Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker extras:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebook

Atheist TJump-Tom Jump Asserts Contradiction in Bible

I titled our discussion Atheist TJump & Messianic Jew Ken Ammi AGREE since I argued that on Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others adhere to it.

TJump (Tom Jump) agreed with me and was reduced to claiming that for him it’s all about having subjective fun based on personal preferences du jour.

That was shockingly consistent and I deeply appreciated it. See, I’ve noted that Atheist can only ever be consistently inconsistent in part because being consistent is not a universal imperative, on Atheism. Yet, TJump keep having discussions wherein he is either no longer consistent or is so but very subtly.

I am going to note a thing or two from Tom Jump Vs Joshua Pillows: Does the God of the Bible Exist? EP 208. Now, if consistent his position in the debate would be that if God does not exist but accidentally existing apes believe that God exists then it matter not, on Atheism, since there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to not believe that God exists if God does not exist.

He began thusly, “the debate topic is ‘Does the Christian God exist,” close enough, I suppose, “the answer is: no. And the reason we know that is basic epistemology.”

One of Ammi’s Laws is that Atheist will begin with conclusions 100% of the time and such was the case in this case. Whence comes epistemology? Well, accidentally existing apes must have invented it, on Atheism, in order to know what we know, in order to understand reality.

But recall that on Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, as is our ability to discern it so if we are successful at constructing a successful epistemic system then it would ultimately be based on accidentally existing apes interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions we call thoughts occurring within an accidentally existing brain.

Also, on Atheism, there’s no universal imperative to ascertain nor adhere to reality—if one choses to do so such is all it is: a subjective personal preference and one that one has no right to impose/demand/expect on/of/from other accidentally existing apes.

TJump continued, “in order to claim that something exists you must have some way to differentiate the position that you’re claiming and imagination. Everything starts as imaginary until demonstrated otherwise.”

Except that one can reply to that accidentally talking ape by saying, “Ooooh, ooooh, aaaah, aaaah!” right?

The only place whence he gets a “must” is form his subjective personal preference du jour so there is no “must” in actuality. See, even if we grant his assertion, it matters no, on Atheism, whether we have or do not have some way to differentiate nor if we believe in something imaginary especially since there’s also no universal imperative to demonstrate anything to anyone.

Pointing such things out to Atheists will prove how much the hate Atheism: they made their bed, it may be an impressive King Og of Bashan sized bed, it may look great, but they utterly refuse to sleep in it since it is so very uncomfortable.

After offering a philosophical argument, TJump asserted, “no philosophical arguments can ever be evidence.”

Now, let us jump to TJump’s assertion about contradictions in the Bible:

Biblical theism, Christianity, has, like, the most tensions and contradictions of anything. You just go to biblical contradictions, there’s thousands of them, in the tensions. Well, there’s a talking donkey, a talking snake, a talking bush, God contradicts Himself, mass murders a bunch of people, He sent bears to kill 40 children because they’re made fun of a bald guy—there are more contradictions and tensions in Christianity than pretty much any other worldview.

Of course, one reply would be: granted, so what? We will actually get into a bit of the “go what?”

Now, how is “a talking donkey” a contradiction—especially coming from someone who thinks himself to be a talking ape? That was a one time miracle, “the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth” (Numbers 22:28).

Likewise with the “talking snake”: how is that a contradiction? Besides, there is no reason to think that a serpentine reptilian spoke, in the case of Gen 3 but I will leave that to my book What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology. In short, one issue is that such is one of Satan’s symbolic titles, “the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan” (Rev 12:9 and 20:2).

Same with “a talking bush”: he is also merely asserting it is a contradiction. In fact, there is no talking bush in the Bible, rather, “God called to him [Moses] out of the bush” (Exo 3:4) thus, God was speaking, not the bush.

That “God contradicts Himself” is also merely asserted.

That God “mass murders a bunch of people” is ethically inaccurate: God kills, He doesn’t murder.


There is no statement that “He sent bears to kill 40” and the word “children” may be employed by some versions but it refers to males who were old enough to be employed plus, that it was “because they’re made fun of a bald guy” ignores the cultural issue of the social order in that they were besmirching the key prophet (community leader) of the time.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”” title=”YouTube video player” frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now, let us get to a more specific assertion by TJump:

There’s contradictions like in one, in Genesis 1, 1 it says that the plants were created on the third day and in Genesis 1, 2 or Genesis 2, it says that no plants were created until after Adam and Eve.

You got a problem there, that’s called a contradiction there are lots of contradictions in there that don’t exist in science or philosophy or any of the actually reliable sources of knowledge.

…plants being created on the third day and people being created on the fourth day and then it says no plants on until humans.

…the Bible says plants on day three and plants not on day three.

…in Genesis 1, says the plants were created on day 3, Genesis 2 says not until after Adam and Eve.

Got it? Well, we have the documents so let us consult them:

Gen 1:11-13:

God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Now, vss. 26-31 note:

God said, “Let us make man…” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food…I have given every green plant for food”…the sixth day.

Thus, plant were created and then humans.

Now, Gen 2:1-4 notes”

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them…These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

Thus, that is an overall account, a succinct record of the overall creation.

This is followed directly, in vss. 5-9, with:

When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.

Now, it is a shame that some people—especially Atheist missionaries—are not nuanced enough thinkers to work through this systematically, analytically, etc.

Gen 1 was about “the earth,” in general, “sprout vegetation, plants…trees” which was, “on the earth,” in general, thus, “The earth,” in general, “brought forth vegetation, plants…trees.”

Then God created humans and notes, “plant…on the face of all the earth,” in general.”

Then ends the “generations” (as in genealogy, as in accounting record) after which we read a complete thought as if it is just that: a complete thought, “no bush…no small plant…had yet sprung up” since “there was no man to work the ground,” but what ground, “the earth,” in general? Now, “the Lord God planted a garden” which is the locale of the contextual focus, “And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” specifically in that locale.

Thus, the contextual focus went from “the earth,” in general, to the specific locale, “a garden” and so this is not a case of any and all plants nor exclusively about any and all places, in general.

But now, whence did TJump get logic in the first place?

Let us begin dealing with that by pointing out where he was, subtly, consistent in that he was asked “if Tom Jump sees these, you know, verses in the Bible and says, ‘Oh, that’s a contradiction’ and then I go to someone else and they say, ‘Oh, no this is the explanation, there is no contradiction’: what do we do at that point, how do we clarify the issue?”

TJump’s erudite elucidation—not!—was, “We point and laugh at them for being silly because they don’t understand logic.”

See, he cannot (consistently) say that they are objectively, universally, absolutely, extrinsically wrong, he cannot condemn it, etc.: all he can do is to emotively laugh for violating his pseudo-standard based on subjective personal preferences du jour—did you catch that? He chooses to laugh if he discerns that some accidentally existing apes do not understand accidental logic within an existence wherein there is no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to understand nor adhere to accidental logic.

So, whence did TJump get logic in the first place?

He argues—but remember that what follows cannot be counted as evidence since “no philosophical arguments can ever be evidence,” right?:

…an objective criterion of knowledge which is…I exist and nothing is making me not exist. I now have logic. I have the laws of logic in the universe. I have completely objective knowledge. This is more objective than God knowledge. This is above God-levels of knowledge. Here and now, I can use this above-God’s-level of knowledge to assess other claims, to access things in the Bible. I can say, “Oh look, the Bible says plants on day three and plants not on day three. Now, that’s those two statements are in contradiction given the logic.

…so, I have my existence, which gives me objective  knowledge, which then gives me all of logic, which applies to all of the universe and then I can apply that to the Bible and  say, “Oh look, there’s a contradiction in the Bible which doesn’t follow the logic of my existing. That follows directly from my existing, that is how it shows your worldview as a contradiction.

…I can use the laws of logic to apply to Genesis one and two and they contradict: there you go.

…I exist: that’s all you need. I exist and nothing in the universe is making me not exist. Therefore, everything in the universe shares one property, which equals, gives us the basic laws of logic, here. There is nothing in the universe that’s making me not exist. Therefore, every part of the universe must follow the laws of logic. There you go, I mean we now have the grounds of logic and the universals just based off of my own existence you don’t need a God for any of this.

…all of the things for the intelligibility can be explained purely well without a God. You don’t need a God for that. All you need to mind, if a mind was just randomly popped into existence from quantum mechanics then poof! you now have intelligibility because that’s all that’s required. All you need for intelligibility is a mind to exist that can think and has ideas and those ideas correspond to reality. Those are all the only factors you need. So any reality that can produce minds, which I can think, has intelligibility.

…I exist and absolutely nothing in all of reality is making me not exist because if it was then I wouldn’t exist. Therefore, we can know universally the law of logic holds universally because all of reality, in all of reality, there is nothing making me not exist. So, I can get all of logic just describing the way reality is don’t need anything else there it’s not too, too hard, it’s pretty simple actually.

…because I exist so, I exist and there’s nothing in the universe making me not exist because then I wouldn’t exist. Therefore, I can know everything about the universe here. One thing about all of reality, none of it’s making me not exist.

…in all of reality there’s nothing making me not exist and although, so reality is all that exists so if I translate it and all, that exists nothing is making me not exist.

Round and round he goes! I wanted to quote all of that to ensure we understood that he is firm on his non-evidence philosophical argument—nervous throat clear.

Note the qualifying terms—another of the very, very subtle points to note—“I can use…I can say…I can apply…I can use…we can know…I can know…”

He has to say “can” because he cannot say “ought” nor “must” nor even “should.”

See, I can “Amen!” all of that, grant it, and he would still have a fundamental problem, of his own making, since on Atheism, logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others adhere to it.

Thus, he has only affirmed that on Atheism, logic is accidental and is useful and he “can” use it as a subjective personal preference du jour but he has no basis to condemn, expect, demand, etc. any other accidentally existing ape to use it.

Lava is, it exists, it is a part of our world, but its brute fact existence does not impose upon us whether we should, ought to, must dive into it.

As for our ability to discern it logic, he merely asserted, “the only thing you need for that is the production of a mind, which can be done naturally just by evolution. Evolution can do that. So, anything that can produce a mind that can imagine stuff, has intelligibility. It’s that simple. So, we have intelligibility that you don’t need a God at all for that.”

Well, that is convenient, “Evolution can do that”—period, end, full stop. But, again, if we grant that then we get a mind that can imagine stuff, has intelligibility but from there we can go anywhere such as that such a mind can hold to utter delusion, some sort of Darwinian survival mechanism, and that is a-okay on Atheism—if consistent, that is.

He appealed to the evolution of the gaps and it was biological evolution, in this case. Yet, he also appealed to some sort of cosmic evolution whereby “a mind was just randomly popped into existence” and that is no mere saying but actual theoretical science in terms of a gedankenexperiment known as Boltzmann brain.

Yet, still: he can imagine brains popping into existence in one way or another but still only have “is,” not “ought.” And the key issues were: “there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others adhere to it.”

So, he thinks that he “can,” mind you, “use this above-God’s-level of knowledge to assess other claims” but only premising all of this on God can we get a universal, absolute, objective, extrinsic imperative.

Thus, TJump’s entire debate amounts to a subjectively emotive “My Dear Diary, today I feel…” level entry.

See my various books here.

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.






Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *