h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You don't even understand what reason is.

Proven. Start at the header labelled "The Gospels," and continue through "Mark" and "John."
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

Thanks for the link, although I don't know why I should consider an atheist site to be any more reliable than the people interviewed by Lee Strobel for his excellent book, The Case for Christ...

Having perused that link, I in fact find it much less reliable! Strong emotion and ranting and raving, as the author in fact does, is always a bit of a giveaway...

It's rather like people on another board, who wanted me to accept links to Israeli intelligence and such, as evidence that the Palestinians are evil baby-murderers, and that no Palestinian has ever been harmed by the IDF!

Right. I hate rants and raves which have no factual basis, like:

"One further evidence of the inauthenticity of Mark is the fact that in chapter 7, where Jesus is arguing with the Pharisees, Jesus is made to quote the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah in order to score his debate point. Unfortunately, the Hebrew version says something different from the Greek. Isaiah 29:13, in the Hebrew reads "their fear of me is a commandment of men learned by rote," whereas the Greek version - and the gospel of Mark - reads "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" [Revised Standard Version). Wells observes dryly [p. 13], "That a Palestinian Jesus should floor Orthodox Jews with an argument based on a mistranslation of their scriptures is very unlikely.""

Or:

"Another example of Mark's abysmal ignorance of Palestinian geography is found in the story he made up about Jesus traveling from Tyre on the Mediterranean to the Sea of Galilee, 30 miles inland. According to Mark 7:31, Jesus and the boys went by way of Sidon, 20 miles north of Tyre on the Mediterranean coast! Since to Sidon and back would be 40 miles, this means that the wisest of all men walked 70 miles when he could have walked only 30."

Now, unless the author is able to move Sidon, Tyre, and the Sea of Galilee, I would expect that this claim is fairly easy to confirm.

Oh, Blathers, you sad man! If you had the courage to read Lee Strobel's book, you'd find the American Atheists man's assertions all answered...

However, if you expect me to read American Atheists (and I did and do) then surely you can look at some of these...

On the authority of the Septuagint (and BTW, the meaning of the passages your friend quotes are the same... though it's possible he didn't understand that) http://www.allabouttruth.org/septuagint.htm

A good site generally... http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.htm

The Gospels. http://www.probe.org/content/view/678/149/

Here's one, since the link about contradictions from the Skeptics (sic) Bible is one of your favourites. http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-contradictions.htm

Last one - I don't want to extend your tolerance/blow your mind!
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

Taking them in order...

Septuagint page: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

Archaeology page: The existence of a synagogue in Capernaum during Jesus' time is not evidence for the existence of Jesus any more than a tale of my election to president is proven by the existence of the White House.

History or Mythology page: He spends a lot of time arguing over the timeline in which the Gospels were written, which is a waste of time, because religious and secular authorities are in agreement on this matter. Then he follows it with, "Previously, I defended the early dating of the Gospels. Despite this early dating, there is a time gap of several years between the ascension of Jesus and the writing of the Gospels."

It's thirty years. Two generations. Not "several."

Then he goes on with a bunch of silly arguments supporting the reliability of oral traditions. Anyone who has ever passed a simple ten-word message around a room and heard what emerged on the other side knows better than that. "Fifth, Jewish boys were educated until they were twelve, so the disciples likely knew how to read and write." That would obviate the need to keep the tradition oral, then, wouldn't it?

Contradictions page: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible uses the KJV, and in the KJV, Acts 9:7 is in contradiction with 22:9

9:7 - "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

22:9 - "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

But the KJV is not the best translation, and if the argument of verb tenses holds water, then a modern, reliable translation will set the record straight. Consulting the NAB, we have:

9:7 - "The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one."

22:9 - "My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me."

Oops. I guess he's talking out of his ass. He didn't even show us the different tenses so we could see there was some sort of difference. We're supposed to take him at his word, or start studying ancient Greek. I choose neither.

Mind-blower: Which part of this is supposed to blow my mind?

Of course the Skeptics Annotated Scare-quotes uses the KJV! It's because it is so unreliable, and your insistence on it reminds me of something I read today...

Http://www.bede.org.uk/debateessays.htm



<>

I must have cut out, when I cut-and-pasted this, in anticipation of posting it here for you, the bit about clinging to the KJV, because it's so easy to misinterpret.
The fact is, Blathers, that the pieces you quote are from different parts of the book of Acts, not from right next to each other, as you claim... Nevertheless, you and the Skeptics Annotated panic merchants, are notorious for fudging quotes, and taking them out of context, so I'll have to get back to you on that, when I've looked into it myself.

BTW - good on you for reading at least one of the sites I linked to! I have spent most of the afternoon reading American Atheists. I have never come across such a bunch of deeply frightened people in my life. It's sad...
Oh, and it is notable that one of the sites they link to with deep approval, is an Objectivist one, full of hatred for any one stupid enough to actually waste their time caring about anyone else! Sad again!

Addendum! I was about to disconnect, because it's getting late - but I found this, dealing specifically with your Acts conundrum. (It was in one of the links I gave you, showing that you didn't really pay them as much attention as I paid to American atheists...)
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-contradictions.htm

<>

I think you said something about the tenses, something pretty garbled, which shows you might have met this argument before, but I don't think you came remotely close to refuting it... which again, is sad!

<>

I've insisted on it? Only in your land of make-believe.

I've had enough of your posting of polemic nonsense by others. These essays are almost as bad as any of yours. I mean, Carl Sagan and Dan Barker... who cares?

<>

I never made any such claim. Make-believe again.

<>

Of course they're frightened. Christians are dangerous, and I can illustrate exactly how dangerous in three words: George Dubya Bush.

<>



I...

cannot...

believe...

you...

just...

said...

that.

I...

have...

learned...

to...

expect...

very...

very...

very...

little...

from you.

But ye gods, are you REALLY not aware that you just posted a link to that same information three posts ago, and that I read it, understood it, and made a counterargument?

You don't think I came remotely close to refuting it. Emphasis on the first three words.

Don't ever engage me in any forum anywhere on this site again. I simply cannot talk to you. I don't know what the problem is. Maybe you have the memory span of a goldfish. Maybe you're on medication or have some sort of medical condition which is restricting blood flow to your brain. Maybe you just never learned how to think, and you've learned to simulate thought to some degree while living on pure emotion. Or maybe it's every bit as deliberate and malicious as it appears. But whatever the cause, it's clear that talking to you is a waste of my time, because there is nothing resembling human intelligence with which you can respond.

I refuse to engage you. You no longer exist in my digital realm. Begone.

Which is exactly the response I predicted!

Oh dear, I'd already put you on my personal ignore list, so you're too late.

Of course I'm on your personal ignore list... that's why you bait me on the forums attached to my own article... as truthful as ever.

Oh. My. God. Della.

You actually have no desire to engage in debate do you? Your responses are so depressing.



Ste

as I said to a man on another board, "Sorry, Xxxx, I have run out of patience. It doesn't seem to matter what I say, you have your mind made up... and the conclusion you've come to, xxxx x xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx is a shocking insult to me. This discussion is at an end. As I learned arguing with the 'xxxxx xxxxxxxx' on XXXX, there comes a point where a discussion has descended into insult one too many times"

See, there's no point at all in continuing to argue with Blathers, that wouldn't be debate, it'd be masochism. Besides I have been warned by a person in authority who shall remain nameless that my temporary hiatus will become a permanent one if I 'engage in controversy' again. You think I want to risk that?

Note to Blathers - you're on ignore, this was an answer to Ste alone.

I find it very hard to believe that "a person in authority who shall remain nameless" actually said that to you, Della, though I have no doubt that that was the way you interpreted it.


az

A debate requires two participants, and agreed upon rules. The rules, in this case, are logic and reason. If they ever land on your home planet, let me know.

" Besides I have been warned by a person in authority who shall remain nameless that my temporary hiatus will become a permanent one if I 'engage in controversy' again. You think I want to risk that?"

Then stop it Della. Just stop.

Ste

Not likely to happen, Ste.

az

So, it's all right by you, Ste, for me to be silenced, but no other participants in 'controversy' are? Controversy was not defined by this person, and the impression I got was that if *I* and only I, debate against certain people, well those people are Teflon, but I am toast. Why do you think that's fair?

I pre-empt your expected reply, to say that it's got nothing to do with my 'debating style'. The same style has been found perfectly acceptable on other boards for the last six months, and was acceptable on h2g2 from 2001-04 - then I peeved the members of the self-styled cabal.

It all comes back to what the guy said in the extract from Bede essays (posted above) and the fact that some people just can't cope with even the possibility of disagreement! Censorship of *unacceptable* viewpoints is alive and well, and exists not on all boards, as I once believed, but on very few - especially h2g2. The home of reason, tolerance and all the rest, *isn't*!

Conspiracy theory, Della . . . give it up already.

First you got put on pre-mod. Then both you and Hoo got put on a one-month suspension.

I haven't seen Hoo rambling on and trying to blame others for his one month suspension. But of course you continue to do this, long after the suspension has been over with.

<>

Funny, you used to call it a clique. Then we changed it to a 'cabal' simply to point out how silly it all was . . .

And now you keep on with the 'poor me' Della/victim cr*p. Well, whatever makes you happy, I guess . . .


az

No, Della, I'm not saying any of that, nor was I going to. Those are your words, not mine.

All I'm saying is 'stop'. Enough's enough. Let's all move on. That's it.



Ste

No, that's not what you were saying at all. But who cares? I have another board on which I can say things someone doesn't like, without being told that I, and only I, have to shut up, and not disagree with anyone!