The Obama Deception Censored

Elements of the government could easily hire mercenaries from other countries to do their dirty work if their own people felt uncomfortable. That would be IF this was an inside job.
As I have stated, my personal conclusion is that there were bobs in the buildings and I think that is well within their capabilities. I also don't believe in the phone calls being made from the cell phones, and I think the terrorists were in complete control of the plane before take off and that they used something more than box cutters.

How do I suppose this?

When the government and the airlines finally did go into the process of beefing up security around the air travel, they started to become particularly obsessed with "liquids" more than anything else and they were harassing mother's with breastmilk or ordinary people carrying pepsi's.
And since our friendly neighborhood terrorists generally favor their explosives or chemical weapons, I have to believe that they brought something of that nature on board.

It should be stated that it was easier to hijack a plane back then because some people just wanted to go to Cuba and the pilots are told to cooperate based on what I heard.
Box cutters don't sound right and I still don't really understand how we got to that conclusion in the first place. If it came from the 911 calls, I don't think that is real information.

Your thoughts about faked beheadings are rather new to me. I have no information about those but I hear those clips are regularly taken down from the internet. A good reason might be to the effect of sympaty for the family, or, if the government were faking them, they may want people to only catch the briefest glimpses before really examining the footage.
One thing I'll say is that I'm very sure Saddam is dead (90% sure), and certainly that someone was killed at the hanging. The neck is broken more visibly than any hanging I've ever seen. It was performed well because sometimes they strangle to death, and even more times they mismeasure the rope. And I'm convinced it was Saddam based on the physical details. He doesn't quite look like he did during the Gulf War, but if you see when he was younger and slimmer (in his twenties) you'd know it was Saddam, or if you could see the rest of his family and observe how they age.

You have to watch out though, because Saddam's family has very good doubles.

 

Click on the link and you can see the thing in its entirety. They are rather easy to find actually.

 

Well, the major problem here in the video is that there are extreme cutaways (meaning the camera). If someone were to fake this video or something like it, that would be the first thing to due. My heart felt real sorrowful knowing what was ahead of this video, I feel even more conflicted now that I can see why some people think its fake yet I can't possibly know for sure and I don't want to speak the wrong way about this poor guy who could be dead at the hands of these people. This is one of those especially uncomfortable conspiracies, its a lot more easier to wave a finger at public officials but when its someone like this it just feels different.

I'm also a little curious about whether the head is being sawed off too fast. Generally a beheading is better accomplished with a chop rather than a sawing. I would think that the spinal bone and muscle tissue would be a lot tougher than what we see in the video, but maybe these guys are very proficient at getting it done.

One guy did successfully hoax a beheading and you can see his website here http://videohoax.ctyme.com/ ... and that one looks pretty good all by itself. Special effects can do a lot of things, even in the most primitive stages. Modern film makers generally abuse cgi, but it not hard to mold a convincing head and cut if or give it motors or a skeletal structure. There are many special effects that are so good that you won't be able to tell the difference without actually touching them and examining them yourself.

This is another one of those areas where I start to wonder where the skeptics are? It seems the skeptics are always available to discredit psychic surgeons or UFO people when they do something that looks suspicious... but if we arrive at something like the Nick Berg execution we don't see them commenting.
The reason I mention this is because the skeptics themselves are often big fans of magic and of staging hoaxes to catch UFO buffs off guard. They could probably perform a Nick Berg influenced hoax down to every last detail (and even better than the guy who actually did pull it off) but they seem to back away when its the government's "official word" that someone is dead or that something peculiar has happened.

It also reminds me of the UFO enthusiast who commented on crop circles and said "you can fake a $100 bill, but that doesn't mean all $100 bills are fake".

Likewise, I'd also like to reiterate that since art and real life are so often mirroring each other, its rather difficult for a lot of people to acknowledge real death when it happens. Berg's execution may clearly be real. My major suspicion is the cutaway of the camera and the swiftness of the sawing. I may try experimenting with some lamb bones and lamb body parts to see if I can saw as fast as the guy on camera with a similar weapon. Its really not the most comfortable thing to talk about though, none of these conspiracies are comfortable to talk about.... none except maybe the UFOs.

Sethmanrockandroll

 

I watched quite a few beheading videos in order to make a comparison. It seems that a sawing motion is often used. They usually start with the trachea and work their way through the front of the neck into the spinal column in the back of the neck. Probably to increase the duration of the execution and therefore, putting the victim through much more pain. Some are really hard to stomach.

I'm a skeptic and I hardly find it feasible to fake or stage such executions. The most common argument is what appears to be an editing cut shortly before the head is cut off (no pun intended), I don't speak Arabic but I believe that the kidnappers might have said something that could identify the victim's family or perhaps something of national interest. The CIA or whatever, could have removed some sensitive information from the video. Another point is the apparent lack of synchronization between the audio and the video. Anyone who's ever uploaded a video to Youtube can attest on how shitty the quality can be when using free trial video-editing softwares. Now imagine doing that in the middle of a fucking desert.

I think that Berg's execution touched a soft spot in the western world. It put a face on a terror that was until then, faceless. In the 9/11 tragedy, more than 3500 people lost their lives. But that's just a number, a statistic. Seeing Berg's face as it convulses in pain and watching him exhale his last breath put a face on those numbers.

 

It is feasible. It can be done. I'm not certain if it was faked in the case of Nick Berg, but it is possible to stage every moment of the execution with even the most basic technologies. Its probably real though, I think they had a body afterwords didn't they?

 

They did but it wasn't released to the family in a timely manner.

 

We must admit that alien technology simply has to be much further advanced than ours. In reality the twin towers are still there in NY. This is all an elaborate hoax by the technologically advanced alien race.

 

Well then its probably real, unless the family is in on it or they have a really good cadaver.

It is well within technological capabilities to fake it IF they wanted to, and that was my main point to make when confronted with the possibility of a hoax. As I've said, this was not one of the cases I generally like to look at. I frequently run down a set of pros or cons about what would happen if someone's theories like these turned out to be right or wrong. I wouldn't see as much benefit about speaking out about false beheadings even if such was the case. The government would probably prefer to kill people for real and falsely blame the enemy rather than leaving someone alive. LBJ was willing to have people killed at Tonkin.

I'm also sensitive about things like this because here in Iowa we have the Johnny Gosche (probably mispelled) case where the mother's son disappeared and weird people have been taking advantage of her ever since and she has probably quite equally become a bit of a loon aswell. That is one of the darker sides to conspiracy theories.

There's also a dark side to the skeptics though. They have too many things they ask for when they insist on what qualifies as proving something. They also have mind games and psychological tricks, are junkies for philosophy, and most of them (and maybe including you, not to be mean) generally have the same beliefs or lack of beliefs.
One good thing about being a conspiracy believer is that none of us really agree on everything. I'm a big fan of Nixon for instance whereas some people think he's the worst president ever. And for supernatural or outerspace related events, we all prod each other for which ones look more tasty.

Every so-titled Skeptic has generally been very consistent to the following beliefs or lack of beliefs....

-They are generally Atheist or Agnostic and don't like religion
-They believe all of the accepted lone nut stories (Oswald, Ray, etc.)
-They don't believe in UFO's, strange creatures, or supernatural powers or events
-Quite a few of them have backgrounds or interests in Stage Magic
-They do believe in Evolution, but they don't hold it to the same standards of evidence that they'd normally demand from other types of people mentioned above.

Those are some pretty big things for all of them to be in unison about. I suppose there is probably a factor of marketing, but bear in mind that the conspiracy theory people are never in as much unison as mentioned above... even when we market ourselves (everybody needs a living after all, and we just state many of the things that are reported).

If you have something to counter my sentiments, I'd love to hear it.

 

- I am an Atheist
- I believe in lone gunman theories
- I do not believe in the Loch Ness monster, the Yeti, Morlocks, and UFOs
- I have no background or interest in magic
- I believe in evolution and will hold it to the same degree of scrutiny as everything else

I am a skeptic. I question everything. That is why I changed my mind on global warming after reading State Of Fear by Michael Chrichton.

 

Thats exactly my point.

Don't get me wrong here, people do have a right to their beliefs or their lack of beliefs but when people of an investigative nature (such is what Skeptics are involved with) become virtual clones of one another it starts to feel rather alarming doesn't it?

We can look at something simple like strange creatures for instance. Over a hundred years ago, Gorilla's were on the fringe of discovery and the skeptical minds of that time accused explorers of telling tall tales. When Gorilla's finally became a confirmed animal, people in science updated their books and gave it an official name but a lot of the people who did the footwork in discovering the creature did not exactly receive an apology, and certainly their reputations may not have been fully restored either. There are consequences to calling people crazy or calling people liars, crazy is generally what the skeptics shoot for (even when some one obviously IS lying) its their way of exalting their own hides (in my opinion).

As I've stated, its important for people to be prepared if they are wrong about something and to weigh the pros and cons about what would happen if that is the case.

Now you say you hold Evolution to scrutiny, but fancy me this....

-The physical evidence (body remains) have been regularly hoaxed and misrepresented
-The theory of Evolution retreats into several subdivisions to protect it if its wrong. People in Science control the names also, so they can push the theory by substituting words like "change" or "grow, growth" with "EVOLVE" and work the term into even the most common things like a person growing older and changing appearance, etc. When speaking about evolution it is generally important for some to make it clear about which areas of the theory they do or don't believe in. I don't believe in the T'Rex getting smaller arms after thousands of years of not using them (kinda like an evolutionary atrophy, or complete change in the structure of the body without breeding it that way), I don't believe in humans changing up from any previous structural appearance, I don't even believe in humans getting better brains than they ad before (advancements in technology are a result of better distribution and preservation of information. Alexander kicked some of this off when he went on a crusade to build an impressive library of every book available to him. That in itself is also part of a biblical prophecy about the spreading and the distribution of the Lord's word).
The subdivisions are defended with the argument of saying "its a scientific theory rather than a dogma, and that is why it can be changed or updated" and such is true. But science people tend to linger it, meaning they don't seriously rule out even some of the parts that can possibly be shot down as of today. In fact, most of the faulty physical discoveries are still presented as major proof. Its alot similar to the faked Roswell autopsy footage, UFO people still flaunt the imagery because it basically looks cool.
That is not to actually say that Evolution has necessarily been proven wrong, it simply has not been proven. And it doesn't really meet the standards that a skeptic would normally ask for if they demanded for someone to prove something. Randi is a good example for instance. I was impressed with his mentality of "if it exists, let me see it" for quite some time. Then I found out he DOES believe in Evolution and I've never really taken him as seriously since then. He is handy though. I like his work against psychics.
-How much time did it take for man, or any other creature, to evolve? There's not as much time available for the theory to work in my opinion. The Crocodile is the same today as it was millions of years ago. The earliest human skeletons are also direct matches to what we currently wear. The only major difference is that height and weight will go up and down depending on who gets more food.

Thus I really don't think evolution really would hold up to Skeptic scrutiny. Is there any "proof" I am missing here?

 

There is no substitution of word as far as I am concerned. I don't really want to get into an evolution vs. intelligent design argument but I'll humour you and give you a few points.

Evolution is the ability to adapt and conform yourself to an environment. Call it natural selection or adaptation, it's all the same.

The theory's main idea is that if you are unfit to survive in an environment, you are useless to that environment. The strong ones live and the weak ones die. Let's take wolves for instance, only the alpha male and the alpha female are allowed to reproduce. This prevents diseased or weak wolves from tainting the gene pool. This is what allowed wolves to survive. The ones that have a special ability in a certain environment, will be allowed to pass on those genes or abilities, this will in return create descendants that have a greater chance of survival.

I don't know which remains have been deemed a hoax. There are hundreds of museums filled with bones and fossils. Maybe you have a link to such hoax?

Like I said, I don't really want to get into this kind of argument. I've found out long ago that trying to change a religious mind is a lost cause. You have your own beliefs and I have mine. I'm not saying mine is perfect, but I prefer it to everything else. If you believe I'll go to hell, then so be it. Don't try to save me.

 

Telling you if you'd be "going to hell" is Judging, and it is a heavy sin to have that duty performed by any one lesser than God himself (in fact, it is technically what brought Lucifer to damnation in the first place). And technically "hell" is not actually in existence yet, that is why Lucifer has not been destroyed. The lake of fire is for the complete and immediate obliteration of the bad souls. Lucifer is actually in heaven for now, imprisoned.

Adaption does not really include evolution unless you're speaking of a body that changes over time to conform to the right areas.

Speaking of wolves, which types of survival are you specifically referring to?

As far as survival of the species is concerned, wolves and mostly every other type of canine have always persisted beyond all others because they are scavengers. It really has nothing to do with breeding the strongest and the fittest specimens, in fact canines generally outlast other animals for the opposite reason. They are able to eat food that would be worthless to most other creatures and they can live in virtually any type of climate or harsh living condition.
If you really want to talk breeding, you may discover that mutts and mixed canines are sometimes a lot stronger than the purer breeds. The real benefit to having Alpha male and Alpha female would probably be to the effect of stopping inbreeding, which really would do damage to the blood line. But nothing of that sort is actual real reason for their survival and success.

The big problem with the terms you are using is that they really aren't the same. Adaption does not necessarily include the transformation of a being and its species, it can be applied as you say to simply mean how a specific animal manages its obstacles. To use evolve in this circumstance would simply be confusing, and most of you know that.
I'm willing to extend my own theory that a few lazy scientists probably read a book from Darwin and then scrambled all of his terms together as if it all meant the same thing. You must understand that Darwin was speaking to a variety of things in his books (I have first editions in my closet) and natural selection and adaption are a lot different than Evolution.

Though, to be fair. Some of the adaption that Darwin mentions is to the effect of bodily transformation over time, as he thought he observed from ducks I think, and that would be a part of Evolution. If we discuss that, then I don't believe in Evolution. But if we discuss adaption in and around the things that you mentioned here, then I'd probably agree with you.

I take very careful steps to make sure I communicate well with people. Its easy to be lost in translation when these things are talked about, even if we're both speaking english!

 

I'd also like to add that an "alpha wolf" is not guaranteed to have perfect heredity. Wolves don't do blood tests, they simply fight for position. That would be like saying Arnold Schwarzenegger would be a perfect breeding specimen based on the fact that he's exceptionally strong (with or without steroids) and can probably clobber anything he meets. As strong as he is, his family also has a consistent set of defective heart valves and he'd probably be dead already if it weren't for the advancements of modern science.

Furthermore, the rules are not as strict. Wolves can also go off and form their own packs if they still want to breed.

The alpha system of mating really has nothing to do with their skill at survival and adaption in my opinion.

 

Adaptation and natural selection are all part of the theory of evolution.

A lot of people who have a strong belief in intelligent design often claim to have read and understood Darwin. The fact that you claim that adaptation isn't related to evolution shows that you haven't read The Origin Of Species. Actually, you didn't say you read it, you said that it's somewhere in your closet.

Anyway, this is taken from a preface in the 1997 edition of The Origin Of Species:

"In 1859 the English naturalist Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species. The book contained two major arguments:

First, Darwin presented a wealth of evidence of evolution. He said that all living things on earth today are the descendants — with modifications — of earlier species.

Second, he proposed a mechanism — natural selection — to explain how evolution takes place.
Evolution involves two interrelated phenomena:

* adaptation

Over the course of time, species modify their phenotypes in ways that permit them to succeed in their environment.

* speciation

Over the course of time, the number of species multiplies; that is, a single species can give rise to two or more descendant species. In fact, Darwin maintained that all species are related; that is, any two species on earth today have shared a common ancestor at some point in their history."





What is the big deal with evolution anyway? Why can't God create species with the ability to change and conform to their environment? Because it didn't say so in the Bible?


Moving on. Religious people like to try and blow holes in the theory of evolution. How 'bout I try and blow holes in the theory of Christianity? There are multiple contradictions in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament.

Here are my favorites:

-As "history," the Bible is unique. In First Kings 16:6,8 the king of Israel, Baasha, dies, replaced by his son Elah during the 26th year of Asa's (King of Judah) reign. But in Second Chronicles l6:1 we read that Baasha, king of Israel, goes against Judah during Asa's 36th year.
A King dies, is buried, his son becomes King, but after a decade, the dead king leads a military adventure!

-Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac (Gen.16:15 & 21:3) but Isaac was Abraham's "only" son? (Gen. 22:2,12 & Heb. 11:17)

-In Exodus 33:20, says God, "Thou canst not see my face; for there shall be no man see me and live." God must have been mistaken, or changed: For in Genesis 32:30 Jacob sees God "face to face" and lives. The same for Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and 70 elders, who saw God, and ate and drank with him (Exodus 24:9-11). But not so, says John 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time."

-There's but one allowed reason (adultery) to divorce your wife, but elsewhere, divorce can be for any reason (Matt.5:32 vs Deut.2l:l4 & 24:1-3). Note, in this Deuteronomy a divorced woman can safely and sinlessly marry again, but in Matthew, a divorced woman that remarries is guilty of adultery, which deserves death of both her and her new husband (Lev.20:10). Neat sense of fairness, eh?

-The Bible speaks well of liquor and also condemns it (Deut. 14:226 vs Prov.20:l)

-It says avoid temptation, but welcome it too (Matt.6:l3 vs James 1:12)

-The evening of Christ's resurrection is the time of ascension for Luke, but Acts dates it 40 days after, (Luke 24:1-59 vs Acts 1:3 ). After resurrecting, Jesus was to meet the disciples, says Matthew, in Galilee; but says Luke, it was to be in Jerusalem -- merely 100 miles apart! (Matt.28:l6-17 vs Luke 24:33-36)

-Facing Pilate, Christ spoke only two words, said Matthew. John said Christ gave a speech! (Matt. 27:11 vs John 18:34-37)




That was easy. It was easy because the Bible was written by men. Not by God himself. The Bible was translated back and forth from Hebrew to Greek, from Greek to Latin, from Latin back to Greek, and so forth. I watched the Bill Maher movie called Religulous. In it, he interviews a senior priest at the St-Peter basilica in Rome. The priest said that the Old Testament shouldn't be taken literally. It's a collection of old wives' tales (the priest's quote not mine).

Fundamentalism is really only popular in the United-States and a little bit in Canada. It actually started in the 20's. Maybe I'll post the history of literalism and religion.

 

That was sorta what I said regarding evolution. I said that if you're talking about animals developing a physical difference to adapt to their environments, then evolution would technically apply to adaption. I did not feel that evolution would apply to the type of behaviour you mentioned of the wolves. Or at least, not a physical evolution.
Yes, I agree many creatures are descended from other creatures. Most of that would be by breeding though. Evolution is perfectly possible but it just hasn't been proven well enough and certainly not to a skeptic's standards.

That said, I have not read enough of Darwin to completely understand him but I have read enough to understand that he speaks of more things than just evolution. He is obviously a skilled observer of nature and people would be rather foolish to rule him out entirely. I did not intend to rule him out here except to say that his theory has not been proven to skeptic standards but is nonetheless accepted because its the best alternative to religion.

As to Religion, specifically mine, I did enjoy the points you brought up because they are newer than the ones I normally get when I speak to atheists.

-The controversy with Baasha is rather similar to the thing with the two Goliaths. I handled the Goliath argument by stating the possibility that it may have been a popular name at some instance, especially since the second Goliath fought against David's army about (at least) 40-50 years after the first Goliath was destroyed. If Goliath fell dead as a hero to the philistines or if he was rather popular before then also (surely he should have been important if he had the authority the offer a one on one challenge with the agreement that the other side will convert to slavery if they lose), then I'm sure there would have been parents naming their children for him or for his own offspring or relatives to keep his name alive.
For Baasha, there are a few possible options. The son may have assumed his father's name in a similar way that the Romans passed the Caeser name to so many of its rulers, or in the same way that Muslims to this day will replace people's names with ones like Muhammad as soon as such person reaches a level of significance. Such may have been the case for Baasha's son if he wanted the prestige of his father's name attached to him. Or I could go even more far out and say that a new guy called Baasha came into power after the son.
The reason I suppose these things is that similar confusion can and has happened with history that is more confirmed to us. The most modern example would be the two U.S. presidents whose names were Johnson, who started as vice presidents, who came into power after the assassination of other presidents, who were both poor men of the south and very controversial personalities. If hundreds or thousands of years passed between here and later, and if more fancier technologies were destroyed and other implements for recording history only had some of the above mentioned details, it would only be a matter of time before the two Johnsons would be seriously blurred.... and to accurately report their history might present the possibility of contradiction even if there is no contradiction. That is the predicament that the bible faces when people don't think enough about it or do not consult the more confirmable histories that are known to us.

-There's a couple things to consider for Isaac and Ishmael. Isaac seems to have born much later when Ishmael was already grown up and gone from the household, therefore, Isaac would have maybe been the only one living around his parents at the time and would be referred to as such in that particular sense. There is also the factor of which one was supposed to have been more in tune with the faith, I have barely done research into this but there is buzz that Ishmael was more troubled ("wicked but repentant" to quote the opening page of wikipedia, sorry for using it). Therefore also, Isaac would be the "only begotten" at that time as it applies to his relationship with God.
If we go to a few major extremes, fathers also have the authority to disown their sons.

-You're right about people seeing God but you're rather mistaken about who. Noah and his Wife have seen God if I recall correctly. In the case of Jacob, you're quoting a very obvious verbal expression, those are present in many places. If Jacob had actually seen God face to face in the literal sense, there would be more story behind it.
Moses met with God in an assortment of shapes and forms and mostly by the voice of God, same with the people around him (and that was usually for special occasions when Aaron or the Sister needed a firm hand of discipline). Never actually seeing him directly until his death, which in itself is part of the expression being made. No man will see God until their death.
For Exodus 24, you should back it up to the first and second verse where the rules are given for only Moses to come near and the others to remain at a distance. You're a bit at an error here, try to be more careful. Try to investigate translations and expressions for instance.

-In the Matthew quote you are referencing, the major word being utilized is "unchastity" (porneia) which carries with it two important meanings.... 1. An illicit sexual act or 2. a worshiping of other gods and partaking in said rituals. In my opinion, it might also be applied to an overall lack of love for the husband or a longing for some one else (Jesus did make the quote about committing adultery just by feeling it in your mind).
Any other reason for divorce besides the above mentioned is intolerable by any standard. The scripture you reference basically speaks to the effect of saying that a man can't "give her away" out of nowhere for any particular reason.
Your Deuteronomy reference is a more precarious type of marriage set up. Its kinda like pillaging. In times of war it is natural for the conqueror to seize assets from the enemy. Particularly if you leave the enemy dead, you'll be leaving a lot of widowed families behind. You may have even lost some family yourself. That is when it becomes necessary to start anew and the process is not the smoothest one, that is why there are rules. And due to the precarious nature of the set up, its obviously rather okay to let those women go for whatever reason.
One thing that Jesus regularly speaks to how is how the word would often be manipulated, and the verse you mentioned is exactly of the type. It is not right to apply pillaging rules to a standard marriage.

-The bible condones alcohol in smaller and responsible quantities. Red Wine, for instance, has medical and spiritual significance. Medical for reasons numbing pain or even cleaning out the insides and fighting colds or viruses. Spiritual for the reason it is manufactured, with the skimming of crud at the top similar to the way God can also wipe away sin from a repentant person. That is why Christ used it.

-(temptation) I think you're misrepresenting the verses

-(resurrection and ascension) too much to read and comprehend for now, raincheck (literally is raining right now by the way)

-(two words vs speech) Back it up a couple verses and recompare, I think you're looking at different events



It was easy for you and other people to say those things because most of you have not thoroughly examined the scriptures before "debunking" them.

As to Bill Maher, I don't think he's particularly bright. I've seen better skilled arguments from atheists or agnostics. He's actually a very good comedian in my opinion but he didn't get enough success at simply doing that so he had to put his foot into politics and media and is now handling religion (Dennis Miller is also similar, I liked him too and still do. But its unfortunate he had to leave his primary profession for something like political commentating). The documentary itself would have been more entertaining if he had better picked the religions to cover, like the more freakier ones rather than the mainliners (one could do some very interesting historical work by covering the guys who play with poison snakes or the pigmy head hunters). Some of the deleted scenes are actually a lot more worthwhile than the actual film, they are definitely easier to watch than the over-edited monstrosity of the released picture. The whole film is mostly built on very quick jabs and not a lot of substance. I can't even sit with Maher long enough to make his finer points (except in the deleted scenes) because he goes from subject to subject so fast and only provides general highlights. My favorite parts of the deleted material was his presence at the sight of the Rude man and his interview with David Icke.

Lastly, while I am very happy to be talking to you... lets try to leave most of the "isms" out of our discussion, shall we?

 

These are all great replies but something bothers me. I find it troubling that passages need to be explained or guessed.

Take the Baasha name mix-up for instance, it's true that there were two presidents named Johnson, but they lived nearly a hundred years apart. Baasha was referred to in the same period of time. And is continually mentioned throughout the end of Asa's reign. Second Chronicles(16:1,5,6).

I own a Zondervan King James Study Bible, there are footnotes at the bottom of every pages to explain dates and expressions. The footnote does mention the error, which it attributes to a copyist's mistake. This is nitpicking and I'm aware of it. But it reveals something troubling. If the Bible was written by God through mankind, how could mistakes happen? This is the collection of God's wisdom and judgments, wouldn't He want the work to be flawless?


In the case of two words against a speech, I went back to my Bible to double-check and I'm afraid I was right about that one too. Let me make several quotes and we'll go from here.
It's important to note that both events are entitled: Jesus before Pontius Pilate, so I didn't take any quote from a banquet or any other event.

Let's start with Matthew 27:11,12,13,14

"And Jesus stood before the governor and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?

And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly."

This is the totality of what Jesus had to say when he appeared before Pontius Pilate. As you can see, according to Matthew, Jesus only said two words: "Thou sayest". Let's see what John has to say about that.

John 18:33,34,35,36,37

"Then Pilate entered the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?

Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

Pilate answered. Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

Jesus answered, My kingdom his not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king . To this end I was born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

As you can see, Jesus' reply to Pontius Pilate varies greatly between the two accounts. It wouldn't be a great deal if Matthew missed the speech or wasn't told of it and wrote nothing in his chronicle about it, but instead he specifically mentions that Pilate marvelled at Jesus' stoic demeanor. I'm not confusing this with any other event and you are free to look it up for yourself. Backtrack as many verses as you want, this is what Jesus had to say to Pontius Pilate in both occasions.

There is something similar in all four gospels in this event. Pilate's first words to Jesus: "Art thou the King of the Jews", remains unchanged. This would be the only continuity pertaining to this moment.

 

I would like to again reiterate that the Baasha question is one of the best I heard. I also have to admit some ignorance on my part because First Kings goes on to say that Elah reigned only 2 years before getting assassinated and that the conqueror then went about destroying the rest of the family. Thus my Caeser and Goliath argument would probably again fall apart for that reason. Reading on, there's also a fudge where Zimri takes over in the 27th year of Asa's reign but Elah had come to power at the twenty sixth and was supposed to have reigned for two years. Therefore the numbers seem to be seriously jumbled (excepting that maybe the seasons were aligned in such a way to make this possible). Unless I can find a place where translators have been slacking off from the records that are presently available, I'll have to let you win this particular argument.

The bible is designed to be read in full rather than just selecting verses from here and there, and that is normally where the atheists will either purposely or unintentionally make their errors in representation whenever they start to argue. In your case, you seem to have struck pay dirt on Baasha.
I can't use the chronological defense since it specifically uses Asa's rule as the time line.

This is pretty important since God has made promises to protect the word's intactness (my word, yes I make up my own from time to time) and distribution.

As to Pilate, I'll have to do more work to back up my thoughts. The reason behind them is that there were several meetings with Pilate and I do believe that the similar questions were asked over and over again. There were big pushes in those days to try to make an accused person admit to wrong doing, from trials to torture to execution.... they would regularly pester the accused into making an admission (if you watch wrestling, you might think of it kinda like an "I Quit" match, Mankind vs the Rock in particular). These things would have been done on Jesus just as they were done to William Wallace or the wives of Henry VIII, etc. .
We might also look at the same trial and have a look into which was said or not said at various instances. More or less, at this moment, however, I do understand were you're coming from.

Different bible translations was also a topic I was about to get into if I felt it necessary. I suggest a standard King James to be used alongside refernce books like the Strong's Concordance. That process is a lot better since all of the refernce books are generally fitted to be used alongside the King James and the King James is Translated to English better than anything else (for instance, some books are translations of the King James itself! Rather than going back to the original source). That is what I use for books.
For internet, I found the very best handy sources at this website http://www.searchgodsword.org/ which I think is the best Bible research site I have ever encountered on the computer.

More or less you seem to have won the round on the first question, so I'll duck out and see what I can dig.

 

Aballister,

Aha! I found what I was looking for on the subject of Jesus speaking to Pilate (by the way, I found out that I had a brief accident at using that website I gave because I had it adjusted to the wrong Bible translation, now its properly set on the King James translation that I meant to utilize).

"And when he was accused by the the Chief Priests and Elders, he answered nothing."

Those would not be Pilate.

Then to conclude, Pilate asked something to the effect of if Jesus heard the charges against him and Jesus again also apparently said nothing.

The speech from John would have appeared before the quote I mentioned above and prior to both noted moments of silence. Thus, one version doesn't describe as much as the other but neither are contradictory. The bible often spreads its information to multiple areas of the texts so that the information is protected a certain way. Its kinda like a check and balance system. Plenty of the bible is fitted that way, its meant to keep the preachers sharp and the followers on their toes. There are good bible teachers and bad bible teachers. One time I watched some sunday television and saw one preacher halt his whole program just to do a series of Godfather impersonations.

I'll still have to dig into Baasha, but I think I've covered this other question most skillfully.

 

Your reply is very interesting. But I must make one last point before we bury this one. If it's true that Jesus would have made the speech and that Matthew's account takes place after the first quotes; why would Pontius Pilate marvel at Jesus' silence? Wouldn't Jesus have already made a speech and therefore spoken? It's nitpicking, but it's a point.

Next we should discuss the apparent discrepancies regarding the Ascension of Jesus after the crucifixion. The timeline is a little scrambled and maybe you can help me figure it out.

I'm glad that you can reply without getting upset over my questions and points. Nothing worse than a zealot when it comes to debating religion. I also accept any question you might have about evolution. I'm no anthropologist, but I'll try my best to answer them.

 

so.......... if God can do anything, can he make a boulder so big that he can't pick it up?