Why do biblical literalists refuse to answer questions?

Oh -you are just insane and expect me to see your inane references.

 

WHy is it god picks and chooses between his children who gets to meet him in heaven and be saved, and who doesn't and goes to hell?

- - - Updated - - -

What parts do you think are 100% true?

 

Ok I think there is some hyperbole. I would describe the Bible as a mixture of Outright myth (Most of genesis) and legend (Mostthe rest of the OT) Legend being stories that are based on some sort of happening but not very accurately with some near-history of events that happened after the supposed exile and return(which may or may not have happened). The new testament I see as a mixture of outright invention mixed with an attempt a narrating an actual series of events based on 2nd hand testimony (the gospels) with some rather better history (acts) and some primary sources (the epistles).


I am an atheist and I don;t behave anything like them. My latin is pretty damned good and my Classical Greek rather less so but vastly better than 99% of the population.

 

These questions are pretty straightforward and are based enetirely on what is written in the bible. They need simple answers. If I ask you the name of the Mother of jesus you only need answer Mary.

My first question.

How old was Abram when Ishmael was born? You beleive in the literal truth of the bible remember. Just the answer please

 

"Sperm of Satan" sounds good. What a pitty that I did not say so to you. Nevertheless: Your decision. Are you a native german speaker?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iYh_zwnAGo

 

I'm just being polite. It's kind of obvious from the OP, and I think maybe you should ask yourself what it's like to go about feeding the chips on your shoulder to the bug up your ass. Don't worry, you're not the first and you won't be the last, but if you haven't noticed that in between the ones splitting the hairs of an iota, a lot of eh-hm eh-hm hints have been dropped at you. Frankly, I find it hilarious, but then again, I live under power lines, so maybe I am just insane. What do you think?

 

what do I think? I think you are insane. Not your fault I suppose but unable to actually communicate on any meaningful level.

 

86 years old.

 

My father is a painter. Sometimes that painting doesn't turn out the way he likes. He tears it up, and tosses it in the trash. Why does he have the right to choose between his paintings, which gets trashed, and which are framed and sold? Because he OWNS them.

Of course there's a slight difference between my father's paintings, and G-d's humans. That being everything my father made, he actually didn't make. The paint, the brushes, the colors, the canvas, and all the other material was made by someone else, and even those people didn't make it, they got material and re-arranged the material into paint and canvas and brushes.

G-d on the other hand, directly created everything from nothing. G-d has far more right to do as he pleases with us humans, than we do with the things we make.

We all are rightfully His. He created us, and He has every right to toss us in the trash. The very fact that we are even allowed the opportunity to know him, is only by his Grace and good will. The very fact we question his rights, when he created everything that is, makes it clear he must be a loving and caring G-d, even if a G-d of judgement, to put up with us.

 

86 years old...I see.

Now Acts 7:2-4 States Our father Abraham ... dwelt in Haran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed himself into this land.


So it is clear from that that Abraham lived in Haram until his father died.

We know from genesis 11:26-32 That Terah, the father of Abaraham ,had abraham when he was 70 years old..correct?

genesis 11;26-32 also states that Terah lived to 205 years and that he died in Haran


So it must be the case that when terah died that Abraham was (205-70) 135 years old.


So either genesis 11 is correct OR genesis 12 is correct. Which one is correct and which one is wrong?

 

Sounds like a God and father I don't want to have anything to do with.

 

A pessimist sees the dark tunnel, an optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel and a realist sees the train coming down the tracks. But what sees the engine driver? Three idiots on the rails. It's perhaps better to buy a ticket to heaven and also better not to try to sell standarized prejudices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAEIrp4MFBE

 

And that's your choice. Understand that all choices in life have consequences. They are still your choice, but you can not blame someone else for the consequences of *YOUR* choice. But you are absolutely right..... it is your choice.

 

They refuse because it would require a rational answer.

 

So out of all the important beliefs and doctrines of the Bible, about Heaven and Hell, Good and Evil, G-d and human existence.... this.... this right here, is your big question?

Sigh... And then you wonder why Christians don't bother answering your questions? It's just not important to our beliefs and doctrine.

I'll answer this one anyway. What can it hurt?
There are a number of possible answers. One is, I don't know. The Bible doesn't give us all the answer to everything. It gives us the answers we need to know. Some answers are simply unknown. While that's possible, I don't think that's the answer to your question.

Another answer, is that Acts 7:4, is a mistranslation, that in the greek does not say "moved" but "removed" from something, that he was placed as a stranger in the land. This references the fact that up until his father actually died, Abraham's ties, were back in Haran. The family land, property, and possessions, tied Abraham back to his home town. Once his father died, all ties to his home country, people, land, and property were cut. He lived as a stranger in a strange land. "G-d 'removed' him unto that land". While an interesting theory, I doubt that's the answer.

There are several other theories, but the one I tend to believe is that people are reading into Genesis 11:26, more than what is actually said.

"After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran."

He became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. Terah had three sons. Terah became a father at age 70. (now that's some serious energy to start cranking out kids at 70). Now does it actually say he had Abram at 70? No.... it says he had three sons, Abram, Nahor and Haran. It does not imply that Abram was the first, only that it was three sons, and here are their names.

Further, if you study Hebrew writing, you know that authors tend to put the most 'important' last. The most important son was the eldest. Likely Haran was the first son. Nahor came after. And Abram was the youngest.

In support of that theory, we know that Abram was traveling with Lot.... who was? Genesis 11:27 The son of Haran. So Haran was likely the first born son, who had a son, who was now an adult old enough to have wives and property, and was traveling with Abram, who left Haran.

What all of this seems to indicate is that while Terah was in fact 70 when he became a father, Abram was likely born at least 30 to 50 years after that. Long enough that Haran had grown, married, and had a son himself. Since we don't know exactly when Abram was born, the entire supposed contradiction falls apart.

As for me, all the statements are true. If you stop adding things not said into the Bible, it's a lot more accurate.

 

Bingo!
Christians, decide for your self, right now, today, if Genesis is literally true (i.e. that the world is 10000 years old or less.) If you agree that it is indeed true then at least you are consistent in one respect....BUT, if you believe that Genesis is just more of a very interesting metaphor, then, if you value consistency, believe from now on that the claimed "resurrection" is ALSO JUST A METAPHOR (so Jesus is not really "coming back", etc., but many of his lessons are good moral lessons). Nothing wrong with metaphors as such.

By leaving the hatred towards non-believers, the hatred of women, and the belief in magic, etc. that are inherent in The Bible, etc., today could be the best day of your life. I did it, and so can you.

 

I didn;t add anything. I just quoted from the Bible. I really don;t care what is important to you but you claim that the bible is literally true so there must be no faults. You are being deliberately dishonest in conflating the country of Haran and the name Haran they are spelled quite differently . We can move on to another of the many inconsistencies.

I really don;t care if you think its important to your beleifs but you insist, you utterly insist that your bible is infallible (along with twee little comments about how incredible it is to have kids at 70 ) so you must defend every single part of it or be shown to be liars.

OK who is the father of Joseph (father of Jesus)

 

But see, that's all that matters to me. If you want to play 20 pointless questions, by all means. And since you have accused me of being deliberately dishonest, when clearly I did not do any such thing, you have proven exactly what I said in my original post.

Thanks for chatting, but I have no need to play your games. Perhaps we'll talk another time, if you ever want to actually know about G-d, instead of trying to discredit Christianity any way you can. Be well

 

Go away then. Clearly you aren't capable of defending your religion. I have no problem answering any question set to me no matter how obtuse .

 

Irrational attacks are not producing rational answers. Same with empty experiences and empty knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8EXDtoGfrs

 

Why is something existing? Why is not only nothing here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uPn7_xvj2I

 

Actually neither one is correct for the simple reason that ancient people did not celebrate birthdays. Therefore they would have been incapable of describing their age as a specific number. They might have referred to someone having been born in a certain year of a ruler's reign and having died in a certain year of another ruler's reign if it was really important to do so. But they didn't go around and say to each other "happy 57th birthday."

 

You of course have links for the assertion that people didn;t know how old they were in áncient times

 

Did Cochise celebrate his birthday?

 

Is that your devastating proof that people in Ancient times didn't know how old they were? Please just tell me if you have better evidence than that,