tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7773193530706024291..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Five Big Rocks (part three)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41746454431739996272008-09-30T16:30:00.000-04:002008-09-30T16:30:00.000-04:00Wille, Joseph didn't finish them. I haven't heard ...Wille, Joseph didn't finish them. I haven't heard from him and I don't know much else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58329895878892669072008-09-30T14:40:00.000-04:002008-09-30T14:40:00.000-04:00Where is part 4 and 5 listed? I cannot locate thes...Where is part 4 and 5 listed? I cannot locate these blogs. Parts 1, 2, and 3 were excellent.Williehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17008693353344628240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87466990702702201212007-11-02T11:23:00.000-04:002007-11-02T11:23:00.000-04:00No. I've about had it with that damn rabbit.Awww, ...<I>No. I've about had it with that damn rabbit.</I><BR/><BR/>Awww, joseph, everyone loves bunnies.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45879351011850174462007-10-31T01:44:00.000-04:002007-10-31T01:44:00.000-04:00Yeah, gee, like the big paragraph in my article. ...Yeah, gee, like the big paragraph in my article. I would cut and paste it verbatim, but that's not really necessary. Scroll up.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11474472896318941382007-10-30T23:46:00.000-04:002007-10-30T23:46:00.000-04:00Any moral inconsistencies in particular?Any moral inconsistencies in particular?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55561366537224953662007-10-30T15:02:00.000-04:002007-10-30T15:02:00.000-04:00Great series, Joseph.The best point made here is b...Great series, Joseph.<BR/><BR/>The best point made here is by Brother Crow. Communication. <BR/><BR/>Skeptics aren't pointing at the inconsistencies and looking for answers on rabbits. We're trying to figure out why you actually think this 'god-inspired' bible in infallible. God should have sent Tony Robbins instead! <BR/><BR/>When Christians are faced with the concept of an [obviously] errant bible, they will provide a litany of interpretations. Methinks they dost protest too much! <BR/><BR/>But it's understandable, without this inerrant, god inspired bible, the faith begins to erode. So they will cling onto this attachment until somebody throws their hands up in frustation or they point to the sneaky 'preservation of truth' amidst the errors schtick.<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work.Jaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389796827462586130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65254748991811807362007-10-29T22:50:00.000-04:002007-10-29T22:50:00.000-04:00No. I've about had it with that damn rabbit. I wo...No. I've about had it with that damn rabbit. I would be interested in what you think of the moral inconsistencies I mentioned, however.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66403493428614815612007-10-29T08:53:00.000-04:002007-10-29T08:53:00.000-04:00Well, I finally found my answer :) Anyone interest...Well, I finally found my answer :) Anyone interested?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4543112628877405582007-10-28T04:50:00.000-04:002007-10-28T04:50:00.000-04:002 Samuel 8:4 There were 700 'parash'1 Chronicles 1...2 Samuel 8:4<BR/> There were 700 'parash'<BR/><BR/>1 Chronicles 18:4 <BR/>There were 7000 'parash'.<BR/><BR/>The words are IDENTICAL<BR/><BR/>Except one says 700 and the other says 7000.<BR/><BR/>What sort of idiot castigates people as doing bad research when they say that this looks like a contradiction?<BR/><BR/>If the Koran said there were 700 parash in one sura, and another sura said there were 7000 parash, can you imagine for one minute any Christian saying that there was not a contradiction?<BR/><BR/>I hate hypocrisy.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62174608198107646982007-10-27T04:54:00.000-04:002007-10-27T04:54:00.000-04:00Very interesting. I can't access most of the onlin...<I>Very interesting. I can't access most of the online journals but I shall keep digging around to see what I can find. This is great!!</I><BR/><BR/>Jason- if you enjoy researching coprophagy, there's hope for you yet. Here's another link for your, er, delectation: about <A HREF="http://www.answers.com/topic/african-mole-rats-bathyergidae-biological-family?cat=technology" REL="nofollow">naked mole rats</A>, which also practice coprophagy, and are also interesting in being eusocial; that is, they live in colonies with only one reproducing female, like ants and bees.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53323254897120143492007-10-26T23:52:00.000-04:002007-10-26T23:52:00.000-04:00Hi Joseph! You asked me to expound - I wonder if ...Hi Joseph! You asked me to expound - I wonder if there were no grace, then there would be no POE. If God were simply brute strenth, He would easily eliminate those involved in sin. But, I believe He values people and loves sinners. Not that He enables sin, but I would rebel and pursue it and override my conscience to do so. I'm grateful for grace - I'm not so sure others that I have hurt are so glad. That is the problem with grace - that God loves even those who mistreat us.Manifesting Mini Me (MMM)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08250513504254425163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34273923271143901802007-10-26T22:21:00.000-04:002007-10-26T22:21:00.000-04:00MMM, could you please expound on that thought? If...MMM, could you please expound on that thought? If you're implying that perhaps I, and the other writers at DC, have a problem with the Christian doctrine of grace, well...I can only speak for myself. I was one of the clearests exponents of grace in a denomination that is not traditionally known for it.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86248797938563710132007-10-26T17:39:00.000-04:002007-10-26T17:39:00.000-04:00I am wondering if the largest of all the rocks isn...I am wondering if the largest of all the rocks isn't "The problem with grace"?Manifesting Mini Me (MMM)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08250513504254425163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11770362560427915512007-10-26T16:47:00.000-04:002007-10-26T16:47:00.000-04:00Very interesting. I can't access most of the onlin...Very interesting. I can't access most of the online journals but I shall keep digging around to see what I can find. This is great!!Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79556151009432314212007-10-26T15:32:00.000-04:002007-10-26T15:32:00.000-04:00Because rumination and coprophagy are common in ca...<I>Because rumination and coprophagy are common in camels, hares and coneys but not pigs, who don't re-consume any of their food.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm looking for publically-available scholarly references, so you can see for yourself that you are incorrect without need for access to either a university library or a small farm. <BR/><BR/>In <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=IOpkkd1nbVYC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=pig+coprophagy&source=web&ots=LaAfZZ4WVw&sig=2aNIfafZW8ugE6sRfmEedOdYVag" REL="nofollow">Nutrien Requirement of Swine</A> by the National Research Council, it says:<BR/><BR/>"Synthesis of vitamin B12 by microorganisms in the environment and within the intestinal tract as well as the <B>pig's inclination to coprophagy</B> may satisfy..."<BR/><BR/>In <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=P1WAw4XGXXAC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=pig+coprophagy&source=web&ots=Na5IH0gbag&sig=N-fATeRGyOvuTxsnwjIgmhLWgXg" REL="nofollow">Nutrition of Sows and Boars</A> by W.H. Close, it says:<BR/><BR/>"It is very difficult to determine a dietary requirement of the sow because of the variability <B>caused by coprophagy</B>..." (emphases mine)<BR/><BR/>It is quite clear that pigs indulge in coprophagy, and so would fall under your definition of "chewing the cud". Sorry.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-70788312202398321272007-10-26T13:05:00.000-04:002007-10-26T13:05:00.000-04:00Shy, I think we've been looking at the wrong anima...Shy, <BR/><BR/>I think we've been looking at the wrong animal the whole time.<BR/><BR/>The difference between camels, hares, coneys and pigs is "chewing the cud". The first three are mentioned as chewing the cud, while the last isn't. Why? Because rumination and coprophagy are common in camels, hares and coneys but <I>not</I> pigs, who don't re-consume any of their food. We can conclude then that pigs are unclean because they don't chew the cud (using the Hebrew definitions), either through regurgitation, rumination or autocoprophagy.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75211012149660674262007-10-26T11:03:00.000-04:002007-10-26T11:03:00.000-04:00Jason--are you using Stong's? Be careful when rel...Jason--are you using Stong's? Be careful when relying upon concordances; they (by necessity) take similar shortcuts as translations when trying to explain the Hebrew. <BR/><BR/>I see that Strong's states that the modification of "cud" is the verb for "cheweth not" (compare the Hebrew itself to the word for "cud"; you'll see it's not there.) I will stipulate for the moment that this is true and direct you to Lev. 11:3, where it states that you MAY eat of anything that "'alah" it's "gerah" (chews its cud, in the same terminology as Lev. 11:6) and is "parach" at the "shaca" or cloven at the hoof, which does include swine if you allow "'alah" to mean autocoprophagy.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37888906723181323152007-10-26T09:41:00.000-04:002007-10-26T09:41:00.000-04:00There are two excellent articles dealing with Jaso...There are two excellent articles dealing with Jason's explanation <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/4/4chew94.html" REL="nofollow">here</A><BR/>and <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/2/2chew95.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> going into far more depth than I care to. I'm happy to admit that the weight of my argument does not rest on the relative scientific accuracy of Leviticus 11:6 (although I still believe it presents a sound technical argument against inerrancy).Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29580578756784562322007-10-26T09:01:00.000-04:002007-10-26T09:01:00.000-04:00Looking at a concordance, 'alah (chews) is used in...Looking at a concordance, <I>'alah</I> (chews) is used in verse 5 & 6 but not 7 where it's <I>garar</I> (chews).Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65074305829975452712007-10-25T23:40:00.000-04:002007-10-25T23:40:00.000-04:00jason said: The Hebrew phrase that was translated ...jason said: <I>The Hebrew phrase that was translated to mean "chew the cud" can include autocoprophagy because a different Hebrew word is used for pigs "chewing the cud" (11:7).</I><BR/><BR/>Can you source this? Because the transliteration I'm using of the Hebrew Torah says for Lev 11:5 and 11:6 uses the word "GUrH" for "cud" and "L'a" for "chew". Lev 11:7 uses the same words ("GUrH L'a-YGUr", which is couched in the future tense, and is the source of the belief that when the Messiah comes the pig will begin to chew its cud). Both use GUrH for "cud" and L'a for "chew". Can you cite your source that says otherwise?Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17511351945839935012007-10-25T16:05:00.000-04:002007-10-25T16:05:00.000-04:00master jedi dan, thanks for your response. There ...master jedi dan, thanks for your response. There is a scholarly article on the use of the Hebrew words translated as "horse" and "horsemen" <A HREF="http://www.jstor.org/view/00219231/sp050022/05x9522f/0?frame=noframe&userID=80df128e@uoregon.edu/01cc99331600501cb32e0&dpi=3&config=jstor" REL="nofollow">here</A> (warning it's a dull read). About 8 pages into it, the author makes a point to say that he believes the discrepancy in numbers of horsemen in the two scriptures in question is due to a scribal error (which was kind of my point). I actually haven't heard anyone besides you advance the idea that horsemen should be translated "companies" in 2 Samuel 8:4. This particular scholar says it could even be more accurately translated "charioteers."Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44566242034184562622007-10-25T15:59:00.000-04:002007-10-25T15:59:00.000-04:00The passages about the rabbit and hare simply stat...The passages about the rabbit and hare simply state that they bring back their food and consume it again, which they do. Whether or not they "chew" anything is irrelevant since the verse doesn't make any claim about whether chewing is involved.<BR/><BR/>The Hebrew phrase that was translated to mean "chew the cud" <B>can</B> include autocoprophagy because a different Hebrew word is used for pigs "chewing the cud" (11:7). Most likely the author recognized the difference between rabbits and pigs in "chewing the cud" otherwise the same Hebrew word could just have easily been used. Interestingly enough, the word "chew" in Lev. 11:7 is closely related to the act of "sawing" one's food, an apt description for pigs regurgitating and not coprophagy in rabbits.<BR/><BR/>Food for thought....<BR/><BR/>Ouch.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76580997997993467542007-10-25T15:54:00.000-04:002007-10-25T15:54:00.000-04:00Andrew's comment was deleted. He's banned from DC ...Andrew's comment was deleted. He's banned from DC for this and other comments he's been making today. We'll have an intelligent, respectful debate here, or none at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44819688278861726212007-10-25T15:49:00.000-04:002007-10-25T15:49:00.000-04:00Andrew, do you have a brain in your head? Please ...Andrew, do you have a brain in your head? Please read who the author of this and my deconversion story a few months back on this same blog because you go making a bigger ass of yourself.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37194717781138119762007-10-25T15:33:00.000-04:002007-10-25T15:33:00.000-04:00In Joseph's defence he linked to several Biblical ...In Joseph's defence he linked to several Biblical problems, and as such, they are included in his whole argument. Also, it's very difficult to prove an error when Christians use gerrymandering tactics to get around them. The question becomes what is more likely, that in order to show there is no error we should accept a complex solution to a problem, or that we take the words used in their primary, normal sense? I prefer the later, and in that sense there are indeed many errors in the Bible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com