Johnny Skeptic

I will be happy for you to quote me again. I did not say that the propehcy was written after the events. All that I said is that I was suspicious. Regardless, even if I did say that the prophecy was written after the events, my current position is that it is plausible that the prophecy was written before the events, and that it is equally plausible that is was written after the events. In addition, my position is that it is plausible that the prophecy was not altered later, and that it is equally plausible that is was altered later. How could I possibly know that the prophecy was written after the events, or that it was altered later? I WASN'T THERE, AND NEITHER WERE YOU?

What is adequate proof for you other than "the Bible says so"? Adequate proof for me would be if a sizeable majority of historians dated the prophecy before the events, and/or if God showed up and made an accurate prediction regarding a prediction of my choosing. Obviously, the latter would be best.

That is not a different discussion. Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

The texts say "If any man shall add unto these things." "These things" has to mean Scripture. Roman Catholics have added to "these things," meaning added to Scripture. Thomas Jefferson tore pages out of his Bible that he didn't like. Martin Luther said that the book of Revelation didn't belong in the Bible. Surely you don't believe that it has ever been difficult for a skeptic to tear some pages out of a Bible, go to a remote jungle region, and pass it off as the original.

Is it your position that Revelation 22:18-19 do not warn against tampering with the texts? If so, I can quote at least one Bible commentary that says that the verses warn against tampering with the texts. William MacDonald uses the word "tampering" in his 'Believer's Bible Commentary,' and he says that the verses warn against tampering. What does tampering mean to you?

Johnny Skeptic

Surely you must know that you and I will probably never convince either other of anything. The same goes for political elections. Committed and dedicated longtime Democrats and Republicans seldom change their minds. It is essentially the undecided crowd that both sides are trying to influence. The undecided crowd decided the last two presidential elections, especially two elections ago. Aside from the issue of the Resurrection, the undecided crowd are uncertain what Jesus did, so you most certainly cannot tell them to read the Bible and tell you what they disagree with. As far as what I disagree with, it is my position that it is equally plausible that Jesus healed people and that he did not heal people. What is your position?

[quote=JS] I will be happy for you to quote me again. I did not say that the prophecy was written after the events. All that I said is that I was suspicious. Regardless, even if I did say that the prophecy was written after the events, my current position is that it is equally plausible that the prophecy was written before the events, and that is was written after the events. In addition, my position is that it is equally plausible that the prophecy was not altered later, and that it was altered later. How could I possibly know that the prophecy was written after the events, or that it was altered later? I WASN'T THERE, AND NEITHER WERE YOU?

What would be adequate proof for you that it was divinely inspired? Let’s get something straight, do you or do you not believe that the prophecy was divinely inspired? Adequate proof for me would be if God showed up and made an accurate prediction regarding a prediction of my choosing. My current position is that it is equally plausible that the prophecy was divinely inspired and that is was not divinely inspired. What is your position?

Yes.

[quote=JS] That is not a different discussion. Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

The texts say "If any man shall add unto these things……." "These things" has to mean Scripture. Roman Catholics have added to "these things," meaning they have added to Scripture. Thomas Jefferson tore pages out of his Bible that he didn't like. Martin Luther said that the book of Revelation didn't belong in the Bible. Surely you don't believe that it has ever been difficult for a skeptic to tear some pages out of a Bible, go to a remote jungle region, and pass it off as the original.

Is it your position that Revelation 22:18-19 do not warn against tampering with the texts? If so, I can quote at least one Bible commentary that says that the verses warn against tampering with the texts. William MacDonald uses the word "tampering" in his 'Believer's Bible Commentary.’ He says that the verses warn against tampering. What does tampering mean to you?

Your favorite tactic is to answer a question or reply to an argument with a question so that you won’t have to make any assertions or defend anything, but the Bible is full of original primary assertions from cover to cover. The very first verse in the Bible is an original, primary assertion, analogous to a plaintiff’s original, primary assertion in a lawsuit. It says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.� The writer asserted that the God of the Bible created the heaven and the earth. My position is that it is equally plausible that the God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth, and that he did not create the heavens and the earth. What is your position?

bfniii

i have already told you i have no choice but to respect the ability to choose that we have been given. if that is the choice that a person makes, i will respect that. those are the consequences to that choice. it would be an injustice to do otherwise.



now you're talking about social laws. people should respect whatever laws are decided upon by the society. did the society decide that that punishment was equivalent to the crime?



whatever, mr. contradiction.



me choose? i'm asking you. why do you use the word "rule" and is it accurate to state that it is the only word that is applicable?



His choosing? WE choose our destination.



no it's not.



what do you mean by "evidence"? some people believe there is. why are they wrong?



that's the whole point of the ontological argument



not according to the ontological argument.



you didn't answer the question



i did? perhaps you could quote where i made that claim.



not really. where does the "eternal comfort" originate?



this is so pointless. YOU used the word, i asked you why you chose that word. if you're going to use the word, at least be prepared to explain why you chose it.



you haven't given me a reason to think otherwise. i wish i had a nickle for every time i had to repeat a previously posted statement to you because you asked the question repeatedly.



the point i was trying to make is that the bible claims that Jesus (i assume that's who you're referring to) was resurrected AND was good. if that's the case, is it necessary to draw a correlation? if so, why? the resurrection is a function of supernatural existence. goodness is a trait. there doesn't seem to be a need to draw such a correlation.



that's a fine question. let's list the reasons why we shouldn't.



why do you ask about it? what would it prove either way?



why would it be best? how would you know it was first hand?



same question



no, that's not what you asked for. you asked for contemporary evidence. why do you need parlor tricks at this time?



this doesn't answer the question i asked.



christians claim we get it.



all over the place. check out a book on miracles. we've been through all of this.



do you just cut and paste because you can't think of anything else to type?

so what? what does that prove? prove that there is even one case of an unusual healing where prayer wasn't involved.



i have asked you this question before; who are these people who are "in greatest need"?



i would love to see you prove this statement.



.... none what you type because the premises are flawed.



what part or aspect are you asking me to defend?



this doesn't address the fact that you were asking for proof today.

the real question is why you think the types of miracles we have today should necessarily be the same as they were back then. what do you base such an assumption on?



no, it is not at all and you have completely missed the point i was making. you are asking for restoration of lost limbs. i am asking you what you are basing your believability scale on. why stop there? why is that enough?



no it would not. how could you prove that it was something supernatural as opposed to some biological function? there certainly is precedent for that type of regeneration.



no, i'm saying that you haven't shown what you are basing your believability-through-healing scale on.



are extra-biblical examples necessary? what would that prove?



yes, i am serious. God heals lots of people and skeptics still reject Him. just ask them. they will be all too glad to tell you about it.



how do you know what my standards are?



what do you mean by "moral"?



first, He doesn't demand it. He gave us a choice. second, a just God would not create a system of salvation by merit because of it's flaws. i, as usual, have already addressed all that but i get the feeling you are about to ask me to repeat it. go ahead and ask. i will repeat it.



it has already been explained in the bible. i get the feeling you're about to ask me where.



what in the world do scholastic scholarships have to do with eternal salvation?



are you familiar with the ontological proof? if not, would you mind studying it?

bfniii

good advice.

yes, it actually is relevant because if you haven't heard of it, you should do a more thorough study of the issue.



no, it doesn't assume that. it points out that your knowledge of the issue is lacking.



so you can't go out and find it. that's all you had to say.



wait, you are unfamiliar with the extent of both sides of the debate and have even admitted such. how does that make me the one playing a game?



and who is "we"? all i have to do is point to the other threads i have been in to show precedent that i respond to points directed at me.



i get it. i just want to savor the fact that you are either unfamiliar with both sides of the debate (and see how long your stubborn attitude keeps you that way) or you are incapable of doing a more thorough study of the issue.



just making sure i drive home the point that you are unaware of it.



no, they are not. specifically, which instrument(s) are indicative of late authorship?



no, you don't have to show anything. but since you can't make your case the greek culture wasn't there, you are irrelevant.



you sure have asked me to do that. remember you asking me to show there couldn't have been tampering of the text? it suited your purpose then.



1. you refused to show evidence of "tampering" when i pointed out it was a claim made by you and you're flawed sense of burden insists that you do so.
2. tampering of one text does not necessitate tampering in another; remember the appeal to probability?

therefore, you have not exonerated yourself from hypocrisy.



so you can't make your case. that's all you had to say.



they would? perhaps you could persuade some of these people to participate.



no, i didn't imply that. what i said was that if your responses don't address both sides of the debate, then what good are they? that is called bias because you are deliberately ignoring pertinent, opposing information.



when you fail to comprehend what i post, then i can understand why you would make such a spurious accusation such as this. if you spot any editing that you think affects the meaning, then bring it up. i'll be glad to clarify it for you.



you're missing the point. the idea i presented is in response to critcism of the text.

besides, whether or not i represent both sides is irrelevant to the fact that you still did not. defending yourself by attacking someone else does not exonerate you from the charge.



wait, i'm not the one who claimed the instruments were evidence of late authorship. therefore, based on your skewed sense of burden, you should have to support that claim by at least showing there couldn't have been greek culture in the region at that time.



and here's the claim i was just speaking of. this is humorous. you tried to make me out to be a claimant and here you reaffirm your claim.



pick any post, sauron. obviously, i feel like i responded to any point directed at me in every post i make.

i don't expect you to actually point out anything specific. i expect you to keep making these generalities.

Johnny Skeptic

But something must have attracted you to the Bible. What was it? My position is that it is equally plausible that the Bible is trustworthy and that it is not trustworthy. In other words, I cannot give you any reasons to reject the Bible, but neither can I give you any reasons to accept the Bible. What is your position? Surely you have attempted on a good number of occasions during your life to try to convince non-believers to become Christians. What do you tell them? Non-believers want to know what you find to be attractive about Christianity. They are the crowd that you have the best chance to influence, most certainly not a committed and dedicated skeptic like me. Surely you don't expect to convince me of anything. I most certainly do not expect to convince you of anything. I am mainly trying to influence the undecided crowd, not committed Christians like you. The undecided crowd want to know what you find to be attractive about the Bible. It would not be appropriate for you to tell them "You haven't given me a reason to think otherwise."

Johnny Skeptic

But something must have attracted you to the Bible. What was it? My position is that it is equally plausible that the Bible is trustworthy and that it is not trustworthy. In other words, I cannot give you any reasons to reject the Bible, but neither can I give you any reasons to accept the Bible. What is your position? Surely you have attempted on a good number of occasions during your life to try to convince non-believers to become Christians. What do you tell them? Non-believers want to know what you find to be attractive about Christianity. They are the crowd that you have the best chance to influence, most certainly not a committed and dedicated skeptic like me. Surely you don't expect to convince me of anything. I most certainly do not expect to convince you of anything. I am mainly trying to influence the undecided crowd, not committed Christians like you. The undecided crowd want to know what you find to be attractive about the Bible. It would not be appropriate for you to tell them "You haven't given me a reason to think otherwise."

Regarding "People should respect whatever laws are decided upon by the society," do you mean "People should APPROVE of whatever laws are decided upon by the society"? Surely you would not approve of a law that required that all professing Christians be put to death.

The point is, what gives God the right to decide what is right and what is wrong, and to decide how to punish people who reject him? In other words, what automatically makes everything that God says and does right?

What evidence do you have that there is such a destination? You can correctly say that murderers choose their destination because everybody knows that prisons exist, but nobody knows that hell exists.

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] There is no evidence that God has ever appeared in person and promised believers a comfortable eternal life. Why is he so bashful?

Regarding "Some people believe there is," based upon what evidence? Do you know of anyone who has discussed this matter with God in person? My position is that it is equally plausible that God has made such a promise and that he has not made such a promise. What is your position?

Humans are imperfect, and imperfection cannot judge perfection. How do you define the word "perfection" as it applies to God, and as the Bible writers intended it to be understood?

If you are a Christian, the claim is implied.

Oh yes, really. If you had cancer, would be care who provided you with a cure? Of course you wouldn't. Eternal comfort is the prize that you want. Who gives it to you is completely irrelevant.

From your perspective, from the Bible. Revelation 21:4 says "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

There definitely is a need for such a correlation. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead and said that he died for the sins of mankind, would you worship him based solely upon that evidence? Of course you wouldn't. Power does not automatically connote goodness. The Devil's powers are a function of supernatural existence, and you most certainly do not worhip him. You argument is utter nonsense.

And let's list the reasons why we should too, right? My position is that it is equally plausible that the texts are trustworthy and that they are not trustworthy. What is your position?

What would it prove if you asked the followers of some other religions for corroboration from sources outside of their own religious books and followers? In your opinion, it would prove that their claims are not valid, but for reasons that you refuse to state, you take the Bible at face value, but have rejected all other religions.

Why don't you ask Gary Habermans, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and N.T. Wright? They and virtually every other fundamentalist Christian scholar place great emphasis upon what they believe to be firsthand testimony. In 'Scaling the Secular City,' J.P. Moreland says that without the 500 eyewitnesses, Christianity would have been much less attractive. I can quote a number of Christian scholars if necessary.

So are you saying that supposedly firsthand testimony doesn't make any difference to you? If so, that makes you the first fundamentalist Christian that I have ever known about who makes such a claim. Most importantly, why should non-Christians place any importance upon supposedly eyewitnesses testimony? Isn't the ministry of the Holy Spirit enough? Would you care to defend the New Testament without mentioning miracles or eyewitnesses? I doubt it, but yet I am quite certain that you will not defend the issues of miracles and eyewitnesses. Heck, you seldom if ever defend anything at all. You mostly ask skeptics to defend their positions, but you do not play fair because you usually refuse to even state what you believe and why you believe it. You have no right to ask skeptics to state and defend their positions unless you are willing to do the same.

Let's keep it simple. Since you said that evidence is all over the place, just pick one example and let's discuss it. You asserted that there is evidence, but I did not assert that there is not evidence. You made an assertion, so it is up to you to back up your assertion. How about an example in your own life?

I don't have to. I didn't claim that prayer was not involved, but is it not your position that prayer was involved? I am willing to say that we do not know beyond a reasonable doubt one way or the other. How about you?

For example, people who do not have enough food to eat, people who have serious cases of multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy, and people who are quadriplegics? Decades ago, I read where 10,000 people in the world died of hunger every day, and half of the world went to bed hungry. I am well aware what you are up to with your trickery and deceptions. You are going to ask me to make up a list of all of the greatest needs and separate them from the lesser needs. Anyone who is a quadriplegic is in great need. The late Vincent Humbert was quadriplegic, blind, and mute. He was in great need, was he not? Whenever you mention generalities, I will always go back to specifics.

I would love to see you prove otherwise. You demand consistency before you will trust humans, but you do not demand consistency from God. Why is that?

What are you basing your believability scale on? Every human has his own standards for what he considers to be sufficient evidence. There are three main issues here, God's existence, his power, and his goodness. Regarding his existance, he can show up any time and claim that he is God, but that wouldn't necessarily prove that he is the God of the Bible. Regarding his power, sufficient evidence for me would be if he appeared in fronts of millions of people in New York city and performed any miracle that people asked him to perform. Regarding his goodness, I would ask him to explain why he allows natural disasters, and why he does not approve of salvation by merit. I want to know someone quite well before I would worship them, but obviously you do not.

Ok, how about if God showed up in person and instantly healed all of the people in the world and instantly restored all lost limbs? Is there a precedent for that?

I have already told you that. What do you base your believability-through-healing scale on? You frequently ask questions, but you seldom answer them. Why is that?

They are to millions of Christians, including you, that is unless you do not believe that God heals people today. Lee Merrill says that personal experience is an important part of his belief system. Does that include you? I don't expect you to answer my question, except to answer my question with a question.

Well, well, you finally slipped up and made an assertion. You asserted that God heals people. Upon what evidence do you base that assertion? Are you saying that I would reject an alien being who showed up and healed all of the sick people in the world? Your arguments are utter nonsense. Healing people is a good thing no matter who does it.

He most certainly does. He refuses to grant salvation any other way.

Upon what evidence do you base this assertion. What evidence is there that the Bible writers were speaking for God and not for themselves? My main point is that before I could trust God, I would need for him to state why he won't accept salvation by merit, and I would need for him to explain to my satisfaction some of his actions and allowances. I do not appreciate any self-proclaimed judge of the universe who is never available for tangible, personal consultations.

You cannot credibly speak for God on this issue. He needs to address this issue himself, in person.

Please quote your Scripture reference, and please tell me why I should believe that the explanation came from God and was not the writer's own opinion.

I have posted the following before, and you replied to it, but we need to discuss it in much greater detail than we did:

“From Christians' point of view, if they became skeptics and it eventually turns out that the Bible is true, they will spend eternity in hell. On the other hand, from skeptics' point of view, if they became Christians and it eventually turns out that they will become dust in the ground, they will be no worse off than before they became Christians. Therefore, skeptics are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads completely free of coercive influences.� This is one of my best arguments, and it is irrefutable.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, it is my current position that it is equally plausible that the prophecy was written before the events, and that it was written after the events. The same goes for the issuea of later revisions and whether or not the prophecy was divinely inspired? I have stated my positions, so now you need to state your positions. Knowing you, I do not expect you to answer the following questions, but I will ask them anyway just in case you will answer them: Do you believe that the Tyre prophecy was divinely inspired? Do you believe that prophecy is a good witnessing tool for Christians to use for proselytizing Christians?

Sauron

Pity you never seem to take the advice and back up your claims, though.

1. It is not relevant, because you are the one with the claim to prove here - not I.

2. I have already studied the issue, and you have not shown any gaps in my information. If you think gaps exist, then demonstrate that with citations, not handwaves and assertions.

I'm afraid it does assume that. Your statement that I don't have all the information assumes that there is some body of information out there which I'm overlooking. You haven't proven that such a body of information exists in the first place. Your follow-up assertion above suffers from the same logical fallacy: it assumes your conclusion about my state of knowledge, but you haven't proven any holes in my data yet.

I don't *have* to go out and find it - it is your assertion, and it's your job to provide the link. Assuming that you ever provided such data in the first place - and given your penchant for evasion and handwaves, that's highly unlikely.

You are lying again; what a splendid kind of christianity you must practice; "lying for Jesus". I have not admitted anything about the extent of data for both sides. What I said is that you haven't proven any early Greek influence.

I've also said that -- contrary to your attempt to create a distraction -- it is not my job to provide both sides of the debate, since (a) you have already taken one side, and (b) you hypocritically failed to provide both sides yourself.


Everyone on this thread.

Actually the other threads all contain the same kind of evasions and re-directions that your current responses show. It's kind of a big circular wagon train, where all your threads point to all your other threads -- yet none of them actually get down to business and answer the damn question.

And when people point-blank ask you to point directly and specifically to the exact posts where you allegedly supplied the requested information, what happens? You simply will not do it. Oh yes, poptart -- you are clearly playing games.


1. I am familiar with both sides, and you have not shown any gaps in my knowledge so far. If you think such gaps exist, then present them.

2. It is not my job to provide both sides of the debate, since (a) you have already taken one side, and (b) you failed to provide both sides yourself.

My study has been quite thorough, and you have yet to show any gaps in my knowledge.

You haven't shown that claim, either.

Good question. Since you were the first one to claim that instruments showed early authorship, go ahead and list your instruments here. Then when you're done with that, maybe you'll stop backpedaling and admit your mistake about reversing the chronological relationship between the instruments and the dating of the text.

I don't have to prove that greek culture wasn't there; you need to prove that it *was* there. This is stil your claim to prove, not the audience's job to shoot it down.

I did not ask you to prove a negative; the fact that you mis-classified this requirement is just more evidence that you do not understand logic or how the scientific process or biblical criticism works. It is not proving a negative, as I clearly pointed out to you in that exchange.

What you need to do with Ezekiel is lay all the evidence out on the table, inspect each piece one at a time, and see if any of it suggests textual tampering. That is not proving a negative. If none of it does, then at the end of the analysis you will be able to say "there does not appear to be any evidence for tampering of the texts."

And let's remember: you have this specific burden of proof precisely because you are the one with the affirmative claim for Ezekiel. I have stated no claims with regard to Greek culture, so I have no burden of proof.

You were wrong; it was not a claim that I made. I pointed out that other texts showed tampering, so that if you wanted us to believe in the integrity of the Ezekiel text you would have to clear that text of any suspicion of tampering. I have no idea how your research will turn out; I don't know if Ezekiel is tampered with, or not. But before you will be allowed to simply assume the integrity of the text, you will need to prove it.

I remember that it does not apply here, and that you got the definition of "appeal to probability" wrong. Remember the water sample analogy? If 3 out of 10 samples are tainted, it means you have to test the remaining samples as well?

I was never a hypocrite, and your desperate assertions do not make it so.

Childish baiting does not work with me, child. In the exchange above, you first edited my response to make it say something it did not. Then you tried to handwave away your mistake in assuming a burden of proof on me, to present both sides of the argument. Your new one-liner followup statement above continues in your proud tradition, I see.

Some of them started to participate - noah, cajela, Sparrow, Amaleq13, etc. -- but gave up when they saw that you had no intention of directly addressing any question, or supporting any claim.

Yes, you did. You are now backpedaling away from that and creating a new question. but the original context of your first comment most certainly did imply that.

1.That is what you said afterwards. But what you originally did was edit my post to remove the context of my comments and the supporting structure of my response.

2. As to your new question: already asked and answered. It is not my job to provide both sides of the debate, since (a) you have already taken one side, and (b) you hypocritically failed to provide both sides yourself.

Oh, please. How laughable. In a court case, do you really expect the prosecution to also argue the defense's side for it? Especially when the defense counsel is sitting in the same courtroom (as you are) and has already taken up the case (as you have done)? It is most certainly not bias, because:

1. the other side is already represented by yourself; and

2. you have not shown that I am lacking any information -- indeed if I were, then it would be your job to present that missing data anyhow, since you are the one taking the pro-early authorship position in the debate anyhow.

I fully understand what you post; that has never been the problem.

You most certainly did edit my post, to make it say something I did not intend, removing the context of the comments.

I already did, above. Predictably, you denied doing it.

I am not missing the point at all. You admit to taking the pro-early authorship position, yet for some reason you still think I ought to present both sides. Why in the world would I do that, seeing as you have just admitted to arguing the opposite position?

I might say the same thing to you - regardless of whether or not I should have presented both sides, how come you failed to do so? :rolling:

No, my dear, pathetic poptart -- it is not irrelevant, because:

1. I don't *have* to present both sides - it is not and has never been my job to do that. So all you are doing is pointing out that I failed to accept a task that was never mine in the first place - hardly a win for your position;

2. Pointing out that you failed to follow your own standards of conduct is very relevant, because it goes to the question of your intellectual integrity and debate professionalism -- you apparently have none.

The charge is baseless, since there is no burden on me to present both sides in the first place. The charge is furthermore hypocritical, since if you really believed that a debater must present both sides then you should have followed that same rule of behavior yourself.

No, you claimed they were evidence of EARLY authorship. When do you plan to prove that?


Incorrect as usual. I did not say that I was personally making such a claim. What I said is that you had reversed the normal way that Greek instruments are used as evidence in discussing the dating of Daniel. Mine was a comment about the ordinary flow of biblical criticism and discussion; it is not a claim about the specific dating.

Here; since you're prone to deliberately miss points, let me explain it in a way that will remove all your escape hatches and fig leaves. If I say that christians usually interpret Genesis 3:15 as messianic prophecy, that does not mean that I am making the argument that this verse is actually a messianic prophecy. I'm merely commenting on the usual behavior of christians; I am not standing up for (or defending) their position with regards to this verse.

Side note - my, you will do damn near anything to avoid admitting that you reversed the relationship between Greek instruments and the date of authorship for Daniel, won't you?

And finally, regardless of how one characterizes my comment above, your claim sequentially occurred first. Therefore, you still retain first burden of proof. Until you prove your claim, you are not in a position to demand anything from others.

Yes but as we saw, your posts are one big Ponzi scheme - they refer to other posts you made, but never actually answer the damn question.

Of course, you can embarrass me here in front of all these skeptics merely by providing a link to your post where you give evidence for early Greek influence WRT the authorship of Daniel, and the relationship to Greek instruments.

I'm waiting for your post that shows early Greek influence WRT the authorship of Daniel, and the relationship to Greek instruments. If such a post actually exists, then feel free to point it out.

But I won't hold my breath.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: It is important to note that the texts say that "both sides" acknowledeged that Jesus had supernatural powers. Matthew 12:24 says "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Today, both sides "do not" acknowledge that God has supernatural powers. Therefore, we do not have nearly the "evidence" today that people with "varying" world views supposedly had back then. Jesus supposedly was not afraid to show "both sides" that he had supernatural powers. Why the difference now? God needs to explain himself. I might accept his explanation, but then again, I might not. Skeptics deserve various explanations BEFORE they accept God, not AFTER.

One of my best arguments against God is that he is not consistent in accordance with human understanding. Since I am a human, human understanding is all that I have to work with. Do you have some other kind of understanding that you use? Please remember to reply to my previous post.

bfniii

"they" aren't here. i am here. i am asking you why "they" are wrong.



i am not trying to convince you. i am asking you to convince me why you are skeptical. i want to hear your reasons why the prophecy is false.



this is part and parcel of how confused you are regarding why we are even in this forum.



no they are not. they are not here right now.



you call them feebleminded without acknowledging that some christians are brilliant. you call them idiots without being able to show that all christians are ignorant of objections to their beliefs. do you realize that some christians are thoroughly versed in objections to christianity but remain convinced that christianity is true? they are unconvinced by the very same objections that convince you. why do you feel so threatened by chistianity/christians that you have to stoop down to these personal insults?



bizzare claim indeed. to quote you, "I have asked you to present your criteria for success in this debate." if i present my criteria for success, i would be completely justified in dismissing whatever rebuttals you provide because i just met my own criteria. i want to know what is YOUR criteria for success. the way for us to know that is to discuss your criticisms of the bible, specifically the tyre prophecy, as the title of the forum and thread suggests.



your claim that they are watered down is meaningless because you won't present your case as to why they are wrong. until you do, it remains that the tyre prophecy might withstand your rebuttals. until you provide them, no one can know.



that's not what this thread, nor this forum is about. what you are asking for is almost the equivalent to being evangelized and that's not what i am here to do. this is not the appropriate forum for that.


this coming from someone who routinely insults people.



exactly my point! johnny skeptic gets it. this is a forum about biblical criticism. he presented a critique and we discussed it. you don't seem to be capable of following the etiquette of the forum/thread



not in this forum, in this thread. i know you would like for it to be that way, but it's not. the title of this forum/thread isn't "christian claims and why they think they are true".
other skeptics feel perfectly fine offering their critique right up front in the first post of the thread. this makes you appear like you are hiding behind your burden misunderstanding.



that's not what you showed and that is exactly what you've been asking. your example above is exactly the same thing: bible is true, here is why i think it's true, i'm evangelizing you. that's not what the title of the thread is. the title is (biblical criticism) tyre prophecy invalidation. that means: skeptic criticizes tyre prophecy, discuss. that's exactly what johnny skeptic did (and jack the bodiless in the other thread) in the first post. there was no need for any argument framing prior to that.



no you haven't. what you have stated is that you won't state your beliefs until after i provide unfalsifiable information



not yet, it's not. it might become that way, as in the other threads.



not in a forum of this type and certainly not in a thread where the title is quite specific



this is not a court of law. a discussion of this type is not necessarily restricted by those rules of proceeding.



it's not shifting the burden. this is a point of your misunderstanding. i am merely asking you what would be proof to you. that's all. i'm not asking you to prove anything. i'm asking you (a very simple question) what would be convincing to you. THEN burden of proof starts, but not until.

btw, why won't you let the burden get shifted to you? are you incapable of shouldering such a load? if you answer no (regardless of your rationalization), then are scared because i can cite plenty of other skeptics who feel their case is so ineluctable that they feel no need to play the "burden games" you play. if you answer yes, then you should go do more research until you are capable.



you parroted a vague and unspecific charge. no, you still haven't provided any specifics despite me asking for them.



whatever. when you bring some specifics, then we'll see. or go post in those other threads and point out specifics there, i don't care which. but until you do one or the other, your charge is as vacuous as the one made by sparrow. just because he types it, or one of his sycophants recites it, doesn't make it true. it would require a specific refutation of points i have made, which hasn't happened. if you think it has, why don't you bring one up? why do you keep grandstanding with these vague assertions?



so you have no specific response. that's all you had to say.



fine. i'll repeat what i started in post #27
the title of the thread is "a simple invalidation of the tyre prophecy". what reasons does sauron have for thinking the tyre prophecy is unfulfilled or unverifiable or just plain dumb? if sauron has no criticism to make, he should move out of the way so that johnny skeptic can have his points responded to, unimpeded.



i'm sure not hiding behind this when i respond to johnny skeptic's points so your accusation is patently false.



i point to johnny skeptic and the title of the thread once again. he started with a point. why are you unable to do so?



no, it's not. once again: skeptic criticizes passage, apologist defends, skeptic counters, etc. that's what is happening between johnny skeptic and myself, jack the bodiless and myself in the other thread, etc....

christians believe the tyre prophecy is true. why are they wrong? if you don't have an answer, kindly step aside so that i can dialogue with johnny skeptic unencumbered. he seems genuinely interested in actually discussing points about biblical criticism.



that's not what i said. what i said was it would be a waste here in this forum.



still no specifics.



i sure hope i haven't done that. do you know of any examples where you think i did. i would like to clear them up.



irrelevant to you, but relevant to the forum/thread. now the question is, since you can't seem to follow the etiquette, why are you here or why should anyone give you any notice? you have no point to make.



good suggestion. i had already done that prior to the start of this thread.



*turning around to find the other prophecy advocates apparently behind me*



i was unaware that i was "scared to death". i have asked johnny to contact whomever he wishes and bring their responses back so that we can discuss them. i don't know which "prophecy advocates" you are referring to.

you said i didn't know what i was talking about but this responses doesn't address the point that i made which was that i have named two skeptics who followed the etiquette of the forum/thread but you appear to not be capable of doing such.



this point is not entirely correct. johnny's inaugural post does not necessarily rest on earlier claims. it refers to the dating of the prophecy, period. however, that is somewhat irrelevant because he still started the thread about biblical criticism with a point, which you appear incapable of doing.



could you please cite an example of where i failed to answer a post of his?



that is not true. he and i are discussing those very conditions. perhaps you could quote an example of what you are referring to.



i sure wasn't aware i was ever cornered. where did this happen?



all of them. pick any one you like.



in this very thread, post #85, i cited brittanica. all i needed was one example to prove you wrong.



i have searched through the thread and i can't find where you showed any such thing. could you point me to it?



yes there was. perhaps you missed it. i outlined it above.



no, it wasn't.



the title of the thread is "a simple invalidation of the tyre prophecy". what reasons does sauron have for thinking the tyre prophecy is unfulfilled or unverifiable or just plain dumb? if sauron has no criticism to make, he should move out of the way so that johnny skeptic can have his points responded to, uninterrupted.



no, i am not and no, that's not what the quote says as i outlined in my response.



since you provided no specifics as to this particular subject, you have no grounds on which to agree with the impotent charge made by sparrow. second, if you think i made a post which says what you claim, please point it out so that i can clarify.



funny, you never showed it was bogus



since you didn't refute my statement, i don't see how this response has any validity. perhaps you could quote where you did.



no, you can't. if i told you 2+2=4, you wouldn't know whether i was telling you the truth or not unless you understood all of the numbers in the number system. otherwise, 4 has no meaning to you. you have to know particulars before the generalities make any sense to you. you are in effect saying that you don't have to know numbers to know that 2+2=5 is false, which is ridiculous, of course.



yes it does. you can't leave the space blank. SOMETHING happened. no one can say they don't have an idea what happened, but know that any one idea is false. your position has no meaning.



you haven't spotted any flaws. every post you have made has been responded to.



you are not obligated to do anything. however, since you can't provide your explanation of how events transpired, you make yourself irrelevant.



which is what? what have you discovered? where are your specific examples? each post you have made has a response.



still no specifics from you.



that's not an accurate assessment at all. i am asking you, or whoever, to support your beliefs or statements. i am questioning why you believe what you believe. you, and several others, have proven to be most incapable of doing so. why are your beliefs authoritative? what about your beliefs is convincing? what i have found is that skeptics here are all too eager to criticize, but can't explain what their criticisms are based on. your responses above are perfect examples. you claim to know why someone bears a burden of proof, but can't explain why. the closest you have come is to state that's just the way it is. you criticize the date of the prophecy mentioned in 26:1, but won't state when you think it was written. it sure seems like you are scared to have your beliefs questioned; that you feel they won't stand up to critique. it must be nice to pretend in your mind that you exist in some place where you can criticize everything but somehow don't have to provide substantiation for what you state.

i think it's unfortunate that you misrepresent me here. your depiction about me not doing research is clearly contradictory to the preceedings in the daniel thread between spin and myself.

Sauron

Sauron looks left, looks right

Nope.
No presentation of affirmative claim.
No evaluative framework offered.

Repeat:


Since this is my last response (unless you decide to act maturely and properly present your argument) I'll provide you with an abbreviated example. I really shouldn't have to do this - Johnny Skeptic has provided several examples of how a statement should be framed, and there is no doubt you understand the obligation. However, just to remove all excuses and fig leafs from bfniii - your statement might go something like this:

"I take the affirmative position that XYZ is true. Using evidence from sources such as A, B and C, I will demonstrate my position. I propose that the evidence must be [characteristic], it cannot be [characteristic], and must be [characteristic]. The debate will follow the customary rules of presentation. If I succeed in this, will you agree that I have met my burden?"


Then we discuss the details and see if we have room for agreement or not. That's how these things work.