Today's Question For Atheists
Since you believe there to be no God/gods how would you answer the question of the existence of Lords. Are there any Lords?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
PiecingBabyFaceTogether · 26-30
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@PiecingBabyFaceTogether Yes, there are even books written about them
AkioTsukino · M
@PiecingBabyFaceTogether [quote]Of course Lord Of The Rings characters are real. Why would anyone think otherwise 🤔[/quote]
When some idiot atheist gives me shit for using the Bible to examine God I ask them how they would argue the statement that Gandalf was headmaster of Hogwarts and Dumbledore was a gray wizard who rode a horse called Shadowfax.
When some idiot atheist gives me shit for using the Bible to examine God I ask them how they would argue the statement that Gandalf was headmaster of Hogwarts and Dumbledore was a gray wizard who rode a horse called Shadowfax.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino What’ the difference between those books?
PiecingBabyFaceTogether · 26-30
@AkioTsukino I'm not sure I get your point.
AkioTsukino · M
AkioTsukino · M
@PiecingBabyFaceTogether Using the Bible annoys atheists. They condemn what they don't understand. If someone makes a erroneous statement regarding Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings the solution would likely be to reference the books. The same with the Bible.
PiecingBabyFaceTogether · 26-30
@AkioTsukino Ok.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino [quote]Using the Bible annoys atheists[/quote]
Falling back on the bible doesn’t annoy atheists... it amuses them, and allows them to dismiss any resultant claims.
Falling back on the bible doesn’t annoy atheists... it amuses them, and allows them to dismiss any resultant claims.
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 [quote]Falling back on the bible doesn’t annoy atheists... it amuses them, and allows them to dismiss any resultant claims.[/quote]
[laughs]
Many Bible critics will often make the incorrect assumption that the Bible confuses bats with being birds. The reasoning behind this incorrect assumption is due to a misunderstanding of Leviticus 11:13-20. We are talking about the implication that science minded atheists, rational thinking people, make regarding the claim that the Bible can not distinguish between birds or fowl, and bats and insects.
Here is a brief lesson in Hebrew that will be of some help. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds, and sometimes as fowl. It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.
The Hebrew word for bat is ‛ata·leph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ‛ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsip·pohr′.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ‛a′yit.
The Hebrew word she′rets is drawn from a root word that means to "swarm" "or teem." In noun form applies to small creatures to be found in large numbers. (Exodus 8:3; Psalm 105:30) In scripture it first applies to the initial appearance on the fifth creative day when the waters began to swarm with living souls. Genesis 1:20
The law regarding clean and unclean things demonstrates that the term applies to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31; Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and multilegged creatures (Leviticus 11:41-44).
The English word fowl is primarily used today to refer to a large or edible bird. The Hebrew term ohph, which is derived from the verb fly, applied to all winged or flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle. Cattle comes from the Anglo-Norman catel, meaning mobile personal property. Chatel. Cattle not just cows, fowl not just birds.
The Hebrew ohph (fowl) could be used in place of she′rets (swarming creatures) if it were not for the fact that the area of which we speak regards all of the various creatures given above. Including bats, birds, insects etc.
It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.
[laughs]
Many Bible critics will often make the incorrect assumption that the Bible confuses bats with being birds. The reasoning behind this incorrect assumption is due to a misunderstanding of Leviticus 11:13-20. We are talking about the implication that science minded atheists, rational thinking people, make regarding the claim that the Bible can not distinguish between birds or fowl, and bats and insects.
Here is a brief lesson in Hebrew that will be of some help. The word used at Leviticus 11:13 is ohph, which is sometimes translated incorrectly as birds, and sometimes as fowl. It is important to note that the English word fowl applied not only to birds, but all winged flying creatures such as insects and bats. So, although the word fowl in translation is accurate it is often misunderstood due to the fact that today the English word fowl is somewhat more limited than it used to be, applying to birds only.
The Hebrew word for bat is ‛ata·leph.
The Hebrew word for flying creature or fowl (as in all flying creatures including birds, bats, and insects) is ‛ohph.
The Hebrew word for birds in general is tsip·pohr′.
The Hebrew word for birds of prey specifically is ‛a′yit.
The Hebrew word she′rets is drawn from a root word that means to "swarm" "or teem." In noun form applies to small creatures to be found in large numbers. (Exodus 8:3; Psalm 105:30) In scripture it first applies to the initial appearance on the fifth creative day when the waters began to swarm with living souls. Genesis 1:20
The law regarding clean and unclean things demonstrates that the term applies to aquatic creatures (Leviticus 11:10) winged creatures, including bats and insects (Leviticus 11:19-31; Deuteronomy 14:19) land creatures such as rodents, lizards, chameleons (Leviticus 11:29-31) creatures traveling on their "belly" and multilegged creatures (Leviticus 11:41-44).
The English word fowl is primarily used today to refer to a large or edible bird. The Hebrew term ohph, which is derived from the verb fly, applied to all winged or flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-22) So the Hebrew (ohph) is not so limited in usage as the English word fowl much like the old English cattle. Cattle comes from the Anglo-Norman catel, meaning mobile personal property. Chatel. Cattle not just cows, fowl not just birds.
The Hebrew ohph (fowl) could be used in place of she′rets (swarming creatures) if it were not for the fact that the area of which we speak regards all of the various creatures given above. Including bats, birds, insects etc.
It isn't about taxonomy it is about language and translation.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino Why are you suddenly talking about bats and birds and bibles?
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 I use the Bible like a tool. The subject has been mentioned several times in the brief time I've been here.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino That’s nice. I rather imagine that others don’t
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 That's for sure.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino So your sole explanation for why you’re suddenly talking about bats and birds and bibles is that you do that sometimes?
OK...
OK...
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@newjaninev2 Because they all begin with B? Perhaps we'll get cats, catalepsy, and catechism next.