Wads4

As Creationists are so fond of saying about Evolution: "Its only a theory".
Why should we accept (as Gospel truth,-ha-ha)- the words of some fellow called John. We don't even know his credentials. Besides what he is saying is inductively and theoretically implausible, and therefore itself infringes natural law.There are those who say God is constrained to act according to His Nature, which can presumably be equated with Natural Law. Either God is constrained or he is not; you can't have it both ways.

Jack the Bodiless

Jim:
You are still assuming that the Bible is factual in order to provide "evidence" that the Bible is factual.

Do you not see the problem here?

Jim Larmore

Actually, by some of the theories in quantum mechanics it is predicted that the omega point could be God. A wave cannot collapse a wave so it only stands to reason that the omega observer would stand outside of time and matter i.e. not be constrained by them.

As far as accepting the words of John you could say the same thing about any ancient writer. I accept the Bible because I have verified its prophecies as being accurate.

Jack the Bodiless

The accuracy of prophecies is a subject that comes up quite frequently here.

Last time I checked, the number of verifiably successful Biblical prophecies currently stands at zero: rather less than we'd expect from random chance!

Jim Larmore

Yes I do and you need to provide evidence that its NOT factual. Your assuming its not and I have some evidence that it is factual. I believe the authenticity of the Bible has been verified on several different occasions in the past with archeological digs ect. , and lets not forget the prophecies.

I've said this before but do you honestly believe that 10 out of the 12 would go to the point of being put to death for a lie? Yeah, maybe two or three nut cases but not all of them. They really witnessed what the Bible says they witnessed, all of the miracles, all of the incredible unbelievable supernatural things. Why would a persecuting power like Saul who became Paul immediately change to a mild mannered early church evangelist if he didn't see what he said he did? BTW, this apostle was beheaded at the end. People don't do this kind of stuff for a lie.

Jack the Bodiless

Why do you imagine that I'm "forgetting the prophecies"? The failed prophecies are part of the reason I consider it non-factual!

Quite apart from the overwhelming geological/archaeological evidence against various Biblical claims (e.g. Genesis creation, the Flood). And how would confirmation of the existence of a place mentioned in the Bible indicate that it's factual? Does the existence of London's Kings Cross station indicate that the Harry Potter books are factual?
The "martyrdom of the apostles" is just a part of the story, Jim.

Why are you so trapped by circular reasoning?

Jim Larmore

Then you are not interpreting them right. The prophecy in Daniel that says when messiah the prince would come is exactly correct. The prophecy that even named the person 100 years before he was born to sack Babylon, Cyrus was exactly correct. Speaking of Babylon the Bible says it would never be re-built ,,and a few have tried but it is still in ruins in Iraq. The 1260 day/year prophecy concerning the beast power was exactly correct. In 538 the pope took control of the city of Rome and ruled for 1260 years until 1798 when Berthier dethroned him that was exactly correct and adds up to 1260 years. A day is taken in prophetic time as a year. There are many many more that are exactly correct.

Jack the Bodiless

..Oh, come off it, Jim!

Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, and we recently had an entire thread devoted to how the attempts to predict beyond that date, including the "1260 years" stuff, failed.

Here it is.
You just can't escape the fact that 1260 does NOT equal 1278.
Nope.

If you believe otherwise, maybe you should start another thread for them?

Jim Larmore

Then I would consider your opinion as inaccurate and unreliable. The Bible is primarily all a historical account of what happened from creation to the prophecied 2nd advent of christ. Much of it was questioned for years but I understand that in the middle east they consult as much as they can the Bible before the do some digs because the Bible has been vindicated many many times to be accurate, i.e. the Hittite people etc.

You can find many others that who accept it as being authentic not the least of which is the entire catholic churches scholars. I'm not catholic but I read the commentaries made from many of this institutions scholars.

I'm not claiming anything, I'm accepting it as a authentic historical account of what happened. If you are saying you don't accept it then you need to produce the evidence to support your side.
Just history of the accounts of their lives. Its not that hard to get too. I can cut and paste a lot of it off other web sites if you want me too. Just say the word and I'll go get it. The truth of the matter is nearly all of them went to their death preaching and believing with all of their hearts that what they stood for was 1000% authentic.

Jack the Bodiless

See the thread Shredding the Gospels.

Plenty of evidence there.
That is not "the truth of the matter", Jim.

Again, I will ask you: why is circular reasoning a trap that you can't get out of?

Furthermore, if you're presenting this as an "argument": why do you imagine that we will jump into this trap alongside you, and be bound by it?