bfniii

well, christians claim the entire bible is a success. why are they wrong? what specifically do you feel they are wrong about?



list them for me and i'll be glad to discuss them, as i have been doing all along.



jack listed "special creation". i'm not sure what that phrase means.



well, they are true to christians. what would be proof to you that the flood account actually happened? what would be proof to you that the bible is inerrant?



because the bible isn't meant to be a science manual. the bible doesn't definitively take a position one way or the other because it isn't relevant to it's purpose. an omnipotent God could have made the earth old or young and the bible doesn't, at this time, contradict either. that's why there are YEC's and OEC's. an omnipotent God could have caused the flood and the bible isn't definitive on when or how much. that is why there are multiple theories among christians. the point is, it's not really the most pertinent aspect of the narrative.



who are these people who claim to be christian, but don't believe in the resurrection? could you point me to them?



as i have said all along, if you question a skeptic's beliefs, be prepared to get insulted.

Johnny Skeptic

Not a credible case. Do you call citing a single Wikipedia article by an unknown author a credible case?

That is most certainly not true. You said:

I replied:

So, there is the proof that I did answer your question, and I did so on more than one occasion. I have answered your question, now please tell us what is sufficient proof for you? The Tyre prophecy is an initial, primary assertion. Why do you believe it? Possibly because it is in the Bible and for no other reason? I have asked you before if you believe that the Tyre prophecy can stand on its own merit without being associated with other parts of the Bible, but either you are not aware of my question, or you conveniently chose not to answer it. Please answer the question. Otherwise stated, in your opinion, if the Bible consisted only of the Tyre prophecy, would the prophecy have merit?

Tradition doesn’t have anything to do with it. All religions have traditions, so someone got those ideas from somewhere too.

I never said it was wrong. I have told you on a number of occasions that I am neutral. I have also told you that a lot people are undecided. They are considering becoming Christians, and they haven’t made up their minds yet about the Tyre prophecy and other issues, and some of those people want to know why you hold your position about the Tyre prophecy to be true.

Actually, it is your position that is non-committal and irrelevant. You chief defense is to not provide any credible evidence at all that favors your position and asking skeptics to disprove the prophecy, when it was the Bible that brought up the issue in the first place as an original, primary assertion, which is analogous to a plaintiff’s original, primary assertion in a lawsuit.

I don’t know what things you are talking about, but a guarantee was most certainly not necessary for a lot of people to assume that Nebuchadnezzar would attract Tyre. When George Bush Jr. was elected president, was it a guarantee that he would take the oath of office? Of course it wasn’t. He might have died or been injured before the inauguration. The invasion was a major undertaking, and it would have taken months to plan, and hundreds if not thousands of people would have known about it. Why do you exclude a reasonable possibility that the prophecy was written shortly after the invasion began?

I am not assuming any such thing. How many times must I tell you that my position is neutral, and that your position is not neutral? I do not hold the prophecy to be false, but you hold the prophecy to be true, and it seems that your position is based solely upon faith because the prophecy is in the Bible.

You always try to shift the burden of proof to skeptics, but the point is, the Bible started these debates, so what is YOUR proof that the prophecy is valid?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
The belief that there are actual instances of "supernatural knowledge" or "divine inspiration" in the Bible.

Why are you having such difficulty comprehending this simple issue?
So, there are still none. You say "that's not true at all", but you STILL cannot provide even ONE.

..So why not simply admit that you're stumped?
Garbage. If you're referring to the passage in Josephus, there are good reasons to believe it WAS indeed a Christian interpolation. If you're referring to something else: when has a non-Biblical source EVER corroborated a Biblical account, other than when the Bible is describing something mundane and unremarkable?
I see you're pulling the usual switch. I'm not at all surprised that there are Christian professors at a secular university: I WOULD, however, be surprised if they were Biblical inerrantists (unless, perhaps, they are professors in some totally unrelated field: music or economics, maybe). Most Christians are perfectly aware of the fact that the Bible (especially the Old Testament) contains errors: most Christians don't regard this as a problem for their faith.
I already HAVE researched the issue.

This is about YOUR unfounded assertion: which you refused to debate.
...Because it DOES disprove the Biblical account. There was no worldwide Flood on EITHER of the two Biblical dates (and the older Septuagint genealogies have their own problems).
That is correct. I ALREADY KNOW about the theories regarding events that may have inspired the stories, and I pointed out that THEY DON'T HELP YOU. You have been unable to explain how the Egyptian priests could have made these events happen ON CUE. And you are basing your whole case on a false premise, because the author would have believed that the Egyptian deities EXISTED (Exodus is pre-exilic, written at a time when the Hebrews believed in the existence of many gods: you are ignorant of the historical context of this story).
Yes, and your claim is false for two reasons:

1. The Flood can indeed be dated, from the Biblical genealogies (just pick which set you consider to be "inerrant", bfniii...)

2. There was no such event. Local events which may have inspired the stories are irrelevant here: the event as described in the Bible never happened.
You quoted my answer, and then immediately pretended that I didn't have one.

The problem here is YOUR inability to answer: which this tactic of yours was intended to cover.

...So you don't have an answer. That's all you had to say. I think we all understand this now.
The Koran is at least as "true", at least as "convincing", as the Bible. If you believe otherwise, can you explain why? Of course you can't. You HAVE no reason to be a Christian rather than a Muslim, other than childhood indoctrination. If you had been born in a Muslim country, you'd have exactly the same unquestioning acceptance of Islam, and you'd be expressing the same bafflement about why anyone should be a Christian.
...Where? I see no "problem with the critical view" in post #21 on the Daniel thread.
We are STILL WAITING for you to present an actual "problem with the critical view" on that thread. Until you do, we have nothing to go on!
I have already explained the problem (again). You cannot explain the series of utterly bizarre coincidences in timing: when God creates a miracle, a freakish "natural" coincidence immediately afterwards allows the Egyptian priests to claim an identical miracle, one they couldn't possibly have anticipated (as God was supposedly calling the shots) and therefore couldn't possibly have prepared for. And you're ignoring the historical context of Hebrew polytheism (a subject you appear to be entirely unaware of, and you've shown no desire to educate yourself on it).
As I recall, I tried just about everything to get you to address the issues you were evading on that thread (including repeating the questions verbatim, over and over again) and nothing worked. So, eventually, I gave up: as did several other people who were encountering the same difficulty. I think most of the people reading THIS thread are well aware of what happened on THAT thread: the readers have already decided.
Why can't you simply admit that YOUR claim (the claim we are discussing) was erroneous? You goofed, and EVERYONE knows it (probably including you, that's why you're evading the issue AGAIN).

You are not fooling ANYONE here with this charade.
More evidence of your dishonesty. You feign ignorance of the problems with the traditional view, and then say they've been "countered". If you don't know what they are, how can you know they've been countered?
...Except that it IS without flaws (apparently), because YOU cannot provide us with any.
What part of my statement do you disgree with, and what is the basis of that disagreement?

If it's "debatable", does this mean that YOU will actually DEBATE it?
Good grief, man! You said that you wanted to know where the Biblical verses were that alluded to the Hebrew flat-Earth, domed-sky cosmology. I provided you with information that should help you find them. The SAB is an annotated Bible: a handy resource for finding such verses. But, instead, you're off on another tangent...

Who CARES if "an omnipotent God" could have made things in a different order? The fact of the matter is that he did NOT! The Genesis creation account is FALSE. It is beyond the scope of the SAB to provide a detailed explanation of HOW we know that Genesis is false: for that, you really need to do some RESEARCH, bfniii. You have at least 2 centuries of science to catch up on...
I hope that most of the more clued-up Bible-school children would already be aware that "the Bible is not a science book" (fundie-speak for "the Bible is not accurate"). But this certainly isn't "because the SAB says so".
The OEC's get their ideas from the same place that the round-Earthers get THEIR ideas from: the real world, via an education of some sort. The Bible contradicts OEC beecause it says that the Earth was created in 6 days (duh...). And, yes, I'm well aware of "day-age" apologetics: the Hebrew "yowm" DOES mean "day", but is sometimes used in a figurative sense (just as the English word "day" can be). The notion that this usage applies to Genesis is pure wishful-thinking with no Biblical basis.
What, AGAIN?

How many TIMES do I NEED to point out your total inability to find these mythical "problems with the critical position"?
Still stalling, I see...
Is this the one that's allegedly buried somewhere in a secret location within post #21?

Be more specific. And then we'll see whether it's a problem or not.
Pat Robertson predicts dire consequences in the future. He's a modern Ezekiel. My case is made.
Well, I'm still somewhat stunned that you really don't know what the past tense is, but here goes:

The past tense is a way of describing events that indicates that the event took place in the past. For instance, "I will go for a walk" is in the future tense: it's something I haven't done yet (at the time of writing). Whereas "I went for a walk" is in the past tense: it describes something I've already done.

In Ezekiel 29, the aftermath of the siege of Tyre is described in the past tense:
Now, if you want this "in the original Hebrew", is it your position that every English translation is in error here? Do YOU read Hebrew? If not: are you saying that every Bible you've ever read is wrong?
I was referring to Ezekiel's OTHER failed prophecy: that Nebby would conquer Egypt. This never happened.
This is the thread your religion hangs on? The prophecy might have been common knowledge? Maybe it was written before the event?

Yes, and maybe it was written AFTER the event. Nebby's failure is the only indication I've ever seen which implies that it WAS written before the event: before Ezekiel knew that Nebby would fail.
I still don't see what is so difficult to understand here. There are some Christians who claim that the Bible is "inerrant": that it contains "supernatural knowledge": that it is "divinely inspired". If this were so, I'd expect them to be eager to demonstrate this: to present their case and say "...HA! Explain THAT, unbeliever!". And, indeed, some have attempted this. Yet, from you, there's what looks like an embarrassed silence.
Well, as we're still discussing YOUR beliefs here: why do you think it's a "bizarre request" for someone to ask that you support your beliefs?

Julian

[MOD]
Okay, I understand that this is a heated discussion and that's fine, but keep a civil tongue. Sniping and ad hominems are not permissible. Not to mention the extreme tedium it is for me to edit long posts such as these.

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

Johnny Skeptic

I agree with you, Julian. Arguments should be politely stated so as not to divert attention away to useless personal attacks. As I asked bfniii in my previous post, in his opinion, can the Tyre prophecy stand on its own merit without associating it with other prophecies that he believes are easier to defend? If so, I would like to know why. If not, then I would like to know which prophecies bfniii believes are easier to defend. It is my position that typical of fundamentalist Christians, bfniii is trying to pass faith off as apologetics. Christians must admit that the important claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind are completely non-verifiable by any means other than by faith. Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then? The texts say that the Pharisees acknowledged that Jesus had supernatural powers, but that his powers came from Beelzebub. Today, both sides "do not" acknowledge that God has supernatural powers, so the evidence that we have today is not nearly as convincing as it supposedly was back then, including the lack of hundreds of supposed eyewitnesses.

In spite of the fact that the Bible contains lots of original, primary assertions from cover to cover, bfniii's favorite argument is "why is the Bible wrong"? instead of trying to tell us why it is right. It is not up to skeptics to disprove the Bible. Can bfniii disprove that some Roman Catholics girls saw a vision of the Virgin Mary at Fatima, Italy? Well of course he can't. Do skeptics need to disprove the claim in the Old Testament that a donkey talked? Well of course they don't.

I request that bfniii reply to my post #362.

Julian, please try not to close down this thread. Bfniii is in trouble and he knows it.

mata leao

what utter lunacy! atheists cant disprove the supernatural any more than they can show how first matter was created and how matter, being mindless, decided to create more matter and organize it, or how human beings have consciousness of guilt,shame,and an almost universal belief in an afterlife and almost universal belief in the supernatural. Ultimately no one has any burden of proof when it comes to a decision which must necessarily be both persoanl and sincere. bfnii is absolutely correct! this thread is why American atheists are barely holding on at about 4% of the population!

John A. Broussard

Let's see. Is there an ad populum hiding here? You sure seem to enjoy using that fallacious argument over and over again.

Let's make it an absolutely total belief in an afterlife, does that make the afterlife real?

Let's make it an absolutely universal believe in the supernatural, does that make the supernatural real?

I'm sure you believe in both of the above, which probably explains why you get so angry at any challenge of your irrational thinking.

Julian

Not only does your post have more factual errors than I care to count, it is also off topic. Any post in this thread should relate to the Tyre prophecy and the ongoing discussion, please stay on topic.

Julian

bfniii

we've already discussed this. somebody got the idea that ezekiel was a prophet and this was a prophecy. you haven't answered the question as to why those people were wrong.



you didn't answer the question. i am asking you to support your statement that it was inevitable that he would attack tyre. otherwise, your position is non-committal and you aren't really relevant.



the fact that he did.



you don't even understand your own sources. the part of tyre that successfully withstood a prolonged siege is the nation of tyre, not the mainland.



this one also undermines your case. the residents abandoned the mainland. if that's the case, how could you think nebuchadnezzar did anything but destroy it after it was vacated?



good grief, i use wikipedia one time to refer to another source, and you make it out like i never refer to anything else.



no more references are necessary. none of these support your case. in fact, if they do anything they support the fact that what most people believe about the siege is probably true; nebuchadnezzar eventually destroyed the mainland city, apparently deported the royalty from there and attacked the island. after realizing the island wasn't worth the effort, he settled for tyre becoming a fealty.



you keep telling yourself that. btw, that's an assertive statement.



because, there isn't a reason so far to become neutral on the issue. can you provide a reason to disbelieve the traditional position other than your non-committal speculations?



christians don't accept those things on faith alone.



as i have said over and over, so what?



it was the same back then, what difference does it make?



you are thoroughly confused. medicine does not purport to be able to detect miraculous healings. furthermore, christians don't assume that on faith alone.



what does this have to do with anything? what does this have to do with tyre?



wrong.



you can't prove that. it's called speculation. if you want to convince me of your beliefs, you're going to have to do better than unsupported speculation.



that doesn't guarantee that ezekiel would have known about it.



as i have said all along, that depends on what you mean by prove.



that's not entirely true (regarding God creating the universe, not the planet magic trick).



that's a far cry from creating the universe.



and your point is?



it is definitely important.



i'm preoccupied with your repetitions in this thread.



ugh. just because you prepend "personal experiences" with "tangible" doesn't make your point any less untrue. besides, my points in that thread weren't just about miraculous healings. do you get a kick out of misrepresenting my posts?



i have asked you this question before; why stop at a lost appendage? why not rid humans of all pain? why is your level of amelioration the only right one?



you seem to imply that God enjoys or is impartial to our suffering.

do you ever notice how repetitious your posts are? we've gone over that subject multiple times. once i provide an explanation, you repeat your question. is there a reason why you do that?



we've already covered how God can take pain and suffering and use it for ultimate good.



the bible claims that certain signs will preceed His return. i guess that's one way.



because i'm not convinced by the objections. obviously you aren't either because of your non-committal position.



daniel


you are incorrect. these are statements that i have countered multiple times.

bfniii

so what?



so what?



the tyre prophecy is fine on it's own.



different for every person, impossible to state in one sentence.



i did? where was that?



i'm sure there were people who thought hitler, stalin and mussolini were loving.



by what moral standard are they moral?



you are absolutely unable to quantify this statement. the mere fact that you make it illuminates bias.