Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Sunday, July 01, 2007

12 Angry Statements

The other day I posted an article describing how I have incurred the rage of an angry and bitter anti-Christian. My antagonist initially emailed to present to me 12 dogmatic statements he claims I cannot answer IF I affirm the inerrancy of God's Word.

My original response was a spoof played off the fact that all of his objections have been soundly answered by better men than myself. If he doesn't like the responses to his statements others have already provided, then he will certainly not accept mine.

That being said, in order to prevent my emailer from gloating (and because I have a few free moments to blog), I will respond to these statements to demonstrate how easily answered they are.

His original comments will be in Arial Bold.

This is what he wrote,

To believe your bible in any translation(or original manuscripts) is inerrant & god breathed, here is what you must believe.

#1.A snake can talk(remember the snake was cursed to crawl on it's belly & eat dust.
#2.A donkey can talk.

#9.You have to believe god made the sun stand still when it already stands still or believe god stopped the rotation of the earth which anyone should know would be a disaster in many ways for earth.

#10.You have to believe Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt which is unbelievable.

(Fred) I took these set of statements out of sequence because they generally deal with miraculous interventions and extraordinary acts of providence by God. Biblio-skeptics tend to ignore the fact that the Bible presupposes the existence of God who has directly intervened in human history past. Because the writers of the Bible treat their writing as an historical record of God's divine dealings with humanity, particularly God's redeemed people, I would only expect to read about extraordinary acts of God. In fact, if the Bible claimed to be a book recording the revelation of the divine, sovereign creator, yet contained no miraculous works by that creator in order to establish His divinity, then wouldn't it raise suspicion in the minds of its critics? Yet, my antagonist would just as easily hammer that point as a means of mockery.

The Bible claims to be a supernatural book with its source in the mind of our Creator. I expect it to tell of supernatural events. Why is that hard to believe unless you are unwilling to submit to the Creator who produced those supernatural events?

Looking at each point in turn.

#1 - First off, the Bible says it was a serpent. The text is unclear as to what sort of animal that was. The idea of a snake is from the modern day and my antagonist is reading the concept of a modern day python back on to the text. Second, the serpent was satanically controlled. Third, it was cursed AFTER it talked, not before. And fourth, this was an unique, one time event never to be repeated.

#2 - Similar points apply with Balaam's donkey as with the snake. The Angel of the LORD was present when the donkey talked, even giving it the ability to rebuke Balaam.

#9 - Again, similar points apply as with #1 and #2. This was a one time event of extraordinary providence. If our Creator can create His world, He certainly can protect it from disaster when He reveals Himself in a miraculous, cosmological display, so as to deliver His people and bring a crushing blow against their enemies.

#10 - Again, similar points apply here as with the previous three. There were supernatural events that took place in the historical past which show forth God's character as revealed in judgment, wrath, and even mercy. Additionally, the description being recorded here may be a metaphorical description explaining how Lot's wife was merely destroyed in the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah because she tarried behind Lot. The text is not clear how far behind she may had been. Because she refused to take seriously the warnings of judgment delivered by the angels, she was overcome in the cities' destruction.

#3.That man was so stupid back then that he actually thought he could build a tower to heaven.

(Fred) Nothing in the text suggests they were building a physical tower into heaven. The text says the people acted as one in rebellion to what God had commanded when he told humanity after the flood to spread over the earth. Instead, they worked together to build a great city with a tower with its top in the heavens. Basically a grand skyscraper probably constructed for the worship of false gods. There is nothing stupid about this given the fact the similar relics of ancient societies still exist today like the pyramids.

#4.You have to believe against any logical thinking that all those animals,incl,snakes & all different kinds of insects and enough food to feed all of them(different kinds of food)for almost one year would fit on an ark that size,which is impossible.
#5.You have to believe there was food for them to eat when they came off the ark even though the whole earth was supposedly covered in water.

(Fred) The subject of the ark's dynamics and physical feasibility to accomplish what it did according to the biblical record of Genesis 6-8 is vast. There have been countless studies done and papers/books written demonstrating that the ark could carry all the animal kinds (not the entire species we see today), as well as enough food to feed them for a year. This statement is made from a position of scholarly ignorance by a person who is a biblio-Christian bigot.

Interestingly, the T-bloggers recently wrote a lengthy critique of an anti-creationist book written by a similar religious bigot who mocks the historical record of the ark. There are also additional citations in response to like-minded critics in the footnotes.

Answers in Genesis also lists a plethora of articles detailing the physical reality of Noah's global flood and the feasibility of the ark. [Note: my emailing antagonist told me in writing that he dismisses anything posted at AiG's website. "They're mind-controlled" so he claims and thus are unreliable. That's how an atheist/biblio-skeptic shores up his ignorance, by automatically poisoning anything his critics and opponents write. So much for free thinking and doing your homework and all].

#6.You have to believe in a flat earth because these supposedly inspired by god people said so back then.

(Fred) Nothing in the biblical record suggest the earth is flat. This is anti-biblical urban myth.

#7.You have to believe the earth is 6 to 10,000 years old despite overwhelming proof it is much,much older,even if not 4.5 billion years old.

(Fred) And what exactly is that overwhelming proof? The variety of radioactive dating methods are wildly inconsistent with each other when tested on just one sample. Moreover, dating methods are subject to speculative interpretations, interpretations that are driven by particular presuppositions. Again, AiG has a list of technical articles dealing with this issue, but remember, most skeptics refuse to interact with the data and information, but instead choose to attack ad hominem straw men versions of their critics whom they do not respect.

#8.You have to believe all those heavenly bodies out there that they are still finding were created in one literal day(morning & evening)that is despite the fact that even now they are finding suns,stars just now begining [sic] to form.

(Fred) Usually the person who makes statements invoking the authority of modern day evolutionary cosmology are generally ignorant of the problems inherent to modern day evolutionary cosmology. He is also blissfully unaware of the in-fighting that exists between various proponents of various theories and models that are dreamed up to help explain away those problems.

For example, note the contradiction in his original statement. In #7 he speaks about the earth being 4.5 billion years old. The so-called billions of light years (a "light year" being a measure of distance, not time, by the way) are considered one of the reasons we believe in an old universe. However, in #8, my emailer suggests one solar day is way too short a time for suns and stars to form, especially now that we are finding stars just now beginning to form. OK, how exactly would we see their light if they are just now beginning to form?

Discover magazine did an article on the youthful galaxies located by the Galex telescope that are 2 to 4 billion light years from earth, but began forming just 1 billion light years ago according to the telescope observations. In the March 2006 issue, a thoughtful reader wrote a letter to the editor expressing curiosity as to how we could even see their light? He writes,

"If the youthful galaxies located by the Galex telescope are 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth but started forming less than 1 billion years ago, how can they be observed at all?"

In other words, it should have taken the light from these 1-billion-year-old galaxies 2 to 4 billion years to reach us. The editors at Discover responded thus:
Your question cuts right to one of the trickiest problems in cosmology: how to refer to the timing of events when there are many different ways to describe them. The conventional solution is to describe everything from the way we perceive it. In this case, that means that when we say that the galaxies started forming less than a billion years ago, we mean that the galaxies AS WE SEE THEM TODAY appear to have started forming less than a billion years ago. Put another way, when their light started heading toward Earth 2 billion to 4 billion years ago, these objects were less than a billion years old. That convention may seem confusing, but the alternatives are even more puzzling. For instance, it would be more comprehensive to say that these galaxies, located 2 billion to 4 billion light-years from Earth, appear to have begun forming less than 3 billion to 5 billion years ago, and then their light spent 2 billion to 4 billion years traveling toward us. More comprehensive, yes, but even harder to follow!
In other words, its a mystery that doesn't fit into the prescribe view of evolutionary cosmologists.

For my antagonist emailer, its easy for him to make fun of a biblical description of creation than deal with real problems of cosmology.

#11.You have to believe Lot had intercourse with 2 of his daughters on 2 different nights and knew it not.

(Fred) This comment is strange. The text clearly states he was drunk out of his mind and unaware of what happened. Why is that hard to believe? Such things happen in Las Vegas all the time between total strangers.

#12.You have to believe Jesus was concieved [sic] without human intercourse this despite the fact that at least 20 other dying & resurrecting savior sun gods had this claimed of them long,long before the supposed time of Jesus,you claim them a myth but the same tale about Jesus true.

(Fred) This is a woefully ignorant exaggeration of historical fact. In all of my private email interchanges with my antagonist, he always returned to cut-and-pasted articles from non-scholarly, atheistic websites that try desperately to tie Jesus to some ancient myth. Mithra is the favorite these days. J.P. Holding of Tektonics has done some extensive research debunking these claims, even interacting with the world's literary experts on these various myths who also deny the connection between the alleged myth and the historical Jesus. [Note: Just like he rejects AiG out of hand, my emailing antagonist also rejects J.P. Holding because a) "J.P." still goes by the alias he gave himself for security reasons when he worked with hardcore criminals in the state penitentiary where he was employed, and b) he was too mean and direct with my emailer when he was hassling him. Once again, such self-imposed blindness only reveals a heart angry at the God of scripture and who truly doesn't care for the truth].

So there you have it. I responded to each one of his charges and none of them disprove the inerrancy of the Bible. All we have are baseless charges just like they were asked decades ago, but have once again been proven wrong.

Labels: ,


Blogger Bobby Grow said...

Your antagonist has an worldview problem of which their view of the scriptures is a symptom.

Good responses.

It's unfortunate that people don't think more deeply before making such odious claims and assertions. It's almost as if they don't know of what they speak.

7:16 PM, July 01, 2007  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

All right, my anti-Christ antagonist responded to me via email with a paranoid claim that my blog won't allow him to post his response to me and then implies that I don't have the guts to post it anyways.

I'm sorry if he can't follow the instructions to set up a posting account, but the conspiracy against him comes from Google and Blogger, not me.

Yet, in the spirit of good cheer, I will re-post his entire email, as it came to me unedited. If I could, may I direct him to Steve Hays and his wonderful Triablogging? Heck, they live for these sorts of folks.

See if you can follow it.

I have attempted to answer what you put on your blog about me,but evidently you are a cheater,it will not send even though i created a google account and password just to answer what you claimed about me.So be half way decent if that is possible and post this on your blog and create a way for me to answer you or others that post concerning this.You put me on there without asking or advising me that you were putting it on there in advance of doing so.Below i have copied & pasted my answer to your so far unfair blog,let us see if you have any honesty?

Paste of what i tried to send to your blog:I am the angry bitter anti christian person as Fred describes me i guess he figured this out through the Holy Spirit because he never met me i only sent 12 email questions with no anger.Without telling me till days later he posted this title from me,about me on his blog "12 ANGRY STATEMENTS"I guess anything that disagrees with Fred's thinking must come from someone angry or someone as he describes me as "gloating"Fred sure used up a lot of space about me on his blog so i hope he will post in fairness this long one from me.
I will begin with his statements about AIG,anyone going to AIG type this into Google search"Answers in Genesis"then i believe it is the second one below AIG click on "No Answers in Genesis"keep looking on down you will find the lawsuit filed against AIG by his former employers now called "Creation Ministries Intl."There you will see Aig being sued for among other things stealing(amen a christian thief)the subscribers list of about 38,000 people from his former employer.
Keep in mind AIG has been completely refuted and proved wrong on most of their supposed science,creation stuff by true evolutionist science scholars on other sites that AIG does not link to.If you check out more in this area on Google you will find AIG did not meet the standards of the Better Business Bureau.As one person writes there (quote)Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution---Ignorance Is.(unquote)Now i would ask any thinker reading Fred's blog about me this question,Did Fred really answer any of my 12 questions with an answer simple & with proof? Or did he just wander around with biblical non-logical confusing answers?Oh yes i should have used the word Serpent instead of the word snake but i thought surely he knew what a snake was after it all it says it was to crawl on his belly and eat dust,of course there is another biblical lie snakes do not eat dust.
Now read Fred's ignorant answer to question's #1,2,9 & 10,he answers nothing logically or anything a 4 year old kid could make sense of.He argues with statements such as this "it's a one time event"-"the text is not clear"--"supernatural events took place in the past"--"it may be metaphorical"Fred is stating unclear,it may be metaphorical,actually he is stating he doesn't know but yet he believes in an inerrant,infalible Bible,does that make sense to you,it sure doesn't make sense to anyone that uses his mind and not biblical mind control.Now about the Tower of Babel the KJV says "whose top may reach unto heaven"the Amplified Bible says"a tower whose top reaches into the sky"now am i supposed to believe the inerrant Bible of Fred's or should i believe Fred who i suppose was there at the Tower of Babel except he uses the word probably,you can't guess probably Fred with an inerrant infalible Bible as you claim it to be.Then Fred calls me an ignorant scholarlly biblio--christian bigot and claims countless of studies have been done to prove all those animals(incl.snakes and insects)and enough food to feed them for almost one year would fit on the Noah ark,any scholar making such a claim(maybe Henry Morris)is not worth the salt he puts on his food at one meal and has to be a biased christian lying scholar,the species we have today could not even have come about in your supposed 5 or 6000 year old earth ignorant theory, that is a pure blind ignorant biblically brainwashed theory.
Of course anyone claiming the Bible writters did not think the earth was flat is ignorant also because it states that many times and states the earth has foundations it's funny satellites don't show Atlas holding the earth up on his shoulders for a foundation.Using Isa.40:22 and a couple of statements similar in the book of Job will not work in proving biblical writters knew the earth was round(spherical)you need to study that translation from Hebrew,actually the circle had to do with the Zodiac not the shape of the earth.You misquote my statements on #7&8 instead of going into your ignorance in that area which would take a lot of typing i ask you study real scientist's on that subject and not quote from AIG which real scientists have already refuted in sites on the internet.Your # 11 answer which is not an answer,i will say you have never been drunk so how would you know,35 & 40 years ago i have been as drunk as anyone could ever get and while some things were not remembered very clearly i knew who i went to bed with,and if Lot was as drunk as the Bible claims he would not even have got an erection,that word may be to strong for you to print knowing you,but your bible is full sex using the words like "Lay with"and much,much more.Again you call me ignorant about the virgin birth but make no attempt to answer it yourself.You also lied about what i said about J.P.Holding(Tektonics)what i said was he called me this(quote)You are an old man driving down the freeway in an Edsel not knowing which exit to get off on.(unquote)then i told you i wouldn't believe him if his tongue came notarized,the reason for that was instead of answering questions he sent me degrading slurs and degrading smiley faces in his correspondence,why should i believe such ignorance.Fred post this on your site if you have the guts.My name is signed below.

7:28 PM, July 01, 2007  
Blogger thomas4881 said...

Bravo Fred! It is evident once a person deals with enough claims against the Bible that every arguement leads down a rabbit trail that comes to the final truth. The final truth always being that the Bible stands firm and is the truth given to man by God.

The last big claim I was dealing with was the claim that the Bible is some type of evolved story pieced together from many myths believed by the more primitive people for endless years. I dove into challenge that claim and I knew it was nothing more than another rabbit hole that required tens to hundreds of hours to find the fraud at the end of the tunnel.

In the end these claims have one common root. That is the sin of pride. Instead of being able to clearely take the time required to look into the claims from every angle for long periods of time, for the truth,people would rather not look at all. Then to top it off they try to present themself as an expert by the way they arrogantly defend their beliefs. Amazing but nothing to fret about. On judgement day all will be revealed.

Fred thanks for taking the time to present this information. It is going to save a lot of people a lot of time studying.

10:14 PM, July 01, 2007  
Blogger Hiraeth said...

Osbourne says that he is not angry, but reading his remarks he does sound a little put out. May I make a few polite suggestions:

1. Whether a person or organisation manages its affairs well or badly does not invalidate their arguments, to suggest otherwise is to be guilty of the genetic fallacy.

2. If you crawl around on your belly, you'll ingest a fair amount of dust, as if you cyle by a stream at evening with your mouth open, you'll ingest a lot of bugs.

3. On the tower of Babel, 'heaven' or 'the sky' are both allowable translations. A note for the wise: the Bible is not written in English.

4. Calling a man 'a biased lying Christian scholar' is not refutation.

5. Drunkeness affects different people differently. Some people know nothing until the claim for child maintenance, others remember everything as in a dream.

6. On the virgin birth, might I note that Zeus' generation of Bacchus from Semele was not a virgin birth, but divine sex. The same goes for other so-called virgin births, which are no more than divine sexual intercourse (ask Europa about the Bull). To take a Christian name and apply it to a pagan concept does not make it the same thing. May I suggest Machen's 'The Virgin Birth of Christ?'

11:45 AM, July 02, 2007  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

My antagonist is still having issues with logging into google and blogger. Here's a reply I am posting on his behalf.

Unedited, mind you.

Oh how sweet Fred,you had a handful of commenters that responded that you were a tad put out with me(none of their comments posted)but that you a man of pure christian virtue(you claim of yourself)would respond in such a mean spirit,those commenters are right they are hurtful and certainly does not help your gospel witness.
Of course i have learned to expect that from christian apologists,J.P.seems to have taught you well.You claim i did a lot of copy & paste most of what you sent me to my private email was links to christian sites.Only when you started this blog to get yourself into a mostly christian readers did you attempt(very poor attempt)to answer my 12 questions,before that you didn't have time you claimed.One such christian came to your defense with a bunch of scriptures from Proverbs,evidently not knowing the book of Proverbs originated not from biblical writters but out of Sumerian tablets.Also your N.T.says whoever calls a man a fool is in danger of hell fire(you and your reader called me a fool)(Matt.5:22),but of course thats o.k.Jesus broke his own saying in Matt.23:17,christians just twist scripture to suit your mood.Fred i was a Methodist not much different from your hot headed Southern Babtist which i think you are,does that make you happy now you can pick on your own supposed brethern.Not many of my cut & pastes were from atheist sites either but that doesn't matter to you anyone not agreeing with you is automatically wrong.If my questions were so simple how come you never answered any of them with intelligence?Most of your posted answer is not about the 12 questions but like J.P.just putting me the person down over and over.
The above was typed yesterday and not sent now i wish to comment on the comments sent to the blog by "hiraeth"about me. #3.comment i certainly would hope anyone commenting on religious matters would know the Bible comes from an outdated Hebrew language,the N.T.from Greek(even though Jesus would most likely have spoke Aramic)and a small amount of Aramic is used in the O.T.Translations of which there are many put into English, are more guesses as to how these old languages should be translated but yet most of christianity will claim an inerrant Bible,this is claimed even though translators have different views of how certain words should be translated so christianity chooses which translation they want to use in certain areas,so how silly to claim the Bible inerrant when translators are constantly revising what the the Hebrew & Greek are really saying.
Hiraeth# 4.And neither is christians calling me a biased atheist(i have never said i did not believe there was not a god)& a bigoted anti christian as i have been called here and other christian sites a refutation to what i am saying,let's wear the shoes on both feet.
I will skip #5 other than say from expierence and many years of talking to others who have been drunk you do not get an erection if you are so drunk you don't remember it,as stated earlier about Las Vegas you might not know her name but you know you've been there.
#6.I would suggest you do more study on sun god virgin births,as far as i can tell the site on the internet called "Religious Tollerance"is not an atheist site but a site that trys to tell the truth it usually trys to pull out of it's articles atheist claims that can not be fully proved,i typed in to google "Horus pagan beliefs"then scrolled down to religious tollerance clicked it then read what came up,then scroll on down to the other links about Krishna e.t.c.look those links over there, also there are other ways to check out how very similar christianity is to much earlier sun god myths,it is pure stupidity for christianity to claim it did not copy off of earlier Sun God myths,fables & tales.So much so that several early church fathers incl.Justin Martyr had to say the Devil got there first.
Don't you just hate it to know the Devil outsmarted the god of the O.T.& Jesus?If you do not twist words like christians do, in several early church fathers writtings you will find they admitted Jesus was no different than earlier Sun Gods(Jupiter,Jove for one).
In the face of all these early church fathers many statements,and translators still trying to find out how to make better translations out of outdated Hebrew & Greek languages christians ignorantly claim an inerrant,infalible,god inspired Bible.To try and do that christians take their own scriptures some of it out of context,some use a different translation, and some just twist some areas out of the scriptures to fit their brand of belief.
While i am labeled anti christian most of you won't even look ouside christian writtings & christian scholars afraid you just might be wrong.Fred,did you send the guy that asked for Mithra links,any links?If you did it was probably links to christian leaning Mithra sites,why anyone would ask apologetics & christians where to search for anything not agreeing with christianity i do not know,lazyness is all i can think of,i ask that they do their own research with an open mind not biased with christian thinking,let the chips fall where they may. This may be my last post since after hours of trying i can not get anything to post on your blog & i don't want to bother Fred all the time having to post for me.Fred if anyone wants my email address you have my permission to give it to them,just don't share it around all over to where i might get spam i have enough of that already.

8:34 AM, July 03, 2007  
Blogger Hiraeth said...

Jay, may I point out that I in no way attempted to refute you by saying you are biased. As a matter of fact, everyone's biased. One of the few gains of post-modernism is the recognition of this.

With regard to the translation of the Bible, my point was that I often come across comments that seem to suggest people are not always aware of this elementary fact. Just how the fact that the Bible is translated from other languages impacts on the question of inerrancy is frankly beyond me. As for translation being a guess, may I respectfully suggest you have a few words with a linguist. I would equally note that neither NT Greek nor OT Hebrew are closed books. People know these languages. When it comes to difficult passages, the only final judge is what the original language says. Every translation must include a little intrepretation.

Lastly, as regards comparative religion, might I first repeat my point about so-called virgin births in pagan myths being nothing of the sort. Sex with a god is not the same as the virginal conception of Christ. One of the advantages of having taught comparative religion.

11:25 AM, July 03, 2007  
Blogger thomas4881 said...

Fred did you respond to the accusations against AIG? Are they true?

3:24 PM, July 03, 2007  
Blogger Joe Blackmon said...

Lost people have to try ti find ways to justify rejecting the Word of God. If they don't, they have to admit there is a God and that they have to submit to Him. Great points.


10:30 AM, July 05, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home