered....fill in the blank.

      So you grind away at what has been destroyed many times over (by those serious people who spend 6 minutes on google to dispel) but you throw your "man do I ever want to pretend that God is dead schtick" that falls apart under minimal critical thought.

      Then you seethe when something you call a "fairy tale" book (which ironically infuriates you) is referenced but you keep forgetting that we are talking about Christianity here thus the book that provides everything pertaining to it would be the primary focus of conversation.

      Also, anyone up to talking about the half life of carbon?...oops there goes another "bright" (brite) idea...but then again pretty much everything Darwin cooked up has been shown to be banal and infantile (may I briefly borrow the "fairy tale" moniker here?

    101. Lmao, you're going with the Banana Man. Lols, you forgot to mention his little bum buddies 'crocaduck'. His assertions have been routinely smashed by logic and evidence multiple times, go find it yourself, it's been done to death on YT. It's also been shown how he knowingly preaches things he knows are inaccurate.
      Funny his MO is exactly what you're claiming ours here is. Thing is, I can't edit your words to twist them about as Banana Comfort always does, or ignore the sensible answers he gets, like you do. I don't need to twist what you're saying, you show you're a dishonest twit all by yourself.

      It's quite amusing watching you try a fallacious line of logic, then mock what you claim is the same thinking yourself. No wonder you have trouble seeing contradictions, you live it every day yourself.

      Can you please show me exactly where Charles Darwin made assertions about the half-life of carbon with regards to Evolution? Good luck with that, lair.

      Why am I not surprised you're a fan of Ray Comfort, a proven liar and con-man.

      Unlike your claim, I didn't talk about everything Fruchtenbaum said, only the things relevant to the point, and how his method of inquiry is flawed. Same as yours. You're stating at a conclusion, and trying to work backwards and somehow make the evidence fit, even though it doesn't.

      Nice attempt at distraction, but get back to what we're talking about... your 'scriptures'. You have not addressed the questions I asked already. Too hard to get honest or have to think for yourself?
      And I have more than 100 more to ask yet.. just on your NT alone... so get to it if you're going to 'prove' the Bible doesn't contradict itself many times. You've work to do, lots of it.

      I note how you've dodged the Satyr and unicorn question more than once already.

      And like already pointed out, even if you were able to show the evidence is all wrong, and the Bible has been accurately preserved, it still in no way proves any of it's assertions or content. Only how it's been copied. (which you've already admitted has incorrect additions... disproving your stance already before you begin)

      That is like saying because I can buy a copy of The Origin of Species by C.Darwin, that is copied exactly as it was written, it must be all accurate.
      No, its the supporting evidence that proves Evolution, not just because the first to write about it is accurately copied still.

      I can get a copy of Mien Kampf... that is accurately 'transmitted through the ages', does that prove all Hitler had to say in it?

      That's your 'argument' here. lol. And you dare to talk about 'truth'. That is amusing.

      Lol, you've gone with Banana man.... why don't you try Ken Ham next.... lmao. Go have a look at his debate with 'the science guy'... and watch how your 'beliefs' get smashed by evidence. Double check the claims in that debate yourself, don't take either of their word for it, check it yourself.

      Then ask yourself this... why have a couple of con-men from New Zealand and Australia gone to the USA to 'preach' when there is plenty of people to be 'saved' in their own countries? Then have a look at their finances. Therein you'll find your answer. Like many of their predecessors, they're chasing a profit, not a prophet.
      You seem to be clutching at your biblical straws, hoping beyond hope your 'get out of wrongs free' deal holds up. If someone is honestly sorry for a wrong action, they ask the ONLY person who can forgive them, the one they wronged. You want to skip that inconvenience and just ask your imaginary 'sky daddy' to forgive you... a dishonest cowards act.

      You've got many questions you haven't answered yet... c'mon 'educated' one, teach us.. lol.

    102. If you had studied the book of Galatians you would find Mr. "banana man" was just plagiarizing the Word of far as me agreeing with him on other things I don't know because I haven't studied him like apparently you have...all I know is that the Book of Galatians has told us that the Law is to show us that we can't be good enough on our own, thus it shows our need for a Savior to take the punishment for us...what he or anyone else has said or written I don't know, but if it aligns with the Word of God, I have to agree.

    103. Lmao.
      Maybe you had better go look at what Ray Comfort says.. you'll find his Banana Man BS, (which btw, he has since acknowledged he got some things wrong regarding the banana) is wrong.
      And if you want to claim he only plagiarized from your 'scriptures', then you are also claiming his very obvious mistakes, admitting your 'scriptures' are also incorrect.
      Thank you.

    104. I too laughed and cringed when I heard the idiotic banana with anyone, we all do and say things we wished we hadn''s just he has built a very high podium to fall and I can at times say or do dumb things but no one notices or cares one way or another.

      I have to say though that years ago reading his testimony seemed genuine...he said he was on a surfing trip as I recall with some buddies when one of them had shared the good news of the fact they he could know that his sins were forgiven and he jumped at the chance for forgiveness.

      He mentioned that there was a friend with him that had been a "nominal Baptist" who saw the radical change in Ray and "prayed" the same sinners prayer the next day....and "nothing changed"...thus with many within the church around the world...they say the words; however, the Holy Spirit is not present doing the convicting and saving...thus no "group" has a corner on born again people.

      In John 3, Jesus describes the Holy Spirit as a wind that blows about; consequently, when one says the sinners prayer (as I had many times, the young man in this video had, and Bart Ehrman back in Kansas as a teenager had) and many others around Christianity have done, but the Holy Spirit was not present; consequently, nothing changes (with no conversion).

      Unless the Holy Spirit does the convicting and the saving (and thus sealing us also so we know we are saved and never fear if our sins are really forgiven ever again) people can easily walk off because they were never "born from above, by His Holy Spirit".

      My heart breaks for those who have yet to experience true conversion for as you know it does not make us perfect; however, we are much more sensitive to sin in our lives and the more we see Him and His Holiness in His Word the more sin we see in our own lives and the more grateful we are for Him saving us from all the sin that permeates us.

      But, true conversion brings us to know beyond a shadow of doubt that we are His eternally making it impossible and unthinkable to walk away when one is truly born again of the Holy Spirit (no weird tongues, no miracles, just a clear sense of being forgiven).

    105. I cbf reading your preach... I agree, Ray Comfort is an id1ot.

    106. I got a buck that says your "o" and "l" buttons are burnished with a nice patina...but setting that aside...I was referring to the "scientific" impossibility of millions of years that carbon dating flubs defend Mr. Darwin is to defend the "world is on the back of a turtle" just can't stand up under any critical thought or consistent "scientific" scrutiny...I'm sorry but by calling me a Liar does not make this fairy tale true.

      Go to your highly accurate textbooks (may I please use your "o" & "l" keys here?) that show all the transitional life forms; however, we all know there is no credible "transitional life form" record (and you know this, however, if you let go of "eeeevolution" (as currently taught today) that you may have to consider that you will answer for everything you do)...I understand...big bummer...but you know the truth.

      As Mr. Darwin said..."If evolution were true, we couldn't step out our back door without tripping over one"...seeing that the fossil record to support "transitional life forms" only exists on some 90 lb glossy pages of your textbooks it kinda seems no one needs to mock Mr. Darwin...but I do feel sorry for him for I never what to see anyone chose to be judged for their sins (not when there is time to transfer that persons sin to Christ)...I have been buried in God's mercy and thus I want to see that same mercy lavished upon you all also... but it's too late for Mr. Darwin.

    107. Thank you, you just showed you do not understand Evolution at all. We are all 'transitional life forms'... go look in a mirror, you'll see one looking back.
      Trip over your dog at the back door, and yes, you've just tripped over one.

      You didn't answer my question to your assertion... where does Darwin talk about the half-life of Carbon?

    108. I'm sorry I switched gears too quickly but I assumed you understood that radio carbon dating was only discovered 19 or so years before I was born (1940ish).

      Consequently, I felt you would have know the focus of the subject had moved away from Darwin...sorry.

      So, I was just dismantling your religion for you since radio carbon dating is of the cornerstone of today's "millions of years" argument...Darwin's arguments and "theories" were much more banal and was all wild conjecture that modern science is unfortunately for everyone who "believes" it, systematically once it has become clear that those you look to for "knowledge" are also suspect?

      So, when I mention "half life of carbon" and all we hear is crickets, all I'm doing is revealing that those who want so badly to "believe" (may I please use your term of "fairy tale")...sorry I'll try to use is sparingly and only when it screams to be used, so they don't have to consider the Genesis account.

      So, if your "educators" haven't "taught" you that carbon has a half life of about 5,700 years or so (working form memory here); consequently, we run out of carbon in everything at about 100,000 years; consequently, if we are looking at millions of years we wouldn't be looking at any remaining carbon.

      But, I understand how frightening even considering this is for any geologist (right) it means if you embrace this truth, you will quickly be taken to the rail and mercilessly thrown over board....seem a little odd?

      Not really, when we remember the darling (Karl Marx) of every academic had two desires in life...come on everybody, we can say it all together...."to kill God..... and to destroy capitalism"...ya all starting to see his fingerprints on academia's minds?
      They prefer to as Romans says "become fools" before they will consider a creator.

    109. You are delusional.

      There is a reason you 'only hear crickets'.. no one is bothering to read your cr@p anymore but me, and I'm loosing interest. You don't answer questions just keep probing... you claimed you're different to 'the other sheep', but you're not.

      That's it? You just 'mention half-life of carbon' and you think what exactly?

      You haven't said anything about it, other than some random rant about how you think it's the cornerstone of all opposition to your delusions.

      Thank you. Your rant revealed you don't understand how the method of science works. If a better theory that explains known, testable phenomena comes up than it will replace any current theory that prevails. Unlike your position of claiming an absolute 'God' and 'Truth', science can and will change as it learns more. Big deal.

      I'll tell ya how to do it. Write up whatever it is you think you know about the half-life of Carbon, submit it for peer review, blow away whatever it is you think it blows away, and we'll see how it goes from there..

      Don't 'drop out'... or if you have to, get your brother to finish it for you...

      Good luck with that. lol.

    110. I'm glad the topic of 'change' has come up.

      I'll tell you why it's a big deal in this 'debate'.

      Science itself makes no claims other than what it can demonstrate, repeatedly. If you want to argue what science thinks, the first thing you need to do is 'learn the lingo', learn what science says before you just say 'NO, it's not in the Bible so it MUST be wrong'.
      The method of science allows it to adapt, improve as it learns more. No, more then just 'allows', it demands it. If you can provide a better explanation, your idea will 'win out' through the strength of it's argument and supporting evidence, via peer review, repeated replicated experiments, etc.

      Your position however, claims to have many (all in fact) answers. With no supporting evidence other than your particular 'scriptures'. A self justifying, contradicting, inaccurate, misleading and outright incorrect bit of human literature authored by non eye-witnesses well after the fact.

      The very fact that your 'Church' has had to change at all belies the real Truth about your claims. IF you were correct, every single thing in your 'scriptures' would be accurate and true, beyond question. Some basic human truths, a bit of history mixed in with myths does not turn works of fiction into the 'word of God', despite your absurd attestations. IF you were correct, as we learn more it would never contradict your 'scriptures', it would corroborate them every time. THAT is why you fight tooth and nail against any changes, because EVERY SINGLE CHANGE you makes exposes your 'truths' are in fact just Myths taken seriously. Way too seriously.
      Go ahead, try to pick apart Evolution, Geology, Biology, Carbon Dating, whatever the hell you want. Better minds than ours are working on them as we type.

      And in the meantime, I'll continue to learn and to pick apart your 'scriptures', piece by piece, verse by verse, sheep by sheep. Unless you've got something new so I have to learn something, you're just another bleat in the night... a fleeting bleat not worth my time, not another second, not another heart beat.

    111. Putting the particulars of the 'debate' to the side for a moment... there is a fundamental difference in the basic approach of those favoring science over scripture, compared to those that favor scriptures over science, no matter the version (Christian, Muslim etc) or the denomination / interpretation.

      Claiming any scriptures to be 'the Word of God or gods' means they must contain only truth, must be accurate to what we observe (flat earth is out for eg), unless of course the God is 'tricking' us, lying in their scriptures for some reason.

      That is a position of absolute... and as I pointed out earlier, that means only one part needs to be shown to be inaccurate to prove it is not ABSOLUTE, and therefore not the 'Word of God (or gods)'.

      Those that favor science, and understand why they do, must favor proper challenges to parts of it they are interested in. It is a discovery... if something is found to be different, or a better explanation is found, it is exciting, it's new. It's a better understanding, more knowledge.

      One case in point is our understanding of electrons since you and I learned it in High School science. That is taught differently now.. electron shell v's electron cloud model. Our improved understanding of Quantum has forced a re-think and change in some areas of thought...
      Reading different 'scriptures' from different viewpoints, and understanding them, and acknowledging them for what they really are, important parts of human development...human evolution, is a good thing too. It's more knowledge. Most 'scriptures' contain some good parts, some 'truths' in them. Parts of your claimed moral code are good things. (Parts are not.. slavery..if you're going to 'own' yr scriptures and timeless 'God', then 'own' them)
      They are interesting in of themselves I find. Hence my interest in Textual Criticism.

      If you really want to talk about the half-life of carbon, you had better do it on a more appropriate doco / thread. There is other people on here much more knowledgeable than I that could answer you, Achems I know is one of them. But I have no doubt that whatever you think 'blows away' science is just nonsense that even I, with the help of the internet and some reading, can prove you incorrect.
      NOT because 'God' told me so, NOT because I have 'faith' in my 'religion', but because I have 'faith' that the multiple scientists, including Christian (and other religious) scientists, have looked at it and agreed are all telling us the truth. Why? Because of all the things I have looked at, they have always told me the truth to the best available knowledge of that time. Their track record gives me confidence.

      Religion's track record is a whole other matter...

      That difference in basic starting position, and the forced attitudes they dictate, is why religious sheep like yourself continue to be slaughtered here. As you have also been, repeatedly now. We welcome decent challenges, being shown our understanding on something is incorrect is a good thing when it results in a better understanding.

      You cannot do that, you must defend your 'scriptures' by decree... by your scriptures ironically. (even worse, you are commanded to expand it... hence all your preaching on here, same as the other sheep.)

      That is why I can continue, to your hearts content, to show you are wrong... again and again...about most things you claim about your 'scriptures'.

    112. Your answer is nothing more than preaching and you have had two warnings already and I will be flagging this to the mods so hopefully they take action and ban you

    113. Almost, (Just Thinking) was trying to answer questions in his own way, interspersed with all his religious apologist goobly doc. his gish gallop ranting again was too long, so for the fist time on TDF will give a half warning, he now has 2.5# warnings.

    114. I had the same thought. i approved the post early today. while it does preach. He/she was just answering a question.

    115. Cheers mate, I just annoyed by his response and his ever continuing preaching but i understand where you are coming from after re=reading his reply to TGOBP

      Hope all you guys at TDF have a happy new year

    116. So the question was to answer the old tired questions (that I'm sure dozens of people before me have answered since a kindergarten search for someone interested in finding the "truth" could do in 5 minutes if their really slow).

      So the fact that the Gospels are not and are not supposed to be "identical" bothers you all terribly.

      The Gospels are to provide different perspectives from each man that wrote them.

      Mathew provides his perspective as compared to Luke that provides his.

      Since you all take such a wide sweep to avoid the "truth", I had to search out a "Christian" explanation for why you keep beating this same disingenuous "errors" line of thinking (I'm being generous here).

      So sorry I sounded so "preachy"; however, you all are hanging around a "Christian" pool (remember the video here) so I had to find a "Christian" explanation for why you get so rabid over something most people don't give a "twit" about.

      So, don't sweat the quotes from the Bible, it's just a "fairy tale" book I hear (mainly from you 4) the fact that using these words "offend" you so much kind of betrays your words?

      I've never been "bothered" by fairy tales myself; however, the Wizard of Oz was kinda scary there for a while.

    117. Flagged the wrong post mate... that one he was mostly trying to 'debate' his book of BS. There are other more obvious preaching ones... this one is about finished twitching though...

    118. G/day Ghost,

      Yeah mate your right but it created a first as Achems give him a half warning so now we have a 2.5 warning .

      I would enjoy a debate on evolution on the right thread with this fool as with the little knowledge I have on that subject I would blow him away as he has already shown that he has less than myself.
      His fairy sky daddy story does not wash here and him trying to twist the truth here is bad but on evolution I would smack him all over the park.
      He would get a hiding just like the Indian cricket team are currently getting from the Aussies.

      I find his preaching annoying to say the least but the worst part is the fact he lies and then lies about his lies consistantly. I don/t know if you have read my other post to him where I told him how violent I can be and I told him if he needs to confirm that to ask you

    119. Lmao, "science is the best friend in the world to the Christian..."

      That's why you have to battle against scientific discoveries that flat out contradict your 'scriptures' is it?

      Like it or not, Evolution is science too. So is the age of the Earth, which is much, much more than just a few thousand years as you claim. Still your best friend? lol

    120. does this mean we aren't going to talk about the half life of carbon?

    121. Why would anyone want to talk about the half life of carbon with someone who states " I "asset" that based upon the half life of carbon that your millions of years is a scientific impossibility"? no scientist uses carbon dating for anything over 60 000 years. again you show a complete lack of understanding towards what science states, knows and does. You have now gotten thermodynamics, radiometric dating and the scientific method wrong. I have no problem attempting to show someone their errors but you get too many of the basics wrong to deserve my time. answer if you wish but I will only be here to point out your misrepresentations concerning science

    122. you know nothing about evolution from all indications and it would pay for you to learn some before you start spreading more BS about a subject that is proven through science through peer viewed evidence

    123. But...But...But...should we then talk about something I do Jesus Christ and how he loved us so much that He sent His only Son to come and pay the penalty for our sins?

    124. You are kinding yourself as you have even shown that you don't know that subject real well the only thing you have shown is that you can cut and paste and lie about everything . If you were of christian faith you don't practice it very well as you have shown to consistantly lie and when caught out you try to blame others, you twist what has been said to make yourself as the victim, which has been shown to also been incorrect. The only thing you appear to have down pat is to bullsh1t and you don't even do that well. You need to grow up and start being honest firstly with yourself and then with others.

      Now about you jesus you can have your fairytale but if you think that I will ever mis-treat my common sense you are very mistaken. Your fairytale has no purpose to any person that has realised how f*cken s*upid all you religees are and how your stories don't have any credibility once the lies have been exposed.

      I have some advise for you

      Stop lying before you lie to the wrong person and they do some serious damage to you.

    125. You are turning into a "one note charlie" here does seem that the sport of kicking lambs has lost some of it's luster here and that's good...back on the playground you and I would call the way you have treated others here as being a don't need to gravitate to this level for I perceive you have the native intellect to stand on you own feet and not gravitate to your current "position".

    126. You may call it bullying but I call it not taking **** from f*ckwits that lie. If this was face to face you would see that I will not take a backwards step from any man and I would gladly step forward to show you how much I hate liars.
      I don't tolerate fools or liars very well and if you need to get a second opinion on my capacity

      to stand up for myself by all means ask TGOBP as he and I know each other very well in fact he is my sons uncle.
      Due to the fact that I enjoy being a member of this site I will refrain myself in the aspect that I will not tell you what I would like to do to you and anybody like you.
      I have an extremely short fuse and I have controlled myself very well up to date with in this thread however a man can only take so much before he has to release the tension that a wanker like you creates.

      I am an extremely violent person and have no respect for the likes of you and have no problem showing the disgust I have for you.

    127. It would be amusing if this conversation was face to face. If it was, I would propose an experiment.

      If you are doing the 'Lord's Work' here, then as He promised, you need 'fear no evil, for He is with you'.

      If as you think, Jackmax is mistaken and you are correct then it would stand to reason that JM wouldn't be able to hurt you... would your Guardian Angel (you know, those demi-gods your religion has), or 'His rod and staff' really protect you??

      We could experiment, see who can demonstrate what exactly. It wouldn't take long.. lol.

    128. Another demonstration of how your judgement is flawed... because you make assumptions that are based on little to no tangible evidence. A common feature in your 'flock' lol.

    129. Met them have you?

    130. I think based upon some of the comments made here, that I can safely say, I was studying evolution when you all were still on the monkey bars...I was thoroughly indoctrinated from 1967 to 1979 and as I mentioned I drank a little of the cool-aid until I started learning it was a silly attempt to scrub God from the narrative and a feeble attempt to discredit the creation account in Genesis...but I sure never thought I came from a I think respectfully ask, do you "believe" you came from a "fish"?

    131. If you are trying to convince me that your creationist beliefs are a true account of our existence you will need to do better than what you have presented so far. At what stage do you think that we came from fish.

      Charles Darwin was one of the first to explain evolution after his research especially during his five year adventure around the world aboard the HSS Beagle. Upon his return he wrote The Origins of Species in which was the starting block for the theory of evolution.

      Since then man's origins has been explained from an evolutionary perspective.

      The theory of man's evolution has been and continues to be modified as new evidence or finding have been discovered.
      revisions to the theory are adopted and earlier concepts proven to be incorrect are discarded.

      To say we came from fish is extremely nieve and only shows that you have very little knowledge on this subject. As I have stated before you have shown yourself to be a lying prick and now you're also showing as all that you're a dumb c*nt as well.

    132. This is good..looks like I'm building my resume.
      Does this mean your going to look at the growing mountain that is about to destroy your religion?

    133. You are a complete f*ckwit why not try and have a conversation rather than this dribble you have replied with.
      You're the nutter that has religion not I.
      I would like to understand how any adult can believe in the fairy sky daddy and all that goes on with religion but for the life of me the more I try the less compassion I have for you religee fools.

    134. He said nothing about coming from a fish, you did.

      If you understood evolution, you'd understand that us 'humans' (homo sapiens) probably came from an earlier 'human', homo erectus. You have to go back a long way to get to marine only animals (your 'fish' reference ). It is not a 'belief' as you suggest, it is a position arrived at by consideration of what we can see and know to a reasonable degree of certainty.

      Not some 'belief' in what we've only read in some book.
      An interesting point... you're trying to 'drag us down' to religion, attempting to insult by implying we're just as bad as you... so what does that say about how even you see religion? It's an attempted 'put down to your level', so what does that imply about where 'your level' is?

      As shown already, even with a cursory examination of your 'scriptures' and all the theology surrounding it, it can be demonstrated that they are not some 'word of some supernatural god' as you wish them to be. You're either not brave enough, or not honest enough to examine the arguments with an open mind.
      We know Genesis is incorrect... no need to come up with 'evolution' JUST to discredit it.. .it does it all by itself.

      You say you 'drank a little of the kool-aid'... as if that is in the past... you're still drinking away.

    135. you astound me!!!!

      It appears to me you have this lack of understanding on what the subject matter is.
      You avoid the issues by trying to rant on about the messagers and the others that have replied to you rather than the subject at hand.

      It has been pointed out to you that from the early 1700's that there have been people pointing out the flaws in this whole magic man story, so for you to keep going on about Prof Bart Ehman like you do, shows you to be the one that is not here to do anything more than vent your dislike about him rather than the subject matter itself.

      Your opinion on education seems very narrow minded there are many ways one can educate themselves without the need to go to university. If you were to look at this site and watch the full range of docos here and then join in on the forum you will educate yourself here for example.

    136. I never heard of Bart Ehrman until Bob starting talking about him so I looked him up and spent 30 minutes as he regurgitated tired old arguments that have been bandied about for centuries by a small population of those who study ancient manuscripts...

      I will give him credit though, he has added the "telephone" game played by sleep deprived 13 year old evangelicals girls back in his home church in Lawrence Kansas as an argument for why we can't trust the 5,700 plus and growing body of ancient manuscripts...this was downright embarrassing and he should be called out on such a banal silly argument.

      I think some of the problem here is that you all don't realize how many people are "Christian" in the west and how isolated the universities you looked to for "truth" really are.

      The Marxist Profs you looked to (as you know) hate God and are a small Biblically illiterate group of "scoffers" who throw stones from ignorance and at a safe distance from the Bible out of shear fear and frustration because when they attempt to open a Bible they can't make "hide nor hare" out of it, so they are forced to "quote" second hand what someone has said and because they are void of any knowledge they don't have the discernment to recognize their ignorance of Scripture and Christian doctrine either.

      Early on before I got into the discussion I stopped and watched how you guys would savage people who stumbled into this site so I just chose to use Bobs (and all liberals) typical methods of "debate" by discrediting the source of people who posses arguments that they have no cogent answer to...looks like you all don't much like getting served up your own medicine.

      I'm more than willing to speak exclusively to the subject; however, up to this point none of you have even attempted to study the only book on earth that possesses Christianity (the Bible); consequently, if this discussion was about some advanced math formula that you all had been teaching and studying advanced math for the past 35 years and I came in with no direct knowledge of, and made no attempts to personally study the subject, but I was able to cut and paste a few old quotes from questionable sources, you all would appropriately laugh me out of town; however, the shoe is on the other foot here Even though you have no knowledge of or have no attempt to study the issue of Christianity for yourselves, you still want to be able to sit up at the table and discuss a matter you have made no attempt to comprehend at even the most elementary level.
      It seems in academia (your state run universities) Christianity is the only subject where Profs who have spent zero time or effort to study and understand can be foisted up onto a pedestal and there lack of credentials are never questioned and their words of ignorance are never questioned or rebutted ...seems a little strange you guys?

      You have been sitting at the feet of blind guides who masquerade as "enlightened and educated" and more than qualified to "teach" a subject that they know nothing about...stunning.

    137. You are a d1cknead and from now on I'll be showing you the contempt you deserve.

    138. Does this mean you are left with only one option?

      I'm good with your contempt as long as I can defend my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the one and only Book that contains all we know of Him and His Father....the Holy Bible...I think after doing some more study on Islam I need to add that Jesus is the only Son of the only supreme living God, and the only God is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Israel, the creator of Heaven and Earth...seems in this culture we need to keep tightening our words since there are so many counterfeits out there.

    139. Why don't you try to be honest with yourself first and foremost and then with the people that have tried to converse with you.

      If you were to show some honesty in your responses as well as actually understand why there are so many people that don't believe the story that you believe due to the fact that it has been shown that your bible has some many errors and contradictions that it is not a true account of anything remotely close to being a factual document in any way, shape or form.

      You have not tried to present any evidence to establish a case for your beliefs and at no time have you been able to convince anyone through out this thread that you have the knowledge to even try to convince us that your farytale is anything more than a lie in which you have been quite absorb as your truth.

      You have continually lied and have shown a complete lack of respect to all that have tried to converse with you.

      If you think what you believe is right, why all the need to attack the messager rather than defend what you think is right. So far you have not answered anyones questions with any honesty and further more you have continually avoided the issues all together.

      I have followed this conversation since the beginning and you have shown a complete lack of honesty through out it you have been given every chance to provide answers but you insist on either cut and paste some text from your book of lies or just made sh1t up.

      For someone that believe in this crap and are suppose to be christian you have not displayed any redeeming qualities that would even come close to being of good standing in any community. I thought it was a sin to lie under the eyes of your god.

      by the way if you are correct about god being to father of jesus it would also show Mary to be a slut as wasn't she married to Joseph when she had that child.
      And if thats the case then I would rather have my morals than anything that your bible presents.

      you have to take into account that it has been proven by many that the stories that are contained with in the bible are just that stories and should be taken as just that.

      If you had any evidence that your story is correct you would be presenting it for the world to see as well as the people on this site, but you haven't and will never have. Then you would have the problem of your honesty in the aspect that you have been shown to be a liar and from that point your credibility has been lost, so no-one will ever believe you because of that.

    140. At what point did you exhale and snicker...or did you just burst out laughing?
      Way too important and you four are way too old to play hide and seek with your lives.

    141. You said in your post; "I never heard of Bart Ehrman until Bob starting talking about him so I looked him up..."

      A bald faced lie that is, and easy to prove. The FIRST post by 'Bob' was in response to you talking about the debate between Dr. Ehrman and Dr. White. 'Bob' never made any post before then.

      Go up and read it for yourself. It is easy to check.

      You are willfully, knowingly completely and utterly a liar.

      And to show how inconsistent you are with even your own 'scriptures', go read what your 'god' supposedly thinks about bearing false witness and someone that has a lying tongue. You are at least 2 of the 7 things he supposedly finds an "abomination" according to your Proverbs 6:16-19. What you are doing here is worse than homosexuality or even eating shellfish according to your own 'rulebook'.
      You are not worthy of respect, let alone any 'redemption' by your own stated theology. Good luck on your 'day of judgement', you're going to need it.
      Lies, lies and more lies.... why lie if you really believe your 'truth' is accurate?

    142. Sorry Buddy... I first came here well over a year ago (but I think this "sight" got sanitized of my initial comments)...I'm sure you don't recall since I'm just one in a long parade of unwitting sheep that have come into your "sights" in this shooting gallery.

      Kinda interesting in a society where political correctness has become a religion and bullying is frowned upon, that it seems you all would be considered "nominal humanists" you guys sit in the back row, giggle and pass notes at your "worship services" where man is the ultimate authority, judge, jury, and executioner of God and His Word).

      I'm glad you're referencing the Word of God as the moral authority here (seems you all are coming along good here)...but as far as me being a "mere liar" you are really leaving a lot on the table here....I am not "just" a textbook liar (not here as you would like to think...because who has to listen to a "liar"...hey?), but yes, I sure have lied many times over my lifetime.

      But I am also an "adulterer" for Jesus said that if I even lust after a woman I have committed adultery in my heart.

      ...oops...I better watch myself for I think that Jewish Surf Bum from New Zealand (Ray Comfort) popularized using this in evangelism (and I'm sure you have heard this presentation); consequently, since Ray Comfort has no formal education everything he says and thinks "can't" be considered...rite (right)?

      But since he was being "Biblical" since the Law is to be a schoolmaster to bring us to repentance (particularly for the proud; however, I don't think that is the problem here), I kinda like to plagiarize his thoughts if that is o.k. with you all?

      Plus, I am a thief for I have stolen things that weren't mine over the don't listen to me.... I'm sure nothing I say can be credible or trusted.

      Oops, also, when I was a young man I, at times, coveted the homes and cars that my neighbors there goes another aspect of someone who could never say anything worth considering.

      In fact, I heard someone articulate that King David violated all 10 commandments when he sinned with Bathsheba, and I'm confident that I have broken most all of the 10 commandments over my lifetime (thus my desperate need for someone to pay the penalty for my many sins).

      I always thought it strange though that every Bible you can pick up in any bookstore has this exact story of King David...sure would think that this scathing indictment of a story would have been conveniently lost from the narrative hey? ...but that pesky inerrantcy stuff coming back to haunt you all.

      I think many here don't understand (or want to understand possibly?) that the grittiness of sinful man is on display in the Bible; however, you all never slow down (or since a 3 minute google search can dispel your accusations) to explore if God condoned these things or not.

      So, if you are gunna sit on this street corner pumping lead into the sheep and refusing to "consider" this all to be true unless the deliverer is sinless perfection, I'm (and you) are pretty confident that I could come back here in another 20 years and find you unloading your deer riffle into the sheep because, as you know, "there are none righteous, no not one".

    143. The only thing you've gotten correct there is yes, if I was in 'the back row' watching one of your preachers claim absolute BS, I would be giggling. And shaking my head, laughing in sadness at all the sheep that want to swallow their con because it's 'comforting' not having to be responsible for your own actions. Yep, you do wrong, as you admit, yet you don't have to ask the person you wronged, you just ask your sky-daddy and move on. Its your way around your responsibility for your own actions... first blame it on someone else, (you're born sinful apparently) then ask your imaginary friend to forgive you.

      You're ducking your questions you asked for still. Noted, and giggled at.

    144. I think some of the problem here is that you have fabricated an alternative system of morality...when one says something that makes another "feel bad", in this brave new highly fabricated world it's called a "sin" against that person.

      I'm sure many people have told you that the "bridge is out" and you need to slam on the brakes and grab a u-turn before you careen off into the chasm...seems you would say "wow, thanks guess I needed to hear the truth even though I was having such fun burying the needle as I was headed towards my death".

      And yes I many times go to a person I have wronged and ask for their forgiveness so I'm not sure why you keep twisting that button on your dashboard.

      When a Christian sins, they "agree" with the Lord that what they did was wrong as spelled out in I John "and He will cleanse us from all unrighteousness", and we go to anyone we have sinned against and ask them for forgiveness....but this applies to those of us who have realized that we are sinful wretches (for Paul said, and I agree that "within me lies no good thing"; consequently, I desperately need a place for me to put my mentioned from J. Vernon McGee..."sin can only go two places, either on Christ...or on us", and I choose Christ.

    145. Exactly what I said, you don't take responsibility for your own actions, you trick yourself that just 'putting them on Christ' somehow 'cleanses you from unrighteousness'. Have you asked for forgiveness for outright lying here? You sure as sh1t haven't apologised here, or changed your ways... have you asked your 'sky-daddy' is it ok to continue to be dishonest, in His name of course...

    146. Now you think you know what I recall? Most of your crap is still here if you bother to check. You're also not the only one to have posts deleted, one of mine to you, a year ago, was too. So what.

      I was here, and yes, you are not anything new when it comes to twits making assertions they cannot back up, neither are you a new phenomenon when it comes to a 'Believer' flat out knowingly lying to try to make their 'case'.

      The thing about being caught out willingly lying, is it blows any and all credibility you may have had away.

      Unless you want to get honest for a change, nothing you say is even worth the time reading. I might as well again go and watch Ray Comfort try to tell me how the cavendish banana is 'designed by God' for us. Or amuse myself with their crocoshit crocoduck theory where they prove they don't understand the basics of Evolution. At least their willing lies are somewhat amusing.

      Are you up to the challenge of answering my questions properly and honestly or not? Cutting and pasting other theologians is boring, I can read them from their sources, if you can actually give me something I've not already looked at. If the only thing I can learn from you is you're dishonest for your 'faith', I've already seen and understood that. That is as old as your 'scriptures' themselves, got anything new in your answers from your mind? That is honest?

      Still waiting for your promised 'review' of the White/Ehrman debate you said you were going to do too. Couldn't spot the mis-used terms by White? Or just haven't watched it as you promised you would?

    147. Do yo really think that because Ray Comfort "popularized" using the Law to show us our need for Christ that he "invented" the idea?

      Sorry, the Apostle Paul thought that one up (through the leading of the Holy Spirit) 1,940ish years ago and articulated it in the 3rd. chapter of the book of Galatians, out of that silly fairy tale book...but you knew this I'm sure.

      Ray is again quoting that pesky old fairy tale book...dirty liar that Comfort...he's plagiarizing the Apostle Paul and pretending these thoughts were his ideas.

      Ya know, we Christan are such pathological liars (in fact I didn't even realize my "crooked in bed" problem that you all were so nice to teach me, but you gotta be patient with me since I'm still figuring out how to lay properly in my bed these days but I do appreciate you all helping in my Christian walk since I didn't even realize that when I said I studied T.C. back 30 plus years ago (while my brother was also) that I was actually saying that "I had done Phd "work" on the subject" and anything short of that is a lie has been very helpful in me understanding why everything I think or say should never be considered does seem just a tad bit "ad hominemish" ya think?

      Do you currently "think" that if you cook up some bologna about what you thought was said (and then fabricate the perception of a lie) will somehow get you off the hook when you stand before "your" Creator?

      I've gotten to know you well enough that you are a far better thinker than that.

    148. Do what I said. Go up and read where and when Bob first commented. Then go further up, and read you talking to Jackmax about (who you called Errorman) Dr. Ehrman, and when that was. Then read your words saying you had not heard of Dr.Ehrman until Bob brought it up. Clearly a lie, that is easily checked.

      A lie is a lie, and you trying to duck it is just more dishonesty. Making the saying 'you couldn't lie straight in bed' quite apt when discussing your words here.

      No, I don't think anything will help me with my 'creators', one is dead and one is dying. They are called parents. I have no 'hook' I need to get off. That is your figment of imagination.
      If we took notice and followed Paul's ideology, you and I wouldn't be here. He advocated abstinence from sex, as you should know. We'd be extinct if we listened to that power-tripper's foolish ideas.

      Paul is also the one that claimed Peter was illiterate remember? You know, the Peter that you claim authored 1st and 2nd Peter, in Greek. Quite a feat for an Aramaic speaking, illiterate fisherman.

      I have no fairy-tale creator myths as you do, so your question, as you know, is redundant.

    149. Sorry, I first came here long over a year ago...I have spent the last 30 years of my life building, selling, and merging companies and quietly studying my Bible, walking with the God who is mercifully keeping your and my heart beating at this moment, and serving Him in my local church...not hanging out on the web "bickering about that which I bickered about 30 plus years ago.

      The one thing though that did surprise me though was that the arguments hadn't progressed since the inception of the internet...a few new names but all the same old arguments.

      When I first saw the comment about Ehrman you think that I didn't scramble as you do to Google something before answering or commenting? You're way to smart to think that one.

      It sounds like you have gotten a lot of traction from Christians over the years with the "liar" moniker; however, the one thing your parents never taught you was that when someone is accused of something and their conscience is clear, they don't get mad or defensive (thus you never get me cranked up over the relentless attempts to get traction there).

      You should have years ago been taught that when someone is confronted with something that bothers their conscience (though they may not even be thinking it) they will bristle, bluster and fluster.

      With the converse also being true.

      This is a valuable tool in navigating through life...if someone accuses you of something that you are trying to rationalize but know in your heart of hearts is indefensible (and wrong), you'll (or me) will shoot off sparks.

      This is why I have stayed here for so long for it reveals that as much as you are desperately wanting to discredit Christ by finding what you are hoping are faults of Christians then you don't have to soberly think about what we are saying, you are revealing that you as of yet have not hardened your heart beyond hope...those with "hardened hearts" are indifferent to all this.

    150. "Hardened hearts"?? No, just the ones who have some intelligence against your fairy sky daddy's, which I do not give a flying F.. about, you are the one who is trying to justify with all your religious ranting and raving your invisible sky daddy's existence, you should be happy enough to keep all your religious garbage to yourself, not trying to garner new recruits. Shame on you!

    151. Please re-read what I said...There is nothing I or anyone can do to "save" anyone.

      As I have said the church of all denominations have many people who like myself mumbled a little prayer and called themselves "Christians"...I did it.
      The only thing that can save anyone is the Holy Spirit and He moves about this planet as the wind...nothing anyone can manipulate.

    152. You are LYING! the only reason you are on this site is because you are trying to justify and push your religion trying to gain new recruits as all religions are wont to do! And also trying to solidify your own stance to yourself about your sky daddy's existence. "He moves as the wind"? garbage! I would rather believe in "Eywa" than "Yaweh" which means that all invisible gods are figments of the imagination.

    153. hardned heart? Like the hardened heart god gave pharaoh? Then used that hardened heart to justify infanticide and mass murder.

    154. What?? You are denying your dishonesty.. when it is plain to see. Naughty boy... so you have asked for forgiveness from your 'god' then, hence the lack of ethical problem lying then denying. Typical of your kind. That's one of the mental issues your beliefs do to the human psyche.

      Lol, waste of time you are. Now you admit you scrambled to find Ehrman... you brought up the White/Ehrman debate... I'd watched it numerous times before you mentioned it.. I didn't 'scramble to find it' at all, I already had it downloaded on my computer...
      There is your problem... you rush to find an answer, and lie if you have to. I actually did already know it, didn't have to rush to google for anything you've said. Silly, dishonest sheep that you are. You come here rushing to defend a position that has no defense other than 'faith'... the definition of NOT thinking for yourself.

      If you'd studied what you'd claimed than you'd know that.

      Like lambs to the slaughter...
      you know what's weird... years ago I worked in a few meatworks, slaughtering sheep. And now here we

    155. You stated, "I never heard of Bart Ehrman until Bob starting talking about him so I looked him up..."

      Bob's first post was 2 months ago. Scroll up and find it yourself.
      You, 1 year ago, were talking about Dr.Ehrman (you were calling him Errorman if you bother to check) in a reply to Jackmax.

      But I guess your 'theology' makes that 2 months somehow more than a year? How does that work without you being an outright liar?

      Do you pray for forgiveness for those lies? You know you should if you really believed what you are preaching. And you'd know you are proving yourself a dishonest hypocrite when you make such absurdly easy to confirm lies.
      I have lost count of your lies here now, you had better not... else you'll end up even worse off than the 'unbelievers'. Remember, your Loving God has reserved a special place in hell for those that turn away from the 'Truth'. Your lying is turning away from your claimed morals, and you know it.

    156. oops sorry got side tracked you wanted to talk about "magic man"...which implies you personally can tell us all here by what means you make your heart beat?

      By what means you have thought up and then how do you make your blood coagulate?

      Or, how do your trillions of cells know how to replicate themselves perfectly when you sleep or are awake?

      Looks like your just a big old "magic man" yourself...note lower case "m".

      So I'll sit quiet to hear how you figured out all these systems and then how you make them word because I'm still having some problems getting my pancreas to excrete perfectly yet and I've yet to get the cells at the bottom of my stomach to be able to tolerate all of the caustic juices of my digestive system but I have been able to "evolve" my stomach cells to replicate twice as fast as the cells on the back of my hand so that helps but I'm still practicing.

      Then I hope you have the time to explain how you keep all those crazy electrons circling the atom from flying apart...that's been a tricky one but I'm sure glad I stumbled into this site cause I understand that if we were take all of the "space" out of the atoms that make up my body I could fit on the head of a pin...could come in pretty handy since I'll be traveling a lot these coming months and maybe I could get a discount if I were the size of a piece of dust.

      The one who is mercifully keeping the billions of synapses snapping away in your brain so you can understand these letters on your computer screen said nearly 2,000 years ago...

      [Rom 1:18-22, 28-32 ESV] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

      For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

      For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

      So they are without excuse.

      For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

      Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ... And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

      They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.

      They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.

      They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

      Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them".

      I know, I know how "arrogant" of me and "who do I think I am", and, "I don't know you, so who am I to say these things"...but these verses were talking about me before I threw myself at the feet of Jesus Christ and accepted Him alone as my Savior and Master...
      These words were penned nearly 2,000 years ago.

      I'm just the delivery guy so don't get ticked at me for these spot on insights about what goes on inside of our minds. Wouldn't the one who made us have insights into what we do when we think that no one sees us and we think in the quietness of our minds?

      Kind of a good indicator of the supernatural power of the Bible because God through His Word shows us things about ourselves that we would never say out loud...pretty good indicator that the "Magic Man" moniker that is so pervasive amongst your Marxist Profs pretty much is showing us all to be the same One who is keeping this planet flawlessly hurling through this universe while keeping 6 billion people living.

      And to think He stopped to tell us a little about ourselves in what has been the best seller of all time ..the Bible.

    157. Sloppy reading breads sloppy thinking Mr. "Max"...never talked of "work"...I said my brother studied Biblical Languages at two different Christian colleges and I in the email you wouldn't allow to be published because it was "too long" had articulated that I attended 4 different schools while doing a lot of independent study (1 state college, one state University, and two private Christian universities).

      If doing Doctrinal "work" is the only source or criteria for "knowledge" then Heaven help us all...oops Heaven here, no Hell here, no Sin here, no God here, no Son of God here, no condemnation for sin here, no cross to pay the penalty for our sin here, and no salvation here, no worries here? life is good and those who espouse such a world view are breezing through this world executing flawlessly and thus proving all this Bible "stuff" to just be a bunch of "fairy tales"?

      So if you all want to seriously broach the subject specifically of "textual criticism" and the well documented trail John Mill was scheming out to be "commissioned" the job of cleaning up the horrible mess of all those writings by the Church Fathers (that we never identified as being canonical, cross referenced with 13th. and 14th. century Latin ramblings from sources still to this day no one can identify, I guess we can swerve into it as long as we provide the context for his seminal work that Bart and his Marxist cohorts (who have never picked up a Bible in their lives) at Chapel Hill dance around like it's Stonehenge or something.
      PS. Your hero (who I never heard of until here) Bart E. grew up in Lawrence Kansas; consequently, when I speak of lawrence Kansas and basements of his Church as a teen, this all is speaking of Barts primary argument for why we can't be sure what the original texts explain since maybe I am being to esoteric here and only Bart would understand what I'm saying let me explain.
      Every evangelical youth group in America pretty much operates the same over the past 50 years...Bart and myself grew up having "fun and games" at youth group events...some of these events would be sleep overs where we would stay up all night and play games, sing and hear some lesson from the youth pastor.
      One of the standard games at those events was called "Telephone or The Telephone game"...the latter into the night the game was played the sillier it would get...if you are unaware of the simple rules it always started by everyone sitting in a big circle and the person at the end would think up a little phrase...then they would whisper it to the next sleep deprived giggly 13 year old girl who would then whisper it to the next and so on around the circle...there would always be the temptation to "adjust" the little phrase as you passed it on to the next person because once the last person heard the phrase they would say it out loud and everyone would laugh hysterically on how distorted the phrase became.
      If you listen to Bart's "argument" that he repeats in venue after venue he eludes to this little game he and I grew up playing implying that people who were given the sober responsibility of copying texts in the first several centuries were are susceptible to distortions as sleep deprived, braces wearing, giggly evangelical 13 year olds playing games in the basement of their contention is that he is speculating and fabricates and alternative universe tainted with his own person experiences of his youth and because you all don't hear evangelical dialect the argument is lost on you...I hope this explains why I tend to "scoff" at his body of "work"?
      Sorry there are probably a lot of typos here...running late...gotta go worship the God of this Universe and my Lord and Savior, His Son, Jesus Christ over at Church.

    158. How boring!!

    159. You have stated a few times that your extremely long post that was just the usual dribble we have come to expect from you has been deleted is incorrect and if you were to go through the thread again you see it and noticed it is the post just prior to your first warning. lie number one in this post.
      You originally presented yourself as the one whom had researched and studied Biblical Languages and it was not until you were caught out by Docoman, lie number two.
      You stated that you had never heard of Bart Ehman until you started this debate but when you were questioned by others as well as myself it was shown that you had previous knowledge of him and you even had gone to his pay as you go site lie 3.
      Would you like me to point out the rest or do you understand that by now it is apparent that I can not believe a word you have said.
      you have been given plenty of opportunities to actually tell the truth but you have taken the low road every time.
      I think the mods have a lot more patients than I have as you have broken many rules not just on this site but in life it self.
      You call yourself a christian yet you have shown that you don't live by their values.
      It seems that you have not got an honest bone in your body and I don't think you could lie straight in bed.
      I would like nothing more than to meet you so I could show you the errors of your ways.
      I bet your brother would not be impressed by you attempt to claim his efforts as your own. You are the lowest form of life there is in the aspect that you can't be trusted and you will claim others work as your own which amount to theft

    160. Oh hope you could keep a straight face during that one!
      How fun!

      Oh no, sorry, wrong answer....oh, I'm so angry! so brilliantly pieced together all my lies and revealed to the whole world (all two of you) that I am actually a lying hypocrite and everything I say can be discarded because "hey, look at the source? ...who can tell what is true and what is false? since the only source of pure, beautiful, unadulterated "truth" only flows from the throne of my Marxist Profs"...bummer and I thought I was doing such a crafty job of lying to you all...just should of practiced more lying before coming here I guess....I'll ask my wife if I can practice on her before coming around you sharp fellas again.

      So all that I have said that you have no answers to, needs not be answered or even're so far out ahead of slow, silly, lying sack Christian me, that I can only hope you slow down and let me catch up eventually...but my back is pretty stiff from not laying straight in my bed all night!

      That's it...this darn stiff back I've been struggling with over this past 35 years... seems like ever since I got genuinely "born again" and started studying that darn Bible and the original languages this all started...sure glad I got you to help me with my health problems and also with my fundamentally flawed character (seeing that I am a pathological liar...I knew God led me here for something...must have been to show me what an awful liar I am).

      So I guess I can go back to work and just wait for the answers to Bobs post where I answered the 1st 25% or so of the questions he had?

      As far as me saying that my response was not posted, I was just repeating the moderator when he sent back a statement that said, "too long".

      If you are really craving the truth you will go back and see that the post you referenced is only about 25% of the original that I was told was "too long".

      I do now remember that I went back the next day (you see I work for a living so this is just something I do in my limited spare time) and posted a smaller bite hoping to eventually get all of my answers to Bob in sections, but since Bob went silent maybe you can answer for him? what you saw was page 1 and 2 or so out of 7 pages as I recall.

      So your craving for
      "LIE NUMBER 1" isn't.
      Unless you recollect only a portion of the information and twist what was said and then grind on it... but I hold better things for you, I'm confident you are sincerely looking for the truth, or you wouldn't be investing so much of your life into this little corner of the world unless you were genuinely interested in finding the I'm encouraged.

      Then your almost embarrassing
      "LIE NUMBER 2" invention (ya starting to pick up a pattern here?)
      You don't remember very well (or maybe don't want to remember very well since you cranked up the idea that one says they have studied something it has to be some Phd "work" in textual criticism...this is laughable nonsense but I am starting to understand the ethos of you fellows where you perceive one is incapable of learning and growing without the aid of, or out from under the watchful eye of a Marxist Professor....I assume this is to be sure you don't drift from the "God is dead" embarrassing and frightening to think that whenever you hear someone say they have studied a subject the only legitimate venue you envision is in a university setting....very little of my accumulated knowledge has been gained in a university setting (even though some of my study on textual criticism was at a private christian university in the mid-west)...oops...another lie...shoot....ya got me, I never said before that I had attended a university in the "mid-west"...ah...another bald faced lie J.T...ya got me buddy...I just gotta be quicker on my feet so I keep my stories I'm sure no one is going to believe that the God currently keeping their heart beating is the same God that inspired 40 or so mere men over 1,600 years to write a book where people can know that their sins are forgiven ...bummer...I just gotta get better with my "schtick".

      Onward now to the Grand Tetons of JT the lying sack, Christian fabrication of truth....
      "LIE NUMBER 3"!
      You hammer so many Christians on this site that you forgot that I visited this site about a year ago where I was first told about your cousin Bart; consequently, I left the site because you all stopped interacting with wasn't until about a year later when I was revisiting this site and saw one of you had posted all sorts of challenges to me (once you knew I was gone) implying that if I didn't respond back then I was wrong and you all were right...we call that textbook "weasel" where I come from; however, when one's "God is dead and I can do whatever I want" worldview is confronted, one can get pretty "weasely".

      Ya all kinda like slamming the door and then shouted..."and never come back" once the person was out of hearing distance...not very noble fellows.

      I had to say when I saw such a move as that, I knew I needed to come back and give you all the Good you have proven that once I leave and get on with my life once more one of you will post a list of questions that will imply that since I don't answer I must not have an answers.

      But now that I'm staying to talk and answer your questions so it appears you seem to be getting more and more shrill and angry needing to cook up another method of shaking me off your pant leg, so you don't have to consider "truth" (since self-righteous indignation isn't working).

      It's been fun to watch over this past year or so how liberals in the media have deliberately been adding "liar" whenever they talk about a high profile conservative (so your script here is kind of yellow and dog eared not to say also "plagiarized").

      Somehow thinking that if they say the lie over and over that it will become reality (wow...just stumbled over one of Hitlers core I need to "cite" someone for this for it to become true?)

      But sorry, I have found now over all the decades I have been alive that people only "bristle" (or bluster and fluster...kind of like everyone here) when they are accused of something and their conscience isn't clear over the accusation... thus you get no anger from me because my conscience is clear about telling the truth; however, lets take a minute to turn that one around.

      I have seen the Gospel cause people who are fighting it almost loose their minds over being confronted by the Word of God (in fact here a couple of times in fact).

      If you want to see this phenomenon on a larger scale look up John Wesley preaching the Gospel to people back in England.

      It was said that at one meeting several hundred people actually passed out because they fought so hard to reject God....oh do I need to cite a source here? (I'll get that for those of you who are interested...As I recall it was Paris Reedhead a Christian Missionary Alliance missionary 1963).

      Does this now mean you all are going to stop bringing up other people so we can now talk about the video...Bart?

    161. You say that you would like to debate this subject but yet it appears that you have no intention of understanding the point of view of others.

      You made a statement earlier about my education and if I'd ever questioned the teacher or the information that he was presenting to me.
      The answer to that question is yes and I will always question any information I'm given to ensure that I'm comfortable with my understanding of what information that was give to me.
      The same question needs to be asked of you about the bible and why is it that even when you have been presented with evidence that clearly indicates that there are to many errors in that particular writing to be taken as the truth.

    162. Sorry to disappoint you...I think for us to move forward someone here will need to say, "you mean the Gospels aren't supposed to be identical and they compliment the narrative perfectly so each man had their own perspective and told exactly what they saw and heard even when they had hundreds of opportunities to standardize the books if they thought this caused problems?"

      Guys, it was many years before I realized that they weren't supposed to be identical so I understand how you could come to that conclusion; however, now that you have been told you need to go back and look at them from this will find that those who keep this junk alive also knew this to be true; consequently, what might be their motive in such a tack?
      May I offer some wild conjecture on why they would lead you astray?

    163. What a joke, that is the entirety of your argument that somehow this was all made up by Bart Ehrman. WRONG, another lie.
      Here is one example for you. Go have a look at John Mill and his version of the Greek New Testament. In early 1700's he produced a Greek NT, compiled from about 100 manuscripts. In his final draft he compiled a list of what he considered to be 'significant' differences. He listed 30,000. Thirty Thousand Significant changes in 100 manuscripts. As he printed it in Greek, there is no different language translation problem. He had 100, we now have about 5,000 manuscripts of the NT. If 100 give 30K big changes, how many do you think 5,500 will ??

      All you have is ad hominem, and outright dishonesty. Your claims to an 'extensive' investigation are clearly bogus, as is your original claim of a degree yourself. You are full of sh1t.

    164. gotta make up your mind since Mill disagrees with your brother in law (Bart)...go to Barts fancy "pay as you go" website and read his November 29th blog....His exact words really help...he said " of the many hundreds of thousands of textual variants that we have among our manuscripts, most of them are completely unimportant and insignificant and don’t matter for twit".

      Now Bart doesn't realize that when he used the word "twit" (which means a small silly person) instead of the word "whit" (which means a small part or portion) he was destroying himself totally (so I don't see a reason to criticize his stale old arguments anymore since God is doing it for me by causing Bart to misspeak...kinda fun and kinda sad all at once).
      We all know what Bart was saying even though the words he chose to describe his view make no scene to someone outside of our culture at this time in history...PERFECT example of what is being talked about here with the many variations that should be expected when looking at 5,700+ manuscripts over 1700 years from regions thousands of miles away from each other.

      Part of Barts problem is he has spent so much time looking at the technical nuances of the documents that his knowledge of the variations amongst the "doctrines" and "stories" conveyed are always remain the same (other than a handful of passages that we all agree someone added in for reasons that are their own).

      So again, what the Bible is doing across the centuries is preserving the thoughts which are being conveyed with languages that are moving targets.

      So if he would have studied "doctrines" of the Church at large, instead of Papyrus 73 he could have quickly seen the supernatural preservation of the thoughts and stories conveyed through scripture which remains intact across all of the translations today....all languages mutate in regions and over time; consequently, when someone criticizes these natural variations within a language (Koine Greek) over 600 plus years, they should expect to see the same phenomenon.

    165. If that typo is the best you have it seems you're a hypocrite as if you re read your post you have either mis-spelt words or made typos yourself.

      I know my spelling is terrible however, there have been many errors in your writings on this thread that have been over looked.

      And if that is the best argument you have you fall along way short from convincing anyone that the story you believe in is the right one.

    166. Sorry jackmax...I started thinking I was talking to one person who kept using different identities...forgive's clear you haven't read "Bobs" comments where he scatters insults that stay under the filters of the site by injecting numbers into where a letter should be like "stup1d" along with a long string of these insults when he is stuck in the corner and forced to respond to the sorry...this site was just looking like one sad angry guy trying to create the illusion of a crowd it looks like there are three of us here.

    167. As usual you have avoided the issues once again, as this is your MO I should have not expected anything more from you.

      It would also appear that you are not willing to discuss the issues and think you have the right to lie and show a complete lack of honesty when anyone confront you agout the story you have been brainwashed into believing.
      As it is you that is making the claim that your god is real it is up to you to provide the evidence and to date you have not even answered the questions put to you

      It also apparent that you have no problem in lying and not showing any honesty in what you have written.
      You even lied about Bart Ehman in the aspect that you have stated that you have watch his debate and you even have been on his pay as you go site which is more than myself so by all accounts I don't believe you and I have no time for you and your lies.

    168. I am the only one that is using different names, for reasons that are none of your business. Docoman, Bob and this are all me. TGOBP stands for The Ghosts Of Bobs Past. I've never denied or hid that they're all me. Read the writing styles and spelling, that alone tells you all about who is who, and who authored what.

      No, there are actually 5 different people currently in this conversation, and no, Jackmax did not 'disallow' any of your posts, he can't. Neither can I. Read the commenting policy, it's not hard to understand.

      I have a couple other easy questions for you. You claim through the changes, different translations and versions that 'the word of God remains unchanged'. So was Jesus 'God' at birth, or did he become the Son at baptism? (If you have studied textual criticism then you'll know exactly what I'm talking about and why).

      Why did Joseph and Mary have to travel to their homeland for the Romans to do a Census? Why is that requirement never discussed in any non-biblical historical account? Not to mention the illogical nature of the claim if you consider it. Everyone across the whole Roman Empire (remembering that even a 'slave' could eventually become a 'citizen' and live in Rome itself at that time) must travel back to their homeland for a census? That would shut down the whole empire for many months, the logical reason it is never mentioned anywhere historically is because it never was a requirement. Thus the Bible claim is BS... a nice start to a nice story maybe, however not factual. It is fiction.

      And that's before we even get into the more interesting questions like talking snakes, satyr's, unicorns, giants / angles / demons, virgin births and other such nonsense taken from predating religions. (before you claim nothing in the Bible is plagiarized, have a look at the Egyptian, Greek and Roman 'gods' and religions, and for e.g. what a Satyr actually is, when and where it came from.)

    169. lol. Every post you make gets more and more ludicrous. Can't bear to get honest with yourself can you 'just (barely) thinking'. That's it? Bart said twit... so all the errors, the additions, the omissions, incorrect translations, all that disappears because Dr. Ehrman said twit instead of whit, according to you . Lmao. That is in no way some rebuttal to your problems, roflmao.

      So, how does this "supernatural preservation of the thoughts and stories conveyed through
      scripture which remains intact across all of the translations today" stand up to scrutiny?

      It can't, it doesn't even get it's own story straight. Look up the definition of 'mutually exclusive', and 'contradictory', then read what you've already been pointed to. Your 'scriptures' are fairy tales, and you know it. (you seem to have done so well with 'twit' and whit' this should be easy for you) That is why all you do is try to twist everything, attack the people pointing out the obvious.

      For example... you just claimed in your reply to Jackmax that ;
      "he scatters insults that stay under the filters of the site by injecting
      numbers into where a letter should be like "stup1d" along with a long
      string of these insults when he is stuck in the corner and forced to
      respond to the facts"

      Here is the fact, ya twit. You can go back and read it, same as anyone. It is not an insult to school you on the etymology of the word id1ot, after you once more tried your dishonest attempt at claiming education you clearly do not possess. You brought it up ya fool, now I'm insulting you? lol. Lie, or outright retardation, or as is mostly likely with you, both.

      Go watch the video by Arron Ra titled 'How religion reverses everything'. It is easy to find online. That is an exact blueprint on what you have been trying to do here. You are a textbook example of exactly what his lecture showed. You're full of it, you know it, and so does anyone else that isn't a brainwashed twit and cares to educate themselves on the subject. (I used twit on purpose, ya dishonest twit.)

    170. There is a lot to answer here but let me give an example of a short simple Gospel ( means "Good News") verse out of the book of Ephesians chapter 2 verse 8 to respond to your statement of.... "So, how does this "supernatural preservation of the thoughts and stories conveyed through
      scripture which remains intact across all of the translations today" stand up to scrutiny?"

      Let me share a single little verse from 12 different "translations" that would reflect the variance across the most commonly used Bible translations used by north American Christians today (90%+).

      And even though I'm just a rube that dropped out of 4 different colleges and universities I think I'm still starting to get the hang of this generation's "higher thought" that requires nothing more than a browser, Google and the cut and paste function....this makes me sad for it no longer relies on one to think independently which I believe is the essence of learning.
      So here goes...
      KJV - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

      NKJV - For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God

      NLT - God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God

      NIV - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God

      ESV - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God

      HCSB - For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift

      NASB - For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God

      RSV - For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God

      ASV - for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God

      DBY - For ye are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God's gift

      WEB - For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

      HNV - for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God

    171. So you also claim to know my age? Lol. I am not 'of this generation'. Fool. I say that, because making incorrect claims and attempted ad hominem that is wrong is foolish. It is not my fault I have learned to use the resource the internet is better than you have. You must be busy being a 'President' and all. (I don't believe your claim for a second btw, you're a proven liar, by you own admission, about yourself)

      Picking one verse that is not disputed to any degree to compare Bible translations is in no way a proper comparison of those Bibles, it is your attempt to avoid the truth.

      Lets look at what some of your fellow, 'True Christians if you ask them', same as you claim to be, think about the different bible translations and how accurate they are 'to the word of God'.

      This is from Compass Distributors - distributing Christian Truth to all points of the compass..

      Interesting motto... they have the 'Christian Truth', even used a capital T for Truth.. must be true then hey?

      www compassdistributors a/topics/compare htm (replace spaces with .'s )

      According to them, there is massive 'loss of the meaning of the word of God' in many versions, some they say (as you have more widely tried to claim with all commonly used translations in Nth America ) contain 100% truth in meaning. Hmm, according to whom... God? Because it is not there in the words.

      Which one of you is the 'real Christian' ? From what I've read, at least Reese Currie is more honest than you are, he admits to some of the widely differing meanings where you won't willingly but have accidently. You will attempt to dishonestly argue the opposite, that 'core doctrine', the 'core meaning' is all perfectly preserved.

      You don't even have to look at different translations, one of the questions raised you haven't answered was about the contradiction within the same translation. Did one or both 'thieves' on the cross beside your Christ mock him? Again the term 'mutually exclusive' applies. No amount of 'translation changes' or 'core doctrine' changes the fact it contradicts itself. That is an easy one, yet you won't admit the error is there.

      The only rational conclusion is you are either deluded, mentally deficient, or an outright liar, (sadly to yourself as well). Or a combination of them.

      Here is a easy way to show yourself. Ask and answer honestly this questions to yourself. I already know your answer. Have you applied the same criteria to your Bible, and your beliefs, as you have to the Koran and Muslim beliefs? Why not?

    172. Look at Mills work...don't just quote it...what we are talking about is not significant spellings of words, we are talking about thoughts and ideas...then we need to look across the large landscape of we see any groups worshiping Barnabas?...No, any groups denying what Thomas said after Christ was raised from the dead? you see any groups talking jihad?, you see any groups teaching that we should worship the Angel Gabriel?

      All of the core doctrines, prophesies and stories are preserved even when the group ignores certain passages in their own Bibles.

      Go open a Catholic you will read that the Book of Revelation in their own Bibles (that they discourage people from reading portions of) actually speaks as clearly as any Methodists Bible that the Church of Rome is a harrlot in the last days...and something still prevents them from a "rewrite" to eliminate these indictments of their own apostasy.... I call that stunning.

      Every "rogue" group out there or apostate group from classical Christianity will either be building around the handful of added passages "such as handling poisonous snakes..but they are "dying out" literally pretty quickly, or they "add" to the Cannon of Scripture where you will find errors in the Roman Church where they worship Mary and Dead Saints, or their favorite money raising strategy of selling indulgences...they either make it up or they take a verse out of context and torture it into submission to their wills.

      And let me update some of your outdated info on manuscripts...we are at 5,700 and growing still today and the more diverse manuscripts we find strengthens all of the core group of doctrines, prophecies' and stories; consequently, I know you want to extrapolate Mills work but the argument only exists in one who as Paul says in I Timothy have not held firmly to their faith and not kept their consciences clean.

    173. Tell us what creationist/religious website you (stole) this from, cite the source!
      You should be ashamed of yourself! You do not seem to have any self-respect by using/plagiarizing other sources without credit to any source, trying to further your agenda to justify your own brainwashed hallucinatory allegiance to all your invisible gods that are stuck in your brain, do you hear voices also??
      I strongly suggest that you seek medical help, am getting tired of your nonsensical religious tirades that verge on lunacy.
      Show empirical, contemporaneous, and/or prima facie evidence of your claims/assertions, or will be taking you off TDF.

      Warning 2#

    174. Sorry...A.R....every syllable (and thought be it about John Mill or Bart E. is fact the only website I have been to for any insights was to provide a simple list of the contributions to science made by Christians.

      I went to wiki and ICR (which I spent 4 minutes to copy and paste their two tables).

      Wiki did have a lot more exhaustive list going back further in history (if you are interested).

      You all are actually teaching me a lot...It appears "higher criticism" has gravitated to finding someone that has done "work" that fits our desires and then "citing" (copy and pasting) their "work"... I do not believe this is a proper approach to this important run out and find someone who agrees with our "desires" is not healthy or safe.

      I have been mocked at times here (which is o.k. since my skin has become fairy thick after many years of turn-around consulting) for "cooking up" arguments that you all have not all heard before...I am not a theologian, I am not a Preacher, I am not in any type of ministry....I am not a part of any denomination (for they do not think for themselves).

      I am the President of a Manufacturing company and have spent my career building, merging, and consulting to the manufacturing industry.
      I have spent a lot of time studying and thinking about these subjects for I believe it is the most important things in this world to consider.

      As I mentioned recently, before saying anything to you all, I spent a little time reading how you all treated the ill prepared Christians who stumbled into this sight.

      You all savaged these poor saps and when people would bring forth names of individuals (who I would for the most part agree with but spend no time reading or following) you all would scoff and mock them as if these individuals were id1ots and because they were you were not required to respond to them; however, I never saw any substantive interaction.
      This gave me an awful idea for an "experiment" (which I will never do again) by tearing a page out of your playbook by refusing to engage in any thoughtful manner but to scoff, ridicule and discredit any sources without any interaction.

      But now that I've got 2 strikes I guess I'll have to put my uzi down (and I hope you all will also) and interact in a civil thoughtful manner; however, the "thoughts" and "arguments" I have made thus far here are my own and if others agree fine; however, please don't accuse me of plagiarizing someone elses thoughts....I can think (kind of) for myself and I have been encouraging the same here.

      I would appreciate though that you all don't sprinkle in things like "after checking the facts of my statements, they fall apart" without saying specifically "were" my thoughts fail so I can fill in the blanks...when I hear you all quoting the Pope (who is not a born again Christian) it has revealled to me that I am assuming you all are more familiar with the subject of Christianity than you are (which is fine) so I will need to fill in more blanks so things make more sense.

    175. A requirement of conversing in a thoughtful and civil manner is doing it honestly, and dropping absurd, redundant ad hominem, which is the majority of what you've said on here. And as has been repeatedly pointed out is the majority of your 'argument'.

      Nice try at playing the victim, but again, that's not reality. You, by your own admission if you go read back, have given plenty of 'abuse' and ad hominem, mostly at Bart Ehrman but also anyone who brings up textual criticism. Yet you now twist it to you being the messenger being shot. Or was that you 'trying your new tactic?' It's getting hard to keep up with your continual twists, excuses and outright lies. Your Uzi? Lol, water pistol shooting blanks is all you've had.

      You have, by your own admission, outright lied numerous times. 2 examples easy to check... you talked about the debate between Ehrman and White as if you'd watched it and had a considered opinion. Which when pressed for details by someone who has watched it, myself, you admitted you had only watched a small portion of. That is dishonest, which was easily brought to light when considered questions were asked. (which you still haven't answered by the way)

      You have claimed you had the education, but then later it's your 'brother', at an 'unnamed' university. Now you're saying you are; "President of a Manufacturing company and have spent my career building, merging, and consulting to the manufacturing industry."

      And about your claims you've authored everything you've written. I'll tell you a little quirk about how Disqus works, which you obviously haven't picked up.

      When you cut and paste something here, it keeps some of the 'returns', the line endings. You don't notice it while composing the post, but it shows when you post it up. It is quite easy to see upon reading what is original typing, and what has been cut and paste. Go have a look at some of the posts where you or I have quoted each other, and cut and paste the quote in. You'll see it. You will also see it in numerous posts of yours that you claim are all your own original composition.

      Even more amusing to me, is on the one hand you admit that there is additions to the Bible (the snake/poison ending of John you correctly used as an example) that lead some people to wildly different 'doctrines', but then on the other hand you will claim the Bible is still all the inspired word of God, and ALL the 'core doctrine' has not changed.

      Do you think which day is the 'sabbath' is a 'core doctrine'? I think if a 'god' commanded us to worship on a particular day of the week, that'd be pretty important what day he specified.

      Then explain the different 'core doctrine' between, for example the Roman Catholic and the Seventh Day Adventists. Or the difference between their method of baptism, full dunk or splash, adult or baby? Or why there is over 1000 different denominations of Christianity, which you just claimed either have the correct 'core doctrine' or will die out? Doesn't seem the Catholic's or Protestants, even with all their mutual slaughter over the last few centuries, are close to 'dying off'. Or their 'core doctrine' fits each other... they disagree with you enough to kill each other over it.

      You have also twisted your claim that it is said religious people are incapable of scientific thinking. No one that knows any of the history of science would deny that many past, and current, very good scientists have not been Christian. There have also been many good Muslim, Hindi, Sikh scientists too.

      Rational, critical thinking in one area does not translate to all areas. And when it comes to looking at the Bible, textual criticism, evolution, the age of the earth, (even our solar system and orbits for eg in the past), most Christians, yourself being a prime example, are incapable of applying that critical thinking to the subject of religion. You have deliberately placed 'god' above questioning, for good reason. When your 'scriptures' that you have based ALL of your conclusions about 'god' are examined, it's claims, it's stories, it fails abysmally.

      You ask for conversing in a rational, civil manner, but you can't hold up your side of that bargain. Not unless you are willing to honestly look at the problems your scriptures, and the following interpretations / denominations contain. Which so far you've refused to do in any honest way.

    176. We've been talking about scripture not groups and sects...My argument comes from 35 years of habitual referencing KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, and now some ESV etc. and have
      never found any significant variance within any.

      So if you go to any of these major translations you will find 100% agreement in core doctrines...

      and thanks for the education on's nice to know I have people making sure I'm thinking for myself...

      now can we stop the cut and paste festival and I won't mess with anyone by using the tactics I watched you all using on unassuming sheep as they stumbled into your shooting gallery before I decided to come to this little party

      ...I'll not criticize, or speak disparagingly about any one since we're going to talk without "citing" others thoughts? deal?

      If you learned something from someone that you thought made a lot of sense share it as your own if you are embracing it as truth then just let us know why

      it's o.k. if it's something you heard from someone else since chances are really high that the thought didn't originate from the person who told you either.

    177. I don't do deals with people I know are dishonest... they have proven they cannot be trusted. Still waiting on your promise to watch all of that White/Ehrman debate... or answer the questions you said you'd answer.

      Your word holds no weight here. Once shown to be a willing, knowingly dishonest person, you have lost your 'shot'. Same as it happens to be in science... knowingly lie and you're not worth listening to anymore.

      You do whatever you like, as you have shown already you do, I'll continue to show how you're full of it when I please to.
      I learned for myself by reading your 'Bible', that it contains multiple contradictions. Then I learned after listening to theologians, they're mostly another name for 'BS artists', which you have only re-confirmed here.

      After your dishonest display, I'll not be taking recommendations from you on 'intellectual honesty', if you're quoting someone else, say so, and show exactly what. It's not hard. Unless you have a problem with honestly that is....

      Interesting plea from someone that has repeatedly claimed to 'think for himself'. No, it's not alright if you represent someone else's thoughts as your own. That's dishonest.

    178. Do you really really "think" that what you have been taught was "invented" by and thought up by those who told you these things?

    179. I never said they were. I in fact said the opposite to what you claim. No, contrary to what you're trying to imply, I recognised the inconsistency of what my Bible teachers where trying to push all by myself, well before I was exposed to differing views that do make sense of what we can know to any reasonable degree of accuracy. Even a child can understand mutually exclusive contradictions, even if they cannot articulate it well. Some even against the attempted brainwashing your beliefs try to instill, even with a parent claiming the Bible is accurate too. Some of us just can't swallow obvious BS like you can.

    180. So those who "taught" you the Bible never told you that each of the Gospels were written by different men from their own unique perspective and cultural methods of measurement?

      If so, a lot of what you are saying to me makes much more sense... sorry for being so hard on you, for I thought you had been exposed to sound consistent theological teaching and had denied were unfortunately exposed to men who were caught in a denominational loop or an old line that had long replaced philosophy for theology...which ever the group, I'm sorry there weren't men to look to for satisfying answers...Have you sat under John Whitcomb's teaching?

      I was taught by men primarily from Dallas Theological Seminary, Trinity, in Deer field IL, and a little of Grace out of Winona Lake, IN. Not any one group possess all the answers and I will acknowledge that I have also heard some very unsatisfactory arguments for inerrantcy or the variances in the Gospels.

      I am more blessed than I thought it appears.

    181. Lol. It's amusing that someone that claims that they've kind've studied TC thinks the Gospels were written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. Are you really going to go with that?

      Pray tell, can you please tell me some more about each one of the authors of the Gospels? You know, help me understand who the authors are exactly, to better understand their 'perspective'.

      A list of places you, by your own admission, you dropped out of, failed to complete, did a portion of study at, means what exactly? A half-a$$ed attempt at an appeal from authority, so what.
      That's another fallacy, if you care to look it up.

      You're the one that has claimed the Bible is the Word of God. It is on you to prove it, on you to answer your assertions. You can't even answer most questions put to you.

    182. Well, it's out...I'm a loser...a textbook, boneheaded, 3rd rate loser...(but why am I always the last to guys picked up on this months ago but you were so gracious to say anything until now.... suppose you all didn't want to make me sad).

      Loser I am?...yes....absolutely....but I'm happy...and most importantly I can lay my head on my pillow each night with peace within my family, my relationships, and most importantly with my Creator who has extended the gift of forgiveness to me and since I kind figured out long ago that I can't navigate through even a single day without violating the Law He put in my heart, and the conscience he put in my mind, that I best throw myself at the feet of the only God I could find who offered to pay the penalty for me.

      But maybe, just maybe, hiding in those 2 million plus pagan gods scattered across the planet that just one of them has offered to pay this penalty and I just plain missed it?

      I think the most important "evidence" for why we can trust the Word of God can be found in the opening remarks made by Bart Ehrman in his debate with James White...He says we can go into any store across the country and buy a "copy" of the Bible and everyone of them are identical...would that not put the onuses is on those who refuse to acknowledge this as Gods Word?

      I think some of the problem you all are struggling with is that you all are trying to dig back into the history thinking God's hand was exclusively working then without realizing that He is still working today...thus Bart's firm position that all of the Bibles today have a homogenous message and record of history.

      Here is a simple verse out of the book of Romans in 13 different versions...this is what Bart is referring to.

      KJV - For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet
      peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

      NKJV - For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet
      perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.

      NLT - Now, most people would not be willing to die for an
      upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who
      is especially good.

      NIV - Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person,
      though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.

      ESV - For one will scarcely die for a righteous
      person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—

      HCSB - For rarely will someone die for a just
      person — though for a good person perhaps someone might even dare to die.

      NASB - For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though
      perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die.

      RSV - Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man--though
      perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die.

      ASV - For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: for
      peradventure for the good man some one would even dare to die.

      YLT - for scarcely for a righteous man will any one die, for
      for the good man perhaps some one also doth dare to die;

      DBY - For scarcely for the just man will one die, for
      perhaps for the good man some one might also dare to die;

      WEB - For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet
      perhaps for a good man some would even dare to die.

      HNV - For one will hardly die for a righteous man. Yet
      perhaps for a righteous person someone would even dare to die.

      As you can see, Bart is correct...we could do this through the Old and New Testaments over these 13 common versions.

      This causes us to put aside John Mill's rummaging through fragments of "stuff" he didn't even know what they were or if they were meant to be considered to be "scripture".

      I think we can all agree that the 30 pictures were very impressive art work though.

      We also can agree that "Mill's Monstrosity" did a great job of meticulously comparing miscellaneous writings from various unknown ancient Church Fathers (with maybe a couple gnostic sects thrown in just to juice that 30k number?)... but we just don't know, as Mill also didn't have a clue either, if he was looking at some sermons or reading materials picked out from across the 2,900 miles of Koine Greek usage.

      So when I open my Bible Study software or my written Bibles, I can look at the universally agreed upon manuscripts (with slight variants that never change the meaning).

      I marvel at what God has done to preserve a homogenous body of information preserved though the many attacks made over the ages...oh's also really fun to see the Words before me "come alive" because God has put His Spirit within me so I can understand these beautiful words and truths (I Corinthians 3)...not that I'm "special"...far from it....I'm just forgiven.

    183. Once more, trying to pick a verse or two that are not disputed is not a representation of the argument. IF you'd studied the topic as you claimed, you would know more of what you're talking about, which clearly you don't.

      Lol, I can pick up a 'COPY' of Origin of Species in any good bookshop.. is the onus on you to prove it wrong? Or does that mean its 'the word of God'?

      No. It stands by the merit of it's ideas and strength of it's argument...
      Same as your Bible... which by your own admission has additions that are every single copy you can find in any decent book shop.

      No, what you are is mistaken. Delusional. Abusrd... take your pick.

    184. so you back taking credit for your brothers education once again.

      when are you going to tell the truth or is that beyond you.

      if you are going to lie it will pay for you to improve your memory as it appears that you forget the BS you have already told . it's very easy for us to see your BS as it is all written down for all to see.

    185. I clearly stink at communicating...those who were your "teachers" had not done their home work so when a young man (you) asked, "why did one man say "this" and then another man say "something different" throughout the gospels", it sounds like those who were responsible to have answers must of said, "because it's God's word"...instead of knowing the facts that are often obscure.

    186. Your speculations on what was taught to me are irrelevant.

    187. We've talked about multiple things, claiming all 'Christian Scientists' as 'yours', then dropping them later when their 'core doctrine' differs from yours is in fact talking about groups and sects, not the 'scriptures'.

      Why do you have to make such blatant dishonest statements, repeatedly? Do you somehow think that weight of numbers will somehow win through?

      Weight of evidence is what you want, not weight of dishonest assertions.

      Therein lies your major problem. You have no decent evidence other than 'faith' that your version of a 'god' is accurate.

      Writings do not suffice, otherwise the Qu'ran and others have just as much, if not more, value than your claims. If it's accurate transmission through time you're relying on, the Egyptians for one blow you away. So does the Qu'ran in fact, which is anther book of BS when examined.

    188. Go back read carefully...the comment made sloppily by one of you was that us "relgies" didn't navigate in the realm of true "science" and all I was pointing out (in a hurry) that his "assertion" was nonsense (as you also know).
      The core aspect of Christianity that I have been assuming you all knew (which was not wise of me to assume) was that there are "born again" individuals scattered across most every denomination and sect...being a Christian is not saying a little prayer or nodding to a creed.
      I sure agree to some of what you are saying (you want to reconsider?)

    189. Go read up on the 'no true scotsman fallacy'. Then re-read your post... that is an example of that fallacy in use.

      Most honest Christian scientists will admit when asked, that they have to take off their 'christian suit' when they put on their 'lab coat'.

      Any Christian geologist or biologist for starters HAVE to do this, as their/your beliefs and the basis of their science contradict. They have to separate their work from their 'beliefs'. They have to live a lie in other words.

      You're doing the same BS you said you've watched other 'sheep' get slaughtered trying. Yet... here to still go. lol. Baaaaaad effort, c'mon, you can do better than that can't you?

    190. Now you know Baaaab that you have to grade me on a curve here, I'm a lying, surf bum bananna man quoting, lying, stup1d, flat earth , oh did I say lying?...ya ya...I'm good...but dog gone, if I could just find the right "sun glasses" and drink the right kool-aid and I'm off to the races...does this mean we "aren't gunna talk about the "half life of carbon"?...bummer...thought it was "the"silver bullet" that would cause you all to come to Christ....I mock myself for I studied I Corinthians Chapter 2 last night, where

      Paul says in 1Co 2:1-5, 13-14 NLT, When I first came to you, dear brothers and sisters, I didn't use lofty words and impressive wisdom to tell you God's secret plan.

      For I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified. I came to you in weakness--timid and trembling.

      And my message and my preaching were very plain. Rather than using clever and persuasive speeches, I relied only on the power of the Holy Spirit.

      I did this so you would trust not in human wisdom but in the power of God. ... 13 When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom.

      Instead, we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths.

      But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit.

      It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.

      This is currently the best explanation for why what I say as "textbook" Christianity and I get blow back as it being a "loonie","crazie", "stup1d", and "makes no sense", but I am hanging in there and I have listened to and made notes on the first 14 minutes of the Ehrman / White debate...gunna be a long slog I can see...already have 3 pages of errant "assumptions", contradictions in his own arguments does that ever sound like what you have accused me of...gunna be a long one.

      But, you will not hear me name call or discredit what he says because of something totally unrelated...about either of them; however, I have to say I have several friends who are close to James White and I met him in Phoenix and talked for a little while several years ago...bright mind for sure; however, I am not on his page at times theologically or personality wise...but then I am pretty much an idiot that people tend to not like very much (it might be this crazie Fundy thinking I've picked up over the years..but I'm happy, and forgiven, and even have a fairy tale life (wow , now I get the connection as to why I gravitate to a fairy tale book...I live a fairy tale life, with a fairy tale is great.

    191. First of all, you have to understand that honesty is everything.
      Without it we might as well not bother.

      When you are caught telling deliberate lies, it is going to follow you or not, despite your dislike of this fact. Every single thing you say thereafter must be questioned.

      Second, as regards to your preaching, there is one very important thing Paul says. "I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified."
      Of course, that is exactly what you need, someone to not think about anything else, but focus on being brainwashed. Otherwise they'll see through the 'stick and carrot' dishonesty.

      Not going to happen, not to those that refuse to suspend rational thought.

      As I already said, I quite like the 'White/Ehrman' debate, it is one of the better ones. White, instead of most, don't resort to just 'quoting the Bible' to try to prove the 'Bible inerrant'.

      You should have lots from the introduction, that's where they both broadly lay out their positions. You have to watch the rest, and find out why before you assume you know the argument.

      I don't care much for the 'who is who'... popularity often just gets in the way. It's the 'what' that is important.

    192. I appreciate that you will not just take the word of a "liar" like me (scum JT I'd never believe me...thus I bring you the words of God...He's credible...not me).

      You mentioned a passage (I appreciate you now citing credible sources) out of 1 Corinthians Chapter 1...I felt I could help you see some of the homogenous nature of the various translations...After studying these various translations over many years I come to the following dependable nature of what is being communicated to us by God... Here is the passage from a scattering of the most popular you will see the only place where there is confusion is in the "Critics" minds (or should I say "hearts").

      KJV - But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
      stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

      NKJV - but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a
      stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,

      NLT - So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews
      are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense.

      NIV - but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to
      Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

      ESV - but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to
      Jews and folly to Gentiles,

      HCSB - but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to
      the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles.

      NASB - but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling
      block and to Gentiles foolishness,

      RSV - but we preach
      Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,

      ASV - but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a
      stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;

      YLT - also we -- we preach Christ crucified, to Jews,
      indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness,

      DBY - but *we* preach
      Christ crucified, to Jews an offence, and to nations foolishness;

      WEB - But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a
      stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness;

      Two verses later says....

      KJV - Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and
      the weakness of God is stronger than men.

      NKJV - Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and
      the weakness of God is stronger than men.

      NLT - This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of
      human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.

      NIV - For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom,
      and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

      ESV - For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the
      weakness of God is stronger than men.

      HCSB - because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom,
      and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

      NASB - Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and
      the weakness of God is stronger than men.

      RSV - For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the
      weakness of God is stronger than men.

      ASV - Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and
      the weakness of God is stronger than men.

      YLT - because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and
      the weakness of God is stronger than men;

      DBY - Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and
      the weakness of God is stronger than men.

      WEB - Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and
      the weakness of God is stronger than men.

      If you would just go to any one of probably dozens of free Bible study websites out there and pull up any book you would like and look at and read it in any of the translations; you will find as Bengel found when looking even at "Mills Monstrosity" that what we all are reading today has been miraculously been preserved...even in the areas where it "appears" there are discrepancies, no one dared to "mess" with it...sounds pretty supernatural to me.

      So, again don't believe anyone, read for yourself and come to your own conclusions...the one thing I know when reading the comments under the debate is that those who come with one opinion filter everything through their presuppositions (both sides) that it is very challenging to break through the noise from both sides.

      The one consistency I do see is that those who currently are shaking their fists in Gods face and don't want to answer (today) to anyone, are the ones who are animated by Bart's positions hoping and almost "praying" that he's possibly right.

    193. I'm always open to learning...where would a young earth creationist's view cause one to "go into the ditch" scientifically?

      I sure agree that many christian scientists capitulate to old earth evolution (many to keep their jobs), when I was young (attending public schools) I drank the cool-aid (a little)...I just hadn't been taught yet...but I gotta say at my most "indoctrinated"period as a 11 year old I never "believed" that the cute girl sitting three seats ahead of me came from a....a "fish"?...but maybe I was just brainwashed into not believing "fairy tales" (sorry B. it did seem to fit kinda good here didn't it though?)

    194. Go answer questions already put to you before you ask any.

    195. Explain how more diversity somehow translates into more accuracy within the writings again? There are more changes, some that change meaning quite radically, so somehow that is more accurate? lol.

      You are correct in one thing, the prediction that 'only one that stays firmly brainwashed in their faith will be resistant to obvious flaws' is accurate. Not that much of a prediction if you ask me, more like an inevitable result, and/or an observation from other dying religions. As are some of your other claimed 'predictions' like 'you'll be persecuted for your faith (read ignorance)' You have to keep your religious blinkers on to be able to lie to yourself about the glaring problems your 'scriptures' and theologies contain. Of course people that can think for themselves will see through the lies and will mock absurd claims like talking snakes, half man half goats, unicorns, multiple resurrections, world wide flood, all animals in an ark and such obvious absurdness. You'd be a fool not to expect laughter as such id1icy. But that is what you are doing.

    196. No...Bart is just your generations poster boy for the same tired nonsensical conjecture cooked up originally by a guy (Mill) who was trying to get a commission to "sort out" the terrible mess he "identified" by constructing his "monstrosity"...but...bummer, the guy dies on us so I guess we'll never be able to put the puzzle together ourselves...oh wait we've found thousands of additional manuscripts far closer to the originals since his death so now we no longer have to rely on his little slice of manuscripts where he sprinkled in some writings of Church Father writings (never claiming to be a part of the Cannon).

      He then, (just to be sure to extrapolate out a gigantic number) added in some 14th century Latin manuscripts that when "matched" against even one of his esoteric rogue manuscripts I would expect him being able to cook up a number in the hundreds of thousands.

      But I guess 30,000 sounded like it might be possible to hire him to "unravel" things...150,000 (which I'm sure could be cooked up by counting up every "significant" variant in just two of his rogue manuscripts matched up against one other).

      But all is well...I'm sure Bart (who I never heard of until you all made me aware of him) sure must have explained the whole story to you all by saying that Johann Bengel meticulously went through Mill's "monstrosity" and found no substantive changes to core doctrines amongst his (Mills) "significant differences"...bummer...guess that outdated small slice of the Big Picture that we are still discovering closer and closer manuscripts to the originals is pretty much a dinosaur...oops sorry, dinosaurs are off limits for this august body of progressive thinkers.

      Speaking of "thinkers", have you all been made aware of the "thinkers" out in California who made sure Professor Mark Armitage was fired for finding a dinosaur horn up in Hell's Creek Montana this past year that still had flesh in it indicating dinosaurs were walking the earth in the last several thousand years and not the 65 million, trillion or is that trillion, trillion years ago (whatever...just as long as it is so long ago that no one can question them plus the bonus of "disproving" a catastrophic flood of several thousand years ago).

      So, you all need to throw all the "junk" thinking being purveyed by those you are currently looking to for "truth" for they are blind guides desperately trying to masquerade as "higher thinkers".

    197. Where in his paper did it state "indicating dinosaurs were walking the earth in the last several thousand years and not the 65 million"? Don't bother it didn't. This is not the first time this type of find was made (as far as I know it dates back to 1990. These findings are well explained within the scientific community. The fact that organic material can survive under very specific conditions does not invalidate the age of the specimen. I wonder why you never mentioned that dating of the site of the discovery is 65 to 70 million years old? finally he we was let go for promoting religion in a science class. A definite no no according to the law

    198. The full paper will cost you $35.95 I've read at multiple "news" sites the details of this find...yes the reason this was a big deal was that the current group of folks at this site have been using their wild conjecture to cook up 65 to 70 million years...that's the significance of the find.

      It appears I use too much sarcasm and thus bury the meaning of what I am saying from you all...I will "tamp down" my thoughts so you don't waste your time jousting with wind mills (do I need to "cite" someone here guys)?

      The reason for the firing was not religion but it was because 65 million year evolution (which is crumbling in your hands) was proven to be the banal joke that it always has been.

      Here is a little more from a site called "Proslogian" (never heard of them before).

      Proslogion - Monday, December 22, 2014

      Soft Bone Tissue in a Triceratops Fossil

      Posted by jlwile on March 27, 2013

      Ever since Dr. Mary Schweitzer
      first demonstrated the existence of soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil that is supposed to be 65 million years old,1 soft tissue is turning up in all sorts of supposedly ancient fossils (see here, here, here, and here
      for more information). The latest example comes from the Hell Creek
      Formation in Montana, which is supposed to be about 65 million years old, so the fossil is assumed to be that old as well.

      The fossil in question is a horn from a Triceratops horridus specimen. After it was collected, it broke in several places,
      indicating that the fossil had been fractured. Since the fossil was broken, the authors of the study decided to get rid of the “hard parts”
      of the fossil to see if there was anything soft inside. To do this, they soaked the horn in a weak acid for a month.

      As the acid ate away at the minerals that formed the horn, the authors found strips of light brown, soft tissue remaining. Now this
      soft stuff could be from all manner of things, so the authors decided to do a microscopic study of the tissue, and what they found was was exactly what you would expect to see if you examined the tissue from the
      bone of a recently deceased animal!2

      When they examined the tissue under a light microscope, they found well-defined, circular Haversian systems.

      In case you aren’t familiar with that term, compact bone is made of cylindrical structures formed by bone cells that are called osteocytes. The drawing below shows what a Haversian system looks like:

      Diagram of a Haversian system in compact bone (Click for credit)

      Note that the center of the cylinder is a canal called the Haversian canal.

      The authors show that the Haversian canals they saw in the tissue were filled with structures that strongly resemble red blood cells!

      Since the tissue looks like compact bone tissue, the most reasonable conclusion is that it comes from the Triceratops fossil. Given that, there is another question to answer: are these Haversian systems fossilized or not?

      After all, it is possible that the fossilization
      process is so precise that it preserves structures on the cellular level.

      Given the fact that the tissue was soft, that’s unlikely, but I suppose it’s still a possibility.

      To answer this question, the authors looked at the Haversian systems with a scanning electron microscope, and you can see pictures of what they saw here.

      The osteocytes that make up the Haversian systems seem completely intact, all the way down to their fragile filipodial extensions. In
      fact, the authors note:

      Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were
      interpreted to be soft.

      So it really seems like they were seeing intact, soft osteocytes from a Triceratops fossil found in the Hell Creek Formation.

      It is hard enough to understand how a bone cell can exist like that for thousands of years.

      The idea that it has lasted for 65 million years simply boggles the mind.

      In my mind, this study is strong evidence against the idea that the fossils in the Hell Creek Formation are millions of years old.

      1. Mary H. Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John
      R. Horner, and Jan K. Toporski, “Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular
      Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex,” Science, 307:1952-1955, 2005

      2. Mark Hollis Armitage and Kevin Lee Anderson,
      “Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus,” Acta Histochemica, doi: 10.1016/j.acthis.2013.01.001, 2103

      Abstract from the paper.
      Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus
      collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix.

      This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes.

      Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and
      secondary branching.

      Both oblate and stellate types of steocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures.

      SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization
      or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft.

      This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of
      dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.

      So when "scientific" findings contradict the religion of an old earth "evolution"...your Marxist High Priests of Nonsensical Humanism run off into the ether screaming "religion"...thus their waning credibility further erodes in the middle of the town square.

      Second, you all need to put the "separation of Church and State" schtick down and give it a rest...the only place you will find that term is in a personal letter Jefferson wrote to someone else...and if you all read the letter, you will find that this is not at all what he was saying.

      Bottom line, I'm confident that a man who has been doing research in this type of setting for 30 years did not reference "religion"'s just the "facts" destroyed their religion of an old earth evolving from disorder to perfect order.

    199. I do not deny what they found and I did read the state "So it really seems like they were seeing intact, soft osteocytes from a Triceratops fossil found in the Hell Creek Formation." but they did not. I was going to get the exact quote but later on you provided it for me "SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells" those arn't osteocytes. Please do not drag Mary Schweitzer into this unless you also note that she does not find any of these discoveries to be in conflict with evolution. Again under sprcific conditions preservation can be remarkable. the tissues and cells did break down the fact that under certain conditions they did not 100% break down isn't a problem for evolution. If I am wrong please point me to where in theory of evolution it claims preservation of this type cannot happen. Finally are you now going to back up any of your countless statements?

      Edit: where does science claim "an old earth evolving from disorder to perfect order"

    200. I think where the real challenge lies in this "side issue" of Armitage getting taken to the rail is if this is the venue for wading into a subject that has collapsed under the exciting study of geneomics (in my opinion).

      You've studied geology which is fine; however, this field of study can chug along because daily navigation does not rely on the laws that Darwin's construct were built upon.

      It is common knowledge...or may I respectfully ask if I need to "cite" my source? (which seems odd to us unsophisticated 4 time collage dropouts who tend to think our own thoughts based upon exposing ourselves to everyone's positions and then coming to our own positions is the wisest manner of navigating)...that Darwin ultimately conceded that if evolution was true, "we couldn't go outside our back door without tripping over transitional life forms".

      With you, being in this field, are painfully aware that the fossil record of "transitional life forms" is a very barren dusty shelf because I'm sure you have been "taught" that the vast majority of the textbook examples have been shown to be either fabrications by overzealous people or were not even humans which ultimately leave the "fossil record" inventory "empty".
      We can systematically go through all the details of this massive fraud if you would like; however, we all have determined that scoffing at a specific "source" as an argument as to why the "facts" can't be considered is not genuine discourse.

      Bottom line though I will always declare unashamedly that God's Word says in Hebrews 11:3—"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible"...which is the foundational bedrock that I have found in my pursuit for "truth" and then I have found that the following thoughts conveyed in the Word of God that...

      [Rom 1:20-22 ESV] 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

      So they are without excuse.

      For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

      These "thoughts" make the most "sense" as I attempt to look at this world around me and shut out all the "noise" coming from people with agendas (on all sides) in my pursuit of "truth".
      So if you are screaming at the screen of you computer "cite your sources" or shut up, there are many things that ultimately come into "common knowledge" after years...if you "believe" that the fossil record that we all were "taught" to memorize from our textbooks is true, then you need to seriously question those you have been "trusting" to lead you into "truth".
      For again, our august educators have ingested copious amounts of Marx's cool-aid which may I repeat was "to kill God and destroy capitalism"...sit back and filter all of the attitudes and positions you have adopted over your years of sitting at their feet taking copious notes....does this not shine through clearly?

    201. No sorry. I am stopping here. you throw out branches of science or studies and try to find fault. Many of us here have pointed out the flaws in your statements to no avail. You do not admit error or adddress these faults. you say you like to think for yourself but I have heard all these arguments before. I have come to the conclusion that you do not wish to have an honest debate. Maybe someone else will enjoy watching you throw darts in the dark hoping something sticks but I do not.

    202. Actually you were the one to step into a conversation that (my I humbly submit) was not with you.

      To throw up your hands in self righteous disgust once someone pierces through the high walls created around the Marxist vacuum that you have given thousands of your hard earned dollars to for an "education".

      You condemn the person who is pulling the curtain down on your Wizard of higher thinking...seems to sh00t the messenger is rather misguided.

      Since you were the one who stepped into someone elses's conversation (if you go back and read your comment), but had nothing but name calling to contribute; however, you did reveal to everyone here that you and apparently everyone else here (since no one corrected your patently bankrupt implication that Christians are incapable of scientific thinking) indicated that all of you have been hanging out in a cut and paste information vacuum that someone has told you is "learning".

      Remember, you came in with the idea that "religies" could never be able to think "scientifically", I then provided a large body of easily verifiable information (straight off Wiki and ISR) as to how many Christians have been responsible for such a large portion of what you all would call the highest accolades of scientific accomplishments.
      I even provided an objective view of the drift that you have been a part of as Wiki revealed how the U.S. institutions of "higher learning" have driven Christians off the plantation.

      It is clear you were never "taught" any of this, you act as if it's just impossible to get through to me?...this is a fabrication of reality and instead of saying, "wow, my Profs never told me about how much of the foundations of science and technology has been laid by Christians", but instead of talking about the elephant you chose to change the subject to "slavery"? This would not be genuine discourse.

      It appears to my disappointment here that someone who thinks for themselves and don't live in a vicarious alternate universe where "higher thinking" is comprised of cutting and pasting other peoples thoughts is frowned upon and considered "out of bounds" when there is not a canned answer that seems to almost be a database of "rebuttals" playbook for agnostics; however, when you can't google my thinking (because it's mine, you all are forced to retreat; however, your retreat is couched in a "you're just impossible" veneer.

      ....I would just beg you to stop letting other people think for you....I have been interacting based upon 35 years of serious thinking and exposing myself to all sides of these positions...each time you interact with me you defer to someone elses' thoughts.

      When one thinks for themselves it requires a lot of effort...I'm concerned you have become intellectually lazy and have not seriously invested your own thoughts into wrestling through these big ideas for yourself.

      It's hard work because if you think for yourself, you will quickly find those around you who claim to be your friends will begin pressuring you to get back into the "God is dead" line.
      Just try it so you can see their real motives...just "pretend" to tell those around you that "possibly" there may be a God holding the atoms in your body from flying apart and watch how you will quickly become a "leper"...then cook up the most silly outrageous thought you could ever cook up that implies God is dead and watch them seriously consider your "thoughtful discourse", and that they will give it serious consideration...this will hopefully provide the important glimpse into the fact that none of this is about "science"'s all about God.

    203. Hmm, what is a person called that says someone else is bad for doing the exact same thing that first person does?
      Answer, a hypocrite.
      About 'edge' 'stepping in on the conversation'. Go have a look at the start of this thread, the first post in this particular 'conversation'. It was by Alex, which you 'stepped in on'.
      Which is besides the point anyway, as this is a public forum, not your personal pulpit.

      And I also had to have a laugh at you using a 1 in id1ot, just after you just claimed I was bad for doing exactly that. So my claim of the pot calling the kettle black referring to you is wrong how exactly?

      "Next time, when you start your conversation, instead of saying 'as a Christian', start with 'well, as a hypocrite...' " - Jim Jefferies.

    204. You elude to "errors"; however, you never articulate what they all curse the light while you hide the matches....bring it on....specifics bud.

    205. A little theological problem for you. If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of 'good and evil', how would Eve know it was 'evil' to ignore 'God's' order not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge?

      Yet we're supposedly punished for doing something that we were 'created' unable to know was wrong?
      We were supposedly created defective, ordered to be well, which was outside our ability, and then punished for not having that ability.

      Lol, it's not even sensible BS. And your 'God' sounds like such a nice guy... not. Raving egotistical sadist would not be inaccurate. You can have him, and your error ridden 'scripture' and silly 'core doctrine' all you like, it still is not one shred of evidence for your claims, which have no validity at all in reality, only in your personal theology. If you want to believe based on your theology I have no problem as long as it stays as a personal belief. But you cannot claim 'divine correctness' and not be asked for the evidence to back it up, which you plainly don't have. No matter how much word and idea twisting, logical gymnastics and outright lies, nothing can get you around that fact.

    206. Right, praise YOUR God..."The God of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously, malevolent bully"

      'Richard Dawkins.'

    207. All the Bible scriptures that are not relevant to the exact topic at hand are not 'appropriate religious talk'. You know you were preaching, at least have the honesty and decency to admit what everyone can see. But no, you'll try to twist that reality too.

      Back to being a hypocrite again I see. Last time you apologised for attacking Bart Ehrman.. this post was 90% ad hominem, most of it directed at Dr. Ehrman again.
      Of the 10% remaining of that 'post', much of it is flat out dishonesty, mixed in with an effort at preaching. You're not even any
      good at that, lying or preaching.

      There hasn't been any honest discussion between us from the start, or you with anyone else on here, you lie constantly rendering honest discussion an impossibility.
      Discussions go both ways, so you cannot have what you won't do.
      I can't be bothered addressing much of your drivel that is besides the point, I really don't care what Dr. Ehrman's life is or isn't like or
      what he personally believes, I've already told you I don't agree with him on numerous things. I'm interested in the facts, not the sideshow you want to create and then draw attention to. I don't care what deluded
      people like you think of me, so what, you also believe in talking snakes and the like lol. All that ad hominem shows is you're emotional rather than thoughtful in response to this topic, and your lack of a real, logical, coherent argument is substituted for ad hominem.

      Where did you cut and paste that from? Your answer was cut and paste, did you even
      author it? Or get your brother to write it? (you know, the one you claimed has the
      education that you first claimed as yours) Get him to email you an answer did you? lol.

      You are so intent on trying to attack Prof. Ehrman because he is making your lies more apparent to the layman, that you make up even more lies to do it. Lies that are easily debunked. I wonder what your Jesus would think of your dishonesty and personal attacks?

      NO, once more, as others have
      pointed out, it is not a view held by one angry, rejected, non-peer reviewed and left-field scholar at all. It is the mainstream view of the vast majority of biblical scholars for a long time now, even the half honest Christian ones as I'll now demonstrate for you. Try to keep up, I know you are 'just thinking', but 'barely thinking' is not a valid excuse for willful ignorance and lie spreading.

      Lets take a look at Acts 4:13, and your claims about it only being Dr. Ehrman interpreting it that way. The only thing new to me in your silly post was your particular wording of your lies, most of them are not even new ones though. A tip for your future lying... at least stick with the same
      Bible version to the one who authored your apologetics attempt.

      Go look up the Biblehub site, a Christian (with a capital C) site. Do your own research on what the academics say about your translation. Christian, theologian academics. It has commentaries by many biblical scholars there to check. Here are a few for you.

      Charles Ellicott. (1819 -1905) An Anglican bishop, who was at one time the Professor of Divinity at King's College London. His commentary for English readers on Acts 4:13 includes;

      "Unlearned and ignorant.—The first of the two words means, literally, unlettered.
      Looking to the special meaning of the “letters” or “Scriptures” of the Jews, from which the scribes took their name (grammateis, from grammata), it would convey, as used here the sense of “not having been educated as a scribe, not having studied the Law and other sacred writings.” It does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. The second word means literally, a private person, one without special office or calling, or the culture which they imply: what in English might be called a “common man.” It appears again in 1Corinthians 14:16; 1Corinthians 14:23-24, with the same meaning. Its later history is curious enough to be worth noting. The Vulgate, instead of translating the Greek word, reproduced it, with scarcely an alteration, as id1ota. It thus passed into modem European languages with the idea of ignorance and incapacity closely attached to it, and so acquired its later sense of “id1ot.”

      Particular note about one of your misdirections / lies /got it incorrect...
      id1ta became id1ot in European language via the Vulgate, which was a late 4th Century LATIN translation of the Bible that became the Catholic's official Latin version in the 16th century. As your fellow Christian Ellicott pointed out in that quote above, that is its "later history". It got used to
      continue the idea it implied a lack of knowledge, which it had become known for from bible usage. Completely contrary to your claimed meaning now it doesn't suit.

      Or we could look at others like Heinrich
      August Wilhelm Meyer, a Protestant. Read his take, it concurs with Ellicott's and Ehrman's position, and completely destroys your strawman argument. He also quotes many sources and exactly how he arrived at his conclusion, which is contrary to yours above. As are the numerous scholars he quotes there.

      Or others like The Expositor's Greek Testament, considered one of the most
      important commentaries on the Greek Text (which is what we're talking about), edited by William Robertson Nicoll, and contributed to by 20 scholars, says;

      "But further: in Trench, u. s., p. 136,
      and Grimm, sub v., the ἰδιώτης is “a layman,” as compared with the ἰατρός, “the skilled physician,” Thuc. ii. 48, and the word is applied by Philo to the whole congregation of Israel as contrasted with the priests, and to subjects as contrasted with their prince, cf. its only use in the LXX, Proverbs 6:8 (cf. Herod., ii., 81, vii., 199, and instances in
      Wetstein on 1 Corinthians 14:16). Bearing this in mind, it would seem that the word is used by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 14:16; 1
      Corinthians 14:23-24) of believers devoid of special spiritual gifts, of prophecy or of speaking with tongues, and in the passage before us it is applied to those who, like the ἀγράμματοι, had been without professional
      training in the Rabbinical schools."

      Those that not only didn't have any training as a scribe especially at religious writing and law, but who according to Paul (apparently) were also devoid of 'special powers'. You know, 'special powers' like the sudden ability to write classical, well constructed Greek like 1st and 2nd Peter. Or PROPHESY, your bible's very claim itself, which in itself makes my point. If they had no powers of Prophesy, what is '1st and 2nd Peter' than? Or 'speak in Tongues', part of my point, the different language.

      You are doing a poor job of pretending to be well educated on this topic. If you were, you would not be claiming the rubbish dishonesty you do about it only being Bart Ehrman's beliefs.
      This is a case of your bible trying to have its cake and eat it too. On the one hand it claims they spoke really well, surprising their audience because they were 'common' men and uneducated as was the common thing then.
      Then later on it tries to add books written by the very person it said was unable to write in his own language let alone a different one, who had no 'special gifts from God'.

      If you were honest and educated on the subject, you would not be claiming all your story neatly dovetails together, when clearly it does not. Hence the more than 1000 denominations of Christianity for starters, all the evidence that is needed really. Even you 'of faith' can't agree what the Bible says and means.

      Contradictions are not neat agreement at all. Nearly 2000 years of at times complete
      and utter control, and you still can't make it work. lol.

      Here is a couple easy ones to check, you can do a little work and find the passages yourself. Did Jesus say anything to anyone while he carried the cross? One gospel says he speaks to more than one person, another
      says he speaks to no one at all... mutually exclusive claims that must have at least 1 incorrect answer.
      Or another simple one, how many of the
      'robbers' (they were likely not thieves, thieves were not usually crucified) mocked Jesus, one or both? You'll find both answers in the gospels. Again, mutually exclusive claims that dictate one is wrong.
      Good luck trying to lie about that being 'mistranslations'. Either it was one or both.

      If you had truly studied any of what you claim to have studied, with any degree of honesty and thought or accuracy, you would not be lying about it like you are. If you were taking into account 'context', as well as known, provable facts like additions, changes and omissions, you might actually start to get past your deluded, inaccurate and outright
      willingly ignorant and dishonest trash that you're trying to pass as truth.
      Answer my questions about those 2 contradictions honestly, I dare you.

      I haven't even gotten to any of the harder questions for you yet.... already you're making up things to try to keep your fairy tale
      working. It doesn't work, no matter how hard you lie to yourself or others.

    208. Back to being a hypocrite again I see. Last post you apologised for attacking Bart Ehrman.. this post was 90% ad hominem, most of it directed at Dr. Ehrman again.
      Of the 10% remaining of that 'post', much of it is flat out dishonesty from you, mixed in with an effort at preaching. You're not even any good at that, lying or preaching.

      There hasn't been any honest discussion between us from the start, or
      you with anyone else on here, you lie constantly rendering honest discussion an impossibility. Discussions go both ways, so you cannot have what you won't do.
      I can't be bothered addressing much of your drivel that is besides the point, I really don't care what Dr. Ehrman's life is or isn't like or what he personally believes, I've already told you I don't agree with him on numerous things. I'm interested in the facts, not the sideshow you want to create and then draw attention to. I don't care what deluded people like you think of me, so what. All that ad hominem shows is your emotional rather than thoughtful response to this topic, and your lack or a real argument.

      Where did you cut and paste that from? Your answer was cut and paste, did you even author it? Or get your brother to write it? (you know, the one you claimed has the education that you first claimed as yours) Get him to email you an answer did you? lol.

      You are so intent on trying to bash Prof. Ehrman because he is making your lies more apparent to the layman, that you make up more lies to do it.

      NO, once more, as others have pointed out, it is not a view held by one angry, rejected, non-peer reviewed and left-field scholar at all. It is the mainstream view of the majority of biblical scholars for a long time now, even the honest Christian ones as I'll now demonstrate for you. Try to keep up, I know you are 'just thinking', but barely thinking is not a valid excuse for willful ignorance and lie spreading.

      Lets take a look at Acts 4:13, and your BS claims about it only being Dr. Ehrman interpreting it that way. The only thing new to me in your silly post was your particular lies, most of them not even new either.

      Go look up the Biblehub . com, a Christian (with a large C) site. Do your own research on what the academics say about your translation. Christian, theologian academics. Here are a few for you.

      Charles Ellicott. (1819 -1905) An Anglican bishop, who was at one time the Professor of Divinity at King's College London. His commentary for English readers on Acts 4:13 includes;

      "Unlearned and ignorant.—The first of the two words means, literally, unlettered. Looking to the special meaning of the "letters” or “Scriptures” of the Jews, from which the scribes took their name (grammateis, from grammata), it would convey, as used here the sense of “not having been educated as a scribe, not having studied the Law and other sacred writings.” It does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. The second word means
      literally, a private person, one without special office or calling, or the culture which they imply: what in English might be called a “common man.” It appears again in 1Corinthians 14:16; 1Corinthians 14:23-24,
      with the same meaning. Its later history is curious enough to be worth noting. The Vulgate, instead of translating the Greek word, reproduced it, with scarcely an alteration, as id1ota. It thus passed into modem European languages with the idea of ignorance and incapacity closely attached to it, and so acquired its later sense of “id1ot.”

      Particular note about one of your misdirections / lies... idiota became 1diot via the Vulgate, which was a late 4th Century LATIN translation of the Bible that became the Catholic's official Latin version in the 16th century. As your fellow Christian Ellicott points out in that quote above, that is its "later history". You lied, or were lied to.

      Or we could look at others like Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, a Protestant. Read his take, it concurs with Ellicott's and Ehrman's position, and completely destroys your strawman argument. He also quotes many sources exactly at how he arrived at his conclusion, which is contrary to yours above.

      Or others like The Expositor's Greek Testament, considered one of the most important commentaries on the Greek Text (which is what we're talking about), which was edited by William Robertson Nicoll, and contributed to by 20 scholars, says;

      "But further: in Trench, u. s., p. 136, and Grimm, sub v., the ἰδιώτης is “a layman,” as compared with the ἰατρός, “the skilled physician,” Thuc. ii. 48, and the word is applied by Philo to the whole congregation of Israel as contrasted with the priests, and
      to subjects as contrasted with their prince, cf. its only use in the LXX, Proverbs 6:8 (cf. Herod., ii., 81, vii., 199, and instances in Wetstein on 1 Corinthians 14:16). Bearing this in mind, it would seem that the word is used by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 14:16; 1 Corinthians 14:23-24) of believers devoid of special spiritual gifts, of prophecy or of speaking with tongues, and in the passage before us it is applied to those who, like the ἀγράμματοι, had been without professional training in the Rabbinical schools."

      Those that not only didn't have any training, but according to St.Paul were also devoid of 'special powers'. You know, special powers like the sudden ability to write classical, well constructed Greek like 1st and 2nd Peter.

      You are doing a poor job of pretending to be educated on this topic. If you were, you would not be claiming the crap you do about it only being Bart Ehrman's thinking.

      If you were, you would not be claiming all your story neatly dovetails together.

      Contradictions are not neat agreement at all. Nearly 2000 years of at times complete and utter control, and you still can't make it work.

      Here is a couple easy ones to check, you can do a little work and find the passages yourself. Did Jesus say anything to anyone while he carried the cross? One gospel says he speaks to more than one person, another says he speaks to no one at all... mutually exclusive claims that must have 1 incorrect answer. Or another simple one, how many of the 'robbers' (they were likely not thieves, thieves were not usually crucified) mocked Jesus, one or both? You'll find both answers in the gospels. Again, mutually exclusive claims that dictate one is wrong.

      If you had truly studied any of what you claim to have studied, with any degree of honesty and thought, you would not be lying about it like you are. If you were taking into account 'context', as well as known, provable facts like additions, changes and omissions, you might actually start to get past your deluded, inaccurate and outright willingly ignorant and dishonest BS that you're trying to pass as truth. Answer my questions about those 2 contradictions honestly, I dare you.

    209. I like how people are just down voting like if it matters with the conversation, I guess is a passive aggressive way of saying aaaaahhh...anyway God bless you sir.

      One thing I do have to say though, people are very angry on this site, if I could I would give you all a hug including you docoman, God Bless you all, I hope everyone gets the chance to forgive those who have hurt them and continue looking forward towards redemtion and fellowship with all our fellow humans and with our creator. :D

    210. Sorry Alex...missed your response long ago...God has not created any time in the future for a group hug...He has commanded me to agape (meaning to do and say that which is in the best interest of those around me) which includes warning everyone on this site that the bridge is out and many of you have decided to put your foot to the floor when you need to slam the brakes on, throw the wheel and grab a u-turn in life. God has said we are sinners in desperate need of forgiveness and that forgiveness comes from one person...Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

    211. If your"God" is so powerful why would he allow children to die because they have no water or allow them to be kidnapped,sodomized and beheaded? Or girls to get their bowels slit open so some sexual sadist serial killer can jack off with her intestines? Or animal abuse of ANY kind? From what your saying he is SO powerful he could prevent all of that. But he doesn't. Sounds like a real sick a--hole,not to mention a pervert

    212. JF...just saw this response 8 months comments deserve a response...I think first God has said in the first chapter of Romans that He has put within each of us a sense that He exists and that what the Bible says is true; consequently, when we hurl accusations at Him we are rebelling against Him alone...He has very clearly said that you and I will someday bow at His feet and call Him Master. But let me answer your comments. The book of Genesis says when God created the earth and man it was "good" meaning no animals were killing each other or people. The one thing God put into Adam and Eve was volition (the ability to decide what to do so He would not have mindless robots). With this came a responsibility to not eat one fruit in the garden....As I'm sure you have read or heard over the years Adam and Eve deliberately sinned and ate the fruit. From that day on God brought a curse upon the earth and man was separated (driven out of the garden). God saw man was and is habitually doing that which he should not do so instead of letting us dies in our sins and face the judgement of eternal punishment He sent His Son Jesus Christ to earth to be tortured and killed in our place to pay the penalty for our sins. He has now told us we can accept Christs perfect sacrifice for a payment for our sins or we can rebel and live our lives on our own and then pay the penalty ourselves. So you are not looking at a Bad God letting people do bad are looking at a Good God reaching out to bad people (you and I). He has said He is long suffering and wants everyone to come to a knowledge of Him and His sons gift of salvation. So you clearly have established that there is right and wrong behavior in the world...the problem is you have lowered the bar to a level you are comfortable with for you clearly said nothing about lying or coveting or lusting...God has said that in His eyes you are evil and in need of a savior if you offend His Law in one way...He also said you can't control the sinful tings you do each day; consequently, if you think about it...are you good enough to meet Gods standard of sinless perfection on your own? It sound's like today you have chosen to be God and stand in the place of have clearly seen the rottenness of man without God and you blame Him for our bad behavior?

    213. God sounds like a real jerk off. I've never been a fan of jerk offs. Thanks for showing me I was right all along.

    214. Well J.F. What I just shared with you will be brought to your attention again one day...for God said "it is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgement"...hurling snarky blasphemous comments and walking off will not somehow make the day of judgement go away. Go buy a Bible (ESV or NLT) and read the book of John...ask the one who created you and is now keeping your heart beating to reveal Himself to you. I didn't invent this, I'm just one blind beggar telling another where to get some bread. I struggle to see how one would reject a free gift of forgiveness when your sin is making a mess of your current life and will bring eternal separation from Him if you choose to reject His free gift of forgiveness and continue on your own. I'm not a preacher or in any full time ministry (in fact I run a company); however, I am laying up at 12:40 AM because God is leading me to be sure you understand He loves you and wants to save you from your sins.

    215. For someone who claims not to be a preacher, your attempt at doing so is remarkably good by what I've read of yours so far...

  13. First 10 minutes sound like a parody of I am gay; why am I different?

  14. Does it matter if there is or if there is not? We were created as individuals and will die the same way... So your beliefs on anything will not prevent my death, nor am I being judge by your actions or what words come from your mouth! My Religion is EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY and I am tested and learn everyday!

  15. Do you believe in santa claus ?
    I saw receipts on the table...

    Too funny !

  16. Pretty much everything the "religious" people said sounds ridiculous and ignorant. it will never cease to amaze me that in this day and age ANYBODY would actually believe a word from the bible,and speak such nonsense, It's frightening

    1. The poor souls don't know anything else and they can't fathom why someone wouldn't want it themselves.

    2. Boggles my mind. Especially when it's intelligent people that think that.....bizarre!

    3. Same.. but not everyone has the same opportunity to question faith unfortunately. Some people its so reinforced it gets imprinted like a bad scratch on your favorite record.

    4. I think everyone has the opportunity,they might be scared,ignorant or don't want to disappoint parents/family. But they have the OPPORTUNITY. I'm SO grateful my parents didn't shove that crap down my throat,and any parent that does,is ignorant,selfish and irresponsible

    5. I totally agree with you. I've been an atheist since I was about 11, even before that I had my doubts that god existed Religious people explain away the cruelty of their god by telling themselves that its part of a bigger plan that they don't understand but its for their own good. Which is a convenient excuse that doesn't make any sense at all.

    6. Exactly.One of my favorite quotes.... "If there's a God,atheism must seem to him as less of an insult than religion." I would think if there was a God,we would ALL know it and there would be ONE God and he would let himself be known. The "God" these religious creeps talk about sounds like a real ***hole.

    7. Urge you to do a study of "free will" to comprehend why, if there is a God, He fails to provide proof of his reality. Or of His non-existence.

      You have, I believe, free will ultimately because He loves you and cherishes and perseveres in protecting your true freedom to choose, without the "crutch" or alternatively the "sledge hammer" of empirical, undeniable proofs. By faith alone. Forget "religion", please. Seek and you will find.

    8. Believe me,I "forgot" religion the day I understood what it is really about. Power,control and money. What is it exactly YOU think I need to "seek?" And what would YOU like me to find? Faith if for fools who don't have a grasp of reality,common sense or logic. If you need to have "belief" or "faith" to live your life productively,go ahead. I don't.

    9. What you need is completely up to you, and you alone. Do you have a reason for your anger?

    10. I have found every time a Prof or student would say these worn out cliches and I would ask them if they had spent any time reading and sincerely studying it themselves I would get "no, I don't have to" which I would say is probably not the most intellectually honest thing to say. Start with the book of John get a translation that is clear and succinct..maybe ESV. Pursue it as if your eternal destiny is on the line...because it is. I didn't invent the rules of engagement...I'm just trying to show another blind beggar where to get some bread.

    11. I was wrong about you with a statement like "I didn't invent the rules of engagement...I'm just trying to show another blind beggar where to get some bread"
      It appears you're trying to preach and convert..

    12. Don't be a hypocrite mate. You have made no effort to 'study sincerely here', so far you've just avoided questions and tried distraction/deflection ad hominem tactics.
      Now you're trying to preach, but are not honest enough to examine a couple of your texts or claims. Why? Are you worried you can't explain the problems, is that why you're avoiding any honest replies?

    13. You're a wordy pompous ass whose "words" are a bunch of meaningless drivel. Grow up and evolve. Join the land of the free and intelligent thinking humans who don't need some ridiculous entity to tell us how to act right. Religious people are just terrified of death. Spoiler're going to die,"God" or you can't stop it

  17. Annie, The recent discussion has not been about good or bad - it has been philosophical in nature. There has not been judgmental opinion until your comment. So your comment is immature and inappropriate. SW.

  18. Atheists are very bad.

    1. How are atheist bad, is because we don't believe all the lies that have been told to us by all those religee fools that believe in a magic man to no evidence has been able to prove.
      How is it that you religee get to a certain age and stop believing in santa, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy yet still believe in the magic man(god).

      Which one of the approximately 28,000,000 gods is the one you follow and how do you know it's the right one?

    2. Really good points!

    3. Follow science or superstition.

    4. Explain why you come to this conclusion... :)

    5. They hate Christmas.

    6. maybe a bad term, I always disliked the distinction. I never grew up with out the religious symbols, there is a virgin Mary in my dads hallway. I never asked them about god or any thing till way after I went to catholic school and was dating a girl who escaped a hard core pentecostal family (they would spout church banter and never actually needed to go to church, and cheated on one another all the time in messed up ways). I asked my mom what she thought, she called religion a fantasy. I laughed and thought about asking dad. I'm the son of a quiet funny guy. Like I said not with out religion stuff, just never said any thing one way or another about god Jesus, or churches. He told me a story about how the god people in the community need church, what they ask from him time to time and well how he simply never had a minute for preachers. I don't know if he's an atheist or annoyed by Jesus fans, but I work at an adult book store (they are actually really proud of me, some people arn't lucky enough to get lucky) and priests are the number one buyer of tranny porno.
      Religion in my experience is a sexual dysfunction, the fantasy is a symptom. every raving preacher needs to have real sex with a consenting adult. Most married people don't enjoy having sex, most if not all. Many of them do have happy lives and can even engage in safe sex with many couples and never come to reproach meeting gays or foreigners. Most chill people dislike being exposed to rigid uncreative and void lives with only a fictional after life promises by a fictional idol who was a god from other religions past, just another one handed down by people like you and me who will never last.

      but then again there are allot of nice people who do get a chance to think out side the scope of things Jesus, so they can learn to accept people, and all the weird things, Jesus or other wise. Wile I'm just a home body, I guess I am an atheist, and strange as it is in a strait monogamy not a baby in the picture. I could out christian a christian in modesty and every thing, but usually I try and listen, and not be too shy about what I'm learning. I hear Jesus this, king Harid that and then I would say psychological archetypes and neurological observations this. who cares! just ask your doctor about the temporal lobe and epilepsy.

      You can still have a reason to live, even when you know Jesus was just a self ordained faith leader (cultist?) who might have not even existed, non white, who was passed around Europe like bad case herpes during the fall of Rome and then was traded into the east, during the period with the Byzantium. To get that modern day 'Jesus, the white guy' look. oddly enough traded followings and traditions with Islam. You could learn more about this by reading and then when your ready, also by getting out and living it the f***ing life and every thing.

    7. and which of the world theists do you think are good?

  19. I thought the documentary was good for its limited scope It showed why anyone would be reluctant to come out as an atheist in a family of believers. You're labeled a wannabe nonconformist by your loudmouth uncle (who clearly considers himself a maverick himself) and you're told by supposed loved ones that you're going to burn in hell. Your six-year-old niece tell her she feels sorry for you, not because she actually does, but because she knows this is what she is supposed to say with her mother in the room. And you can't get angry or challenge them lest you get called an "a--hole".

    Andre's voice and perspective is one we don't see very often. Most people assume African Americans (possibly blacks in general) are very devout. Black people are the worst perpetrators of this myth. I'm also a black agnostic, and while I haven't experienced the same kind of ridicule that Andre has, I am also not quite as open as he is. I didn't "come out" to my parents until I was much older than he is. I don't think anyone outside of my immediate family even knows. I imagine I would hear some ignorance things too if I confronted my family members like he did. So good on him for being brave.

    The film will not change the mind of the self-righteous Christian, but maybe it will make other black atheists feel like they aren't alone.

  20. All religions were created by man. I really think these religions were created to control man. Take the Catholic religion for instance. I go to Europe and see all the elaborate churches created, some taking over 500 years to complete. And I'm thinking, "dang that took some control over man!" And of course this is just a small example on this ability to control.

    I always think about when the time comes that some other beings from another planet come visit us and learn that we (as a society) believe that they know the history of the universe and how it was "created". I'm pretty sure they'll laugh when they learn that this creator looks just like the creatures(us) inhibiting this environment! :-))

    1. They may laugh all they like but the stupid earthling will still find reason and excuse to believe in his anthropomorphic God. That's one of the gems at the heart of faith.

    2. It seems that religion is present in every culture, of every era, that we know of. Religion may have had an important role in human survival. If it wasn't that important, then why is it that no ancient culture, primitive tribe, anywhere, doesn't live without their superstitious beliefs and rituals. If it is an evolutionary survival tactic, maybe those beings have had to go through their own religious phase in their history and may be quite understanding of why humans are religious and our struggle to let go of our primitive, superstitious past.

  21. I'm so glad that Andre's piece has caused many to think. I sense we come to the planet with a genuine feeling of connectedness and perhaps awe of our surroundings: Nature or Gaia. We are learning that we are an integral part of the order in the Universe. Perhaps this is what makes us feel spiritually inclined. I would not deny this inclination - it may be part of the brain's structure. Perhaps when in this state of wonder and awe we feel it must be someone or something greater (god/gods or goddesses) than ourselves when indeed it is we, ourselves who are integral parts of the Universe.

    The monotheistic god emanated out of a male dominated culture. As the dominator cultures collapse, so will the dominator god and then we can have some genuine peace.

    As a man (or woman) thinketh in his heart, so is he. James Allen.

  22. Again, a review of the first monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) indicate that god was invented. There is no reason to waste time pondering it. What the mind of man can conceive - it can achieve. This does not eliminate the possibility of man having a spiritual (mind) nature. It is shocking to the subconscious mind to think of life without god as the master, but god was invented to control the masses, to answer questions that 2500 years ago could not be answered as they can be now. god is not dead because god never was. god is a figment of the imagination.

    1. Saretta, You say, "but god was invented to control the masses, to answer questions that 2500 years ago could not be answered as they can be now."

      How do you account therefore for the belief in god or gods among primitive tribal people in the Amazon, the Druids, Santeria, or the nomads of central asia. They don't have any "masses" to control. Wasn't Nazism, Communism, and taxation invented to "control the masses?"

    2. The second part of Saretta's statement answers your question. For those tribes, a god figure answers the questions out of reach for those people (whatever the reason).

    3. That is different therefore from "controlling the masses" then, isn't it? Religion even before the Catholics (who raised it to an obsessive-compulsive totalitarian disorder) was used for controlling people but that's not why men invented it. Television is used for controlling the masses, but that's not why it was invented.

    4. "Primitive" people do not have the god or gods that people in the West do and often it was not a god but the Sun etc. Also how do you account for about a billion people in China that think belief in god is a silly idea.

    5. People in China are supposed to believe (and forced by incarceration, abortion, and execution to assert) that the State will supply all their needs if they will simply put all their faith in the State alone for their old age and not rely on the ancient custom and instinct for many offspring.
      They want you putting all your eggs in their basket. BTW, which survey of Communist Chinese serfs are you basing your understanding of their "beliefs" on.

  23. No atheist can support his position with facts or evidence. Therefore, atheism is a Faith. Atheists are "people of faith" not at all faithless.

    1. you state "No atheist can support his position with facts or evidence" i disagree because i can.first off my position. i do not accept the god claims of others without proof that i can see and test for myself. here is fact i base my position on. nobody has presented me with demonstrable proof to back up their god claims

    2. To review: If there was proof of God then it would be in all the newspapers and everyone would believe it. To preserve your Free Will, God will not provide proof. But if you come to believe, He will reward you with all the proof your heart can discern.

      Now, over the edge, I realize that it is hard to prove a negative, but since you cannot adduce evidence that God does not exist, any god, then you are operating in the realm of faith, aren't you? Do you claim that atheism is supported by anything at all, except your beliefs?

    3. So, Terry, I guess you cannot proof that in Venus' core there is not a blue rock called 'Solfeggiolyte' that makes a beautiful music when you chew on it. And if you do not believe me, then your disbelief is based on believe, for there is no proof of the non-existence of the Solfeggiolyte.
      Atheism is a disbelief. It is not based on belief any more than silence is based on sound, or black is a color.

    4. Diego, that doesn't work. You live your life as if God exists, or you live your life as if God doesn't exist. That's what makes you an atheist and it is entirely based on what you believe to be true. It is not disbelief at all. That would be neutrality like a jury before the evidence is examined. You've already decided what you believe and that's how you live. You are a partisan on the question, not Switzerland.

      Sound is vibration and where there is no molecules to vibrate, like outer space, there is no sound. Black IS a color, or rather every color. When you want to paint something black, the paint salesman asks "what color?" and you say "black," don't you?

      Let me propound another question: Do you believe that there is any non-physical reality?

    5. What would make me an atheist (never said I was) is that I base my life on what I believe to be true, that's fair enough. Atheist reject religion because it is not based on evidence and most important, because they see it as a harmful waste of energy. According to you, then every thought is based on belief, for we cannot be certain of anything. I agree. Atheist believe in many things, of course.

      About the sound, that's exactly what I meant; silence is not a sound, it's the lack of it. Black is not a color, though. Same thing. Black is the absence of light, or no electromagnetic vibration. The paint salesman does not Know that. White is every color, technically. Sorry. Atheism is the absence of believe in any god.
      I believe in friendship. I do not have much proof of its existence, but I still believe in it.

      As for your question, do I believe that there is any non-physical reality? What I believe is not really relevant, but, no, I do not believe in it, and if you do then the burden of proof is yours, not mine, the same as I never expected you to disproof my 'Solfeggiolyte'.
      Thanks for arguing with me, I appreciate.

    6. I reject religion. Atheists reject God. Religion is an attempt by Man to figure out how he can please or get to God by what Man does. I'm a Christian means that I have a relationship with and belong to God irrespective of anything, any rule, or anything that I can do. I accept it by faith alone and, in my belief, there is nothing I can do to earn it or keep it. It is a free gift once and for all.

    7. It is none of my business whether you believe in God or not.
      But can I ask you something?
      If your God appeared and told you to murder your child to prove your faith in Him; would you do it? Or would you walk away from Him?

    8. I'd walk away

    9. I hope I'd realise I'm hearing voices and need medical help, walk to my doctor.

      I was just thinking, it must have made Issac one paranoid boy.... "Dad might just decide 'God' wants him to 'shiv' me when I'm not expecting it...again.... and I'm still annoyed the tricky old bugger got me to help build that alter first last time too.." :)

    10. G'day Redwine, hope you're feeling well mate. Good question.
      Interestingly I feel, there is a contradiction in the Bible between the OT and NT, the OT part about the Abraham test.
      Gen 22:1 (KJV)"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am."
      Later, in the NT in James 1:13 (KJV) "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"
      I've heard apologists argue there's no contradiction because Abraham's test wasn't 'evil'. Personally I disagree with them.
      Your question gets straight to the heart of that issue, I like it.

    11. Aren't you the busy little bee, looking up the actual text! (I'm far too lazy).
      Have a nice day!

    12. Good for you, Terry. You're a christian who rejects religion. Enough said.

    13. Yes, it does work. I don't think any of us are claiming neutrality. What we are saying is that we reject the hypothesis that there is a god based on a lack of evidence. We aren't a pre-trial jury, this debate has gone on for thousands of years and there has been plenty of argument from both sides. Those of us who don't believe have examined the arguments and evidence and concluded that they are insufficient to justify accepting the claim that a god exists.

      Black and sound are labels we use to describe phenomena. God is a label too, except we don't have any evidence to map that label to. Also, black is technically the absence of all colors. Your eye sees what colors are reflected back to it from a surface. Black reflects little to no color and that's why it appears black. White is the presence of the entire visible spectrum.

    14. You confuse belief (faith) with facts. I do not believe in a creator because I have not seen the facts, any facts, to support a belief in God. You believe in God, not because you have the facts to prove his existence, but because of a faith in his existence. Facts are true and are always true and can be proven. Faith is a belief in things that can't be proven. Therefore the provable facts do not exist. A person could believe his spouse loved them but that may not be true. One will never really know for sure. The entire concept is one that lies outside the realm of provable fact. It relies on faith.

      It puts me in the neutral position that you talked about. As of today, I have not seen one piece of evidence that says that God is an actual being. I don't have faith that I haven't seen that evidence. I know I haven't. However, if someone does show me the facts that say there can be no other explanation except the existence of a God and he is the one specifically mentioned in the Quran or Bible or whatever, then I must except it. It becomes a matter of fact and is no longer a belief system. One knows facts. One does not believe them. The minute belief becomes involved they are no longer facts.

    15. "Facts" are simply things which are believed. Barring delusion or mistake, facts are established in law by a "finder of fact" whether that be a judge or a jury. Consider the amazing Innocence Project: The fact that an inmate is a murderer is established by the beliefs of 12 jurors. That remains a true fact up until the time that DNA evidence disproves guilt, sometimes after 18 or 20 years.

      God is the ultimate non-physical reality. If Space and Time and Matter and Energy began with the Big Bang then you are looking at something above and beyond nature--something supernatural which cannot be measured. That's why most biologists looking microscopically at reality are atheist, while most astrophysicists aware of the Big Bank are theists.

    16. Your jury scenario does not hold up. Their belief of guilt was arrived at because they did not have all the facts. Once all the facts, including the DNA evidence, were presented, the verdict of guilt was no longer valid. The original guilt verdict was a belief that all the facts had been presented but it was not true. All facts at their disposal may have been true, but the jury was limited by the fact that all evidence had not been presented.

      Your statement concerning the beliefs of biologists and astrophysicists is, as of this moment, rooted in a belief system. Do you have the facts to back up this statement? If you can show me the surveys that verify this statement, then it becomes fact. Until then, it is nothing more than a statement and your belief and not proven as fact and is simply meaningless.

      2 + 2 = 4 is a fact, not a belief. It is always true. If it can be shown that it can be false then this equation becomes a belief...the belief that under most circumstances that it is true unless additional facts are given.

    17. "Your statement concerning the beliefs of biologists and astrophysicists is, as of this moment, rooted in a belief system. Do you have the facts to back up this statement? If you can show me the surveys that verify this statement, then it becomes fact. Until then, it is nothing more than a statement and your belief and not proven as fact and is simply meaningless."

      I'm not doing any surveys. I am not trying to convince you. I am simply stating the facts as I know them because I believe them. I get the observations about biologists and astrophysicists from a PhD meteorologist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories. I am sure that is not an official declaration from the U.S. Government science establishment but it is close enough for me.

      It seemed like everyone believed that Newtonian physics was a fact, didn't it, for a while, but then more facts were theorized and then proven that Isaac was wrong-- non-factual--by the omission of relativity. You are saying that facts stand alone irrespective of anyone believing them or not. I don't buy the metaphysics of that. Without a believer it cannot be said that a fact exists. It needs someone to validate it.
      Two plus two is actually IV in Rome and something else in the binary number system because someone somewhere believes it.

      But this is a distraction. If you conduct yourself as if there is no supernatural power then you are an atheist. If you conduct yourself in defiance, rebellion, rejection of God, like Joseph Stalin did, you're not an atheist at all, but a hater of God.

    18. It would appear to me that the brainwashing conducted on you by your fellow magic man believers has worked a treat. Having read all your posts on this thread you have shown that your idea of a fact is different than what most of us think, your beliefs are just that. Not fact like you would like to believe.

      I conduct myself knowing that there is no supernatural power and if there was I would conduct myself with defiance, rebellion and rejection of your magic man and I'm an antitheist.

    19. Good for you, Jack. That's what Stalin did, murdering millions of innocents before waving his fist at the ceiling on his deathbed, as reported by his daughter.

    20. Lovely little strawman you've constructed there Terry. Stalin killed millions of innocents, hated God... therefore if Jackmax hates your God...How many innocents exactly is it you're implying he's killed?

      'OldFox'? The saying is 'you can't teach an Old Dog new tricks', not Old Fox. ;)

    21. G'day Doco'

      Some people are so blinded by their own stupidity. If he had something interesting to contribute I would like to hear however to date he has only confirmed to me that you can not have a logical discussion with a religee.

      Mate I don't hate the magic man at all, as I don't believe in him/her/it in any way shape or form...

    22. You have made no sense at all
      Just more of the same old dribble

    23. Jack, you made an ad hominem attack with an inflammatory term "brainwashed" which is an unethical and cheap cop out from addressing or engaging in an intellectually honest exchange of views. It is an insult, which is unacceptable among scholars, students, and gentlemen. So you are not entitled to any respect or consideration from me. You guys shut down discourse when you go out of order like that.

      Right back at you: I'm not interested in having a battle of wits with an unarmed man who has been indoctrinated in the disinformation, errors, corruption, and malpractice of the government school authority.

    24. Lucky I don't find you to be either a scholar, student or gentleman. If you are insulted I recommend a cup of cement and HTFU.

      What disinformation, errors, corruption and malpractice of the government school authority would that be.
      You have made a statement they appear extremely broad and with no substance.
      I'm glad you aren't after a battle of wit with anyone as it appear that is one area you have to been lacking. You seem to have making wild and unfounded statement down pat so it might pay to stick with what your good at.

      Your right in what you said about atheists not hating the magic man(god), as it's extremely hard to hate something that's not real.

    25. I like the way you've tried to turn 'Fact' into a 'legal fact', one supposed Phd's feelings into 'close enough to an Official U.S Gov. statement', 2+2=4 into a Roman Numeral or Binary answer, (which in this case would still be wrong, as neither of those ways write the question that way, so 4 is actually the correct answer there despite your logic contortions), and finally anyone who doesn't believe YOUR VERSION of 'God' and conduct themselves according to what YOUR VERSION dictates, then they're an atheist or 'hater of God'.

      One problem you've failed to spot in the reasoning with your claim;
      "Without a believer it cannot be said that a fact exists. It needs someone to validate it."

      Well, before anyone or anything was 'created', who or what validated your 'fact' that your 'god' existed? According to your logic, if there was only 'Him', then there was...nothing...

      I guess that means you also think that every victim of a Priest around the world must be 'haters of God', going by their conduct?

      Just because someone might get to the point where they hate 'scripture screaming fools' and 'dogma dictating d1ckheads', doesn't automatically mean they hate your 'God'. If someone doesn't believe 'He's' real, how can they hate 'Him'? He's not a believed 'fact', remember.

    26. "and finally anyone who doesn't believe YOUR VERSION of 'God' and conduct themselves according to what YOUR VERSION dictates, then they're an atheist or 'hater of God'."

      That is totally and categorically untrue. I never said that, thought that, or believe that. You seem unreasonably belligerent. This discussion has been about self professed atheists. I don't put anyone in that category that does not put themselves in that category. I don't categorize Muslims, Animists, Santerians, Hindus, Taoists, Greek or Roman mythologists, medicine men or Buddists as atheists. You have distorted and falsely accused me of something I have not done. I resent it because I suspect you did so deliberately.

      You must be confusing me with the Roman Catholic church, the Inquisition, or the Islamic Caliphate.

      The example I offered of Joseph Stalin, probably the world's most famous self declared atheist, was to show that he was, at the end of the day, not an atheist at all. As the last act of his accursed life, he shook his fist defiantly at the ceiling, according to Svetlana, which shows he was merely a hater of God and not a disbeliever at all. If that causes you a wound or discomfort, it has nothing to do with me.

      I don't think any less of atheists. I was one until about age 35 simply because I would not accept a proposition without proof. I said I was "agnostic" but the fact is that I lived as if there were no God. Might be, but it did not affect or inform my decisions. There is nothing bad about being atheist. I just have come to believe it incorrect.

      There is certainly good reason for victims of pederast priests to hate God, but perverts hiding in disguise as "men of God" is not God's doing. It is the enemy, lucifer, satan, the devil, author of all lies who comes to kill and destroy. Atheists don't hate God or dislike Him, if they are sincere. They're just out of His loop.

    27. Ahh, but Terry, you have revealed your position and beliefs, when you said;
      " I'm a Christian means that I have a relationship with and belong to God irrespective of anything, any rule, or anything that I can do. I accept it by faith alone and, in my belief, there is nothing I can do to earn it or keep it. It is a free gift once and for all."

      And things like your just posted;
      "perverts hiding in disguise as "men of God" is not God's doing. It is the enemy, lucifer, satan, the devil, author of all lies who comes to kill and destroy."
      It's pretty clear what team you bat for, by your own words.

      This conversation hasn't been about what self professed atheists believe, it's been you saying what you think ALL atheists really believe. Along the way manipulating logic to suite your beliefs and therefore 'facts', as you argued earlier.

      You assume Stalin was shaking his fist at God. Might have been a final 'I'm the man' as far as we know. You may or may not be correct in your interpretation of that action, but we'll never know what he was thinking. What Stalin did or didn't believe has a bearing on what atheists believe today how exactly, anyway?

      That is another case where you're taking what you believe Stalin believed, then using that as a strawman to compare every atheist too. As you insultingly did to some here. And now you cry the victim as well. The sad thing is you get much worse.

      Your 'No True Scotsman' defense of the Catholic Church's peodophile priest problems shows where you stand on that matter. That defense doesn't hold up, when you look at the Church's responses to the abuses once they became known. They didn't stop it from happening, they didn't do what was right legally or morally, or by YOUR own 'code'. NOT only are the peodophile priests guilty, so is the whole hierarchy of that organisation, and now also everyone like yourself that defends them.
      Have a look at Cardinal Pell for a prime example. He knew all about it, didn't stop it, even 'supported' priests in court trials for it, and how has the Church responded? By making him one of the most powerful Cardinals alive. Shame on them and everyone that supports those peodephiles in dresses and their bosses, like you just did.

    28. You really think, doco, that I am defending pedophile priests and the Catholic church which engaged in obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, enabled interstate flight of felons, and cover up conspiracies! Or are you just trying to provoke me with the famous Scientology ploy of false accusations?

    29. Well how else do you explain that fallacy of a defense you put up for the Church leaders? As you did. That particular one you defended them with, as I already pointed out, is called the 'No True Scotsman Fallacy', and shows where you stand on the matter. (look it up if you need to) Your words, you spoke for yourself. What am I making up, exactly? That you didn't blame it on 'satan' straight away? Thus defending the Church instead of condemning it, completely ignoring the leaders who didn't touch a child, but broke other laws in hiding it.

      You've said, "I reject religion." Yet you jumped to their defense when it's mentioned. Why? Why defend something you supposedly reject as only man made?
      Your words;
      "Religion is an attempt by Man to figure out how he can please or get to God by what Man does."
      Yet you call yourself Christian, and defended the Church rather then speak out against what they did when given the choice. That was your 'free will' to take the position you did, so own your own actions for a change.

      You're quick to say the bad things, such as we're talking about here, are 'satan, the devil etc its all 'his' doing, but also say your God is the one in control of everything. Which is it? You want to have your Cake and eat it too. (Control yet no blame)

    30. The only thing I'm trying to provoke here is your mind to use some decent logic instead of that twisted style you've been displaying all thread. If you want to argue, whatever, that's your choice, I don't care mate. Thinking and self honesty would be my preference. You spoke for yourself Terry, own your own words. And no, everything I've seen about Scientologists disgusts me, especially their tactics. That's more often, as the Scientologists claim to be one of, a religious maneuver. An old fellow like you might blow a heart valve if you get too angry, I don't wish you any ill will Terry. Just disagree with you is all. There's probably a number of topics we'd agree on.

    31. you state "It seemed like everyone believed that Newtonian physics was a fact,
      didn't it, for a while, but then more facts were theorized and then
      proven that Isaac was wrong-- non-factual" really? all that was proven was that there are certain conditions where Newtonian Physics do not apply and the margins were narrowed. for most of us Newtons laws and theories explain how things work in everyday life. try dropping a bowling ball on your foot then tell me how his explanation of gravity and kinetic energy were wrong.

    32. Using one meteorologist as your source is self serving and dishonest. You believe him only because it validates your beliefs. It's almost as if you don't care if he is correct or not, so long as it helps prove your case.

      I don't know how to respond to the rest of your comment. If you can't see how Roman numerals is just another way to express the same mathematical concepts, then I'm afraid that I am at a loss in how to explain it to you. 4, IV, quatre, 100 in binary, four, vier, are all different ways to express the same thing. The mathematics does not change.

      I am not Stalin and I will never behave like that monster. I abhor the dreadful things that man did. Being an atheist does not make me a mass murder and despot.

      I am not in defiance of God. I cannot defy what I do not believe exists. He is a nothing to me, neither good nor bad or all powerful or weak. He is Santa Claus, the Wizard of Oz, Freddie Kruger...he is just not there. It has nothing to do with what I want or wish for. I base it on the lack of any evidence for his existence. You haven't provided any.

    33. The laws of science have nothing to do with the human belief in their existence. Gravity has always existed. Newton was the first to describe how it worked, but gravity was always a fact. Human existence is not necessary for the laws of science to be fact. It is true whether we exist or we know about them or not. We may be mistaken in our understanding of those laws but it doesn't change the fact that they are there in its truest form.

      That God is the ultimate physical reality is an assumption. You have not given one irrefutable piece of evidence that it isn't a belief and is, indeed, true. The belief in God dies with the human race. The reality of God, if true, has nothing to do with humanity and he would still be there after the human race perishes.

    34. pour some gasoline on your leg and light a match then try to convince your self that your leg ain't on fire cause you got a different opinion of the matter. Let me know if that gives you any insight into the concept of "fact"

    35. Hi Jack ,Please see my post to over THE edge.There is THE proof of God i present with THE facts from THE last revelation,THE Quraan.if you have any questions ,let me know.

    36. "every color" is white (the full spectrum) "black" is the absence of light. Paint is not a color it is something that selectively reflects certain wavelengths of light that is shone upon it and absorbs the other wavelengths. Pigments that do not reflect light are CALLED black but c like we say down in Texas "you can put your socks in the oven but that don't make 'em biscuits"

    37. No, it would not destroy free will. As you may recall, if you've read the Bible, Lucifer was banished from heaven for attempting a coup against God. Lucifer would have had direct and undeniable evidence of God's existence and power, yet still had the free will to try and overthrow God.

    38. i never claimed "god does not exist" so there is no faith involved. of the approx 28 000 000 gods that have been worshiped what one do you subscribe to? of the ones you do not believe in is that faith? do you believe Elvis is still alive? if not can you prove it or is it faith? or fairies, leprechauns and big foot. is the lack of belief in these dependent on faith?

      you ask "Do you claim that atheism is supported by anything at all, except your beliefs?" no atheism is a place holder for a neutral position. there is no word for those who do not believe that Elvis is still alive or the other examples i gave. burden shifting is only a way to wiggle out of the responsibility of the claimant. please look up "Russel's Teapot"

    39. You are right not to accept just any piece of informatieontsluiting,especially iif iT is not backed up with nothingYou say that nobody has presented a demonstratable proof,i Will do my best to give u a few.God send THE mendkind revalations they kept being corrupted( bible for eg is full of mistakes,thus not reliable). THE last book ,Quraan God has promessed therin He Will quard iT from corruption.Proof 1.not even 1 contridiction,mistake in THE book.Proof 2.description of atom (10:61).proof 3.planetary orbits(39:5).proof 4 .Tectonics(27:88).we read in THE quran that THE universe is Always expanding ( 51:47) and of course THE big bang is in THE Quraan (41:11)",.this info is 1400 years old and THE profet Mohammed peace be upon him was an illitarate.thw Quraan is online so you can check this facts for yourself .If you need more proof let me know.cheers,!

    40. until you prove your claims of god's existence objectively, atheists have every right to ignore your claims. Atheism is not a positive proposition.. we simply ignore all religious crap. It takes faith for you to ignore harry potter as a moral guide to life?

    41. You're asking an atheist to prove a negative. It would be analogous for you to walk up to someone and ask them to prove that you didn't have a ham and cheese sandwich yesterday, or prove there wasn't a tea cup orbiting Saturn. The burden of proof rests on the person making the positive assertion, in this case, the theist. The position of the atheist is that we are not convinced by evidence or argument that a god exists, just like I'm not convinced by any argument or evidence that alien abductions occur (even though I can talk to thousands of people who will tell me their abduction stories).

    42. Yes, I agree with what you've said (although I believe a pathologist could adduce solid evidence that I didn't eat that sandwich). I take your point that in the spiritual, non-physical realm (which you may deny exists), perhaps even in the thought realm, without more, one cannot prove a negative. That was the foundation of my belief system from the time I began thinking about it, up until about the age of 35, when I came to believe through a series of "coincidences" in my life that God might be real and that many men much smarter than me thought that He was. When I stopped needing to PROVE to myself or others what I believed, I then believe that I received His invitation.

      I was never anti-Christian as an atheist (as someone around here seemed to allude at some point), but I was quietly anti-Catholic as I learned about their doctrine and history. It was probably good that I never knew my father and had no fatherly abuse to overcome, and good, I reason, that I was unchurched because my single mother felt I should be free to decide for myself when I reached the age of "accountability."
      [I am too prolix. Nevermind. Sorry.]

    43. by "his" I assume you refer to Poseidon.

    44. Atheism is a faith as much as NOT collecting stamps is a Hubby!

    45. The burden of proof is on the proponent.
      Atheists do not consider any of the arguments presented in support of the deity de jure to be convincing. Since “Faith” supports any and all propositions, including those that are mutually exclusive, atheists consider that support to be illusionary.
      Semantics can be bandied about but the essential difference between atheists and theists is a priori. If you begin tabula rasa
      and accept only that which is supported by evidence you are in the former camp and if you embrace magic and myth you are in the later.

    46. You say, "Atheists do not consider any of the arguments presented in support of the deity de jure to be convincing." There can certainly be no argument with that.

      "If you begin tabula rasa and accept only that which is supported by evidence you are in the former camp..."

      Would you say that creativity, affection, art, love, enthusiasm, patriotism, larceny, greed, inspiration, envy, bigotry, despair, outrage, cynicism is supported by evidence? Always, occasionally, or possibly so?

      Can they exist at all w/o evidence or without being acted upon? Or is all consciousness "an illusion" as some believe? I ask this sincerely.

    47. Your list is a mix of characteristics that have been observed in human behavior, While subjective, I'd say that each item there can be instrumentalized (i.e. a metric can be assigned as representative of the item).
      Thus, each can be measured and subjected
      to whatever criteria of authenticity you wish to assign to it.
      There is something to watch out for when you engage in these exercises though, and it is called “reification” - the tendency
      to think that something IS simply because it has a name.

      It is not too great a leap from that observation to the solipsism that is the heart
      of your question, and that links directly with the original issue, which is essentially epistemological.
      It is impossible to say with absolute certainty that anything other than
      consciousness and an observer exists (“cogito ergo sum”) but like its cousin
      nihilism, solipsism is a philosophical dead end.
      You may dance with the angels on the head of that pin forever and expand your understanding not a whit.

      If we are to learn anything from the thinkers that came before us it is that AT BEST
      we can only get some probabilistic notion of ANYTHING.
      Each of us must assign some level of probability that we TREAT as functional certainty for the things that satisfy that level – by whatever criteria that one’s level of analysis permits – and another for
      things that are functionally false, and then place the rest in their respective
      order of likelihood.
      In passing, I will note that mathematically the probability of one in infinity is equal to zero, which is my personal favorite argument to “agnostics” (who I consider to be intellectual cowards).

      The crux of the difference between “magic” thinkers and “evidence” thinkers is that
      with magic you at least have the ILLUSION of certainty while evidence based conclusions will always be subject to further analysis. That makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and most prefer comfort to

      I place all the religions in human history in the “magic” zone and assign their metaphysics solidly in the “functionally false” probability category.
      I do recognize theirsocial value as cohort identifiers, it is just that I have no desire to be in any of those clubs.

  24. I would suggest Andre read A History of God by Karen Armstrong. You will find that god is an invention - a god of war and still is.

  25. Well spotted Andre! Very brave of you to be speaking out in your community. Very impressed with your family. You may well be interested in this quote from the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus:-

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” (Epicurus)

  26. This documentary had the potential to greatly illuminate atheism from an African American perspective, but unfortunately fell flat in its effort. I applaud the creater of the piece for attempting to shed light on the subject as it relates to a specific group (AfroAms). I found the "uncle" to be humorous, yet ambiguous and erroneously informed when answering some of the direct questions presented by the filmmaker. The "pastor" was as equally uninformed and offered no insight whatsoever. Same ole ideology...

  27. This doc didn't really reveal much of interest to me. I enjoy watching religious people trying to justify their beliefs as much as the next guy but I don't think the 50 minutes runtime were very well used as the interviewer didn't seem to have much in the line of questions or follow ups. The uncle had a very odd line of reasoning :/

    Edit: Interesting though to hear atheism referred to as a "white thing".

    1. the level of philosophical ignorance in the black community is staggering.

    2. I think that's a human condition, not just a black thing.

  28. I'm only surprised there are not more Black atheists , anyone with half a brain can see the black church is one of the most corrupt businesses in town , The newest most expensive car in the parking lot belongs to the poor preacher who just passed you up while you was waiting on the bus . God is portrayed as an old white man sitting on an ivory throne , Jesus looks like a sad santa monica surfer dude

    1. All churches or organized religions are corrupt!

    2. A little church in my community has a wonderful minister who actually tried to do a lot of good. He never judged any body based on their beliefs or lack there of. A really great guy.
      Unfortunately, his congregation of upstanding Christians mainly consists of self-serving, hypocritical a@#holes.

    3. Amen! I agree with you!

    4. Aww, thanks for thinking about little old me!
      You know what's really weird? I will still say things like "oh my god" or "god bless him/her". I suppose its simply a socially ingrained habit?

    5. I am not an atheist i just despise organized religion.

      I don't manifest a form around the Deity. To me there is one life we all share.

    6. A being wouldn't even bother going to a man made structure, church - temple - etc. if that being actually believed in what he professes - why would anyone need to bring other people in to the conversation between "me and my god"

      Look at "religion" how many "gods" are there in recorded history? (I don't know I am just wondering)? And when one thinks about it each one of those "gods" was "THE GOD"! and now all those "THE GOD'S" have come and gone?

      Why is it necessary for the majority of us to manifest "god" into a being - Isn't it "god" that does the manifesting - - - - - -

      To actually live in a synthetic "reality" and refer to it as "reality" - is the King with no clothes for sure - - - - - -

      Book learned "gods" are mental masterbation

      The Deity communicates directly with primary creations -

      Why would, "god", speak to anyone through script rewritten many times over - edited in edited out - not to mention the translations - it seems a tad cumbersome don't you think -

      (I was thinking about you the other day)

    7. Agreed! But I don't bother arguing with believers about it. I live and let live. I expect the same from them.