Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter who provides the criteria because THERE AREN'T ANY. In my previous post, I told you the following:

I also told you the following:

Do you dispute that it is just as plausible that the version of the prophecy that we have today is not the same as the original version as it is that the version that we have today is the same as the original version? How is it possible to go back thousands of years and distinguish whether the prophecy was written ten years before the events, or fifteen years after the events? Are you not aware that this is impossible to accomplish? Are you trying to push history or theology? Do you or do you not assume the the events predated the prophecy, and that the version that we have today is the same as the original version?

When I brought up historians, you said that experts can be biased, but does that not also apply to Christians? Have you never quoted scholars? Is "the Bible says so" not sufficient evidence for you?

Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, so it is a question of the character of the predictor, not his ability to predict the future. I believe that the character of God is suspect because he is not consitently good and protective. Good things and bad things are frequently not distributed to those who are in greatest need, suggesting that God is not consistently compassionate or that he does not exist. You demand consistency from humans before you trust them, so why not God? As reddhedd aptly suggested at the GRD forum, it appears that God is bi-polar, neither consistently good or consistenty bad.

A month or so I told you about the late Vincent Humbert who lived in France. He was quadriplegic, blind, and mute. He wanted to die and asked French president Chirac for an exemption to the French law that prohibits physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Chirac refused, and an unknown person compassionately killed Humbert in accordance with his wishes. No one should ever have to live in such a condition. Where is your compasssion?

If God ends up sending all unbelievers to hell, will you approve of whatever God does to them? Revelation 14:9-ll say "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name." If the verses are literal according to current human understanding, would you object to God, or is your own personal comfort all that you are concerned with.

What gives God the right to rule? Does might always make right, or only in case where the mightest being promises BY PROXY (that is not good enough) to give you a comfortable eternal life? You couldn't care less who gives you a comfortable eternal life as long as it is available. Such a being doesn't really need to be perfect or all-powerful as long as he gives you a comfortable eternal life. You would readily accept an advanced alien with such abilities, especially if it appeared that the God of the Bible does not exist and the alien demanded that you worship him or he would send you to hell.

It is impossible to verify the claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, and never sinned, and the his shed blood and death actually remitted the sins of mankind. There is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead and goodness. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead and claimed that he died for the sins of mankind, would you worship him based solely upon that evidence? Of course you wouldn't. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, what ESLE did he do? What non-Biblical, non-Christian evidence do you have that Jesus healed people? What documented evidence do you have that God performs miracles healings today? How about just one example of an instant cure of a serious case of multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy, or the restoration of a lost limb? Obviously, God does not care about healing people with those physical problems. I am not aware of any skeptic who would object to a God or an alien being who healed people. In addition, I am not aware of any skeptic who does not approve of human oversight, and of divine oversight under certain conditions. Further, birds of a feather flock together. Some skeptics are very moral, loving, kind, and helpful. They would never object to a God or alien being who could demonstrate that he was consistently good and compassionate. Just plain old common sense should tell you that.

bfniii

then you have no reason to suspect tampering. otherwise, why should you be suspicious?



possible and reality are two different things.

the fact that a biblical author warned against tampering doesn't mean that there alleged tampering could go undetected. the warning that i think you are referring to is really more about false teaching than about corrupted copies of the bible.



i guess one way would be to examine specific biblical examples, one at a time. which ones seem confusing to you?



and i asked you why it seems reasonable. "just because" isn't very convincing.



i think a consensus can be helpful, but not necessarily conclusive.



you're deflecting from the point i made. if all you have is a "what if" regarding the issue, then that's a pretty weak case.



and what do you mean by unverifiable? how could they be verified?



great. why is your case convincing?



how so?



but this isn't analogous. a bibliography isn't always used as a survey. usually, it's to cite works that inspired the conclusions made in the book.



which supports my point that taking such a survey can provide interesting data, but not necessarily conclusive regarding the issue.



numbers don't make a difference. mostly, they tell us what everyone is believing due to social factors, scientific progress, etc. something can be true regardless of whether 51% of a certain group of people believe it or not.



not really. i would make an appeal to what science has told us thus far, not to the scientists. there's a difference.



but you didn't say 50%. you said 60%. this waffling is making my point. who is to fix the percentage and what makes their pecentage authoritative? if you took a poll and 65% agreed, someone could claim that it is not at all conclusive because they require a higher percentage. they would then say you have failed to prove your point.
the main question is does 51% make something true?



yes it is, but we're looking for a template or standard. therefore, analogies are appropriate.

furthermore, your standard of not being able to date any documents indicts all of them.



any



that's the question i have been asking you. clearly, people believe certain things about antiquity, dates of birth and death for example. how can we know such things despite the fact that you claim we can't know?



same issue. i suggest we start by stacking up all the instances and see if any hold up to be true.



because that is when ezekiel dates the prophecy. do you know of anyone else who claims differently?



you haven't given me a reason to think otherwise.



one good way to spot tampering is to compare copies against each other. if there are differences, there's a problem.

how would you know if someone had a true revelation or not?



really? would you mind providing some support for this?

actually, they aren't different matters.



not really. the issue of copying is more complicated than that. ever heard of the massoretes?



whatever.



none that i know of. why do you require it? what would that prove?



none that i know of. what evidence of that could possibly exist?



why is that important to you?



some people claim there is much evidence of this. why is it important to you?



why should He? i've addressed all this in the other thread.



why should He? i've addressed all this in the other thread.



what do you mean by help? some people think we get more help than we deserve.



how do you know they suffer? what do you mean by innocent?



how is that inconsistent?



these questions have already been answered. do you have others you are confused about?

bfniii

ask Him.

btw, where do people get this ability to predict the future?



ask Him

is that what He is doing, ruling?



the bible portrays God as someone who not only created us, but created us to have a relationship with Him. despite the fact that we don't deserve it, He also provided propitiation for us. what kind of God does that sound like to you?



i guess that depends on the nature of the life-giver.



i've already addressed all this in the other thread

bfniii

as i have said, it has been suggested that there is evidence that greek culture may indeed have been there at that time. i'm sure that you are aware of it.



when you show that it's absolutely impossible that there could have been greek culture in the region at that time, then these statements might have some validity. since you're so big on claims, you should have to show that beyond the shadow of a doubt.



so what? your critique falls short of responding to it's opposition.



and here is the make believe world that sauron lives in. sauron believes that his critiques are true merely because they originate from his keyboard. they don't have to actually stand up to scrutiny or refute opposing ideas.

you're right, you don't have to advance anything. the question is why anyone would put any credence into an attitude like yours.



1. i did represent the critcal position by stating information that opposes it.
2. in the daniel thread, i supported my case at length so your accusation is incorrect.

bfniii

"customary". what a joke.



i have been asking you what would be proof to you so that i can do the research.



change the burden of proof. whatever. i'm asking you what can i do to convince you so that i can actually try to meet your requirements. yeah, that's changing the burden of proof.

Tubby Lardmore

I caught one of Dr. D. James Kennedy's radio broadcasts this week. Kennedy claims that more than 2,000 Biblical prophecies have proven out. He seemed proudest of the Tyre prophecy. He insisted it was written 250 years before it was fulfilled.

Take that for whatever it's worth.

bfniii

thank you. i will be glad to discuss any questions you have regarding my responses.


i have asked you what "accurate" means to you. it means different things to different people. some people accept that it was written prior based on the information we currently have.



compare them to other copies. preferrably to older ones.



i've already answered this more than once.



now that's a claim you should have to support. the details you mention do not guarantee that he must have attacked tyre.



this is fine and dandy, but you still haven't given anyone a reason to think that the prophecy must have been written after the event or that it was altered or that it wasn't divinely inspired.

bfniii

and you are missing the point i am making. they have already met the burden of proof to themselves. many of them are educated and have read the same christian and non-christian books you have read. christians are perfectly happy to believe what they believe and don't owe you an explanation as to why. do you have a reason to convince them otherwise? if you don't, you are a waste of time and space. why are you even here? you are pointless and irrelevant. i don't agree with spin and jack the bodiless, but at least they have the guts to make a point. i have already made my points in several other threads. if you have a problem with them, why don't you bring up something specific instead of your usual vague, blanket statements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron Go ahead -- offer a suggested framework, and we will discuss it.

who cares what you accept and don't accept? if you are going to convince anyone that your opinion is worth a grain of salt, then why don't you make a point and stop taking up valuable internet space? the internet space you waste everyday could feed countless internet-hungry families in third world countries.



if you had really visited the other threads i referred you to (like you say you have), then you would see that i make plenty of points and respond to every point directed at me.



already done



here is the very crux of your misunderstanding. what makes you think christians are "affirmative"? they don't care whether you agree with them or not. the very name of these forums, "infidels", suggests that you have some contrary point to make. apparently, you didn't get the memo.



another misunderstanding on your part. i am here, at a non-christian website, to understand objections to christianity. since you aren't making any, you are a waste of time. at least johnny skeptic lives up to his name and has points to make.



whatever. i showed they were flawed and you didn't even refute it. you just repeated yourself.



i have already stated my position on this issue. perhaps you missed it.



that's the whole point! i'm trying to find out what is success TO YOU. it's already successful to christians. what would it take to convince you.



not that i have done that



i am the one asking you to lay down the groundwork for what would convince you of these topics.

again, if you had at any time visited the other threads i have been in, the ones that went hundreds of posts, you would know this is a mischaracterization of my m.o.

this is just more distraction and obfuscation from you.

bfniii

and i responded to all of that.



i responded to all of this in the other thread and you know that. i don't know why you continually repeat questions i have responded to.



i, like God, respect a persons' ability to choose. if you choose to go to hell, i will respect that choice.



i have asked you why you feel like "rule" is the proper, and only, term to describe our relationship to Him.



that is not a thorough depiction and you know it.



do we have a reason, right now, to believe that God is less than perfect? if so, we should discuss the ontological argument because your idea of God is flawed.



you may be right. is that the case here?



that depends on what you mean by "verify".



but the bible claims both. is it wrong?



reductio ad absurdum



how would we know? are there any ancient texts that tell us about Him?



is that what you want out of God? parlor tricks? why stop at a lost limb? why not request a quadripelegic get all their limbs back? why stop there? why not request invulnerability? why stop there, etc.....?



yeah, He's more concerned with paltry stuff like eternal soul destination, etc.....



you haven't met some of your infidel brethren



to what end? even hitler did nice stuff.



yet they reject a perfect God. what does that tell you?

bfniii

you must be a seagull. fly in, crap on stuff, fly out.