Conversation with An Atheist

[NayborBear]

And the unanswered question is; how do you know this? Seems you’re connecting this conclusion to Pangaea.

Methinks the lad is referring to a "slice of eternity" prior to this current "slice of eternity" where "Pangea" DID exist!
Far as I can see?
He's still trying to sort the difference/s in these "slices of eternity."
Which is a "perpetually confusing and terminal" problem that has and shall continue to perplex "sciences of empiricism."
1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
and 5 bucks'll get ya a cup of coffee!

 

[CrowCross]

Interesting. I checked about 5 different commentaries on the verse and 4 out of the 5 agreed that the division was a political/ethnic one and not a physical division of the land. I have always though it was referring to a cataclysmic physical division of the land.

It could have also been speaking about the Tower of Babel dividing of the people.

 

[Mancunian]

The salt from the flood waters...which wasn't as high as oceans of today...would have easily been leached out of the soil by rain water

The ark supposedly came to rest on Mt Ararat? The flood waters covered the highest mountains on earth, I'm assuming though that the flood waters would have been a diluted saltwater... Rain is freshwater and so are underground springs.
A pretty toxic mix for fish, but that's another topic....
The earth would have been in ruins after a global flood.
Noah's family would definitely have been starved to death when back on 'dry land' if any of this was remotely true.

 

[NayborBear]

Noah's family would definitely have been starved to death when back on 'dry land' if any of this was remotely true.

That's assuming Noah and family consumed all the food, and all the feed and fodder for the critters, and the critters quit doing that which critters do in preserving their species.
Whilst awaiting for the fields to repopulate.
Look what God did through His Prophet Elijah and that poor woman and her son.
And you are under the premise that this SAME God would NOT take care of not only Noah and families needs as well as the critters?

Under empiricism? It would be easy to draw the same conclusion you have.
And?

 

[Mancunian]

That's assuming Noah and family consumed all the food, and all the feed and fodder for the critters, and the critters quit doing that which critters do in preserving their species.
Whilst awaiting for the fields to repopulate.
Look what God did through His Prophet Elijah and that poor woman and her son.
And you are under the premise that this SAME God would NOT take care of not only Noah and families needs as well as the critters?

Under empiricism? It would be easy to draw the same conclusion you have.
And?

Yes we all know what the God who created the universe, our solar system, the laws of physics and mathematics did to the children of bethel too according to the Bible.

Are we accepting that a God that is so powerful and all knowing, sent some bears to maul children because they mocked Elijah?

Are we not taking that literally? Which bits are we taking literally?

 

[Mancunian]

It's all very confusing.
Little wonder that I don't believe.

 

[Mancunian]

And before you say it Elijah ascended and Elisha was the replacement prophet that was mocked for his baldness.

I wonder why the creator of Saturn Uranus and Jupiter would get involved?

 

[Mancunian]

The main reason that I don't believe in the Christian God is that the gospels don't agree with eachother.
This is the most important part of the holy Bible. This part must be coherent and all of the gospels must agree.
The crucifixion and resurrection of jesus must be the most important event ever witnessed by mankind, the son of God, here to pay for our sins.
Why don't the accounts of Matthew Mark Luke and John match perfectly regardless of the time between the accounts?
If you want to, we can make a separate thread for the contradictory gospels.

 

[Mancunian]

I've read it over and over and over and over.
Matthew Mark Luke and John.
I've read them over and over and over and over.

 

[Mancunian]

That's assuming Noah and family consumed all the food, and all the feed and fodder for the critters, and the critters quit doing that which critters do in preserving their species.
Whilst awaiting for the fields to repopulate.
Look what God did through His Prophet Elijah and that poor woman and her son.
And you are under the premise that this SAME God would NOT take care of not only Noah and families needs as well as the critters?

Under empiricism? It would be easy to draw the same conclusion you have.
And?

Do you really believe that God eliminated every living thing on this planet apart from Noah, his family and two of every 'Kind'.
I always wonder about marsupials? I wonder about eucalyptus. I wonder about bamboo. I wonder about the giant anteater. I wonder about where Noah got his Emperor penguins from. I wonder where Noah got his poison dart frogs from. Noah doesn't have time on his side. Noah the 800+ year old boat builder doesn't have reality on his side.

 

[Wrangler]

Why don't the accounts of Matthew Mark Luke and John match perfectly regardless of the time between the accounts?

Let’s ask AI:
This is a classic question in biblical scholarship known as the "synoptic problem" (for Matthew, Mark, and Luke) plus the unique material in John. The accounts don't match perfectly for several interconnected reasons that go beyond just the passage of time:

Literary Dependencies and Sources​

Scholars generally agree the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) share literary relationships. Most commonly accepted is the "Two-Source Theory":

• Mark was likely written first (c. 65-70 CE)
• Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, plus another lost source called "Q" (for Quelle, German for "source")
• Each also had unique materials (M for Matthew, L for Luke)

John stands separately—written later (c. 90-100 CE) with significantly different structure, chronology, and theological emphasis. It independently records many events absent from the Synoptics.

Different Purposes and Audiences​

Each evangelist wrote for distinct communities with specific theological aims:

Gospel	Primary Audience	Key Emphasis
Matthew	Jewish Christians	Jesus as fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy
Mark	Roman/Gentile readers	Action-oriented, suffering servant
Luke	Gentiles/Theophilus	Universal salvation, marginalized groups
John	Hellenistic/developing church	High Christology, "I am" statements

These goals shaped how material was selected, arranged, and sometimes modified.

Oral Tradition Variability​

Before written accounts stabilized (c. 30-65 CE), stories circulated orally for decades. Oral cultures naturally produced:

• Variation in exact wording
• Different orderings of events
• Compressed or expanded narratives
• Regional transmission differences

This explains parallel accounts with slight discrepancies even when describing the same event.

Anachronistic Chronologies​

Notable chronological issues include:

• Last Supper timing: Synoptics suggest Passover meal; John has Jesus crucified before Passover
• Temple cleansing: Placed near end in Synoptics; early in John's ministry
• Resurrection appearances: Different locations, sequences, and witnesses across all four

Modern scholars typically view these as theological framing rather than attempts at modern-style historiography.

Ancient Genre Expectations​

Gospels weren't written as modern biographies or journalistic reports. Ancient biographical conventions allowed:

• Thematic arrangement over strict chronology
• Harmonizing traditions for theological coherence
• Selective inclusion/exclusion based on purpose

Scholarly Consensus​

Most contemporary scholars (across confessional and secular traditions) recognize that:

1. Perfect historical concordance wasn't the ancient authors' goal
2. Discrepancies reflect authentic diversity in early Christian communities
3. Harmonization attempts often create more problems than they solve
4. Differences can coexist with core historical agreement (Jesus existed, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, disciples believed in resurrection)

 

[Mancunian]

Dear dear sir . the words she brings Are the most sensible of all .
That is why i also reminded her , DO NOT debate with any of them .
LET THE SCRIPTURES do the talking . because if one believes NOT the SCRIPTURES
they wont believe me who speaks the truth about JESUS either .
I would like to ask you a question .
Now before i do , no ma tter how you answer i will not be offended my friend .
Its for my own personal reasons i ask it .
But if you had to make a choice and you were asked to make that choice .
And the question was , OF all the peoples you have spoken to on this thread
WHO do you think its perhaps the most extremist of all
WHO would you say that one was . now remember if you say me i promise i will not be offended
or if you say maybe epi , or wrangler or some other .
But in you heart who do you see as the most zealous religoius extremist , IF you had to answer that question .

I think that Marveloustime hasn't got anything constructive to say. If he or she did have anything constructive to say, he or she would use their own words and not rely on posting Facebook ready slogans.

 

[Mancunian]

Let’s ask AI:
This is a classic question in biblical scholarship known as the "synoptic problem" (for Matthew, Mark, and Luke) plus the unique material in John. The accounts don't match perfectly for several interconnected reasons that go beyond just the passage of time:

Literary Dependencies and Sources​

Scholars generally agree the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) share literary relationships. Most commonly accepted is the "Two-Source Theory":

• Mark was likely written first (c. 65-70 CE)
• Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, plus another lost source called "Q" (for Quelle, German for "source")
• Each also had unique materials (M for Matthew, L for Luke)

John stands separately—written later (c. 90-100 CE) with significantly different structure, chronology, and theological emphasis. It independently records many events absent from the Synoptics.

Different Purposes and Audiences​

Each evangelist wrote for distinct communities with specific theological aims:

Gospel	Primary Audience	Key Emphasis
Matthew	Jewish Christians	Jesus as fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy
Mark	Roman/Gentile readers	Action-oriented, suffering servant
Luke	Gentiles/Theophilus	Universal salvation, marginalized groups
John	Hellenistic/developing church	High Christology, "I am" statements

These goals shaped how material was selected, arranged, and sometimes modified.

Oral Tradition Variability​

Before written accounts stabilized (c. 30-65 CE), stories circulated orally for decades. Oral cultures naturally produced:

• Variation in exact wording
• Different orderings of events
• Compressed or expanded narratives
• Regional transmission differences

This explains parallel accounts with slight discrepancies even when describing the same event.

Anachronistic Chronologies​

Notable chronological issues include:

• Last Supper timing: Synoptics suggest Passover meal; John has Jesus crucified before Passover
• Temple cleansing: Placed near end in Synoptics; early in John's ministry
• Resurrection appearances: Different locations, sequences, and witnesses across all four

Modern scholars typically view these as theological framing rather than attempts at modern-style historiography.

Ancient Genre Expectations​

Gospels weren't written as modern biographies or journalistic reports. Ancient biographical conventions allowed:

• Thematic arrangement over strict chronology
• Harmonizing traditions for theological coherence
• Selective inclusion/exclusion based on purpose

Scholarly Consensus​

Most contemporary scholars (across confessional and secular traditions) recognize that:

1. Perfect historical concordance wasn't the ancient authors' goal
2. Discrepancies reflect authentic diversity in early Christian communities
3. Harmonization attempts often create more problems than they solve
4. Differences can coexist with core historical agreement (Jesus existed, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, disciples believed in resurrection)

Remember.
This is the single most important piece of information that mankind needs to know about. Everything rests on this.It's a matter of life and death.

Actually.
It's contradictory. The resurrection of jesus wasn't documented until at least 30 years later... John was nearly a century later.

 

[Mancunian]

The new testament is a sequel, we need to look at the OT as the word of God. The commandments that were handed to Moses (cough cough) are the moral standard.