Creation: Genesis contradictions? - by Don Batten

[PsychoSarah]

I didn't forget, I said I didn't want to bother with the other supposed contradictions because all were false.

Using a lying spirit to deceive his enemies does not make God a liar by proxy. I brought up previous context, not just claimed it. Your list of contradictions are not contradictions.

Using others to lie in your place is lying by proxy by definition. BTW, how many instances do you think exist in which god lies by omission?

 

[ewq1938]

Using others to lie in your place is lying by proxy by definition.

It wasn't done in his place therefore not lying by proxy.

BTW, how many instances do you think exist in which god lies by omission?

Doesn't matter, that isn't lying.

God has never lied nor will he.

 

[46AND2]

God has never lied nor will he.

How do you know?

 

[ewq1938]

How do you know?

Because he says so in scripture.

 

[46AND2]

Because he says so in scripture.

Isn't that exactly what a trickster god would say?

 

[SkyWriting]

Did ya plan on providing that "correct" translation and your evidence that it is the "correct" translation, or have you decided to ignore my request and leave your claim unsupported?

Your request is unsupported.
If we assume the translation is correct,
then we can conclude the writer has an opinion on the events.

 

[SkyWriting]

Using others to lie in your place is lying by proxy by definition. BTW, how many instances do you think exist in which god lies by omission?

0

 

[SkyWriting]

Can you give me an example of testimony by an eyewitness given in the Bible?

1 Thessalonians 2:5 You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a
mask to cover up greed

1 Peter 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ's
sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed

35 (This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account. He speaks the truth so that you also can believe.h)

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

 

[46AND2]

1 Thessalonians 2:5 You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a
mask to cover up greed

1 Peter 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ's
sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed

35 (This report is from an eyewitness giving an accurate account. He speaks the truth so that you also can believe.h)

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Even if there wasn't debate among christian scholars about the authorship of 1 peter, and there is, this still isn't eyewitness testimony OF THE RESURRECTION.

 

[OzSpen]

Luke specifically states he is not an eyewitness. Care to try again?

My atheism has nothing to do with it. Modern (and old) new testament Christian scholarship agrees that Luke was not an eyewitness.

You got it wrong again as Luke demonstrates in Luke 1:1-4 (ESV):

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

He told us where he got the information: 'those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses'.

Do you have the blinders on?

 

[46AND2]

You got it wrong again as Luke demonstrates in Luke 1:1-4 (ESV):


He told us where he got the information: 'those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses'.

Do you have the blinders on?

Do you know the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay?

 

[OzSpen]

Do you know the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay?

What did Luke say in the evidence I provided from Luke 1:1-4? Do you know the meaning of eyewitness testimony?

 

[46AND2]

What did Luke say in the evidence I provided from Luke 1:1-4? Do you know the meaning of eyewitness testimony?

I do. Luke was not an eyewitness, and he is giving the testimony. The eyewitnesses are not giving their testimony here, so this is not eyewitness testimony. Again I ask, do you know the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay?

 

[OzSpen]

I do. Luke was not an eyewitness, and he is giving the testimony. The eyewitnesses are not giving their testimony here, so this is not eyewitness testimony. Again I ask, do you know the difference between eyewitness testimony and hearsay?

When I read the local newspaper, I read journalists who obtain information from eyewitness sources. They do not need to have seen the crash on the freeway to know what happened. Gathering eyewitness reports are important.

I consider you are being difficult. Luke gathered information from eyewitnesses.
You have contorted what the text of Luke 1:2 (ESV) states, 'just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us'.

When you deny what the actual words of Luke 1:2 state, we have no further means of discussion because you have committed a burden of proof fallacy. This is fallacious reasoning when you refuse to accept what the text states.

Bye,
Oz

 

[46AND2]

When I read the local newspaper, I read journalists who obtain information from eyewitness sources. They do not need to have seen the crash on the freeway to know what happened. Gathering eyewitness reports are important.

I consider you are being difficult. Luke gathered information from eyewitnesses.
You have contorted what the text of Luke 1:2 (ESV) states, 'just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us'.

When you deny what the actual words of Luke 1:2 state, we have no further means of discussion because you have committed a burden of proof fallacy. This is fallacious reasoning when you refuse to accept what the text states.

Bye,
Oz

I'm not refusing to accept what the text states. It appears you are. I asked you for an example of TESTIMONY GIVEN BY EYEWITNESSES, which you claim the Bible contains. The text clearly states that the testimony you presented was given by someone who was not an eyewitness.

And how am I committing the burden of proof fallacy? It was YOUR CLAIM in the first place (that the Bible contains eyewitness testimony of the resurrection). The burden is, and always was, on you.

Luke is providing hearsay testimony BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

It doesn't get any more cut and dry than that.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not refusing to accept what the text states. It appears you are. I asked you for an example of TESTIMONY GIVEN BY EYEWITNESSES, which you claim the Bible contains. The text clearly states that the testimony you presented was given by someone who was not an eyewitness.

And how am I committing the burden of proof fallacy? It was YOUR CLAIM in the first place (that the Bible contains eyewitness testimony of the resurrection). The burden is, and always was, on you.

Luke is providing hearsay testimony BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

It doesn't get any more cut and dry than that.

You are missing a fundamental. Luke is an historian. Most historians are not eyewitnesses. Have all of the biographers and historians of Abraham Lincoln's life been eyewitnesses of Lincoln's life and death? Of course not. However, some of those historians could have obtained evidence from eyewitnesses.

Luke tells us that one of the sources for his information about Jesus' life and death is 'just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us' (Luke 1:2 ESV). Eyewitnesses delivered information about Jesus to Luke, the historian.

The integrity of Luke as an historian is well documented in Professor I Howard Marshall 1970. Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Swedish scholar, Professor Samuel Byrskog, has examined the elements, 'From Eyewitness to Gospel Story' (Byrskog 2002:265-299) and his conclusions are radically different from yours, as are those of Scottish Professor Richard Bauckham in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Bauckham 2006).

I didn't come down in the last historical shower when examining the historical evidence for the Gospels (incl. Luke) and their use of eyewitness evidence as one of their sources.

You seem to be shooting wide of the mark when understanding the use of eyewitness testimony by historians, as with Luke.

Works consulted
Bauckham, R 2006. Jesus and the eyewitnesses: The Gospels as eyewitness testimony. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Byrskog, S 2002. Story as history – history as story: The Gospel tradition in the context of ancient oral history. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, Inc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So are you prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts of the Endeavour ship coming to Australia in 1770 but you are not prepared to accept the eyewitness accounts recorded in the reliable Scriptures?

Would you accept the eyewitness accounts, if they said that this ship was operated by gnomes and unicorns?

Why not?

 

[OzSpen]

Would you accept the eyewitness accounts, if they said that this ship was operated by gnomes and unicorns?

Why not?

That's a red herring logical fallacy. You did not answer my question but were off and running with your own agenda. We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this as you are using fallacious reasoning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's a red herring logical fallacy.

No, it's not.

You did not answer my question but were off and running with your own agenda. We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this as you are using fallacious reasoning.

I'm making a point.

Being that not all claims are supported by the same level of evidence. The contents of the claim has to be taken into account.

There is good reason to accept the eyewitness accounts from The Endeavour. First, because we have multiple independent sources and perhaps we even still have the ship itself. And there's nothing out of the ordinary in the claim itself...

If my friend tells me he saw a nice Ferarri the other day, I will probably just believe him. Ferarri's exist and people buy them. It's a bit more out of the ordinary then seeing a Ford, Opel or BMW, but there are enough Ferarri's in people's hands so that everyone gets to witness one on the streets from time to time.

There's nothing fundamentally unreasonable about those claims and they fit the general circumstances.

But if my friend also tells me that this Ferarri had wings and could fly... then I won't be buying that claim anymore. Or if one says that the Endeavour was operated by gnomes and unicorns, then that claim to becomes to out of the ordinary to simply accept at face value.

The exact same goes for the supernatural claims of the bible.

There's nothing wrong with stories about a preacher-type human who was giving speeches in Jeruzalem or whatever and who succeeded in gathering some following. Not really out of the ordinary, this was rather common back then.

But proceed with claims about raising the dead, making the blind see, walking on water, etc........... well, I guess you'll get it by now.


To summarize:
1. we know today that "eyewitness" accounts is about the least reliable type of evidence we have

2. extra ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. Eyewitness accounts are the exact opposite of "extra-ordinary evidence". Such accounts are rather the most ordinary you will find and also the least reliable.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. we know today that "eyewitness" accounts is about the least reliable type of evidence we have

Is that why detectives go around asking, "What did you see?"

I suppose if someone gave you the license number of a hit-skip, you would consider it "least reliable"?