bfniii

because they have believed all along that the events described in the bible matched reality. the way to start refuting these claims is to provide information that casts doubt on them. a good example would be copies of manuscripts that differ or differ significantly.



where these analogies fail is that you are trying to hinge belief in a flying pig on one alleged instance from an, as yet, undertermined source. obviously, this doesn't stack up to the thousands of years of personal experiences of people who not only claim to have witnessed biblical events, but have personally experienced God in their own lives.



:banghead: have you read the biblical errors thread? it went over 400 posts and tyre was one of the main topics. jack the bodiless and i covered the prophecy ad nauseum.



i covered all this with you in another post.

bfniii

i asked you how do we know anything from antiquity? what would be proof to you that these things actually happened?



you have stated this over and over and over and over. i always respond the same way, but for some reason, you won't answer the questions. your one attempt so far was flawed.



just answer the questions in a way that's not impossible or unfalsifiable, and we might actually stop spinning our wheels.

do you realize you are asking the same answered questions that you have been asking since the beginning of this thread? this has got to be a record of some kind. moderators, is this is record? i'm convinced it is.



the ones in chapter 26.



that's funny. i've been defending them for over 800 posts now and i don't recall getting embarrased even once.



and you are delusional.



here's a question i've never asked you: what would be proof to you that it did come from God?

here's another one: regarding the authenticity, we can start by comparing the translations we have today to any existing manuscripts.



here's something i've never said: this isn't a court of law. there isn't a jury and there aren't court preceedings. this is an open forum. anyone is free to claim or believe whatever they wish. the burden is on the believer to meet whatever criteria they see fit. this is a biblical criticism forum. therefore, let's discuss criticisms of the bible. what is utterly baffling is that skeptics here don't understand that any christians who attempt to refute biblical objections will end up doing exactly what you ask which is support their beliefs.



that is incorrect. i have asked you how we know anything from antiquity. for some reason, you won't answer the question.



i already have, each and every time you have asked that question, over and over and over again.



johnny, johnny, johnny. it's no trick. i am asking you this simple question: do you know of any significant differences between existing translations and any manuscript copy of the bible? any at all. take your pick. original or not. i don't care.

bfniii

if you think there are any examples, point them out. i will be glad to respond.



this doesn't address the point i made. since this is a biblical criticism forum on a skeptic website, one would expect that skeptics wouldn't need to hide behind this "burden of proof/christians need to provide the specifics" excuse in order to advance their ideas. why do you need christians to provide specifics? can't you critique the bible without them? besides, in order to refute objections, the support that you are requesting would be provided.



there's no reason to you, but there are plenty to other people. that's why i have asked what would be a reason.



if you think you can quantify this by providing support for it, be my guest. good luck with that.



do you honestly think that such an elephant-hurling statement is meaningful in any way?



more elephant-hurling with no specifics. impotent.

here's an experiment for you: walk into any christian bookstore and count how many books are written by christian scholars. then tally the percentage of those books that advocate biblical incoherency. i'm willing to bet the percentage will be much closer to zero than 100.



except that it is. it's outlined in the bibliographical argument. the argument wouldn't even exist if what you are saying is true. also, it may not be evidence of anything to you, but it is to others.



you didn't answer the first question. second, according to christians, the support for the reality of biblical events already exists in the correlation of biblical events to reality. third, i'm willing to "go there" anytime. bring up whatever topic you would like. in your parody of me, you accused me of ducking particulars but provide no specific examples. doesn't that ever get old?



that's what i have been asking for, the very point of this forum. bring up whatever cases you would like.



likelihood is not a good determining factor, especially when a prophecy has multiple parts.



this is a subjective observation. obviously, apologists feel like they are untwisting the context-mangling of skeptics.



probably because you misinterpret biblical prophecies, like the tyre prophecy.



no, it doesn't. the argument can be critiqued on the principle of the argument without having to bring other religions into it. second, i haven't failed to demonstrate divine inspiration. the matter is still up for debate and hinges on responses from you and johnny.



therein lies the crux of your misunderstanding. you have this misconception that the assertions you make in these threads have passed some sort of phantom debate threshold and no longer are in question.



again, this is where you are incorrect. in order for you to be correct, you must first demonstrate at least a cursory knowledge of the issue. if you had done that, you would know that there is no need to even start a thread on the issue and think it will be conclusive. while it may be interesting to speculate on such a subject, resolution of the issue is unlikely. it is utterly ridiculous for you to claim that people who advance theories have failed to present support without even giving one example of that charge, much less several examples.



what poll?



sorry, i'm not following this



what does that have to do with confession Jesus Christ as your Lord?



sorry, i'm not following this



i already answered this question. what makes you think CHRISTIANS are in disagreement about Christ? the article you cited didn't show any such disagreement as i pointed out.



and i told you that to make such a statement is semantics.



check post #425. that's just a few.



yes, the thread which contains posts that you won't cite when asked; whereas i have cited them multiple times. maybe one day you will get the picture that these vague assertions are impotent and only serve to obfuscate.



what? you don't know about them already? that's a first.

there are prophecies that were written in "action completed" form for a reason.



amusing. yes, i am the only person who has ever made such a claim. these claims aren't new, they're just new to you.

btw, i did notice you didn't respond to the points i raised.



all of this has been refutted of course. do you have those verses i asked for? no? i didn't think so. to your credit, if vain repetition were a virtue, you would be a god.

bfniii

this question begging argument hinges on the fact that ezekiel's prophecies weren't fulfilled.



i don't see how you can think this hurling the elephant is helpful at all. give me somewhere to start.

bfniii

all of this has already been responded to.



you have yet to provide the verse(s) that says nebuchadnezzar, or anyone else other than God, would be the ultimate downfall of tyre despite being asked multiple times.



not all of it does



no, it did not.



i wouldn't call what tyre suffered at the hands of alexander "voluntary".



what a load of crap. the past tense does not indicate when the prophecy was composed.



the only thing you are good at is creating strawmen. i asked you a question regarding this issue and you haven't responded. if you do, you might get the point i am making.

Julian

[MOD]
Okay, cool the language down. I am losing my patience with the harsh comments and sniping. Much more of this and the thread will be closed.
[/MOD]

bfniii

you haven't shown me to be lost even one time.



because, your responses in #419 are an attempt to divert from the original question asked which was what would be proof to you. you introduce the tangent of inerrancy. then you avoided two questions i asked. however, you did attempt to respond to the "guessing" part. i guess i should be happy that we got 1 out of 4.



calling all elephants........



incorrect. as i stated, someone will inevitably support what they believe when countering objections to that belief.



ad hominem. are you trying to accomplish every logical fallacy known to man?



keep that vague train rolling....whooo whoooooooo



let's reset.

1. you claimed i had no reason to be christian other than childhood indoctrination
2. i informed you that people have doctrinal issues with other religions (including atheism) and that they are aware of objections to their religion yet remain with that religion. therefore, your point is incorrect.
3. you then introduced the irrelevent point that people have problems with christianity
4. i told you it was irrelevant.
5. you are now making the confounding statement that my point (i assume number 2.) is irrelevant without actually explaining how it is irrelevant. i guess we should just take you at your word.



indoctrination is not the only reason people believe a certain religion.



why would i? it has nothing to do with tyre or biblical criticism?



that may be the beginning of the argument, but certainly far from the totality.



where do you get that idea? i am not denying the island had walls.



none of this addresses the fact that you still haven't procured the verses that support your island wall theory.

i most certainly have, multiple times, addressed your excluded middle, island wall argument.



1. the words nebuchadnezzar and many nations are not mentioned together in the prophecy. if you think they are, provide the verses
2. this response doesn't address the point i raised.
3. the prophecy does not mention that tyre would be ultimately destroyed ONLY by divinely appointed conquerors.



you did? where?



no, you didn't. your response in #163 doesn't even ATTEMPT to address the specifics i provided. you tried to gloss over the point with an irrelevant response about japan surrendering in WWII. your response about replacing "you" was rebutted in subsequent posts because my specific points weren't merely relegated to verses 7-11.



ok. we disagree. i feel like i explained these issues and i can cite specific posts where i did so. you continue with the vague responses.



what it proves is that you have yet to provide any specifics on the issue. just making a grand, vacuous claim doesn't carry much weight.



no time is specified. that is the point. you are the one trying to insert a word where none exists.



apparently, people in the ancient world where impressed by this (except for the people who were aware of how to perform such a trick). otherwise, the trick would never have been thought of. yes, i have thought through the implications. you are still having trouble grasping an elementary narrative because you are trying to unnecessarily complicate it.



because whoever was sent for them informed them of why they were being summoned. why is this so difficult?



WHOEVER WAS SENT TO SUMMON THEM.



there is no timing. no time period is specified.



there was no need for the volcano to be obedient. i'm sorry you can't understand that.



that is for you to research. that's the point i have been making. there are a lot of theories out there. if you would do some research, you will find out about them.



it fits perfectly for you, but not for someone else. can you provide evidence that your theory is worthwhile other than your imagination?



and your knowledge comes from where?



how can i research your knowledge when you don't provide it?



WHAT EXPERTS??? you have cited none.

this is degenerating fast, even for you.



so you can't provide any support that the hebrews were polytheistic, especially in pre-exilic times? we've already addressed the one mistaken theory that you advanced in the other thread regarding "el".



i have asked you where you think the "belief" came from. obviously, people think it came from reality. let's hear why you think they are mistaken. let me guess, your "knowledge", unspecified historical context (whatever that means) and the sticky notes.



look out. we may be getting somewhere. interpretation of the facts is the point. christians believe that biblical events are true because these people interpret what we know about history to corroborate this belief. skeptics do likewise with their beliefs. what most skeptics want is a certain amount of extra-biblical confirmation from history or archaeology in order to believe the bible. well, some exists already. but then skeptics clamor for more. they use excuses like the extra-biblical information is mundane or was later redacted, etc. an example is if some extra-biblical source mentioned a belshazzar or pontius pilate, then that would be good in those cases. eventually, it is discovered. well that's not enough. my point is, skeptics are always going to insist on more extra-biblical confirmation because they are using a sliding scale. that sliding scale will never be an accurate guage because we have gaps in our knowledge about history (darius the mede is a good example here). so, christians have the amount that they need and skeptics don't have enough, nor will they ever.

now that we have established the role of information quantity, information quality is the issue. even when extra-biblical confirmation is discovered, skeptics will always be able to reject it because they won't consider it authoritative. who is to decide what information is authoritative? when you read something from antiquity, how do you know it is trustworthy, reliable or authoritative?



unbelievable. we might actually be getting somewhere.

incorrect. where this analogy fails is that it rests upon the hidden assumptions that the christian doesn't have evidence and that there is some unnamed "we" group (of which you conveniently happen to be a part of) that can detect such absence. christians believe they do have evidence and are satisfied with it. you disagree because you look at the same set of information but don't draw the same conclusions. it's not the evidence, it's not the "facts", that are pertinent. the conclusions drawn from the available information is the pertinent issue, the connecting of the dots. "faith-conditioning", or worldview, is a bias shared by all people. even you have a worldview and the conclusions you draw about history, et al, are shaded by that worldview. for this reason, i have been asking you what would be proof to you regarding prophecies so that we can establish a standard by which to judge them.



i do have means and as i said before, the issue is still outstanding pending your response regarding a standard by which such things can be judged.

bfniii

i don't care one way or the other. besides, that isn't all the prohpecy predicts.



since you don't seem to be catching on to this, i'll explain it again. i am not asking for disproof. i am asking for you to support your version of events. when i ask why the christian position is false, i'm really asking why is the skeptic position true. for example, skeptics could easily rebut christian claims by stating that C couldn't possibly have happened because we know that S happened which contradicts C.

bfniii

that's just it, there is no indication that the hebrews believed the world was flat because of something God told them



wait, don't we now know that the world isn't flat? evidently, God did correct their belief. your confusion should now be resolved.



no, it doesn't. as i have said, there aren't any verses that depict God instructing the hebrews in something that is known to be false. i rebutted the SAB examples, quite easily i might add. are you going to continue pressing an already rebutted point?



humorous. now you are telling everyone else what they believe.



you are missing the point.

1. you have not provided any verses that outright claim the world is flat
2. even if a verse reflects a belief of the hebrews, it is not mis-information that was supplied by God. there are multiple examples of the hebrews disobeying God's commands.



again, the word flat, or anything like it, never occurs. neither the bible, nor God, is claiming the world is flat. it may have been a belief of the hebrews, but it was eventually corrected.



it's not an excuse. it's common sense and you know it. it's a religious book, not a science book.



this conclusion is built on the faulty premise that the bible is wrong about something.



i don't recall you showing it to be inaccurate about anything.



not that "coming down" can't describe how, even on a spherical shaped world, it appears that way from our perspective.



actually i have. in post #425 i outline just a few of your misinterpretations.



as always, your triumphant statements are never supported by specifics. i can actually point to your specific mistakes as i did above.

bfniii

i sincerely hope that this exercise of knocking down strawmen gives you the satisfaction you obviously need from it.

why didn't you just title the post "strawmen being knocked down" or "johnny and the strawmen"? you wouldn't have even had to put anything in the post. it would have saved you some time and keystrokes. plus we would have known to just skip the post altogether.



not that that at all represents my position. as i said, the issue is still outstanding pending your response regarding a standard by which to judge such things.



26:1 has a date. is it correct or not? it's a simple question. stop beating around the bushes. your vain attempt to be "neutral" is fooling no one because your anti-christian zeal is obvious. <edit>, or stop wasting everyone's time.