Christianity is False

Geocentricism Con starts the debate off with a straw man fallacy. My argument had nothing to do with claiming miracles can’t happen naturally. If the Bible says the Sun stopped supernaturally or not, it doesn’t matter. I was saying the Sun doesn’t move at all. The method of stoppage according to the story has no bearing at all. What part of my argument suggested anything of the such? His next part, I almost completely agree with. The only way Con could defend his position is exactly the way I thought he would. By claiming the book was written from a human POV. However, to take this position would be to reject the complete and literal truth of the Bible. You have to concede that human error can get into the Bible because it’s written from a human POV. Thus, Christianity is false, as the Bible contains error. Although we use language like the Sun rose, we all know what we’re talking about. If we were to ask a being to do something about the Sun, we wouldn’t ask from a language like this. Claiming God could’ve stopped the Earth’s rotation or refracted solar rays is nothing more than speculation away from the text. Con’s rebuttal is refuted. Christmas Contradiction Lapis Tiburtinus Con cites the Lapis Tiburtinus to prove Quirinius was governor twice. First, let’s get to the part in question of the Lapis. ...KING BROUGHT INTO THE POWER OF... AUGUSTUS AND THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND SENATE... FOR THIS HONORED WITH TWO VICTORY CELEBRATIONS... FOR THE SAME THING THE TRIUMPHAL DECORATION... OBTAINED THE PROCONSULATE OF THE PROVINCE OF ASIA... AGAIN OF THE DEIFIED AUGUSTUS SYRIA AND PH[OENICIA]... [1][2] There’s various problems with claiming this is evidence of Quirinius’ double governorship. Richard Carrier says [1], The most obvious problem with this piece of "evidence" is that it doesn't even mention Quirinius! No one knows who this is. Numerous possible candidates have been proposed and debated, but the notion that it could be Quirinius was only supported by the wishful thinking of a few 18th and 19th century scholars (esp. Sanclemente, Mommsen, and Ramsay). But it is unlikely to be his. We know of no second defeat of a king in the career of Quirinius, though Tacitus writes his obituary in Annals 3.48, where surely such a double honor would have been mentioned, especially since a "victory celebration" was a big deal--involving several festal days of public thanksgiving at the command of the emperor. We also have no evidence that Quirinius governed Asia. Though that isn't improbable, we do know of another man, Lucius Calpurnius Piso, who did govern Asia and who defeated the kings of Thrace twice, and received at least one "victory celebration" for doing so, as well as the Triumphal Decoration, and who may also have governed Syria.Though it cannot be proved that this is Piso's epitaph, it is clear that it would sooner belong to him than Quirinius. Thus, to ignore him and choose Quirinius would go against probability. Yet even if we lacked such a candidate as Piso, to declare this an epitaph of Quirinius is still pure speculation. Even more importantly, this inscription does not really say that the governorship of Syria was held twice, only that a second legateship was held, and that the second post happened to be in Syria. From what remains of the stone, it seems fairly obvious that the first post was the proconsulate of Asia. This means that even if this is the career of Quirinius, all it proves is that he was once the governor of Syria. The date of Herod's death, be it either 1 or 4 BCE, the argument still works. Con’s rebuttal is full of holes. Jericho Con straw manned my argument here too. I nor Kathleen said say any type of invasion didn’t happen in 1500. I said the walls wouldn’t have been there. There’s still an error. Con says Jericho could’ve fell in 1325 BC. However, where’s the evidence of that? Dr. Bryant Wood First, even if Kathleen is wrong in her methods, her conclusion was confirmed by radiocarbon dating 5 years after “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?” was published [3]. Dr. Weinstein said “In any event, the recent publication of a series of high-precision radiocarbon dates of short-lived samples from the MB IIC destruction phase (H.J. Bruins and J. van der Plicht, “The Exodus Enigma,” Nature 382 [1996], pp. 213-214) renders [Wood’s] entire argument moot. These assays consistently and strongly support a 16th century B.C. date for the end of MB IIC Jericho and cannot be reconciled with a late-15th-century B.C. destruction. (pp. 101-102)” [4] Second, Wood made various mistakes when examining the pottery. “Pat McGovern and Piotr Bienkowski... have both argued that Late Bronze pottery was handmade, as opposed to wheel-manufacture during the Middle Bronze. Dr. Bienkowskicompared Middle Bronze with Late Bronze II tomb groups at Jericho, and found that the MB pottery was wheel made, while the LB pottery was hand made and heavier. Dr. Bienkowski then studied the Middle Bronze Age pottery from the tell--the pottery Dr. Wood attempted to redate--and found that it was without exception wheel made. Dr. Wood also failed to mention in his article that if the ‘MB’ city survived until 1400 BCE, then its pottery would overlap with the Late Bronze Age II pottery from the tombs outside the mound, dated 1425-1275 BCE. In fact, there is no such overlap: there is a clear distinction between the tomb LB II pottery and the pottery from the ‘Middle Bronze’ city, indicating a substantial gap.” [4] Next, Con claims Jericho's archaeology supports a biblical account, but just because some archaeology supports it, doesn't mean my argument false. I wouldn’t prove Christianity true either. I’m unsure if Con was offering this as a positive argument for Christianity. I hope my opponent explains what that section was for in the next round, I do not wish to straw man. My argument still stands. Back to Con. [1] http://www.infidels.org... [2] Ronald Syme, "The Titulus Tiburtinus," Roman Papers, vol. 3, Anthony Birley, ed., 1984, pp. 869-884 (originally appeared in Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik: Vestigia xvii, 1973, pp. 585-601). The primary sources are Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum 14 § 3613 (= H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae § 918) [3]http://digitalcommons.arizona.edu... [4] http://www.theskepticalreview.com...