Verses often quoted by atheists - explanations?

mehfesto

I'm sure you're all aware that there are some tricky verses out there in the bible. I always thought some of them were made up, but after checking them in a bible here at home, I see most of them are really in the book. These are often jumped upon by atheists and used as arguments against the Bible.

But what do you guys make of them? Mistranslation? Out-dated examples? I would like honest examples. It could put an end to the 'picking and choosing' argument, if reasonable answers are given.

I've taken all of these from the King James Version, as it is the most widely available bible available in bookshops, the one found in hotel rooms and well, to be honest, it's the only one I own.

1. Job 39:9-12

9Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

11Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?

12Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?

Main question here: Are/Were unicorns real?


2. Luke 18:18-22

18 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
19 So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’”[a]
21 And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”
22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

This is actually stated twice, I believe (I can't find the other one). Can you be wealthy and own many possessions, but be a 'good Christian'?


3. Luke 14:26

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Does a Christian have to hate, or is this a misinterpretation?

4. Kings 2:23-24

23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Is this an acceptable form of justice for an insult?

5. Matthew 5:17-20

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This is perhaps the most interesting. Usually the argument unfolds that only Old Testament quotes are given. But if Jesus says they are of equal importance surely it shouldn't matter?

Personally, I find it hard to take it all as given, but I'm open to be corrected.

PDN

mehfesto wrote: »

1. Job 39:9-12

Main question here: Are/Were unicorns real?

Using a translation conducted 400 years ago, when knowledge of Hebrew was much more limited, might make you think of unicorns, but modern translatiions render it as "wild ox". If atheists do use that verse to try to prove something then they must be extraordinarily stupid atheists.

This is actually stated twice, I believe (I can't find the other one). Can you be wealthy and own many possessions, but be a 'good Christian'?

Yes you can. Jesus said it was hard for a rich person to enter heaven, but with God all things are possible.

The verses you quote refer to one individual who would have to sell everything he had to follow Jesus - evidently he loved his money too much. They don't say everyone has to do the same - in fact the Gospels speak of wealthy followers of Christ such as Joseph of Arimathea.

Also, Christ's words about the rich entering heaven were in the context of 1st Century Palestine- a context similar to Nazi occupied France in WWII. To be rich meant you were almost certainly collaborating with the oppressors.

Does a Christian have to hate, or is this a misinterpretation?

Both Hebrews and Greeks used this expression, where to let go (for a greater good) of something previously considered precious was described as "hating" it.

For example, in the Poetae Lyrici Graeci it is said that in battle, men "must count his own life his enemy for the honor of Sparta".

The idea is that we should not allow other attachments to be dear enough to prevent us from following Christ.

Is this an acceptable form of justice for an insult?

Your KJV is getting you into difficulty again. In my experience fundamentalists and atheists like the KJV for the same reason - they can make the Bible say crazy things and blithly ignore 400 years of historical and linguistic research.

The word translated as 'little children' can also mean youths. So the scenario here may well be that of one elderly man being accosted by a huge crowd of hoodied yobos. God provided deliverance for the old gentleman when a bear came and scratched (no mention of how seriously) 42 of the yobos. We had a hilarious thread on here once where an atheist wanted to argue that this was a super-powered mutant killer bear which, contrary to all observations of naturalists, could kill 42 people in one attack.

This is perhaps the most interesting. Usually the argument unfolds that only Old Testament quotes are given. But if Jesus says they are of equal importance surely it shouldn't matter?

The law was not to pass away until it was fully fulfilled - an event that occurred with Christ's death and resurrection and the inauguration of the New Covenant. Until that time his disciples were still to obey the law.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

The law was not to pass away until it was fully fulfilled - an event that occurred with Christ's death and resurrection and the inauguration of the New Covenant. Until that time his disciples were still to obey the law.

So do you and zoom disagree or what

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67025884&postcount=28

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

We had a hilarious thread on here once where an atheist wanted to argue that this was a super-powered mutant killer bear which, contrary to all observations of naturalists, could kill 42 people in one attack.

Hmmm, did you not say a few sentences earlier: "with God all things are possible"? Would you not be leaving yourself open to accusations of inconsistencies if you explain away one problem in this manner, then disregarding it in the next beath.

So presumably you should correct yourself and confirm that in fact it was possible that God called forth a bear which could kill 42 people?

The law was not to pass away until it was fully fulfilled - an event that occurred with Christ's death and resurrection and the inauguration of the New Covenant. Until that time his disciples were still to obey the law.

I have read this explanation before and it always seems to be an example of Christian straw clutching. I find it preposterous to suggest that Matthew inserted a passage of significant length into his Gospel which, at the time of writing between 80-90 AD, had become completely redundant and adds absolutely nothing to the story whatsoever.

With this explanation the entire passage was only relevant for the few months between the sermon on the mount and the crucifixion and is basically a meaningless message of Jesus in which all he really says is "Even though no-one has suggested you to do this, don't go and abandon the law that you have followed all your life, well at least until next Passover anyway...wink wink"

In a desperate effort to harmonise the inconsistent Gospel account with Pauline teachings Christians brutally mishape the teachings of Jesus to fit with the teachings of Paul instead of vice versa. I always find this example as an amusing example of Christians putting Jesus firmly in his place, behind Paul.

Fanny Cradock

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Hmmm, did you not say a few sentences earlier: "with God all things are possible"? Would you not be leaving yourself open to accusations of inconsistencies if you explain away one problem in this manner, then disregarding it in the next beath.

So presumably you should correct yourself and confirm that in fact it was possible that God called forth a bear which could kill 42 people?

Ugh...

Who has mentioned anything about what is possible? Only you, as far as I can see. PDN was discussing what happened, he wasn't listing all the thing that might have been. While I would tend to disagree that these youths were simply scratched - the word baqa` suggests something more violent - you have laid out your stall and it appears that you are again offering the same old stuff.

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

So do you and zoom disagree or what

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67025884&postcount=28

I have no idea who 'zoom' is. But I'm sure I disagree with him/her at some point or another since I've never met anyone who agreed with me on everything.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

I have no idea who 'zoom' is. But I'm sure I disagree with him/her at some point or another since I've never met anyone who agreed with me on everything.

Did you read the link?
He says the "OT not applicable as it's fulfilled" is nonsense, and you seem to be saying the opposite. I am curious to know if there are differing schools of thought you have come across on this?

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

Did you read the link?
He says the "OT not applicable as it's fulfilled" is nonsense, and you seem to be saying the opposite. I am curious to know if there are differing schools of thought you have come across on this?

The link is a single post from some debate you were having with someone else. They, like you and me, are entitled to their opinion (whatever that might be - its not entirely clear from your link).

I answered a question in the OP and I've never met or heard of someone called zoom.

Btw, I never said the Old Testament is not applicable. The OT needs to be read in the context of the NT and is still a vauable source of revelation about God and His dealings with mankind.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ugh...

Who has mentioned anything about what is possible? Only you, as far as I can see. PDN was discussing what happened, he wasn't listing all the thing that might have been. While I would tend to disagree that these youths were simply scratched - the word baqa` suggests something more violent - you have laid out your stall and it appears that you are again offering the same old stuff.

Indeed, killer mutant bears with super powers that can kill 42 people in one attack are logically possible. And if any atheist, or Pompey Magnus, chooses to believe in such bears then I will defend their right to do so. (That doesn't mean I have to share their faith).

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, killer mutant bears with super powers that can kill 42 people in one attack are logically possible. And if any atheist, or Pompey Magnus, chooses to believe in such bears then I will defend their right to do so. (That doesn't mean I have to share their faith).

But remember - bears are fast, persistent aggressors and two of them could have chased the yobs' sorry asses all over the country. No need for 42 to go down in a matter of minutes.

O, I just found this. A lovely bit of film:
The Bear - Film by Jean-Jacques Annaud
http://www.flixxy.com/bear-animal-nature-film.htm
_________________________________________________________________
Hosea 13:7 “ So I will be to them like a lion;
Like a leopard by the road I will lurk;
8 I will meet them like a bear deprived of her cubs;
I will tear open their rib cage,
And there I will devour them like a lion.
The wild beast shall tear them.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, killer mutant bears with super powers that can kill 42 people in one attack are logically possible. And if any atheist, or Pompey Magnus, chooses to believe in such bears then I will defend their right to do so. (That doesn't mean I have to share their faith).

These bears were sent by god right?

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

These bears were sent by god right?

The super killer mutant bears that kill 42 in one attack? You'd be better asking the atheists who believe in them. But, since they're atheists, they probably don't believe in God (although that's hard to say the way you guys constantly redefine the term 'atheist'). So, without venturing to speak for them, I would guess the super killer mutant bears are naturally occurring - or maybe intelligently designed without specifying the identity of the designer.

However, if you're asking about the two bears in 2 Kings Chapter 2 that scratched the yobos, the text doesn't say whether God sent them or not. They came just after Elisha had cursed the mob that was accosting him. I think that you'll find that your atheist buddies will tell you that "such things happen all the time" and that it would merely be a case of confirmation bias to assert any connection between Elisha's curse and the coincidental appearence of the bears.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

The super killer mutant bears that kill 42 in one attack? You'd be better asking the atheists who believe in them. But, since they're atheists, they probably don't believe in God (although that's hard to say the way you guys constantly redefine the term 'atheist').

I wouldn't so much call it "constantly redefine" as define once and have to keep repeating this definition to theists over and over to counteract their relentless efforts to straw man it. Also with 33,000 branches of christianity bouncing around the place all with different definitions of what it means to be a christian, glass houses and all that.

PDN wrote: »

So, without venturing to speak for them, I would guess the super killer mutant bears are naturally occurring - or maybe intelligently designed without specifying the identity of the designer.

You probably shouldn't speak for them then since you've got it wrong. Yes if this did happen then atheists would view it as having occurred naturally and it would be quite an outlandish proposition but atheists would generally be of the position that none of this ever happened. The point is that if it did happen and was commanded by Yahweh it would show that Yahweh commanded bears to kill people (children or otherwise) and possibly contradict the whole "god of love, mercy and forgiveness" thing. And if we are assuming that Yahweh did indeed send these bears then the idea that they could kill 42 people is not outlandish at all, since they were sent by an all powerful deity.

However....

PDN wrote: »

However, if you're asking about the two bears in 2 Kings Chapter 2 that scratched the yobos, the text doesn't say whether God sent them or not. They came just after Elisha had cursed the mob that was accosting him. I think that you'll find that your atheist buddies will tell you that "such things happen all the time" and that it would merely be a case of confirmation bias to assert any connection between Elisha's curse and the coincidental appearence of the bears.

So Elisha cursed the children, a bear coincidentally came out of the woods and savaged them and this was put in the bible as an example of an amazing coincidence that had nothing to do with god. Right so. Then the idea that the bear could kill 42 people would indeed be outlandish.

PDN

wolfsbane wrote: »

But remember - bears are fast, persistent aggressors and two of them could have chased the yobs' sorry asses all over the country. No need for 42 to go down in a matter of minutes.

Clearly they were all in the golden compass world
http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/golden-compass.jpg

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ugh...

Who has mentioned anything about what is possible? Only you, as far as I can see. PDN was discussing what happened, he wasn't listing all the thing that might have been.

Wrong. What PDN was discussing is what he likes tp believe happened. In the unlikely event that an event similar to this occured unfortunately, given the unclear nature of the account provided in the Bible, there is no way of knowing whether or not the victims were 4 year olds or 14 year olds, or if they got little tiny scratches that their mums easily cleaned with the ancient equivalent of dettol whilst giving them a mild scolding or if they were actually torn viciously to shreds and their grieving parents had only a mangled corpse to mourn.

My issue is that PDN is giving explanations with a degree of certainty that nobody with a shred of interest in the historical method could possibly support. Going on PDN's response the victims were in all likelyhood young adults and they just recieved minor wounds.

This is a characteristic shared with many Biblical inerrantists and to a lesser extent with the wider Christian community. When provided with two passages in the Bible that are apparently contradictory they manage to come up with often hilariously complex and convoluted explanations to worm their way around it and then claim "SEE - NO CONTADICTION, I WIN!!!!!!!!!!".

Well actually it doesn't work like that. Nobody knows for certain what the authors of the Bible were thinking so anybody who makes any definitive claim about the intentions of these authors either does not understand the method of historians or else are making a faith based claim and if so they should be upfront about it and point out that it's their own personally held a belief instead of implying as if its accepted fact among Biblical scholars. Nobody knows what Jesus really meant when he was talking about the rich entering Heaven, so to pretend that one does know is at best silly and at worst downright dishonest.

PDN

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Wrong. What PDN was discussing is what he likes tp believe happened. In the unlikely event that an event similar to this occured unfortunately, given the unclear nature of the account provided in the Bible, there is no way of knowing whether or not the victims were 4 year olds or 14 year olds, or if they got little tiny scratches that their mums easily cleaned with the ancient equivalent of dettol whilst giving them a mild scolding or if they were actually torn viciously to shreds and their grieving parents had only a mangled corpse to mourn.

My issue is that PDN is giving explanations with a degree of certainty that nobody with a shred of interest in the historical method could possibly support. Going on PDN's response the victims were in all likelyhood young adults and they just recieved minor wounds.

This is a characteristic shared with many Biblical inerrantists and to a lesser extent with the wider Christian community. When provided with two passages in the Bible that are apparently contradictory they manage to come up with often hilariously complex and convoluted explanations to worm their way around it and then claim "SEE - NO CONTADICTION, I WIN!!!!!!!!!!".

Well actually it doesn't work like that. Nobody knows for certain what the authors of the Bible were thinking so anybody who makes any definitive claim about the intentions of these authors either does not understand the method of historians or else are making a faith based claim and if so they should be upfront about it and point out that it's their own personally held a belief instead of implying as if its accepted fact among Biblical scholars. Nobody knows what Jesus really meant when he was talking about the rich entering Heaven, so to pretend that one does know is at best silly and at worst downright dishonest.

Nothing I have suggested here is convoluted or complex - so I suggest you stick your bile and vitriol back in your pocket.

The biblical text says that the prophet was accosted by a group of 42 or more young people (the Hebrew word can mean a youth, a teenager, or a child), that he cursed them, and that two she-bears subsequently "tore" 42 of the young people.

The text does not say that there were any fatalities - so those who talk about 42 children being killed are just making stuff up.

As far as I can see nobody, up until your last post, has mentioned contradictions in this thread - so your talk about contradictions is gratuitous nonsense.

The OP asked for some explanations and, assuming his question was in good faith, explanations were provided in good faith. It is unfortunate that some of the usual suspects then proceed to vent their anti-Christian prejudices with off-topic assertions.

Fanny Cradock

I find it telling that after you entered this thread and proclaimed your own opinion on Matthew 5:17-20 - an opinion that is full of nasty impact statements and words like straw clutching, preposterous, a meaningless message, a desperate effort, brutally mishap - you then go on to criticise PDN for stating an opinion on 2 Kings and insist that agnosticism is only appropriate position to take.

Next time I encounter somebody making the claim that 2 Kings tells of the attack and death of children by she-bears I'll PM you and you can send them an ill-tempered post informing them what you have told us here. At least you will be consistent.

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

Did you read the link?
He says the "OT not applicable as it's fulfilled" is nonsense, and you seem to be saying the opposite. I am curious to know if there are differing schools of thought you have come across on this?

Having taken the time to read all Zoomtard's posts (not just the single post you linked to) I see that I don't disagree with him at all.

He responded to a post where you misrepresented the views of other Christians, and you quoted him here in a way that misrepresented him. (Just to clarify - I'm not accusing you of delibrately misrepresenting anyone - I think you genuinely have failed to understand what people have written.)

Zoomtard's position appears to be identical to mine. Namely that the Old Testament is part of the Canon of Scripture and the word of God for Christians, but the cultic requirements of the Law of Moses do not have to be obeyed today because they were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

I've not seen any Christians in these forums saying that the Old Testament doesn't apply today (the position you represented to Zoomtard) - nor did Zoomtard say anything that disagreed with my statement about the Law being fulfilled in Christ.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That image is clearly based on a medieval traditional representation of the bears, we don't know the bears actually looked like that. :pac:

PDN

PDN wrote: »

I've not seen any Christians in these forums saying that the Old Testament doesn't apply today (the position you represented to Zoomtard) - nor did Zoomtard say anything that disagreed with my statement about the Law being fulfilled in Christ.

It wasn't on these fora it was elsewhere. Some of us have discussed religion outside of here :pac:
><
How can he have fulfilled it so that it's set aside but still say it still applies??
It's stuff like this
http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/otl/otl10.htm
http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/otlaws.htm
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/oldlaw.html

All I'm getting is that it does but doesn't??

So far I'm like a fundie and misrepresenting apparently so I give up

goingpostal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84bBzAxLXFY

I think it is safe to say that this is NOT one of the bears that God sent to menace those hoodied yobos/innocent kiddies. He was doing well, Ali shuffle and all that, and then he took his eye off the ball and shipped a full force kick in the nuts. No way would he be able to scratch 42 kids. I'd say God's bears went through months of gruelling, commando-style training. If John West tried to nick God's bears fish, then I'd say that they would justifiably tear him to shreds.