Your Interpretation of Scripture is NOT The Inerrant Word of God

[BananaSlug]

Not at all, it simply subtracts dreamed up anti God entities.





It only makes sense as long as present rates and decay itself existed. That you don't know.

In other words, it fits the evidence and time frame. It also does not deny evolving. wiw win. Except for same state so called science, then it is lose lose.

Nothing needs to be waved away, except what so called science waved here to begin with, and that does deserve blowing away.

Don't start stuff here unless you are ready to have a formal debate with me. The offer still stands.

 

[dad]

Don't start stuff here unless you are ready to have a formal debate with me. The offer still stands.

Excuse me?? You start stuff that rests on same state past stuff, and it must be called into account. Otherwise the stuff built on that stuff is just baseless stuff.

I already pointed out, did I not, the thread in physical sciences area where that is dealt with? If you demolished me there, I would formally debate you. So far, I might remind you, and lurkers, you are missing in action there.

So, here and now, in this thread, we may look at the basis upon which you stand. Of course.


Frankly, I know your case is defeated so inviting you to a thread where you could show your stuff is just being polite..

 

[Split Rock]

Excuse me?? You start stuff that rests on same state past stuff, and it must be called into account. Otherwise the stuff built on that stuff is just baseless stuff.

I already pointed out, did I not, the thread in physical sciences area where that is dealt with? If you demolished me there, I would formally debate you. So far, I might remind you, and lurkers, you are missing in action there.

So, here and now, in this thread, we may look at the basis upon which you stand. Of course.


Frankly, I know your case is defeated so inviting you to a thread where you could show your stuff is just being polite..

I'm still wating for an answer to my question: Is your interpretation of scripture inerrant? Yes or No?

 

[BananaSlug]

Excuse me?? You start stuff that rests on same state past stuff, and it must be called into account. Otherwise the stuff built on that stuff is just baseless stuff.

Then you should have no problem defeating me in a formal debate.

I already pointed out, did I not, the thread in physical sciences area where that is dealt with? If you demolished me there, I would formally debate you. So far, I might remind you, and lurkers, you are missing in action there.

In your mind I will never "demolish" you. You think questioning evidence is the same as providing evidence of your own.

Frankly, I know your case is defeated so inviting you to a thread where you could show your stuff is just being polite..

Again, you should have no problem defeating me in a formal debate. Your refusal to do so shows you may not be as confident in your argument as you seem.

 

[dad]

I'm still wating for an answer to my question: Is your interpretation of scripture inerrant? Yes or No?

That depends on what point. And whether interpretation is actually involved. Specifics, man. God and the devil are in the details.

 

[dad]

Then you should have no problem defeating me in a formal debate.

No, I expect not. No more than right here, or in the thread that deals in the same state issue. You have a place to show your stuff. Why be afraid if you have something? I think it is clear you don't. Why put on?

In your mind I will never "demolish" you. You think questioning evidence is the same as providing evidence of your own.

There is no evidence for a same state future, or far past. None. No need to question it. The stuff you likely mean is assumption based, and can't stand on it's own in any way.

Again, you should have no problem defeating me in a formal debate. Your refusal to do so shows you may not be as confident in your argument as you seem.

If you could show you had more than false bravado, and bluster, we could raise the ante. You were called on to get over to the thread that deals with your question, and show you are worthy of further debate.

 

[Alunyel]

If the mechanics of the universe were different in the past, then there's no evidence of that, either. The half life of an isotope has never changed, so long as we've been observing it, what's to suggest that it was any different in the past?


It's not for us to provide evidence of a same state universe, it's up to you to provide evidence that it was different than how it is now.

I'm looking at a yellow craft knife, yet there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that it's always been yellow. If I were to make the claim that it was purple lasy week, then you'd expect me to prove to you that it was purple last week.

 

[dad]

If the mechanics of the universe were different in the past, then there's no evidence of that, either.

From science, of course not. It is a creature of the box of the present. How would it be expected to know? Therefore it may not make a claim. Therefore the foundational premise of all science claims about creation or the future are invalidated. Thanks for that. Elementary.

The half life of an isotope has never changed, so long as we've been observing it, what's to suggest that it was any different in the past?

Or, what's to say it was in a state of decay in the past? How long you been observing it? 70 years? Whoopee doo. That doesn't cover creation. Elementary.

It's not for us to provide evidence of a same state universe, it's up to you to provide evidence that it was different than how it is now.

I have evidence. The bible and history! It IS up to you if you want to build up major claims on that premise! Elementary.

I'm looking at a yellow craft knife, yet there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that it's always been yellow. If I were to make the claim that it was purple lasy week, then you'd expect me to prove to you that it was purple last week.

Why would I care? I would only look at your God opposing claims, should you have any about it. Otherwise, we would say 'I don't know'. That is what science must do. Elementary.

 

[Alunyel]

From science, of course not. It is a creature of the box of the present. How would it be expected to know? Therefore it may not make a claim. Therefore the foundational premise of all science claims about creation or the future are invalidated. Thanks for that. Elementary.

What? Science can't make claims about the past? LOL!

Archeology is a science dedicated to making claims about the past.

We can know about the past through logic and evidence.

Or, what's to say it was in a state of decay in the past? How long you been observing it? 70 years? Whoopee doo. That doesn't cover creation. Elementary.

LOGIC says it was in a state of decay in the past. It decays now, and we have absolutely no reason to believe it didn't. Why wouldn't it decay in the past? Of course, judging by your posts, logic is a completely foreign concept to you.

I have evidence. The bible and history! It IS up to you if you want to build up major claims on that premise! Elementary.

Firstly, the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a book. A book filled with things that we know to be wrong. Secondly, what is your historical evidence?

Why would I care? I would only look at your God opposing claims, should you have any about it. Otherwise, we would say 'I don't know'. That is what science must do. Elementary.

Stop dancing around the point. How would I prove that the knife infront of me was purple yesterday?

What you're asking and suggesting is simply irrational. The burden of proof lies with you, when it comes to evidence that the physics of the universe haven't always been as they are. (Or at least up to the Big Bang.)

 

[paltoall]

I have evidence. The bible and history! It IS up to you if you want to build up major claims on that premise! Elementary.

Sorry dad but my book tops your book, mine is more up to date and easier to read, it's called 'The Lord of the Rings', it has as much history as yours, which is none, please take your time and prove that the words in my book are untrue and the words in your book are true.
Please note, believing something does not and never will constitute proof, if all you have is a belief, then you have nothing, nothing.
Any time you're ready dad.

 

[dad]

What? Science can't make claims about the past? LOL!

No, it may not. Lol. Nor the future. Unless it has a way of knowing. Until then...I win.

Archeology is a science dedicated to making claims about the past.

We can know about the past through logic and evidence.

The question is how far back? And then the issue is, how do we think we know!? Details, man.

LOGIC says it was in a state of decay in the past. It decays now, and we have absolutely no reason to believe it didn't.

nor have we reason to believe it did. So why pick one?

Why wouldn't it decay in the past? Of course, judging by your posts, logic is a completely foreign concept to you.[//quote] I differ to the future, as told by the only One who can know it. The new heaven state will not have rust, or decay, nor grow old. The future is the key to the past. Man was meant to live forever.

Firstly, the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is a book. A book filled with things that we know to be wrong. Secondly, what is your historical evidence?

No. It is evidence, just out of the shallow depth of temporary state science. Long lifespans and a flood are recorded outside of the bible. Sumer, for example.

Stop dancing around the point. How would I prove that the knife infront of me was purple yesterday?

A witness or 500 might help. You may want to ask yourself, 'why bother, and who cares'?

What you're asking and suggesting is simply irrational. The burden of proof lies with you, when it comes to evidence that the physics of the universe haven't always been as they are. (Or at least up to the Big Bang.)

The big bang is imaginary. The laws of physics were here only since the temporary universe we live in was here. No evidence suggests otherwise. If you have any, out with it.

 

[dad]

Sorry dad but my book tops your book, mine is more up to date and easier to read, it's called 'The Lord of the Rings', it has as much history as yours, which is none, please take your time and prove that the words in my book are untrue and the words in your book are true.
Please note, believing something does not and never will constitute proof, if all you have is a belief, then you have nothing, nothing.
Any time you're ready dad.

Perspective. We know the author. A Christian, if I recall? The book is not meant to be a true account. It tops squat. The bible sets the time of the planet. It determined the ruling nations. It was witnessed and preserved as a true record. It outsells fiction. He is the Lord of all things, not just imaginary rings.

Besides, if you are Catholic, the bible is your book too, whether you read it, or know it or not. Ask your higher ups. I kid you not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry dad but my book tops your book, mine is more up to date and easier to read, it's called 'The Lord of the Rings'...

'The Lord of the Rings' is sold as fiction, whose author will attest to --- the Bible is sold as non-fiction, Whose Author will attest to.

 

[AV1611VET]

The book is not meant to be a true account. It tops squat. The bible sets the time of the planet. It determined the ruling nations. It was witnessed and preserved as a true record. It outsells fiction. He is the Lord of all things, not just imaginary rings.

LOL, dad, you beat me to the punch!

Great minds think alike, eh?

 

[dad]

LOL, dad, you beat me to the punch!

Great minds think alike, eh?

I don't doubt they do. Even lowly minds like ours seem to think alike..

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't doubt they do. Even lowly minds like ours seem to think alike..

--- yup!

 

[Alunyel]

Ok, then what makes the Bible any less fictional than say... the Quran, or the Dasam Granth of Sikhism, or the Tripitaka of Buddhism, or the Vedas of Hinduism?

All are sold to their target audience as fact.

Science does have a way of knowing the past, but it doesn't claim to know the future. It can look at a WW2 battlefield and using evidence gathered from that battlefield, work out how that battle went. It can look at the pyramids and read the hieroglyphs on the walls to know what they believed. To say that science can't know what happened in the past is outright stupidity.

"nor have we reason to believe it did. So why pick one?"

Yes we do. We can see how it is now, and until something comes along to suggest that it would've changed, we can logically deduce that it wouldn't've been any different.

What would've changed it? Logically, not "God.".

"Man was meant to live forever." sounds more like your own fear of death, rather than rational thought.

 

[paltoall]

Perspective. We know the author. A Christian, if I recall? The book is not meant to be a true account. It tops squat. The bible sets the time of the planet. It determined the ruling nations. It was witnessed and preserved as a true record. It outsells fiction. He is the Lord of all things, not just imaginary rings.

Like you say to us, prove it.

Besides, if you are Catholic, the bible is your book too, whether you read it, or know it or not. Ask your higher ups. I kid you not.

I am a Catholic in name only, I was raised to be a Catholic, (when I think of the masses I was forced to endure, sat there like parrots answering the priest) my mother believed so she wanted me to believe, luckily for me my father could not have cared less.
I have no 'higher ups' and you are only kidding yourself.

'The Lord of the Rings' is sold as fiction, whose author will attest to --- the Bible is sold as non-fiction, Whose Author will attest to.

Then who ever sold you your bible was lying to you, it's pure fiction from front to back with the odd place name thrown in for luck, but don't take my word for it check it out for yourself, it's pure unprovable fiction and fantasy, the bible is a good book, but so is 'Famous Quotes'.

Mark Twain wrote this:
We despise all reverences and all the objects of reverence which are outside the pale of our own list of sacred things.
And yet, with strange inconsistency, we are shocked when other people despise and defile the things which are holy to us.


You must both live your lives in a dream.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, then what makes the Bible any less fictional than say... the Quran, or the Dasam Granth of Sikhism, or the Tripitaka of Buddhism, or the Vedas of Hinduism?

24

 

[dad]

Ok, then what makes the Bible any less fictional than say... the Quran, or the Dasam Granth of Sikhism, or the Tripitaka of Buddhism, or the Vedas of Hinduism?

All are sold to their target audience as fact.

Have you proof that the books you mention are fiction? Or even supposed to be?? I would assume that spirits exist, good and bad. Knowing the difference is another issue.

Science does have a way of knowing the past, but it doesn't claim to know the future.

It better not. Otherwise all would know it is what it is. ...As for the past, what is that way that you think they have to know the fabric of the universe...?

It can look at a WW2 battlefield and using evidence gathered from that battlefield, work out how that battle went. It can look at the pyramids and read the hieroglyphs on the walls to know what they believed. To say that science can't know what happened in the past is outright stupidity.

No. The early hieroglyphs, a little bird tole me, may have meant something different than what they later came to mean.

"nor have we reason to believe it did. So why pick one?"

Yes we do. We can see how it is now, and until something comes along to suggest that it would've changed, we can logically deduce that it wouldn't've been any different.

Think about it. Now is not then. What would come along to show us that all we ever knew was temporary?

What would've changed it? Logically, not "God.".

Why not? Is He unable? What ELSE could??

"Man was meant to live forever." sounds more like your own fear of death, rather than rational thought.

Why would anyone fear pasing on, if we were to live forever? It is not us that need fear. This is news?