The Museum of Hoaxes
Another biblical theory…
Posted By:
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
Apr 29, 2005
 http://www.theindychannel.com/weather/4429774/detail.html

Entertaining theory, but this guy offers NO proof or even hypothetical means... he just states it and seems to think that the bible should be considered "justification."

It will be interesting to see if he ever tries to prove this theory in some way...
Category: Religion; Replies: 303

Comments
Page 4 of 6 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 > 
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 01:42 PM
Oh yeah, and I've never seen a typo in ANY bible.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 01:52 PM
pssst...Eric... this is a HOAX site... at the very least, try and weave a reference, or two, to HOAXES into your epistles, hah? Yankit: Erich Weiss was HaRRy Houdini... I'm Hairy... carry on, E-dog
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 02:20 PM
I'm quite well aware that this is a hoax site. I enjoy the site quite a bit. Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean that I can't be skeptical about things.

However, it still helps to have answers. That's what this site is about, finding answers, along with laughing our heads off at these crazy ideas. Is it a hoax? If it is, who came up with it? Is it real? Who in their right mind would come up with such a thing? Stuff like that. I'm quite sure that if Alex didn't want this discussion going on, he would lock the thread.

So that's what I'm doing in this thread. Providing answers about my faith to people who may or may not think that my God even existing is something like a hoax. Does that make sense? That's why I'm here.

Thanks for being decent for once, btw. I did a report in fifth grade about Harry Houdini, very interesting guy. Just curious, though. Where did you get the hairy thing from? Just a play on words, or is there some kinda meaning about it?
David B.
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 02:30 PM
The bible was originally written in Hebrew.

Well certainly the Old Testament anyway. By the time of the New Testament the languages of common use were 'Koine' (common) Greek, Aramaic and (of course) Latin. The earliest dated NT manuscripts are all in Greek, including a (hotly debated) Qumran fragment believed to date back to 50AD (from memory).By comparison the oldest Aramaic texts (the Syriac Gospels) date from the 4th century. I know of no Hebrew gospel manuscripts.

Over the centuries, people with a particular downer on the Greek Church have branded the Greek texts as translations (or, more commonly, mis-translations). There is no evidence to back this up. Certainly I was always told 'if in doubt, refer to the Greek'.*

* As I can't read Koine Greek, this wasn't particularly helpful advice.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 02:47 PM
David B: Like I've said before, I'm not a history person, so thanks for that info. Either way, it eventually got to Latin, where it stayed for quite a while. If at all possible, new translations are taken from the original version, with other translations as a guideline for proper formatting.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 05:12 PM
Eric, there are plenty of mistakes, changes in meaning, and typos in the Bible. Some are inherent within the Bible itself, some are the results of printers erring. A few examples:

Changes and errors within the Bible:

1. In your preferred NIV version of the Bible, Mark 10:17 says "As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good -- except God alone."" On the other hand, Matthew 19:16 changes this to, "Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good."" In the first, Jesus objects to being called good. In the latter, Jesus objects to being asked about what is good. The situation gets even worse when you compare the original Greek version to the NIV. The Greek of Matthew 19:16 says, "Καί ίδού είς προσελθών είπεν αύτώ Διδάσκαλε άγαθέ τί άγαθόν ποιήσω ϊνα έχω ζωήν αίώνιον; Ο δέ εϊπεν αύτώ Τί με λέγεις άγαθόν;" Here it matches with both the Greek and NIV Mark, but not with the NIV Matthew. So somewhere somebody switched things around.

2. Again in Matthew, the author starts off with what he describes as Jesus' genealogy. But it isn't. It's Joseph's genealogy. Joseph and Jesus were not related. Furthermore, the author says in 1:8 that Jehoram was the father of Uzziah. This is probably copied from the Old Testament, but was copied incorrectly: 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 says that Jehoram was the great-great grandfather of Uzziah. And Matthew's author also miscounts: he says that there are 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus, when according to his list there are only 41.

3. Unfortunately I can't remember where this part is, but maybe somebody else knows about it. At some point, the Bible gives the dimensions of some structure. It is said to be a certain length, width, and height, and these measurements are said to give it a certain volume. But the math doesn't work out.

Changes and errors done by printers: I don't intend to read through an entire copy of the Bible looking for what might be only three typos out of all 1000 pages. I flipped briefly through a couple copies I have and didn't find any. But I have seen typos in Bibles. Periods will be left off the ends of sentences, "Davids" will be printed instead of "David's", whole lines of text will be left out or switched in position.

So, if all these copies are the written Word of God, then why are there changes in meaning and errors in printing?
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 05:32 PM
Accipiter:
Mark 10:17-22 [NIV]
17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 05:52 PM
The Gospels were written to be an account of the life of Jesus the Son of God. They are an account of his life, his words, his actions. The writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were not with Jesus through his entire life. In fact, only John out of all four was present at the crucifixion. Also, because this is a historical account, each event proven by a seperate account of the events by a roman scribe sent to spy, the words of the story may change a bit. Have you ever listened to someone say something and then tried to write it down word for word by memory only even as soon as a week later? It's not easy, is it. God didn't tell the writers of this what to say. He instructed them to give a historical account, and that is what they did.

The only differences in that entire story I can see are minor, and they do not change the meaning at all.

The text at Matthew 19:18 does not appear in Mark. The placement of the word good and Jesus' exact response are different. This doesn't change the meaning or the point trying to be conveyed. Remember, the Gospels were written based on Godly influence, memory, and minimal other documentation at the time. The bible is inspired by God, yet transcribed by man. If you transcribe anything someone says, it's going to be a bit different, but the meaning is still the same.

Also, I cannot read greek. At all. So please, don't try to throw that out there. However, to indulge you, here's a direct Greek to English translation courtesy of Babelfish: "And j'doy' to proselcw'n ej'pen ay'tw' Djda'skale virtuous which good I do j!na I have life eternal? Ej!pen ay'tw' What me you say good?"
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 06:01 PM
Looks like some of those words don't even translate, or maybe they arent even real words. I think you may have a copy/paste error in your greek there.

Matthew 1:8 [NIV]

8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

1 Chronicles 3:10-12 [NIV]
10 Solomon's son was Rehoboam,
Abijah his son,
Asa his son,
Jehoshaphat his son,

11 Jehoram [a] his son,
Ahaziah his son,
Joash his son,

12 Amaziah his son,
Azariah his son,
Jotham his son,

Footnotes:

1. 1 Chronicles 3:11 Hebrew Joram , a variant of Jehoram

Uzziah isn't even mentioned in the 1 Chronicles verse you described. Reading further into Chronicles, Uzziah isn't even mentioned in the entire chapter. Different path of the family line, perhaps?

As for the math, show me the verse in question and I'll check that out. Until then, just remember that a lot of these systems of measurement aren't even used anymore. My NIV copy has hundreds of footnotes and sidebars, and provides current equivalents for those systems of measurement.

I only said I haven't seen any typos. I haven't read the whole bible, so I have no idea. However, typographical errors and printer's mistakes are common in ANY work, even a Bible. They're very good about correcting these minor errors to the proper meaning, but realize that they are unintentional, and we are all still human.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 06:37 PM
*sigh*..."we are all still human"...mmm... nah, forget it...you don't need to know...It'll just confuse you even more...
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 06:51 PM
Don't worry, hairy, I'm not interested anyway.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 06:56 PM
Oh yeah, and Accipiter: Jesus and Joseph ARE not related. Ever heard of VIRGIN Mary? That's all documented in the Gospels. A virgin birth. Also, I don't remember where this is, but one of the prophecies concerning the messiah in the OT does say that he will be born of a virgin. So therefore, that's not an error there.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 06:59 PM
Matthew 1:9 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Although yes Joseph is not REALLY his father, he is considered family and listed there.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 07:01 PM
Eric- be honest: you're kinda yanking us all here right? Y'now, a Hoax on a Hoax site... okay, you got us...wow, that's a good one...Doing the Bleary-eyed Zealot thing...very imaginative...I shoulda thought of that one...You "Go"...please
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 07:32 PM
I can't wait till he explains the part about how Noah gathered 2 of every species of animal on earth and keeps them alive for a year on a boat he built himself. That should be good.
Kristi Curtsinger
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 07:56 PM
Has anyone considered that the Genesis account was not in Chronos (human time)? What does God define as a day? When Genesis says God does whatever in a day, could this be a day in God's time? If you are an infinite being time does not mean what it does to us finite beings. There are several scriptures that comment how God's time is like a thousand years (although this is factored in mainly when you are figuring prophercy.) God does not count time like we do. The earth is millions of years old. The first chapter of Gensis is divinely inspired from God's point of view.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 07:57 PM
Sadly, Captain Al, I can't explain that. The account of HOW he kept them alive isn't in the Bible. I can make a logical assumption, which is what I'm going to do right now.

Noah built the ark by himself. Everyone who watched him build it thought he was insane, but he was told to by God. God was so furious with the sin in the world that he wiped it out with a flood but decided to save the only righteous man and his family.

The ark itself, based on bible verses, is thought to be quite a few football fields in size.

With as much time to prepare as he had, he would not only have enough room for two of every species (this means two dogs, not two german shepards, two golden retrievers, etc.), but he could have easily stocked the whole thing with food.

Or, a more fanatical person might say that God just said that everyone would survive and it was so.

Also, the flood lasted for 40 days and 40 nights (40 complete days). NOT a year.


Hairy: For the last time, I'm not here to force my faith down your throats. I'm here to try to explain my faith so we can all have a better understanding of it. That way, arguments in the future do not need to happen.

*** EVERYONE READ THIS NEXT PART:
To be fair, hairy, and just because I'm feeling generous, if EVERY person who has made even ONE post contributing to this discussion, in their NEXT post and next post ONLY, asks me to stop this, then I swear before GOD that I will not post another thing about my faith in the MoH forums unless I am specifically asked. And when I say every person, this means that everyone who has a little "Member" under their login name must post it while logged in, so no trying to fake everyone. As long as someone besides me is still interested, then I will continue. If you are not interested, then guess what, you don't have to post here.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 08:22 PM
Eric,
I might not mind having you continue to post if you were giving some explanation of these claims. However you haven't explained a goddamn thing yet.
If I remember my reading, the rain FELL for 40 days and 40 nights. The ark floated around for a YEAR before the waters receded. A geologist has calculated that the rain must have fallen at a rate of 15.5 feet per hour for 40 days and 40 nights to rise to the level claimed by the biblical story. That's quite a rain shower.
So how do you feed a pair of lions for a year? On the first day they would have polished off the zebras. For the next meal, the gazelles would be toast. I don't think you could get them to eat hay or hard tack so how do they survive the trip? (And how do you replace the zebras and gazelles?)
So I guess the flood never happened and the ark story is a myth.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 08:33 PM
Kristi: That is a theory among the church. My personal belief, however, is as follows.

Genesis 1:3-5 [NIV]
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 08:38 PM
Captain: I'm trying to give an explaination as best I can to my claims. But I can only try. I only have the Bible and common sense, along with my minimal knowledge of science (which I am getting help with thanks to the people here), and my knowledge of the nonbiblical accounts of these things happening at my disposal. It's really not easy, and you have to understand that. I am having a lot of fun with this though, more than I have had in a long time.

Like I said, I can only try. Thanks in advance for your understanding. I'll make more of an effort to better explain my claims in the future.
Kristi
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 08:45 PM
Eric the lumberjack while you have your bible out could you look up Psalm 83:18 and tell me what it says?
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 08:50 PM
Eric,

Oops, sorry about just throwing that Greek out there like that all by itself. I'd meant to include the translation as well, and was only including the Greek itself as a reference for any ultra-nerdy types who actually care about that sort of thing. My mistake. What it basically said was the same as what Mark's account did, though.

Also, my mistake on that 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 reference. I'd gotten that page reference from another source, who had apparently gotten it out of thin air. Here are actual relevant passages, that I've just looked up personally:

2 Kings 15:1 - Azariah (Uzziah) son of Amaziah
2 Kings 14:1 - Amaziah son of Joash
2 Kings 13:9 - Jehoash (Joash) son of Jehoahaz
2 Kings 8:29 - Ahaziah (Jehoahaz) son of Jehoram

So the genealogy given in Matthew doesn't match with 2 Kings, which means that either Matthew changed what was said, or else somebody used incorrect sources.

And yes, I knew that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, and about the Virgin Mary. I wasn't saying that that part was the error. I was taking that as a fact and using it to make my point. Matthew says, "this is Jesus' genealogy", when it is actually the genealogy of somebody unrelated to Jesus. Matthew, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was making a false conclusion. So how do we know if other people, intentionally or unintentionally, have done similar things to the Bible during copying and translating?

As you said, we're all still human and make mistakes (as I proved at least twice so far on here). And that's the point I'm trying to make; you said that "errors and printer's mistakes are common in ANY work, even a Bible.", which means that people have messed up copying the Bible, so how much can we trust any modern copy of the Bible to really contain God's actual message? If people can misplace a word or a line, then that can drastically change meanings. Leaving the word "not" out of any of the Ten Commandments, for example, would make a considerable difference.

By the way, what's this about "each event proven by a seperate account of the events by a roman scribe sent to spy"? That's something I hadn't heard before.
Kristi
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 08:57 PM
also please take into considertion about the genelogy issue that joseph was considered to be Jesus adoptive father. Jesus was to be considered the decendant of David. He was on both sides by Mary (bilogically) and Joseph (patrilinelly). Also how do you know that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian? Have you talked and listened to them or are you just basing this on what you heard? looks like you need to listen to all sides before you make an educated decision.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 08:58 PM
Oh, and Eric: I got really bored one day and worked out a timeline for the Bible, and I ended up coming up with there being about 6150 years between the Creation and today. Just thought I'd mention that so you'd have an idea of the Bible's timescale for when you get into any other such debates.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 08:59 PM
Is there a record of who Mary's ancestors were?
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 09:04 PM
Kristi: Psalm 83:18 [NIV]-'Let them know that you, whose name is the Lord-
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.'

Your point?

Accipiter: It's all greek/geek to me. lol
Anywho, I'll look up the 2 Kings reference tomorrow and compare it to matthew. It's late tonight for me, and my connection times at 11 every night until 6 the next morning, because my dad doesn't want me up too late (yet another reason I want my own apartment).

I'll also check out the whole Jesus/Joseph geneology right now: It does say geneology of Jesus. You are right about that. My view is, however, the same. Although because of virgin birth Joseph is not truly Jesus' father, he is still considered to be his family because he is the husband of mary. At that time, the mother's geneology was normally completely ignored. That's my logic, at least. I'll look into this more.

Like I said, whenever a new translation is put out, it is translated from the original script's language for words and other existing translations are used as formatting reference. Also, when a printer makes a mistake, it is present in every copy in that edition. Like I said, they are VERY good about making the necessary corrections in this case, as soon as they are found, because we would not want a bible that is not a direct, no mistake translation out there. But, I still maintain that I have never personally seen or heard an account of a typo from anyone I know personally, though typographical errors very well could exist out there.

About the roman spy thing, I don't remember where I heard/read this exactly, but it is mentioned in multiple sources outside of the bible, and I believe the account is available somewhere. All I know is that this is fact. I'll try to get some more info about this for you.
Kristi
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 09:06 PM
if I remember correctly the matthew account is Joseph's genelogy and the one that is in the other gospel the records gentlogy (John? I don't remember right off hand) is Mary's. genglogies were very well taken care of in jewish culture at the the time. they were and still are looking for the messiah. Since the messiah is prophicied to come thru the line of David, the jews would be looking for this person. unfortunely many of the records were destroyed in the destruction of the temple in 70 of the common era.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 09:09 PM
Accipiter: Can I quote you on that boredom? Wow... That's amazing, dude.

Kristi: Yes, I do my own research. If I hear something I will do my best to research it as much as I can before reporting it as fact. In the case of JW, they are not a Christian organization, and I can point you to one of my sources,<a href="http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm">http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm</a> as one of the MANY proofs of my stance on this matter.
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 09:10 PM
If everyone else will excuse me - before I get to anything important, I'm going to have to break some things down into one-syllable words for the troll.

Why, yes, Hairy. In point of fact, I was quite aware that Ehrich Weisz spelled his stage name as "Harry" and that you use the word "Hairy". Oddly enough, my comment was that you had
"...adapted the name of a man ...". Note "adApted", i.e. altered for your own purposes; not "adOpted", or took for your own. As with you pseudonym, the changing of a single letter in a word can significantly change its meaning. Now go away and let the adults talk.

Okay, back to business.

(BTW - All of my Biblical references, because I'm lazy and a poor typist, are from the King James Version published at the University of Virginia Electronic Text Center: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html)

The Jewish historian Josephus, as well as the Roman Tacituus confirm that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (or; Luke 2:2 - Cyrenius) ordered a census of Judea in 6 AD.

Whereas Matthew 2:1 says: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, " but we have historical evidence that Herod was born in 73 BC and died in 4 BC. So, based on historical evidence (and Rudy knows; those Romans were compulsive recird kepers) the event that brought Joseph and his wife to Bethlehem happened some 10 years after the death of the man that is blamed for the slaughter of the children (Matthew 2:16). And we are to take these two mutually-contradictory statement as both being the literal Word of God.

As to the other queation; Matthew 2:13-22 talks about the flight into Egypt to escape Herod, and how they did not dare return ti Judea until both Herod and his son Archelaus were dead. (actually, I have to admit that waiting until the death of Archelaus is MY supposition. Matthew 2:22 says that God warned Josephg in a dream and "he turned aside into the parts of Galilee" and went to Nazareth. My ASSUMPTION was that they stayed out of Jerusalem until Archelaus was also dead, but I can't PROVE it.)

But Luke, chapter 2 says:
39: And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord (NOTE: This refers to presenting Jesus in the Temple), they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.
40: And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
41: Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
42: And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

No mention of the flight into Egypt, no mention of staying away from Jerusalem while Herod and Archelaus were ruling, and no reference to the slaughter of the innocents. Now one would presume that something as catastrophic as the murder of every Jewish child two years old and under would have been been the sort of thing that should have caused some comment. Yet not only does Luke NOT mention it, but apparently Joseph, Mary and Jesus walk right into Jerusalem every year for the next twelve years, atleast some of which, Matthew says they spent hiding for their lives in Egypt and Galilee.

And my point about the items in Leviticus, is that the anti-homosexual verse 18:22 is trumpetted regularly when Christians explain why it's wrong, but the one about cross-breeding cattle (and the KJV says "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind", which I'm reading as "a different breed of cattle", but maybe that's just me.) is NEVER mentioned in Bible Belt Texas. And I'm reading (in the same verse) that "thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed" implies that going into the nearest K-Mart Garden Center and buying that bag of mixed Rye and Bluegrass seed for your lawn is right out, and yet I see no Christians picketting K-Mart.

The Yanke Clipper
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 09:16 PM
Sure, Eric, quote away. The timeline's a bit uncertain, of course, since sometimes dates didn't quite agree. But it gives a general idea.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 09:43 PM
My Ark Calculations:

The bible I read states Noah lived for 900 years (wow!). Let's assume there are 1,000,000 species of animals on earth. (I believe there are more but we will round down to give Noah at least a fighting chance at pulling this off.) With 365 days in a year, Noah lived for (365x900) 328,500 days. If Noah did nothing else, he would have to capture 3 x 2(one male and one female) = 6 animals per day for his entire life to get all 1,000,000 species. And that would leave no time for building or provisioning the ark.
But let's say all the animals just walked on to the ark on their own and left Noah to the task of boat building. A typical cruise ship today can carry about 3,000 people (2,000 passengers and about 1,000 crew members). If we assume the average size of an animal is the same as a human (somewhere between mice and elephants), then that cruise ship could conceivably carry the same number of animals. So to carry 2,000,000 (one male and one female of each) average size animals, our ark would need a volume about 660 (2,000,000/3,000) times that of the cruise ship.
That cruise ship would be about 700 feet in length. If my memory serves me correctly, when you double the length of a boat, its volume increases by a factor of 8, all other things being equal. To calculate the needed size of ark for our mission (oh! my head hurts; someone help me out here), and to keep the math simple, keep doubling the size of the cruise ship and multiply the animal capacity by 8 each time. That tells me a 4800 ft ark could carry 1,536,000 animals and perhaps a 5,000 ft ark could carry 2,000,000 if we put them all in steerage class. (The longest wooden ships ever made by man were no more than 300 feet long. Even then they leaked badly. Wood is simply not strong enough to handle the stress for big ships. That's why they started using iron and later steel.) So all old Noah had to do was build an ark 5,000 feet long and he could carry out God's work.

I think I would rather have died in the flood.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 | 10:38 PM
The size of a wooden ship is only limited by the amount of wood you have. You can always add more bracing. The problem of stress comes from when you actually expect it to be able to move anywhere. The ark wouldn't have had to be all that maneuverable (where would it have had to go to, if the world was entirely flooded?). All it would have had to do is float. And being that size, waves wouldn't have much effect on it, either. So Noah, with the aid of his family and servants and workers and whomever else he had influence over, could in theory have built an ark of that size.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 12:12 AM
Ok, I went away for a few days, and I come back and find that this thread has quickly gone down the drain. Quoting bible verses? I'm actually surprised it took this long. I have 3 comments:

(1) Everyone just stop saying that God's hebrew name was yaweh. It wasn't. Anyone with a basic understanding of hebrew would know that there was no way to make a "w" sound in hebrew letters until quite recently, and only because people in Israel wanted to be able to transliterate English words, so they add an apostrophe after a vav to make it a "w" sound. Not only that, but anyone who can speak a little hebrew can look at texts that have both the hebrew and the english translations next to each other and will laugh at the huge gaps in translation. Trust me, I've done it, and the amount I found just by glancing at a few pages was astounding, especially considering my knowledge of hebrew is far from being fluent. Kulom Mevinim??

(2) The old testiment and the jewish bible are VERY different. They are not the same writings. Someone earlier (not sure who and don't feel like going back to check) mentioned that the old testiment is a translation of the dead sea scrolls. That's entirely wrong. The Jewish bible came from the dead sea scrolls. Although many of the stories and passages are similar, the Jewish Bible and the Christian Old Testiment are very different. If you want proof, open up an old testiment and a Jewish bible next to each other and compare.

(3) In regard to taking religious texts literally, I'm going to copy a passage from a book (which I highly recommend to anyone who wants a educated and logical way to look at the philosophy of ethics) by James Rachels called "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" because he states it better than I every could:

"Leviticus forbids eating fat (7:23), letting a woman into church until 42 days after giving birth (12:4-5), and seeing your uncle naked. The latter, incidentally, is also called an abomination (18:14,26). It says that a beard must have square corners (19:27) and that we may purchase slaves from neighboring states (25:44)

The point is, if it is the word of God, you can't start being nitpicky. You either follow all or none. A few people above have posted a bible quotation from Leviticus 18:22, which many use to "prove" that the bible says that homosexuality is a sin. Rachels response to this passage is the following: "The problem is that you cannot conclude that homosexuality is an abomination simply because it says so in Leviticus unless you are willing to conclude, also, that these other instructions are moral requirements; and in the 21st century anyone who tried to live according to all those rules would go crazy. one might, of course, concede that the rules about menstruation and so on, were peculiar to an ancient culture and that they are not binding on us today. That would be sensible. But if we say that, the door is open for saying the same thing about the rule against homosexuality."
This argument can be used in the same way for the whole Noah's Ark thing. It's an all or nothing deal with the bible, none of this in between nonsense. Either it's all literally correct, or none of it is. It's alright to think that the bible is just a bunch of stories that give us moral guidance, but to believe that it is the perfect word of God and should be followed literally in nonsensical.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 01:54 AM
Hey, Yanker: why did you adOpt the name Yankee Clipper? Is it because you have to be full of wind to get moving, or is it because you are barnacle encrusted and filled with bilge water? Give me a Big Boy answer, now...
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 05:48 AM
I use the KJV version. I haven't heard/read many good things about the NIV, Eric. It might be a good idea to keep a KJV handy, if only to reference your NIV.

Hairy...as much as I have tolerated your posts up to now, I'd like to at least give you warning, you really AREN'T adding anything. If you don't agree with Eric then cut out the puns and just SAY it. If you are going off-topic, there is a thread for that. Take it there.
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 06:26 AM
Actually, Hairy, the name was given to me the first time that I was introduced to the parents of good friend of mine in my college days. My family name, a somewhat uncommon English/Irish one, happens to be pronounced similsrly to the name of the person in Jewish tradition who performs the ritual circumcisions. Upon being introduced to me this little, tiny Jewish mother/grandmother from Brooklyn, looks up at me, smiles and says, "Oh! Da Yankee Clippah!" I broke up laughing and kept the nickname ever since.

Now fair's fair Hairy. How did you get your name?

(Oh... wait... Did I just use the words "Hairy" and "fair" in the same sentnce...? Silly me!)
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 07:48 AM
Accipiter,
You cannot build a wood boat any size you want just by adding more bracing. It doesn't work like that. Typical Creationist engineering!

If you tried, eventually you would end up with a solid block of wood and no where to put the cargo. Even a solid wood ark, 5000 ft long, would snap due to its own weight. There is still a lot of stress on ship that is designed only to drift on the sea. At any given time the forces acting on the bow would be different than what would be acting on the stern and amidships. That induces torque on the framework. Wood simply does not have the tensile strength needed for a structure that big.

It took armies of skilled shipyard workers a couple of years to build a 300 ft sailing ship and they had a tough time keeping them watertight. How could an amateur like Noah build one a mile long? And he would have to build it mostly by himself. Since any potential helpers were not going to be allowed to go the ark, it's doubtful he could convince them to help unless he lied. And since lying is a sin, then Noah might not be allowed to go.

But building this thing would be a Herulean undertaking, so I think the sinners got the better deal. The moral of the story is: it doesn't pay to be honest.

"No good deed ever goes unpunished."
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 08:23 AM
You are so right, Maegan... I guess I should endlessly quote the bible to stay on topics, or list who begat who, or pontifacte on which items in our world are God Approved, or Satan influenced...Don't threaten me, Maegan- it makes you look pompous
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 08:37 AM
Maegan said: "Hairy...as much as I have tolerated your posts up to now, I'd like to at least give you warning, you really AREN'T adding anything". Maegan: TOLERATE me? WARNING me? Who died and made you the site host? So much for Compassionate Christian Conservatism... my posts on this thread hhave been miniscule in number as compared to Eric the Lumberjerk, who goes wildly off=topic, and endlessly pontificates on subjects unrelated to this thread, and REALITY ITSELF. If you don't like my opinions or posts, ignore them. "Tolerate" me... big-headed, power-mad, pompousity
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 09:58 AM
Yankee: Last time I checked, there were miltiple Herods. I'll look into that, though, so don't quote me on that yet.

As for Luke not even mentioning it and it's apparent contradiction, one or more of the gospels don't even mention Jesus' birth. Only Matthew has the geneology that was discussed previously a few posts ago. It might not have been necessary for Luke to mention that, simply because one of the others covered it, or since I said not all of these people were with Jesus his whole life, he might not have even heard about it (possibility, don't quote me).

I've already been over the apparant twelve years thing. If it said that Joseph and everyone went to jerusalem every passover for Jesus' first eleven years and then on the twelfth... THEN it would be a definate contradiction. What I see in that, however, is simply a statement that going to jerusalem for passover was a family tradition, so they did it if they were able to. They more than likely stopped going whe they were warned about Herod, and then picked it up afterwards. It says they did something different when Jesus was twelve. When I tell people I play guitar every day, I don't really play every day. It's the sense that I play it so much that I very well could be playing every day if I had time to that I imply that. It's not a definate contradiction, but I'll give you that it COULD be possible. I don't think it is, but I'll research it a bit and let you know.

Different kinds refers to different species. IN Genesis, when God made the animals, he spoke them into being as, to paraphrase (I don't want to look it up, i read it last night, this is as close as it's gunna get), all animals of the different kinds. This would imply species, and that's the reference I use for the rest of the bible. The verse in Leveticus basically means no sheep-cows, or as a deeper example, no human-goats. It's just wrong, and it can seriously screw with DNA.

As for not picketing outside K-Mart... thats, um, quite interesting. I said I'll get back to you on that verse, so I will next time I get a chance to talk to my pastor (should be later today, but not sure).

Captain Al: I wouldn't have rather died in the flood. If God came to me, told me he was destroying everything on the earth and he wanted me and my family to start over for him, and he told me what I needed to do, and I had somewhere around 500 years to do it, then dagnabbit I don't care how hard it is or who thinks i'm insane, I'm doin it.

Razela: Yaweh, regardless of whether it's proper hebrew or not (And it is only spelled like that so we can pronounce it, only in some translations though), is not THE name for God, but it is A name. It means "The Lord".

Today's Jewish holy texts are radically different from the OT. The OT was the jewish holy text in those days long ago. Nowadays, the jewish faith doesn't even believe in hell (maybe some individuals do, but that's not part of the faith), and that's just one of the things that has changed.

I've been over the New Testament/New Covenant Old Testament/Old Covenant before. A lot of the OT became outdated after Jesus came. God made a New covenant with his people. A LOT of those things in the OT not only make no sense, but they aren't even rules anymore. As for Homosexuality, I believe there are verses in the NT somewhere about that too, not just in Leveticus.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 09:59 AM
Maegan: I use the NIV because I have heard GREAT things about it. My entire church uses that as it's preferred translation, thats the one we use in services and such. I can use the KJV if I need to reference it, but I don't own a copy simply because it is available online (along with just about any translation you could ever need) at <a href="www.biblegateway.com">www.biblegateway.com</a>

Hairy: Like it or not, this is what the topic has become. For all you know, I'm ensuring that I have credibility for when I go back to the original topic of this thread. Actually, that wasn't my plan, but I think I'm going to do that eventually just so you can't say I'm going off topic anymore. If you want to make an "I hate Eric the Lumberjack" thread, then by all means do so, just don't post hewre unless you want to contribute to the discussion.

Do you realize, Hairy, that by doing what you are doing right now, you have just destroyed ALL credibility you may have in all MoH threads to anyone that has said something to you about your trolling? As soon as this gets out, that is all you are going to be able to do. Quit while you're ahead.

Like I've said, if Alex didn't like this discussion, he can lock the thread. But he hasn't done that even though these are his forums. Since I'm apparantly allowed to post here, I will continue to do so.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 10:03 AM
Oh and off topic real quick (forgive me)...

Take any song, speed it up, and it instantly becomes more awesome. I just took Fall Out Boy's Grand Theft Autumn and bumped it from 133 bpm to 200 bpm. Much cooler.

Please forgive my off topicness... I just had to tell someone.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 10:22 AM
Eric- You are entitled to your opinion, however skewed it may be, as am I. Call me a Troll, call me anything you like... it doesn't change any bit of the content of your posts, which I find to be filled with Pompous Pontifications, Anti-Catholic slurs, and obvious Homophobias...What would Jesus post? I like to think that he'd throw your intolerant, rant-ridden arse out of the temple, and into the street...I've never claimed to be holier than thou, or more enlightened...I do, however, have little patience for blowhards...but that's just my opinion, to which, as you've stated for yourself, I am entitled. Carry on, your Hole-i-ness
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 10:46 AM
Hairy: I have never claimed to be better or holier than anyone else, even you. However, the truth of the matter is, you are annoying. Although I don't judge you personally, you are making it very hard for me not to.

As for what would Jesus post? For your information, he'd probably post the same thing, only he'd make more sense. Nor would he 'toss my intolerant, rant-ridden arse out of the temple, and into the street.' Jesus himself would commend me for this. Do you realize how difficult it is for a Christain to share any aspect of their faith? Not only do we have to dodge fear, but there's the chance someone would jsut insult us. Here I am, doing something even more difficult, posting even just answers to inquiries on a PUBLIC forum on a website full of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics. And the surprizing thing, is that this is a peaceful, intelligent conversation.

If you still think that I should be insulted, then go ahead. I really don't care. You should just understand that by doing so, you are giving the entire world an impression as to who you are and what you stand for. The increasingly sad part, is that you hide behind the internet and annonymity. I checked the source for this page. Your IP address and any information that I can use to find out who you really are are not available. Do you not want me to know who you are?

Well I am not afraid. My real name is Eric Michael Seibt. Eric the Lumberjack was my nickname in my 10th grade electronics class, simply because I wore a lot of plaid and had memorized the Lumberjack song, a monty python favorite of mine. I live in Winter Springs, Florida. I've even given my email address and AIM screenname out earlier to anyone that feels the urge to ask me something outside of this forum. Every band I have been in, every organization I join, I give my full name and email address out freely on the internet. My name is available on all of my weblogs, and I have been known to give phone numbers out online in the past. I'm not afraid because anyone that does try to spam/flame/bother me finds out just how quickly I can find out their street adress and phone number. Any repeated offenses result in a call to their ISP.

I'm not afraid of you, so have fun being annonymous.
~Eric "The Lumberjack" Seibt
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 12:55 PM
Eric writes: "Today's Jewish holy texts are radically different from the OT. The OT was the jewish holy text in those days long ago. Nowadays, the jewish faith doesn't even believe in hell (maybe some individuals do, but that's not part of the faith), and that's just one of the things that has changed."

I think you have some things confused. Today's jewish texts which are in the origional hebrew, are unchanged as they were from the dead sea scrolls. It is the OT that changed the origional around to create an entirely different text that would support the NT.

As to not believing in Hell, you are right, because Judaism has no concept of heaven or hell, or even any life after death. We are free to choose to believe whatever we want to believe in regards to anything that happens after death. In fact, in modern Judaism we are free to believe almost anything we want, in that we are encouraged to question what we are told and use our own judgements and education to create our own beliefs. You, however, make it sound like Hell was once a Jewish belief. That is entirely untrue. Although the concept of demons sometimes come up in old Jewish mythology, it has nothing to do with Jewish beliefs and more to do with the culture and beliefs of individuals. Like I said, as Jews, we are free to believe in whatever we want. Hell and Satan have never been a part of the Jedaism.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 12:56 PM
grrr...i retype things, press submit, and that instant see that I made stupid typos. I appologize profusely.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 01:00 PM
As to everyone getting on Harry's back. I have seen nothing that he has said to be off-topic, as many of you accuse him of. He is just more frank then many of us are. If you are accusing him of things, you must first look at your own behavior.

Eric, you became defensive when Harry mentioned that you have a holier-than-thou attitude. I would wait to defend yourself before looking at what you are typing yourself. Perhaps that is not your attitude, but it sure comes accross that way in what you type. You write, "Jesus himself would commend me for this." Is that not saying that you are in divine favor above the rest of us here?
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 01:21 PM
Razela: Not according to history. Do you have any documentation to prove that? The OT is identical (except for maybe being in a different language) to these dead sea scrolls. Every book in the entire bible, except for Esther (the only book currently in question among christian theologans), was found in the dead sea scrolls, along with parts of some that are not considered scripture.

I talk to hairy in that fashion because, frankly, I'm sick of him. He's not doing anything for this discussion except for attempt to piss people off. I am not holier than anyone. I sin just as much as anyone else, and I am not afraid to admit that. What does this mean? This means nothing. I believe that I can be forgiven of this sin, so I ask for forgiveness. Why would Jesus commend me for this? Because it's what he said for us to do. To share my faith with others. I am doing just that, sharing my faith so we can all understand each other. I'm not implying anything. Simply stating what I believe.

What I said to Hairy was to get him to shut up. He is hiding behind the fact that he is annonymous here. Because of that, he now knows that I or anyone who knows enough about computers to do something like what I described cannot know who he is without illegal hacking. I was trying to show him how pathetic it really is to hide, and that I am not afraid to tell people who I really am.

I probably didn't handle that like I should.

If he wants to contribute something intelligable to this discussion, then he is welcome to. As soon as he does, I'll respect him again. Until then, he has no credibility in my eyes.

Can we get back to this discussion peacefully now?
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 01:22 PM
Also, I ask you to show me exactly how what he says is not off topic.
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 03:27 PM
Since the subject of this topic is DeYoung trying to combine the Bible with modern science, I think that any discussion of the validity of the Bible is on topic, as would be any discussion of the validity of science. If it could be shown that one or the other isn't reliable enough to be used as evidence, then DeYoung's ideas would lose credibility. Assuming that a person felt that they had any credibility to begin with, that is.

And Captain Al, the tensile strength of wood wouldn't be much of a problem if the ark was built to be flexible. Reeds have even less strength than wood, yet there have been some good-sized reed boats built. Many short pieces of wood connected together could withstand more stress than one long piece by being more flexible. That's part of the principle that allows for long wooden floating docks or pontoon bridges, although those aren't really the best examples as they don't (or shouldn't) go floating away on the open ocean.

Hmm, "wood wouldn't" just sounds strange.
Hairy Houdini
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 04:30 PM
Eric: Go on and do your thing, man... I haven't the heart to try and put you in your place, cuz I don't like seeing you all flustered like this. I'm afraid you're gonna curse or something, and we can't have that. Consider this a "Hairy Free" thread, from this post on, if it makes you feel more comfortable, and less annoyed. Carry on with the snake oil sales pitch, but somebody let me know when he starts selling Amway products to you, okay? Take it away, Monsignor.
David B.
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 05:16 PM
Eric is quite right that there was more that one Herod. Herod the Great (HtG), who ruled until 4 BC, was succeeded by his son Herod Antipas (HA), who ruled until 39 AD.

So if the Herod of the bible was HtG, then Joseph and Mary cannot have been travelling towards Bethlehem for the Census. And if it was HA, then the holy family cannot have stayed out of Judea until after Herod's death. The Herod of the bible is usually thought to be HtG, simply because HA's reign lasts so long into the Christian era as to be irreconcilable with scripture.

It's those epicycles all over again. Bible literalism just becomes more an more difficult as historians do their jobs, when it should be becoming easier and easier. Some of the arguments I've heard to support someone's literal reading of the bible make DeYoung's look like a paragon of intellectual rigor.

Some people read the bible and see a life-changing inspirational message: God bless 'em!

Some people read the bible and see an infallible historical document: God save us!
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 08:00 PM
Accipter,
You must live in Kansas or some other place far from a large body of water. The tensile strength of wood is a BIG problem when building large ships with it.

You could build a wood fence from San Francisco to New York if you wanted to. But there would be posts set into the ground every 10 ft or so. That's no problem. Try putting the posts 1000 ft apart and join them without having something break or sag to the ground. It can't be done.

It's the same with bridges. Look at the spacing of supports on a wooden railway tressel. Then look at a metal bridge. See a difference? The spans possible with steel are much greater than those with wood. Buildings too. Have you ever see a 40 story wooden high-rise? Neither have I.

It does not matter how flexible you design a ship to be. Sooner of later (probably sooner) several sections will flex the same way at the same time concentrating the stress on one spot and it's goodbye boat.

When was the last time you seen a freighter made of reeds? Reeds were used by some societies not because they had superior characteristics but because they were the only thing available. And those boats were not "good-sized".

A floating bridge or dock may flex but they are built in sections that are joined with hinges! The sections themselves do not flex. And those hinges are not made of wood. By the way, the last floating bridge I was on was made of steel. I wonder why.

So there was no Noah and no ark was ever built. As I have shown, the construction of an ark big enough to do what the bible claims would be absolutely impossible.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 08:35 PM
Impossible, unless God exists. Which is what I am assuming in my statements.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 09:02 PM
If God existed, there would be no need for an ark. If she created the world once, why not just do it again?
The Yankee Clipper
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 09:19 PM
Re: Herod(s) - Yes thre were at least three biblical Herods. Herod the Great was the one of the massacre of the innocents who died in 4 BC Herod Archelaus was the second and Herod Antipas (another son of HtG, who took over the gig after Archelaus died) was the Herod who ruled Judea at the times of the deaths of John the Baptist and Jesus.

Eric -I really have to question your interpretation of "different kinds of cattle" in Leviticus. while I'm assuming that the ancient Isrealites knew nothing of pheromones, I'm sure that they would have noticed that goats, say, had no interest in mating with cows, and would have no interest even if the farmer thought that this would be a good idea. I believe, rather, that the restriction was that you not breed your brown cattle with your white cattle (since the customary usage in describing the animals required for a particular sacrifice was e.g. "a young bullock without blemish" (Leviticus 4:3, and others), and a brow marking on a white bullock could be considered to be a blemish. I could be wrong, but that's the way that makes the most sense to me.

But the point of all of this Leviticus thing is that, IF you accept ANY ONE of the rules literally, then you must accept ALL of them literally. Anything less is saying that we mortals know what God "REALLY" meant when he said anything. Therefore if you "sow thy field with mingled seed" you are committing a sin before God. Period. Interpret it how you will; if you believe ANYTHING in the laws literally as written, then you must believe EVERYTHING in it AS WRITTEN. Anything else is blasphemy. I mean, nowhere in the Bible, that I know of, does it say that we are allowed to pick and choose which parts are to be followed exactly as written and which parts are to be interpreted/ignored. Is there such a statement?

Also, I'm curious about a statement that I think you've made a couple of times, that Jewish beliefs have changed from what they were at or before the time of Jesus. What evidence do you have for that? I'd be curious to know which parts of the Torah differ from the currently-accepted Old Testament and what evidence there is that the OT is unquestionably the original form, rather than the Hebrew version. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but I'd like to see something that proves the point.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 10:54 PM
Captain: God could very well just create another world. But, He chose not to. Instead, He opted to start over again with the only righteous man at the time and his family. How does that prove God doesn't exist?

Yankee: I'm looking more into the cattle thing and the rest of that verse and the related in question, and as soon as I have a definative answer I'll let you know.

You are correct, however, we do not get to choose what to follow. God does. If God feels like invalidating certain rules, then as the creator of the universe he should have that right. And that isn't coming from me as a Christian. I'll provide a proper Christian answer as soon as I have one.

As for the changing belifs:
OT times: Jews believed in heaven and hell. The existance of heaven and hell are documented in the OT. They awaited the coming of the messiah to save them from Sin.

Today: Jews do not believe that Jesus was the messiah, even though he fulfilled every prophecy related to his coming. In fact, as was stated, they don't even believe in a heaven or hell.

That's just one of the many differences. Remember that I am talking about the religion, not the race and culture.
Eric_the_Lumberjack
Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 11:08 PM
Referring back to the Ark, here's a page on that.
<a href="http://www.carm.org/questions/noahsark.htm">http://www.carm.org/questions/noahsark.htm</a>

It's a very good explaination on the entire flood.
Peter
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 11:44 PM
Here

http://www.beliefnet.com/author/author_44.html

Read some articles by Bishop John Shelby Spong

"The Bible is not the inerrant word of God"
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Sun May 29, 2005 | 11:53 PM
Eric: Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I've been very busy as of late.

You keep saying that the Jews changed the writings of the Torah. You ask me for evidence that they did not. I find the fact that there is no evidence of any changes to be all the evidence needed. How can I prove something that never happened?

Besides, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You make it sound like the OT is pure and perfect while the Torah has been changed from its origional form. The OT is just a highly messed up translation of the hebrew.

The confusions come because hebrew can be a messy language to traslate due to the fact that there are no vowels. No vowels mean that certain words can be interpreted in different ways. So, when Christian translaters looked at words that had two possible meanings, they inevitably took the more "christian" translation, and sometimes used translations for words that didn't exist at the time the origional was written. The translaters also changed some ambiguous statements into statements that fit well with christianity. For example, if they saw the word "he" they may have assumed it meant God and just wrote in God. There are many instances of the translaters assuming things when they copied the hebrew into other languages.

You know, I don't even really care so much about the religious side of all this. I'm not religous and don't think the translations matter at all anyways because I find the bible as just a bunch of nice stories designed to teach morals. The thing that annoys me is that you keep pretending to know so well what you are talking about when you are so ignorant of anything approaching fact. I don't mind, and actually enjoy, hearing your beliefs, but don't start claiming that facts are wrong. That's just stupid.
Page 4 of 6 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 > 

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.