Matt2:5 “Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea”
Matt 2:23 born in Nazareth
Luke 2:4-7 born in Bethlehem
John 7:41-42 not from Bethlehem
Mark 6—wherever his hometown was, he didn't get no love there, and anyhow he's J of Nazareth, not J the Bethleheme.
Matt 2:23 born in Nazareth
Luke 2:4-7 born in Bethlehem
John 7:41-42 not from Bethlehem
Mark 6—wherever his hometown was, he didn't get no love there, and anyhow he's J of Nazareth, not J the Bethleheme.
There's another town called bethlehem in Galilee, about five miles from Nazareth, but bottom line, nobody knows. It's controversial, but he sure as hell wasn't born in both of them, biblical literalists.
This news item, via Daylight Atheism, cleared it up. William Dembski's in hot water, even though he's “a first order star in the intelligent design firmament.” He wrote The End of Christianity, where he noticed the universe is billions of years old, and fantasized that
“God brought death, decay and natural disasters to earth long before Adam and Eve sinned. That natural evil, he said, was a retroactive punishment for their disobedience … ”
Wait … what? His fantasies are about death, decay and natural disasters: mine run more towards Antonio Banderas and Angelina Jolie, but whatever, Original Sin lubed up a Delorean, entered it, rode it to the Big Bang … oh shit, i've lost my train of thought here ….
[ cold shower ]
The beef wasn't that he waterboards logic and leaves it for dead in a dumpster, it was that he “let scientific commitments trump the most natural reading of the Bible”. One of his co-workers at Hillbilly U. (officially, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) mentioned it in a book review, so the Pres
“convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood”The dean released a paper that included this groveling analingus from Dumbski:
“In a brief section on Genesis 4–11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part,” “Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6–9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal.”[ I totally lost it here when my brain conjured up pictures of Peter in Second Peter. Wouldn't that entail a Third Peter, and would second Peter have his Peter in First Peter? Theology is so hard! Also, “The Flood was universal”---ROFLMFAO] Wait, wait, there's more!
“As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.” [snicker]Ok, why would he change his opinion just like that? President Paige Patterson, [nickname PeePee] said
“Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school”
Ah, sooo, Grasshopper, it only requires a proper reading of John 1:1-4
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was PeePee, and his Word was God.
2 The same was in the bottom corner of your paycheck.
3 All faculty were paid by him; and without him was not any body that was paid.
4 In him was a living; and making a living was the light of men.
2 The same was in the bottom corner of your paycheck.
3 All faculty were paid by him; and without him was not any body that was paid.
4 In him was a living; and making a living was the light of men.
This clears up my little problem with Luke, too, and how the bible can contradict itself and still be inerrant. Doesn't matter what the Bible actually says, what matters is the most natural reading of it. To a god addict, it's a lot more natural to kiss ass than draw unemployment, and if the guy who's paying me says so, that mutherfucker was born in Pasadena.
No comments:
Post a Comment