The tower of Babel

[Rev R]

11 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Aik.

 

I showed your verse for verse the description the "forefathers of the church" put into it. I'm sorry that YOU are to ignorant and blind to realize it. It isn't my fault your Bible is a book of lies.

 

DB

He never cared about any piece of evidence you showed, DB. Now his mask has finally slipped.

[aik]

21 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

I showed your verse for verse the description the "forefathers of the church" put into it.

I cannot understand it. English is not my first. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 minutes ago, aik said:

I cannot understand it. English is not my first. 

Yes but I described every line to you. The waters above the firmament and everything. It was common in ancient times to believe the earth was flat. And that is exactly what was written into the Bible. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Aik,

 

I'm going to be honest. I'm growing weary with this thread right now. We are now in the stage where others and myself have provided ample evidence in many different ways to show you why we now believe the Bible is false. And now you have asked questions that are going to force me to repeat what I have already said. This is what we call a circular argument. Circular arguments don't go anywhere. Just in circles. 

 

The only thing that you have provided is blind faith to scriptures that even your own expert Dever doesn't think are completely accurate. And he is a Christian. I can probably give you a fairly accurate reason why he doesn't believe the first 4 books are historically accurate. He has probably seen all the evidence and had to swallow a little pride at some point and admit that the scripture was at the very least flawed. And in most of the first 4 books aren't accurate at all. 

 

We haven't even touched the flood of Noah yet. That was to be my next stop on our journey through genesis. In that story I will add some geological objective evidence for you to look at. Some that shows that a world wide flood never happened. But also some to show where massive localized floods did happen. Which is probably where the flood myths come from. 

 

But I am hesitant to continue right now. Because it is obvious that it doesn't matter how much evidence that tens of thousands of experts have discovered over the past 200 years. You are going to blindly believe in the bible no matter what. Do you even care to see why the flood of Noah never happened?

 

Like I said before. You turn a blind eye to everything. It would be one thing if there were only a couple of issues that don't line up with the Bible. But that isn't the case. 

 

We have given you many examples. Spread across many different areas including the scripture itself. And you turn a blind eye to every bit of it. 

 

You sir are willfully ignorant and would rather believe a book of lies and half truths rather than admit to yourself that even some of it might be flawed. 

 

You seem to be a very kind person and I apologize if you feel like I am getting angry with you. But I am getting frustrated. I don't like arguing in circles.

 

Maybe we need to take a break from this line of reasoning. I have an idea for a topic that might be better for us to discuss right now. Would it be alright if I started another thread and just let this one be for now? I think we have said everything we can both say. And maybe after the next topic we can talk about the flood. How does that sound? 

 

Sincerely,

 

Dark Bishop

 

 

[sdelsolray]

3 hours ago, aik said:

evidences? 

 

Man,  let us together enter into your link of hunter-gatherers. Read the topic "Archeological evidences", and please, be honest. I can see here a fantastic and very interesting story, but where are the evidences? Could you find one objective evidence here? 

 

You can call your friends if you want. 

Willful ignorance is hard work.

[Astreja]

1 hour ago, aik said:

They make up fake stories and call it evidence.

Like the Gospel authors did?

[midniterider]

Jesus could just pop in anytime and validate everything aik is saying. 

 

But he doesn't exist so that won't happen. 

[Rev R]

34 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Jesus could just pop in anytime and validate everything aik is saying. 

 

But he doesn't exist so that won't happen. 

Better still, "You don't get it at all, my child."

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, aik said:

I cannot understand it. English is not my first. 

 

Maybe pray about English fluency? 

[Shinzon]

8 hours ago, aik said:

Here the point is! Pay attention

 

Iliad has a thousand of copies. The oldest copy is written in 10th AD. but Homer wrote it in 800 BC. Distance between the oldest copy and the authors time is 1800 years. And nobody doubts in its authenticity. Think about it.

 

The oldest new testament manuscript is 125 AD. The last apostle died about 90 AD. 

 

Is there a difference?

 

That is why we bear this evidence.

Blind dumb luck......its like the old thing about how the bible can't be legend because the jews have excellent memories (which I have heard a couple different apologists say over the course of time in some form or fashion).   The arguement is realistically a red herring and its circular, because your assuming the accuracy of what your trying to establish as accurate (the historicity of the texts) and its a red herring because there is still a question of what is the text actually saying. This is called form criticism if you don't know.

 

Like for example....why does jesus say something like this

 

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” -Luke 9.27

 

Now a evangelical christian read of that passage would take it as a preface to the tranfiguration that follows right after.   On the surface this explaination makes sense due to textual placement.

 

However true historical analysis would ask questions like.   Why is this phrase in isolation from a formatting perspective?  What is its purpose?  What about the transfiguration needed that as a preface?

 

Most secular scholars argue that this is a example of the gospel writers trying to take true statements and reinterpret them to fit them into what they knew about christianity at the moment of writing.   Its once example of why many scholars thing of jesus in terms of a failed end time prophet that became god.

 

Reading the gospels and to a lesser extent paul actually makes way more sense in this context.   

 

Another less percise way of thinking about this is....that its generally agreed that mark was written first and john was written last.

 

If it were true that the gospels were reliable because the jews had such fantastic memories of historical events.....why is the later gospel far more embellished in terms of christology?   If jesus was actually god, you would think it wouldn't taken them 40 years to get around to explaining it and another century or two to really hammer out the idea of the trinity.

 

That is because there is legendary embellishments all throughout the bible.   The gospels are at best semi historical narratives AT BEST.

[Shinzon]

nevermind 

[walterpthefirst]

16 hours ago, Rev R said:

He never cared about any piece of evidence you showed, DB. Now his mask has finally slipped.

 

Which is interesting Rev, especially when you consider that aik personally assured me that he would keep an open mind on all subjects.

 

 

[nontheistpilgrim]

16 hours ago, Astreja said:

Like the Gospel authors did?

Not quite! They heard about pagan gods and their imaginary exploits from hundreds of years previous and copied that. 

[midniterider]

Did aik depart?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

Did aik depart?

No not yet. He replied on the beliefs thread earlier. 

[midniterider]

Thanks  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

O Cобрат Where Art Thou?

[pantheory]

On 12/3/2022 at 3:54 AM, aik said:

Dear Bishop, I want to answer your post here, and the previous one also, but I need to be sure in one issue.

 

Do you believe in spirit or that there is material and spiritual? Or you don't believe in it anymore.

 

 

Dear aik, there have been many dozens of Christians that have come to this site. IMO nearly all are motivated to help us. Also IMO most are good people like I believe you are. Ex-Christians are as varied in their beliefs as one could guess. As for me, I believe all the religions of the world are pure BS -- that little or none of the Bible is true. I am a scientist and a pure atheist, I view all religions  of the world the same as Greek mythology. I don't believe in God, Jesus, Satan spirits, etc. I believe we are no more than intelligent animals.

 

Being from Russia, you are aware of state sponsored atheism. The most confirmed atheists IMO like me, are those that have studied and understand the extensive details of natural selection (evolution) and anthropology.

[Rev R]

On 12/8/2022 at 4:06 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

Which is interesting Rev, especially when you consider that aik personally assured me that he would keep an open mind on all subjects.

 

 

Of course he would. It's part of the evangelist's con.

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

O Cобрат Where Art Thou?

 

Too sophisticated for me. Had to look it up    -- the movie and "brother" aspect of it.  Keep up the good verbiage.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@aik,

 

Good morning or evening. Whenever this finds you in your time zone. I want to address the problem with you saying I was ignorant concerning what the authors of Genesis wrote about the creation of the earth. 

 

What you said was an offense to me, let me tell you why. Im warning you now. This may anger you but remember, your the one that called me ignorant. Maybe it is a difference between your culture and mine. Or an issue with our languages and how you word things differently than I would. Nevertheless I can't go without defending my position. 

 

You called me ignorant while assuming the forefathers of the Bible were accurate in their description of creation without giving one shred of evidence to show how I was ignorant and they weren't. If your going to call someone ignorant you should probably be able to say in the same conversation why they are ignorant. Which you did not do. 

 

The very description in the book of Genesis shows the IGNORANCE of the biblical forefathers. Most of your replies show your IGNORANCE to the reality in which we live. Maybe we should define ignorance real quick. 

 

noun: ignorance

lack of knowledge or information.

 

So in telling me I was ignorant concerning the forefathers words. Your telling me I know less than a group of tribal sheep herders who lived around 4,000 years ago. Long before any of the discoveries that we have made concerning the earth. This was before they knew about other planets, tectonic plates, volcanic activity, the water cycle, what stars are made of or even how far away stars are, and thousands of years before we sailed from east to west and proved the theory that the earth was a sphere. Your telling me that I know less than those people 4,000 years ago because you choose to believe that somehow these ancient people knew the truth, even though their own words reflect the blatant IGNORANCE of their time.

 

Here is what I am ignorant of. I am ignorant in the understanding of how someone who has been to college, become an engineer, is a profitable member to the community and his country, and lives in a time when a wealth of information is at his fingertips can be so IGNORANT himself. If it isn't obvious..... I'm talking about you.

 

How can you not open your mind, even a crack, and recognize that these ancient people at the very least had a few things wrong? At the very least, whether you accept that the firmament was believed to be a dome, or just their description of our atmosphere, they describe the moon, sun, and stars all being placed within that firmament. So they either believed the stars were inside the dome with us, or inside our atmosphere with us. There is no way around it. They did not know nor had the ability to know what we know now. But rather than accept that the biblical forefathers were ignorant, you called me ignorant instead. 

 

I enjoy our conversations. But don't mistake kindness for weakness. I'm not going to allow someone to insult my intelligence like that. I'm sure that wasn't what you were trying to do. But that is the way I received it. 

 

Best Regards,

 

Dark Bishop

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

12 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Or an issue with our languages and how you word things differently than I would

Actually.... I gotta take this part back. I am not the best at wording things right my ignorance in grammar is profound lmao! Not to mention the A.D.D.

 

Meh, is what it is. 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

@aik

 

I'll admit, when I was Christian I probably would have thought the same thing. I was also under the belief that the bible was inerrant. So if someone were telling me, at that time, the things I/we have been telling you. I probably would have said they were ignorant as well. 

 

But that only works for so long. Eventually when reading the bible, some things are obvious fables. Like the stories we have been talking about on this thread. So a person can do a few things. 

 

1. Just accept that the writers were trying to write about things they didn't understand and did the best they could with the knowledge they had. Admitting that they were creating stories to explain life as they knew it in their time. With their limited knowledge and understanding of history and how the earth was created.

 

This is the stance I take now. Some people can see things this way and still believe somehow. Not me. But some can. For me a book inspired by God with the instructions for eternal life should be accurate and historically correct. Which the bible fails to achieve. 

 

2. In the same token one could say they were trying to describe things God had showed them with their limited understanding and it doesn't interpret well to us because they didn't have the terminology that we have. 

 

I did that for awhile. To keep my faith alive a little longer. But I couldn't apply that same logic to the tower of babel. 

 

3. Keep believing the writers of the Bible were correct and that we are wrong. Not only are we wrong, but every scientist, geologist, archeologist, scholar, doctor, or anyone in any other field of study who has ever discovered anything contrary to what the Bible says. Whether they were believers or not. Yeah they have to be wrong as well. 

 

This is the stance you have taken so far. And one that I took during the early years of my Christian journey.

 

So while it angered me to be called ignorant. I understand that this is a belief you have come to because we can't be accurate. Your Bible must be accurate for you, so we must be ignorant of some knowledge as yet to be revealed. That is a symptom of your indoctrination. Survival of faith no matter what your faced with. I understand. Been there..... done that..... 

 

 

The reason it angers me now is because now I know just how little those ancient people knew about the world and the way it works. Most were illiterate and the few that could read and write were probably considered the educated people of their time.

 

But reading and writing was all they had going for them. They had theories that they believed were true which we see written into the biblical narrative. 

 

However time progressed past them and people put these theories to the test. They invented telescopes and discovered that some of those "lights" hung in the firmament were globes called planets. These planets were never mentioned in the bible. That same telescope would show that clouds were much closer to earth than stars or planets because of how they had to focus the telescope. We invented microscopes to see extremely small particles. Organisms invisible to the human eye. I wonder if there were only two tardigrades on Noah's ark? 

 

So to compare anyone's intelligence or knowledge now to someone who lived 4,000 years ago is an insult whether they know it or not. These people, for lack of a better word, were stupid compared to the knowledge we have now. But it was on their backs that we were able to learn and move forward as a species. Building upon that knowledge to know all that we know today. 

 

We at ExC have moved forward. We have lain down those childish notions of hell. Heaven, flat earths, and divinely confused languages in favor of knowledge and truth. That our ancestors have handed down to us and our educated people are building upon today. I respect that process and in the future I hope the world will put religion and the various differences that religion promotes behind us. As a united human race we can achieve greatness. Religion stands in the way of our potential. And if believing that makes me ignorant in someone's eyes. Then so be it. I guess I'm ignorant. 

 

Thank you,

 

Dark Bishop. 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Yes, the writers of the Bible were ignorant about a lot of things.  But they were extremely shrewd when it came to scaring and manipulating human beings through fear.  How those primitive people figured that out is a mystery that came to my mind recently.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

34 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Yes, the writers of the Bible were ignorant about a lot of things.  But they were extremely shrewd when it came to scaring and manipulating human beings through fear.  How those primitive people figured that out is a mystery that came to my mind recently.

Since deconverting I've come to think that a lot of these stories were possibly meant to teach people to abide by the rules for their own safety. Eventually they realized they could completely control peoples minds through faith. 

 

It is much easier to police a population if the majority of the people police themselves through faith and obedience to their religion.

 

Its one thing for a king to tell you something is illegal and you'll be put to death or thrown in a dungeon. It is another thing to believe that God (the creator of the cosmos) has said not to do something and will punish you for eternity in hell if you transgress his laws. 

 

(Edit: also that said God is watching what you do every second of the day. So it isn't like your gonna sneak one by him) 

 

I think many rulers (especially very ancient rulers) probably knew that it was all a lie but promoted the various faiths to keep their people in subjection. 

 

DB