Tekton was funny/ Thanks for the laugh!

[K1112]

Guys
u seem like nice people
But we believe differently.
Back about 7 pages ago. Cl70 s landed 2 bombs of unfilled prophecies... I clicked the links...... This guy studied under f. Till. A former bible believing Christian who could no longer defend the bible
cl 70s, it appears, went easy on you. Till destroyed the best of them

good luck.

[fm93]

Here, Eru...I'll phrase this guy's argument against God in the form of a valid logical syllogism.

1. In order to exist, God must necessarily be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

2. My panties are too tight.

3. An omniscient God would know how to prevent my panties from being too tight, an omnipotent God would be able to prevent my panties from being too tight, and an omnibenevolent God wouldn't WANT my panties to be too tight.

4. Of course, I could be reasonable, and simply wear different panties, or suck it up, but I'm lazy, so I'll blame God. After all, Jesus is supposed to be our closest, most personal slumber party buddy, always ready to wipe our noses for us, right?

5. Therefore, God doesn't have any of the omni attributes.

6. Therefore, He can't exist.

Ouch! How can THAT argument possibly be refuted?

[Eric Schmidt]

Is that commentary wrong.

If you mean SAB, yes, it is wrong. All of it. Half the stuff is just complaining about God's judgment without giving any reason why the judgment was inappropriate. Other times SAB is unable to comprehend metaphors. In the early chapters of Genesis they got a contradiction because they didn't realize there were two different people named Lamech.

Anyway, since you dumped what looks like the entirety of SAB's commentary on Jeremiah on us, I will feel free to dump JPH's entire response to this on you:

http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/sabjer.html

This is just the response for Jeremiah and Lamentations. Responses for the rest of the Bible are also available.

[K1112]

My
last post
guys
I look at a cat. I see god. The moon. The sun. The solar system.
But I'm going to go out on a whim

based upon my experience in life. God who is that smart. Did not say this

"God will make parents eat their own children, "and they shall eat everyone the flesh of his friend Jer." 19:7-9
Be good to all.
God bless.
Acts 17: 23

[Manwë Súlimo]

My
last post
guys
I look at a cat. I see god. The moon. The sun. The solar system.
But I'm going to go out on a whim

based upon my experience in life. God who is that smart. Did not say this

"God will make parents eat their own children, "and they shall eat everyone the flesh of his friend Jer." 19:7-9
Be good to all.
God bless.
Acts 17: 23

Can you at least leave your cannabis behind?

[Andius]

My
last post
guys
I look at a cat. I see god. The moon. The sun. The solar system.
But I'm going to go out on a whim

based upon my experience in life. God who is that smart. Did not say this

"God will make parents eat their own children, "and they shall eat everyone the flesh of his friend Jer." 19:7-9
Be good to all.
God bless.
Acts 17: 23

Let me correct that for you

You look at cat, you see yourself running off like scaredy cat.

Based on your 1 dimensional experience of your understanding of God, you cant concieve of God submitting judgement on a peoples that have outright broke the deal with him (The children eating was a desperate measure city inhabitants resorted to when under siege, God was all too awares of this fact) your too dumb to comprehend such a thing.

Too bad you aint man enough to come back.

[K1112]

No it's you that is dumb. Claiming outrage does Not overturn that this was said. Yea it's obvious he's mad When we were in Iraq. If Bush ever said such things as "I will make every man kill his brother and then to eat the flesh of his own arm" Is 9:19-20
he would be locked up for crimes against humanity. You people are blind and can't see such words came not from God, but from a lunatic genocidal maniac.

[Manwë Súlimo]

You people are blind and can't see such words came not from God, but from a lunatic genocidal maniac.

Yet another assertion. Back it up or I'll let Andius do the dirty business that I pay him for.

[K1112]

You out to be ashamed to condone such words
Wow yahwey is tough, he orders the killing of babies nursing and all animals

God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 1 sam 15:2-3
Proud of your god? Go shout it to everyone how he killed all those babies.
You must be so proud of yahwey.

Cl 70s put you down but to add to his victory

God promises to give Joshua all of the land that his "foot shall tread upon." He says that none of the people he encounters will be able to resist him. But later we find that God didn't keep his promise, and that many tribes withstood Joshua's attempt to steal their land. 1:3-5
Joshua tells the Israelites that God will "without fail" drive out the Canaanites and the Jebusites. But later, the Bible tells us that he could not drive them out. 3:10
This verse says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. 8:28
God promised the Israelites that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they pass through. But this verse shows that he didn't keep his promise since he couldn't drive out the Jebusites. 15:63
"And they drave not out the Canaanites." Once again God fails keep his promise to destroy all the people the Israelites encounter. 16:10
The Israelites, contrary to God's promises to them, could not drive out the Canaanites. 17:12-13
Joshua tells Manasseh that he will be able to drive out the Canaanites, but it turns out (see Jg.1:27-28) that he couldn't do it. 17:17-18
According to these verses, God fulfilled his promise to give the Israelites all of the lands that they encountered. But in several places the Bible tells us that these promises were not kept. 21:43-45

[Eric Schmidt]

This verse says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. 8:28

No, it says it was not occupied "to this day", that is, as the time the book of Joshua was written. It being occupied at a later time is not a contradiction. And, by the way, the word the KJV translates "for ever" can just mean for a long time.

As for the rest, the reason they didn't take over all the land is, briefly, that they were disobedient..

[K1112]

Disobedient. Lol nice try. Why didn't the all knowing god know there were going to be
to Isaiah
These verses falsely predict that Babylon will never again be inhabited. 13:19-20
Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there. 13:21-22
This verse prophesies that Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. Yet Damascus has never been completely destroyed and is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. 17:1
The river of Egypt (identified as the Nile in RSV) shall dry up. This has never occurred. 19:5
"The land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt." Judah never invaded Egypt and was never a military threat to Egypt. 19:17
This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18
These verses predict that the Egyptians will worship the Lord (Yahweh) with sacrifices and offerings. But Judaism has never been an important religion in Egypt. 19:18-21

Jeremiah predicts that humans will never again live in Hazor, but will be replaced by dragons. But people still live there and dragons have never been seen. 49:33

[K1112]

"For the moment, let's notice that Matthew's application of the statement was typical of his writing style. No contemporary event seemed too insignificant for him to see prophecy fulfillment in it. This fact doesn't seem to faze Bible fundamentalists. If Matthew said it, that's good enough for them. What they seem completely unable to understand, however, is that just because this is good enough for them doesn't mean that it's good enough for people who use logic to determine what should or should not be believed. Matthew, for example, saw fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 in the flight into and return from Egypt of Joseph's family, (2:15). And what does Hosea 11:1 say? "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." The context of this statement shows very clearly that Hosea intended this statement as a reference to the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Bibliolaters can talk from now until doom's-day about the "double intention" of some prophecies, and the truth will still remain: if Matthew had not imaginatively applied this statement to Jesus, no one would have thought it referred to anything but the Israelite exodus. Matthew sretched and distorted Old Testament scriptures in this way, yet bibliolaters expect us to swoon over his claim that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem fulfilled Micah 5:2.

Most other so-called prophecy fulfillments of the New Testament cannot survive contextual analysis any better than those just noted. Upon examination, they show flaws so obvious that only the very credulous can accept the tenuous claims that they are fulfillments of prophecy, yet some of them are widely considered remarkable examples of divine foresight. Possibly the best example of these is Matthew 1:23 where it was claimed that an angel's announcement to Joseph that his betrothed wife Mary would give birth to a child conceived by the Holy Spirit was done to fulfill a prophecy spoken by Isaiah: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." In the original context, however, Isaiah made this statement as a sign to Ahaz, king of Judah, that an alliance recently formed against him by Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, would not succeed in defeating him. The Lord (Yahweh), as he was prone to do in those days, had sent Isaiah to reassure Ahaz that the alliance would not prevail. Isaiah begged Ahaz to ask for a sign that his prophecy was true. Finally, Isaiah said to him, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore Yahweh Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:13-14). Hence, the context clearly shows that this so-called prophecy was made not to foretell the birth of Jesus some 700 years later but the birth of a child to that time and that situation. How could a birth that would happen 700 years later, after Ahaz was dead and the battles had long since been fought, have been a sign to him that the Syrian-Israelite alliance would fail? The premise is too absurd even to contemplate.


THE DOUBLE-APPLICATION DODGE

To deal with contextual problems like the one in Isaiah's virgin-birth prophecy, bibliolaters have invented the double-application doctrine. "Yes, the prophecy in Isaiah did refer primarily to an immediate situation," they admit, "but it contained also, as did many other prophecies, a double-entendre that, in this case, makes it applicable to the birth of Jesus too." Contextual evidence, of course, necessitates their admission that prophecies such as this one were indeed intended for the times in which they were made, but if inerrantists are going to claim a "double-application" of Isaiah 7:14, they have a responsibility to do more than just claim. They must also prove. If Isaiah really had a double-meaning in mind, then who was the virgin of that generation who gave birth to a son? That is a legitimate question, because if Isaiah meant virgin in the strictest sense with reference to a woman who would give birth 700 years later, then he had to mean virgin in the strictest sense for the woman of his time who would bear a son. If not, why not?

The truth is that evidence to prove a double-application theory isn't so easy to come by. In this case, we have nothing--absolutely nothing--but Matthew's unsubstantiated word that the birth of Jesus fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. Isaiah said nothing in the context of the original passage to imply a double intention, and none of the other gospel writers in recording the circumstances of Jesus's birth in any way related the event to Isaiah's prophecy. This latter fact seems particularly significant in the case of Luke whose gospel account included many more details about both the annunciation of the birth and the actual event itself than did any of the others. Mark and John, in fact, were completely silent about the birth. Doesn't it seem strange, then, that this remarkable "prophecy fulfillment" would have been treated with silence by three of the four "inspired" writers who recorded the life of Jesus? Only Matthew mentioned it, and that is the sum total of the proof we have that Jesus's birth fulfilled Isaiah's "prophecy."

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html

[K1112]

Lions 35
Saints 0

[Andius]

Lord Eru, allow me to handle this scumbag.

No it's you that is dumb. Claiming outrage does Not overturn that this was said. Yea it's obvious he's mad When we were in Iraq. If Bush ever said such things as "I will make every man kill his brother and then to eat the flesh of his own arm" Is 9:19-20
he would be locked up for crimes against humanity.

Only in N.America that is considered "shocking" (seriously, are skeptics of your species always such squeamish babies? ).

You people are blind and can't see such words came not from God, but from a lunatic genocidal maniac.

Is only little babies like you that scream GENOCIDE GENOCIDE whenever you find decrees of judgement offensive, when such peoples had it coming for them in the first place (whatever happened to justice anyways?). You speak as if any nation, tribe, or culture, or whatever you want to use to describe a peoples had some sort of default "right" to continue existing, no matter how evil or dispecable they can become to their neighbors.

[K1112]

There you go. To condone such actions makes you as bad as the lunatic who wrote it. Although I won't allow your genocidal acceptance of innocent babies and animals reflect the view of all Christians. But I'm sure more animals like you exist. Yea the babies and animals had it coming, as 1 Sam 15 because of something someone did hundreds of years. That was some political maniac telling people kill everything that breathes and eat your own arm.

God orders Saul to kill all of the Amalekites: men, women, infants, sucklings, ox, sheep, camels, and asses. Why? Because God remembers what Amalek did hundreds of years ago. 15:2-3


You won't even see that in hannibal. Eating your children and your own arm. Wow yahwey is a tough guy.
It seems this thread spoke volumes
Ignore the difficult topics...... It's much easier to defend the killings of innocent babies and animals.

jer"19:8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof.
19:9 And I will cause them (god speaking) to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them."

Lions 35
Saints 0