A provable Bible contradiction

[Sparko]

Message to Jason: I can't prove to your satisfaction that the Bible contains contradictions, but you can't prove to my satisfaction that the Bible does not contain falsehoods. The issue of possible falsehoods is much more important than the issue of possible contradictions.

Moving them goal poast again?

First you have a provable contradiction, only it wasn't, then you decided that the genealogy is better than your 'contradiction'

It appears that Minnesota's contradiction is better than mine, so let's discuss the genealogy of Jesus some more.

Then when you were shown there was no contradiction there, you went on to what did Jesus say on the cross.

Then that was explained to you and you moved your goal posts again, and again until finally you just derailed your own thread AGAIN.




Hint: We don't have to prove a negative Johnny. If you think the bible contains contradictions or falsehoods or even evidence of aliens, it is up to you to give us evidence of it.

If I called you a liar, would it be up to you to prove that you were not a liar, or up to me to prove that you were one?

Innocent until proven guilty, Johnny. If you are calling the bible a liar, then it is up to you to prove it.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Message to John Sparks: In court trials, witnesses often give testimonies that do not contain any apparent contradictions, when in fact their testimonies are lies. I haven't proven a contradiction to your satisfaction, which is not surprising with the latitude that you give yourself, but the lack of provable contradictions in court trials, in the Bible or anywhere else do not automatically prove the truthfulness of testimonies. If you were a prosecution attorney, would you give defendants that same kind of latitude that you use yourself? No way.

[Sparko]

Message to Jason: Are you Jason Gastrich?

Maybe you are thinking about Jason Ng who handed you your hiney in the Richard Carrier/Rodney Stark threads? Still not the same Jason as in this thread, but I think he may be the one you are remembering.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: Message to Jason: Are you Jason Gastrich?

John Sparks replied: Maybe you are thinking about Jason Ng who handed you your hiney in the Richard Carrier/Rodney Stark threads? Still not the same Jason as in this thread, but I think he may be the one you are remembering.

Johnny: I have a debate going at the Infidel Guy's web site with Jason Gastrich. I remember my debates with Jason Ng, and he did not hand me my hiney. I easily refuted all of his arguments. Just name one that I didn't refute. If you wish to try, open a new thread and we will debate it there.

[Sparko]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: Message to Jason: Are you Jason Gastrich?

John Sparks replied: Maybe you are thinking about Jason Ng who handed you your hiney in the Richard Carrier/Rodney Stark threads? Still not the same Jason as in this thread, but I think he may be the one you are remembering.

Johnny: I have a debate going at the Infidel Guy's web site with Jason Gastrich. I remember my debates with Jason Ng, and he did not hand me my hiney. I easily refuted all of his arguments. Just name one that I didn't refute. If you wish to try, open a new thread and we will debate it there.

What's with you and opening new threads all the time? Do you get brownie points or something based on the number of inane threads you have open? Just remember, flooding the site with threads is against the decorum and will likely get you matrixed again.

[Mountain Man]

The title of this thread has left me confused. I had assumed it meant that Johnny Skeptic would present an ostensible Biblical contradiction and then present evidence proving that the contradiction is unreconcilable, but so far all he has done is given us a few out of context verses but no evidence to support his claims that they are actually proven contradictions. Meanwhile, others in this thread have gone out of their way to show that reasonable reconciliation is possible thus proving that the passages do not, in fact, represent a contradiction.

So, Johnny, when do you plan on living up to the title of this thread?

[jason]

Message to Jason: I can't prove to your satisfaction that the Bible contains contradictions

Actually I would settle for you even making a good faith effort to show that it does. Yet you don't even do that. You post some snippet that is supposedly irreconcilable, then someone hands you your head on a platter showing that you basically just don't know what you are talking about, then you go and start a new thread.

but you can't prove to my satisfaction that the Bible does not contain falsehoods.

Johnny these is no proving anything to your satisfaction. You who would claim, upon being shown your argument is sheer stupidity resort to ad hoc explanations like, "well maybe joe of aramatheia was a moron".

Look it is transparently obvious to everyone but you Johnny, that you are dead scared this is all true and these inane threads are your way of trying to hide from that fact.

The issue of possible falsehoods is much more important than the issue of possible contradictions.

Tired of being shown you don't know what you are talking about huh ? Stop moving the goal posts it is grossly dishonest behavior to do so Johnny. But then again when you are as heavily invested as you are in claiming none of it is true I can understand why you need to behave like this.

It doesn't mean the behavior is not still pathetic.

Jason

[Sparko]

I think you figured out Johnny's motivation Jason. Good job.

He has already said that even if he witnessed Jesus rising from the dead he would not follow him. And he said that even if he knew God was real he wouldn't worship him. That is just outright rebellion. He is not a true agnostic, he is just a pathetic anti-theist, anti-christian obsessed-with-JP-Holding nincompoop with a chip on his shoulder.

Even if God knocked on his door and told him it was all true he would just run and hide under his bed with his fingers in his ear, going, 'NAH! NAH! NAH! I can't hear you!!!"

And yet he still asks for proof of who he would not worship anyway. Why bother?

[Johnny Skeptic]

John Sparks wrote: I think you figured out Johnny's motivation Jason. Good job.

He has already said that even if he witnessed Jesus rising from the dead he would not follow him. And he said that even if he knew God was real he wouldn't worship him. That is just outright rebellion. He is not a true agnostic, he is just a pathetic anti-theist, anti-christian obsessed-with-JP-Holding nincompoop with a chip on his shoulder.

Even if God knocked on his door and told him it was all true he would just run and hide under his bed with his fingers in his ear, going, 'NAH! NAH! NAH! I can't hear you!!!"

And yet he still asks for proof of who he would not worship anyway. Why bother?

Johnny Skeptic: You and Jason are both mistaken. It is quite impossible to rebel against someone who you don't even know. You can't even provide a clue regarding what God's motives were for doing a good number of things that he did. You see no problem at all with God allowing babies to be born with severe birth defects, but you most assuredly would attempt to prevent birth defects in babies if you were able to. God basically told Adam that as a result of sin it would become difficult to live in the world. From that time on all followers of the God of the Bible have maintained "Not if we can help it." Christians not only try to prevent and undo God's tough mandate whenever possible, like preventing and curing disease, but they even ask his help in preventing and undoing his own mandate. Now that is just plain nonsense.

Aside from the nature of God, the distribution of good things and bad things shows every indication of being random. Randomness does not indicate a creator. A lack of randomness would tend to indicate a creator, such as if the claimed plagues in Egypt actually happened. The game of roulette is of course random. Do you see any difference between roulette and the distribution of good things and bad things?

[jason]

The game of roulette is of course random.

Umm ... no it isn't, the game of roulette is entirely deterministic. The ball and the wheel move completely in accord with the laws of physics.

Just because you can't measure all the variables and see all the angles doesn't mean something is random.

Your example perfectly illustrates your ignorance in asking the questions you do. Try to think outside the box and put aside your fear and hatred Johnny. You might just be surprised.

Jason

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: The game of roulette is of course random.

Jason: Umm ... no it isn't, the game of roulette is entirely deterministic. The ball and the wheel move completely in accord with the laws of physics.

Just because you can't measure all the variables and see all the angles doesn't mean something is random.

Your example perfectly illustrates your ignorance in asking the questions you do. Try to think outside the box and put aside your fear and hatred Johnny. You might just be surprised.

Johnny: You are of course correct that the game of roulette is not random and operates according to the laws of physics. Let me put it this way. Are you willing to concede that the distribution of good things and bad things also operates according to the laws of physics?

[jason]

Johnny: You are of course correct that the game of roulette is not random and operates according to the laws of physics. Let me put it this way. Are you willing to concede that the distribution of good things and bad things also operates according to the laws of physics?

No you misunderstand my point. Your limited knowledge and ignornace blinds you when it comes to understanding what is going on. You can't see the whole picture so you conclude ignorantly that something does not make sense, that it is random.

But your ignorance is not evidence that it is actually random.

Jason

[Sparko]

No Johnny. We believe all things, good or bad, happen for a reason. To you it might look random or even deterministic, but that is just because you (and I) are limited space-time beings who can't see the big picture. Nothing is random unless God wants it to be. Bad things have their purposes as well as good things. Even bad situations can bring about good. A baby born with a birth defect might spur a father into becoming a doctor (just as an example)

Romans 8:28
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: You are of course correct that the game of roulette is not random and operates according to the laws of physics. Let me put it this way. Are you willing to concede that the distribution of good things and bad things also operates according to the laws of physics?

Jason replied: No you misunderstand my point. Your limited knowledge and ignornace blinds you when it comes to understanding what is going on. You can't see the whole picture so you conclude ignorantly that something does not make sense, that it is random. But your ignorance is not evidence that it is actually random.

Johnny: Just please tell me what evidence today indicates that the laws of physics do not account for the distribution of good things and bad things.

[Sparko]

Johnny just tell me what evidence today indicates that you are a real person and not some AI bot that is spamming TWEB with a bunch of nonsense.