the so fallible Bible

[Doubting Thomas]

Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem.

Oh how I know. It seems the most common one I've seen is the "lost in translation" defense where they claim that this or that word or phrase had two definitions, but for some reason the common definition isn't the one intended, but the convoluted one which doesn't make the bible wrong or embarrassing.

For example, if someone brings up Jesus talking about slaves, I would claim "When the bible was translated, the word for 'slave' had two meanings, one being a person owned by another person, and the other meaning of 'employed worker.' So when Jesus was talking about how to treat your slaves, he was talking about how employers should treat their employees."

Of course there's never any evidence that there were two different definitions for a particular word, or why one is necessarily more correct than the other.

[xpastor]

You shouldn't lie when there's a written record for all to see. You said that the bit about camels was less important than the other bits you threw against the wall:

OK, in response to my last question about the historical reliability of the Bible there was some quibbling about camels, but no one attempted to respond to the major claims, that the central narrative of the Old Testament never happened, there was no liberation from Egypt, no wandering in the desert, no conquest of Canaan.

Mea culpa. I did carelessly contrast the issue about camels to "major claims." However, if that's the case, you cannot say that you were not told what's most important, whether the exodus story has any historical basis, i.e., the liberation, wandering, conquest.

I still say under what rules does anyone think he has won a debate when he has made an inconclusive attempt to answer one out of eleven questions? You're just indulging in a lot of posturing to avoid looking like a fool. Put up or shut up.

[John V]

Mea culpa. I did carelessly contrast the issue about camels to "major claims." However, if that's the case, you cannot say that you were not told what's most important, whether the exodus story has any historical basis, i.e., the liberation, wandering, conquest.

Again, the point is that you only claimed it wasn't important after it had been refuted. Weasel weasel.

I still say under what rules does anyone think he has won a debate when he has made an inconclusive attempt to answer one out of eleven questions? You're just indulging in a lot of posturing to avoid looking like a fool. Put up or shut up.

And again, you're engaging in elephant hurling.

---

Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem.

Oh how I know. It seems the most common one I've seen is the "lost in translation" defense where they claim that this or that word or phrase had two definitions, but for some reason the common definition isn't the one intended, but the convoluted one which doesn't make the bible wrong or embarrassing.

For example, if someone brings up Jesus talking about slaves, I would claim "When the bible was translated, the word for 'slave' had two meanings, one being a person owned by another person, and the other meaning of 'employed worker.' So when Jesus was talking about how to treat your slaves, he was talking about how employers should treat their employees."

Of course there's never any evidence that there were two different definitions for a particular word, or why one is necessarily more correct than the other.

This is ad hoc. Atheists don't go with the most probable if it's inconvenient. Consider scurvy. The least probable outcome of a deleterious mutation is that it fixes in the species, yet that's the scenario with vitamin c synthesis in certain primates.

[Brakeman]

Atheists don't go with the most probable if it's inconvenient. Consider scurvy. The least probable outcome of a deleterious mutation is that it fixes in the species, yet that's the scenario with vitamin c synthesis in certain primates.

As opposed to theists who just lie about talking to god, lie about their holy adventures every Sunday to each other, then get on this board and lie when they propose debunked ICR claims?

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage...c-14167861

Answer by Levi · Oct 28 '10 at 09:09 PM

Good question. I've heard that it was a genetic mutation that we eventually were able to adapt to with diet. The other option is that because of our self-selected diet the ability to synthesize C was not preserved because it wasn't as needed. Gary Taubes illustrates in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories that carbohydrates (sugars) serve to age us and also compete with the same molecular pathways that Vitamin C does with priority given to sugars. Therefore if you eat lots of carbohydrates you will need to consume more vitamin C to compensate for the pathways blocked with sugar and the degradation caused by excess sugar consumption. He concludes with the implication that paleolithic peoples eating their typical diet would not need as much vitamin C if the diet was lower in carbs. Most higher carb fruits and veggie seem to have lots of vitamin C. On a similar note, the Inuit traditionally consumed very little fruits and veggies and ate mostly meat and fat. They needed very little vitamin C which they were able to procure from whale blubber.

I'm grossly oversimplifying but that's the basic idea. Evolution can be a bitch.

For more Paleo Diet hacks: http://paleohacks.com/questions/25450/wh...z2hwXDQUKN

[Bob Kelso]

This is a simple one OP, supposing this god existed (he doesn't) he is terribly bad at;

Editing: Man he just could not make up his mind about which bits should be included and which versions he liked better.

Budgeting: His churches just keep asking for more, guess he's like everyone else and keeps squandering it on midget-porn and the casinos.

His job: Homicide, infanticide, rape, natural disasters, famine, disease, tyrants, blasphemers, Michael Bay films, the ozone layer, Lil Wayne... the list goes on, all these things he could fix with a fart in our general direction and yet here they are.

So back to the question at hand, yeah the bible is fucked up and incoherrent at best but hey can we expect any different from this guy? If he had a complaint box that motherfucker would be brimming.

[John V]

Good question. I've heard that it was a genetic mutation that we eventually were able to adapt to with diet. The other option is that because of our self-selected diet the ability to synthesize C was not preserved because it wasn't as needed. Gary Taubes illustrates in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories that carbohydrates (sugars) serve to age us and also compete with the same molecular pathways that Vitamin C does with priority given to sugars. Therefore if you eat lots of carbohydrates you will need to consume more vitamin C to compensate for the pathways blocked with sugar and the degradation caused by excess sugar consumption. He concludes with the implication that paleolithic peoples eating their typical diet would not need as much vitamin C if the diet was lower in carbs. Most higher carb fruits and veggie seem to have lots of vitamin C. On a similar note, the Inuit traditionally consumed very little fruits and veggies and ate mostly meat and fat. They needed very little vitamin C which they were able to procure from whale blubber.

I'm grossly oversimplifying but that's the basic idea. Evolution can be a bitch.

Yes, this is one explanation - that due to temporary dietary abundance of vitamin c, an otherwise deleterious mutation was neutral for the time, and fixed via drift in a common ancestor.

The other explanation that I've heard is the piggy-back or coat-tails scenario - a deleterious mutation fixes because it is located near a very advantageous mutation.

Neither of these are supported, and neither are the most likely fate of a deleterious mutation.

In DP's terms, this is fan-fic.

---

Of course there's never any evidence that there were two different definitions for a particular word, or why one is necessarily more correct than the other.

It's pretty easy to go to blb and find all the Biblical usages of the underlying greek or Hebrew word and so make a case.

For instance, consider the famous bear attack passage. The word usually translated as rend or tear can also mean divide. So, the scenario could have been that the group was blocking the road, the bears charged their middle, and they were divided, clearing a path for the prophet. The evidence that there were two definitions for the word is that it is translated as divide in other places, such as Moses dividing the red sea.

[Doubting Thomas]

This is ad hoc. Atheists don't go with the most probable if it's inconvenient. Consider scurvy. The least probable outcome of a deleterious mutation is that it fixes in the species, yet that's the scenario with vitamin c synthesis in certain primates.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm talking about how some Christians use a particular trick to explain away biblical contradictions or errors, and you go on about scurvy?

And it's not ad hoc, I've personally had a fundie Christian friend use this explanation during a discussion on whether God prohibits alcohol consumption when he claimed that Jesus didn't turn water into wine, but turned water into grape juice.

---

For instance, consider the famous bear attack passage. The word usually translated as rend or tear can also mean divide. So, the scenario could have been that the group was blocking the road, the bears charged their middle, and they were divided, clearing a path for the prophet. The evidence that there were two definitions for the word is that it is translated as divide in other places, such as Moses dividing the red sea.

Are you fucking kidding me? It's fairly obvious that the punishment for calling God's prophet "Baldy" was being mauled by bears. And the passage said the bears "tare forty-two of the youths," not "parted the crowd to make way for God's prophet."

With as many hoops as you like to jump through, you should join the circus.

[John V]

What the fuck are you talking about?

I'm talking about atheists using unlikely ad hoc explanations when it suits them.
Are you fucking kidding me? It's fairly obvious that the punishment for calling God's prophet "Baldy" was being mauled by bears. And the passage said the bears "tare forty-two of the youths," not "parted the crowd to make way for God's prophet."[/quote]
The English translations say that, and it's not surprising - with a bear, "tare" seems correct contextually. But check out the underlying word, and you'll see that it's also used for the parting of the red sea.

With as many hoops as you like to jump through, you should join the circus.

So should evolutionists re: loss of vitamin c synthesis.

[Brakeman]

Neither of these are supported, and neither are the most likely fate of a deleterious mutation.

What evidence do you have to support your contention?

[John V]

What evidence do you have to support your contention?

You really need support that deleterious mutations are likely to be selected against?