The creator did it.

[He has Risen!]

Failed analogy. Computers do not reproduce, they do not undergo natural selection.

Has your computer ever gotten a virus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither does a "straw man argument" as you just presented. There are at least 7 different authors included in the 27 books of the new testament. So if I am to quote Paul in order to support something Peter or Jude have written, that is not classified as circular reasoning, because I am quoting from different individuals writings.

What strawman argument? And yes, no matter what excuse one uses using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning. You may have forgotten about the Council of Nicea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has your computer ever gotten a virus?

No. Even if it did the analogy still failed. Computers do not reproduce. Surviving a computer virus is not natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how do you deal with the problems in the New Testament, @He has Risen! Do you use the ostrich defence?

 

[He has Risen!]

What strawman argument? And yes, no matter what excuse one uses using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning. You may have forgotten about the Council of Nicea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 27125

So you could not name the strawman.

And you still do not understand why you used circular reasoning. Do you know when and how the modern Bible was formed?

 

[He has Risen!]

What strawman argument? And yes, no matter what excuse one uses using the Bible to prove the Bible is circular reasoning. You may have forgotten about the Council of Nicea.

When I said...
There are at least 7 different authors included in the 27 books of the new testament. So if I am to quote Paul in order to support something Peter or Jude have written, that is not classified as circular reasoning, because I am quoting from different individuals writings.
It is like quoting different men in a science book to show that evolution is true (even though it is not). I would say that if you quote Dawkins to support Darwin it would not be circular, even though both men are men of science. So if I quote James to support Luke, it is not circular reasoning.

 

[He has Risen!]

Do you know when and how the modern Bible was formed?

The forming of the bible started even before Jesus' life on earth. Moses authored the first 5 books that are known as the Torah or The Law, then you had what is known as the Prophets (both major and minor), then you have the Writings...

Luke 24...
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.


The NT was formed by the writing of some of the Apostles as well as 2 brothers of Jesus and church historians Luke and Mark.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I said...
There are at least 7 different authors included in the 27 books of the new testament. So if I am to quote Paul in order to support something Peter or Jude have written, that is not classified as circular reasoning, because I am quoting from different individuals writings.
It is like quoting different men in a science book to show that evolution is true (even though it is not). I would say that if you quote Dawkins to support Darwin it would not be circular, even though both men are men of science. So if I quote James to support Luke, it is not circular reasoning.

And that is wrong. It is still a circular argument. Once again it appears that you forgot how the modern Bible was formed. It is not like quoting different people since the Bible itself is the topic, using the Bible to defend the Bible is circular. In the Council of Nicea books that did not toe the line were tossed. That in effect makes the Bible one source. If you want to use logical fallacies you have to know how to apply them correctly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The forming of the bible started even before Jesus' life on earth. Moses authored the first 5 books that are known as the Torah or The Law, then you had what is known as the Prophets (both major and minor), then you have the Writings...

Luke 24...
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.


The NT was formed by the writing of some of the Apostles as well as 2 brothers of Jesus and church historians Luke and Mark.

Not what I asked. And haven't you been claiming "eyewitnesses"? You do not seem to have found any that talk about the miracles of Jesus.

 

[He has Risen!]

And that is wrong. It is still a circular argument. Once again it appears that you forgot how the modern Bible was formed. It is not like quoting different people since the Bible itself is the topic, using the Bible to defend the Bible is circular. In the Council of Nicea books that did not toe the line were tossed. That in effect makes the Bible one source. If you want to use logical fallacies you have to know how to apply them correctly.

You could not be more wrong and more gravely mistaken. Would I be using circular reasoning if I were to quote Einstein and Hawking to support the laws of thermodynamics just because they are found in the same textbook?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You could not be more wrong and more gravely mistaken. Would I be using circular reasoning if I were to quote Einstein and Hawking to support the laws of thermodynamics just because they are found in the same textbook?

If they were only found in the same textbook you would be. But you see they are tested and confirmed independently outside of textbooks. That is not done with the Bible. In fact not only does the Bible refute itself if one deals with it honestly, it is refuted by the outside world as well. You are aware of Luke's failure in his nativity myth, aren't you? Or the failure of the Tyre prophecy? Or even the failure of Jesus's prophecy and when the "all would be accomplished".

 

[He has Risen!]

Not what I asked. And haven't you been claiming "eyewitnesses"? You do not seem to have found any that talk about the miracles of Jesus.

John the Apostle wrote the following in his gospel...
chap1
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
chap2
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
chap21
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

John the Apostle wrote the following in his gospel...
chap1
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
chap2
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
chap21
24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Nope, very few modern scholars, those that understand the Bible and the history of the area much better than you or I do do not believe that John wrote the Gospels. All of the Gospels are anonymous.

 

[He has Risen!]

If they were only found in the same textbook you would be. But you see they are tested and confirmed independently outside of textbooks. That is not done with the Bible. In fact not only does the Bible refute itself if one deals with it honestly, it is refuted by the outside world as well. You are aware of Luke's failure in his nativity myth, aren't you? Or the failure of the Tyre prophecy? Or even the failure of Jesus's prophecy and when the "all would be accomplished".

You are wrong on all accounts, but since I could not convince you with any previous posts, I think that I will not convince you with any additional posts, so I will call it quits for this evening.
Good night Subduction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are wrong on all accounts, but since I could not convince you with any previous posts, I think that I will not convince you with any additional posts, so I will call it quits for this evening.
Good night Subduction.

Nope, you only have your belief in myths. The Bible regularly contradicts itself. In fact it is a bit of a joke:

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized


Do you see all of those red lines in the link? They tie together Bible self contradictions. And didn't I ask you about Luke's failed nativity? How do you deal with him putting the Birth of Jesus is 6 AD?

John was almost certainly not written by John the Apostle since it was written at least 60 years after the event:

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

You keep making the error of quoting non-eyewitness accounts and treating them as if they were that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And another independent source that explain why John was not written by John:

Gospel According to John | Description, Authorship, & Facts

By the time it was written it is a certainty that John the apostle was dead and buried:

" The Gospel’s place and date of composition are also uncertain; many scholars suggest that it was written at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, about 100 CE for the purpose of communicating the truths about Christ to Christians of Hellenistic background."

"The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John and based his writing on John’s teachings and testimonies. Moreover, the facts that several episodes in the life of Jesus are recounted out of sequence with the Synoptics and that the final chapter appears to be a later addition suggest that the text may be a composite."

Serious scholars simply do not think it was written by John. You will only find apologists that make that claim.

If one can't deal with the failures of the Bible how can one claim to be a student of the Bible? Pretending that they do not exist only tells others that that person is not a serious student and only wants to believe.

 

[Rapture Era]

You are wrong on all accounts, but since I could not convince you with any previous posts, I think that I will not convince you with any additional posts, so I will call it quits for this evening.
Good night Subduction.

HhR, I don't know why you bother! They don't care about anything you say, and they don't read the links you send. And all this dude does is make ludicrous statements with no depth of dialog at all. All he can do is, copy and past and make ridiculous statements, PERIOD! We have at our discretion, an "ignore" function. Just sayin

 

[Subduction Zone]

HhR, I don't know why you bother! They don't care about anything you say, and they don't read the links you send. And all this dude does is make ludicrous statements with no depth of dialog at all. All he can do is, copy and past and make ridiculous statements, PERIOD! We have at our discretion, an "ignore" function. Just sayin

If he could come up with a valid argument we would listen. Instead he only repeats failed arguments. By the way making false claims about others is not proper Christian activity.

But since he went to bed now do you deal with the failures in the Bible? This will tell others if you actually understand that book or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

from Google...
A germ cell mutation is any detectable and heritable variation in the lineage of germ cells. The presence of an altered gene within the egg and sperm (germ cell) such that the altered gene can be passed to subsequent generations.

Subduction,
Point to any mutation at any time in the progression of a person from conception until till death that has not been outweighed by the damaging effects of mutations to the human development.

Every new born human (that includes you) has some 50-ish mutations in his/her DNA.

You want examples of mutations in humans that didn't cause that human harm?
There are 7 billion people on this planet.
Let's be extremely pessimistic and say that 2 billion of them are in perfect health.

That right there, are 100-billion-ish examples. Since each of those 2 billion people has some 50-ish mutations that clearly didn't harm them in any mentionable way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Look, I agree that within languages they change with dialects and words change. Gay used to mean happy in the 60's.

Repurposing of existing words, is not the point here.

The point is that the ancestors of the people that speak french, portugese, spanish and italian all spoke latin 2000 years ago.

So french, portugese, spanish and italian have a "common ancestor" in latin.
Latin diverged to he point where the off spring can no longer have a proper conversation with eachother. A portugese person can not have a conversation with a french person. They might understand a word here and there, but not nearly enough to communicate properly.

And yet, at no point in history did a latin speaking mother give birth to a french speaking child.
EVERY child ever raise, spoke the SAME language as the parents that raised it.

And yet, Latin turned into french, portugese, italian and spanish.
How did that happen?

When you understand the mechanics behind that, you are extremely close to the mechanics of biological evolution. The core principles are the exact same.

So I get that part of it. But prior to the the Tower of Babel, everyone on the earth spoke one language.This is also an undisputed fact.

No. That is an undisputed religious dogma from fundamentalists, which has no connection to reality whatsoever.

Tower of Babel was post flood around 2,242BC. So that places Tower of Babel around say 4,250 years ago.

There are cultures around the world far older then that that spoke different languages.
Case closed.

This why we do not see written languages past this point.

We have writings from 3500 BC dude.

If modern man had been here 20,000 years ago, where is the evidence of his language dating that far back? And if you want to go back even further than that? It really becomes a problem!

Where is your evidence for your religious dogma?