The Dodwell Data now out!!!!!

[dad]

It's a view held by a large number of scholars based on the distinct styles found in Isaiah. You don't know what the arguments are based on, you weren't even aware that they existed, and you're ready to dismiss them, is that a reasonable outlook?
You were not there, you have no idea. And on basis do we decide which records are accurate?

I just heard some radio preacher deal with that last week. There is no reason to attribute the differences to two men.

We are both in the position of being several centuries adrift from the writing of the Bible and the events that might have occurred. You cannot claim to know with certainty that those things happened as described.

Why not? No one knows any different! That means there is NO reason to doubt, and EVERY reason to believe. Jesus came on cue, He had His clothes parted among soldiers and lots cast for them, was born in Bethlehem, etc. The wise men were met in Jerusalem by the king, and learned men. THEY were the ones that told them Bethlehem was the place, it was not some after the fact invention by Christians. There are hundreds of proofs, including the fact that a real spirit with real power is behind the book. You will need real reasons to doubt, or it remains better than gold.

That's why historians look to artifacts of the past to piece together what actually happened. Using the Bible to verify the Bible is no more useful than using the Quran to prove itself true, or The Terminator.None of that has any bearing on my argument, and you have yet to provide any evidence or even a coherent hypothesis which outlines your view and why it should be considered.

Rubbish. The bible is the best record man has. Unless some reason exists to overrule it, (none does, or has, or ever will exist)..it is the standard. The measure whereby all things are to be measured against. It ain't up for a vote, it's just how it is.

 

[Nostromo]

I just heard some radio preacher deal with that last week. There is no reason to attribute the differences to two men.

Different people write with different styles. That's a perfectly good reason to think that a book with multiple writing styles has multiple authors.

Why not? No one knows any different! That means there is NO reason to doubt, and EVERY reason to believe.

Saying "Nobody knows what happened, so I can tell you what happened" is just illogical nonsense, especially considering you are 100% confident that you're correct.

You still haven't told me why this little nugget of wisdom doesn't apply to any other religious scripture, since we're also in the same position with respect to the Bhagavad Gita, Quran, etc.

Jesus came on cue, He had His clothes parted among soldiers and lots cast for them, was born in Bethlehem, etc. The wise men were met in Jerusalem by the king, and learned men. THEY were the ones that told them Bethlehem was the place, it was not some after the fact invention by Christians. There are hundreds of proofs, including the fact that a real spirit with real power is behind the book. You will need real reasons to doubt, or it remains better than gold.

Yeah, the Bible is true and the evidence is in the Bible, heard you the first few times. It's no more a convincing argument the thirtieth time hearing it than the first.

Rubbish. The bible is the best record man has. Unless some reason exists to overrule it, (none does, or has, or ever will exist)..it is the standard. The measure whereby all things are to be measured against. It ain't up for a vote, it's just how it is.

How does one assess which record is the most accurate?

P.S. You forgot the virgin conception witness thing again.

 

[dad]

Different people write with different styles. That's a perfectly good reason to think that a book with multiple writing styles has multiple authors.Saying "Nobody knows what happened, so I can tell you what happened" is just illogical nonsense, especially considering you are 100% confident that you're correct.

Wrong. There must be a reason for things. The different styles of Isaih doesn't cut it. Remember, God was behind the thing. The prophesies are tried and tested, and known to be true. Therefore the only question is whether God used 2 men with the same name! ) Makes no sense.

You still haven't told me why this little nugget of wisdom doesn't apply to any other religious scripture, since we're also in the same position with respect to the Bhagavad Gita, Quran, etc.

I don't give a rat's petard about other texts. Isiah is ancient, by the way. It is dated with reliable methods. The Quaran is recent. As for the other things you rattled off, you will need to prove that they contain books found out to be authored by 2 men of the same name, if you claim it! Bizarre.

Yeah, the Bible is true and the evidence is in the Bible, heard you the first few times. It's no more a convincing argument the thirtieth time hearing it than the first.
How does one assess which record is the most accurate?

P.S. You forgot the virgin conception witness thing again.

How many witnesses do you have for the night that you became more than a gleam in your dad's eye!??

 

[Nostromo]

Wrong. There must be a reason for things. The different styles of Isaih doesn't cut it... ...Therefore the only question is whether God used 2 men with the same name! ) Makes no sense.

They needn't have the same name. One person could have added to his copy, or two separate writings could be incorrectly attributed to the same person. I suppose you're going to claim there's no plausible Earthly way that a writing with multiple styles could be written by multiple people?

Remember, God was behind the thing. The prophesies are tried and tested, and known to be true.

You haven't shown that God is behind it. Claims of prophecies made and fulfilled all from the same source are not reliable, otherwise many other texts suddenly become holy books. What kind of system would we have if all murder trials were decided purely on the basis of the accused's testimony?

I don't give a rat's petard about other texts.

I know you don't, that's the only reason why you hold the Bible in such high esteem and no other. It's not because one is more substantiated than another, or any other measure of credibility, it's because you couldn't give a fecal impaction about anything else but your own opinion.

Isiah is ancient, by the way. It is dated with reliable methods. The Quaran is recent.

There's no reason that would invalidate it as genuine scripture. If you were around in 200AD would you be denouncing the Gospel of John as a recent innovation?

It also wouldn't make much sense for Muhammad to be the final prophet of God before the others, would it?

How many witnesses do you have for the night that you became more than a gleam in your dad's eye!??

Why assume that I have a dad?

There's one witness to my mother conceiving, my father. Presumably there would be no witnesses to Mary conceiving, despite your claim to the contrary.


It would save everyone a lot of effort (and eternal damnation) if you could outline the criteria that allow us to determine what is real divinely inspired scripture and what isn't, and how you assess them against the criteria.

 

[dad]

They needn't have the same name. One person could have added to his copy, or two separate writings could be incorrectly attributed to the same person. I suppose you're going to claim there's no plausible Earthly way that a writing with multiple styles could be written by multiple people?

There is a cross check available, so doubts can be dismissed as fog with the noon day sun. The book of Isaiah is important, and quoted often in the new testament, even by Jesus Himself. Nowhere does it say, 'as saith Isaiah the first, whose name was actually Peabody..' The prophesies are of highest caliber all the way through, and a simple ballistics test shows that they pierced time the same way....100 % accurate! Quite distinctive, really, not something someone's second cousin thrice removed could sneak in and duplicate.

You haven't shown that God is behind it. Claims of prophecies made and fulfilled all from the same source are not reliable, otherwise many other texts suddenly become holy books. What kind of system would we have if all murder trials were decided purely on the basis of the accused's testimony?

That is an unreasonable and cheap way of dismissing the only accurate records man has carried down from ancient times ever so carefully. There IS no other source that is reliable for the time of Isaiah, and other times. So we can't dismiss the only thing we do have. Isaiah was no accused. He was tried and tested, and shown to be a true prophet as they all were, otherwise they would be killed by law for being a false prophet!

Other texts can be looked at too, depending on how they were passed down, and how many safety checks there were, etc. They had scores of the creme de la creme of academia of the day checking every word passed down six ways from Sunday for the bible!



esteem and no other. It's not because one is more substantiated than another, or any other measure of credibility, it's because you couldn't give a fecal impaction about anything else but your own opinion.
There's no reason that would invalidate it as genuine scripture. If you were around in 200AD would you be denouncing the Gospel of John as a recent innovation?

It also wouldn't make much sense for Muhammad to be the final prophet of God before the others, would it?u are alive.
Why assume that I have a dad?

I assume you have a dad, or at least a sperm donor, because you are alive. As for Mohamed being a final prophet, I don't know what that is. It occurs to me that things are still going on, so how final could the guy have been? And..who cares? What does it have to do with the changing movements recorded by actual ancients of heavenly bodies, that point right to the year of the split!?

There's one witness to my mother conceiving, my father. Presumably there would be no witnesses to Mary conceiving, despite your claim to the contrary.

Well, Gabriel was there, and God. Do they count? The bible records how Jesus was known to be considered born of a virgin, they did have friends and family you know. Even the religious enemies of His alluded to it when accusing Him of stuff.

It would save everyone a lot of effort (and eternal damnation) if you could outline the criteria that allow us to determine what is real divinely inspired scripture and what isn't, and how you assess them against the criteria.

Well, I think you are trying to lay too much at my feet here. As for salvation, we don't need much, a few key scriptures, and a will to believe. So, the scriptures that deal in the salvation story right from the garden on up, that told of the coming Messiah would have to be inspired. But I suspect most of us don't need them all for salvation, or to avoid damnation. I got saved long before I had a clue about most of em.

 

[Split Rock]

The bible is the best record man has. Unless some reason exists to overrule it, (none does, or has, or ever will exist)..it is the standard.

I love this line: "Unless you provide evidence to overrule my interpretation of scripture, and by definition you never can, my interpretation if scripture must be correct!!"

 

[dad]

I love this line: "Unless you provide evidence to overrule my interpretation of scripture, and by definition you never can, my interpretation if scripture must be correct!!"

That it is your line, not mine.

If one has a solid bible case, as I do, and the bible can't be overruled, that does leave the case looking pretty good. No wonder the Dodwell data points right to the year of the split!

 

[Nostromo]

There is a cross check available, so doubts can be dismissed as fog with the noon day sun. ... Nowhere does it say, 'as saith Isaiah the first, whose name was actually Peabody..'

If folk had known about it, of course they would have said so! You can't distinguish between one author and multiple authors mistaken for one author by the fact they called them by one name, as that would happen in both cases.

The prophesies are of highest caliber all the way through, and a simple ballistics test shows that they pierced time the same way....100 % accurate! Quite distinctive, really, not something someone's second cousin thrice removed could sneak in and duplicate.

But they're only prophecies if written by the one original author who wrote before the events in question, which you haven't shown to be true.

There are plenty of details which are still discussed, but the presence of at least a second (deutero) Isaiah seems pretty much taken for granted by scholars, and that this author lived during or after the reign of Cyrus. Later author = no prophecy.

That is an unreasonable and cheap way of dismissing the only accurate records man has carried down from ancient times ever so carefully. There IS no other source that is reliable for the time of Isaiah, and other times. So we can't dismiss the only thing we do have.

You haven't shown that they're accurate or that they were carefully transmitted, in fact it seems the opposite is true.

"The special characteristics recognizable in the biblical scrolls written according to the Qumran practice are visible in virtually all the texts written and copied by the Qumran covenanters (non-biblical, especially sectarian, and biblical texts), and it seems that all these scrolls were copied by the same school of scribes who wrote in their distinctive orthography and morphology, while utilizing scribal practices from those reflected in the other Qumran texts. From the great liberties which these scribes took it is evident that they do not reflect a tradition of precise copying, but rather a popular or vulgar one (see pp. 193-195)." -
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, second edition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001)

Other texts can be looked at too, depending on how they were passed down, and how many safety checks there were, etc. They had scores of the creme de la creme of academia of the day checking every word passed down six ways from Sunday for the bible!

Seems not. If you look at the Quran, however, we find that there exists a copy by Uthman, a companion of the prophet muhammad. He's the man who originally compiled the revelations into one book. The Quran today is near identical to the one written down 1400 years ago with only a few letters changed here and there.

None of that really matters though. You're not in the business of setting down a standard and then holding all to it equally.

As for Mohamed being a final prophet, I don't know what that is. It occurs to me that things are still going on, so how final could the guy have been?

Final. Last. Endmost. No more after that. Seen many prophets since?

Well, Gabriel was there, and God. Do they count?

Since you haven't shown that they're real yet, I don't think I can allow them on this occasion.

The bible records how Jesus was known to be considered born of a virgin, they did have friends and family you know. Even the religious enemies of His alluded to it when accusing Him of stuff.

I have friends and family, but none of them are good enough friends that they saw my conception. I can tell them whatever I want, but none of them can attest the circumstances of my conception, only repeat what they've been told.

Well, I think you are trying to lay too much at my feet here.

I honestly don't think I am, given that you are 100% certain that you are correct. For any reasonable person to approach that level of certainty would require a very solid and well thought out basis (though any person who recognises their own fallibility would admit they can never be 100% sure). I can see why you don't want to lay out any specifics about how to determine if scripture is true, because the outcome may not be exactly what you hope for.

Ultimately it comes down to how well the things you believe match reality, and how you determined that said beliefs match well with reality.

If you have a system that can tell us what is true and what is false by way of intuition, spiritual or supernatural means, please share it. If such a system only gives us answers about things we cannot possibly confirm or deny, what is its use, and how can you claim to know it is effective?

 

[dad]

If folk had known about it, of course they would have said so! You can't distinguish between one author and multiple authors mistaken for one author by the fact they called them by one name, as that would happen in both cases.

Precisely, since, then they did not mention it, it was NOT known. It is made up.

But they're only prophecies if written by the one original author who wrote before the events in question, which you haven't shown to be true.

Your twinned Isaiah theory does not change the fact that it was fulfilled. If, therefore you claim it could not have been fulfilled if there were two authors, you destroy your own point.

There are plenty of details which are still discussed, but the presence of at least a second (deutero) Isaiah seems pretty much taken for granted by scholars, and that this author lived during or after the reign of Cyrus. Later author = no prophecy.

You can't provide the proof, you merely allude to unnamed 'scholars'. Ridiculous. I found one anwer to the question, that seems a lot more sane than the dubious insinuations of the silly arm chair critics.

"Second Isaiah is a fictional writer used to explain the drastic difference in style in the second part of Isaiah. Although he is among the greatest of the prophets no-one knows about him either before or after his amazing prophecies. A second reason apart from style is the necessity on the part of those who do not believe in the possibility of fulfilled prophecy to explain the amazing predictive prophecy found in this later part of Isaiah. The reason is that apparently they were written after the event.

Of course this flies in the face of all evidence and such a fictitious author appears and vanishes without a trace. We also know that people, even today, write with different styles according to the occasion as did the actual author Isaiah son of Amoz.

The alleged purpose of the fictional second Isaiah was to deceptively proclaim as prophecy events which were to him already in the past.

The truth is far simpler. It has the best evidence. It does not make the truth into a lie. "

WikiAnswers - Who is Second Isaiah and what his purpose

You haven't shown that they're accurate or that they were carefully transmitted, in fact it seems the opposite is true.

I haven't shown the color of Napoleon's underwear either, or named the wives of Henry V. The fulfilled prophesy of Isaiah has been known for a long long time now. It doesn't need support, it just needs study, for those unaware of it!

Seems not. If you look at the Quran, however, we find that there exists a copy by Uthman, a companion of the prophet muhammad. He's the man who originally compiled the revelations into one book. The Quran today is near identical to the one written down 1400 years ago with only a few letters changed here and there.

None of that really matters though.

Just what I was thinking. But then again, you brought it up.

Final. Last. Endmost. No more after that. Seen many prophets since?

I don't much care for mere prophets after Christ. They are a dime a dozen, and I think they are over valued at at that.

Since you haven't shown that they're real yet, I don't think I can allow them on this occasion.
I have friends and family, but none of them are good enough friends that they saw my conception. I can tell them whatever I want, but none of them can attest the circumstances of my conception, only repeat what they've been told.

Can you get John the Baptist to do the twist in the womb, when Jesus, also in the womb was near? Can you claim a virgin birth? Were you born in Bethlehem? Did you meet all the other prophesies, which are many? When you apply for a birth certificate, do they smirk, and insult you? ...etc

I honestly don't think I am, given that you are 100% certain that you are correct. For any reasonable person to approach that level of certainty would require a very solid and well thought out basis (though any person who recognises their own fallibility would admit they can never be 100% sure).

Our own fallibilty has NOTHING to do with God. We are looking at His stuff here.

Ultimately it comes down to how well the things you believe match reality, and how you determined that said beliefs match well with reality.

Reality is no problem. Tring to match your universe in a speck, and pretty women evolving from slime, and imaginary shadow Isaiahs, and other various insane doubts and fantasies is what is hard to match.

If you have a system that can tell us what is true and what is false by way of intuition, spiritual or supernatural means, please share it. If such a system only gives us answers about things we cannot possibly confirm or deny, what is its use, and how can you claim to know it is effective?

Yes, I have a system. Ask God. Also read and accept His stuff He already gave, that may cover it. It doesn't matter if a bat can confirm or dent it, or if pegged to the present stake in the ground science can confirm or deny it. One thing yo
u can be sure of they can't oppose it from any standpoint of authority, fact, or knowledge.

 

[Split Rock]

That it is your line, not mine.

Really, dad? who wrote this: "Unless some reason exists to overrule it, (none does, or has, or ever will exist)" You wrote it.

If one has a solid bible case, as I do, and the bible can't be overruled, that does leave the case looking pretty good. No wonder the Dodwell data points right to the year of the split!

No wonder you cherry-picked the only data out there that does and ignored all the rest!

 

[dad]

Really, dad? who wrote this: "Unless some reason exists to overrule it, (none does, or has, or ever will exist)" You wrote it.


No wonder you cherry-picked the only data out there that does and ignored all the rest!

So you realize that the data does agree with the timing of the post flood state change. Good. As for the line you mention it was this...

"Unless you provide evidence to overrule my interpretation of scripture, and by definition you never can, my interpretation if scripture must be correct!!"

--you

No evidence does exist to overrule my interpretation of the bible, regarding the far past, and creation era. No evidence exists to support a same state past. How else would we come to understand the creation era, if we had no scientific evidence, and had the honesty to accept the bible for the evidence it is?

Since science does not know, and cannot know, one must turn to the records. And no science does exist or ever will to oppose the truth.

 

[Nostromo]

dad, if you ever feel like having a sensible discussion about this, get back to me.

 

[Split Rock]

So you realize that the data does agree with the timing of the post flood state change. Good.

I realize you think the data is both accurate (it is not) and supports your split/merge silliness. That is the only reason this thread exists at all.

"Unless you provide evidence to overrule my interpretation of scripture, and by definition you never can, my interpretation if scripture must be correct!!"

--you

No evidence does exist to overrule my interpretation of the bible, regarding the far past, and creation era. No evidence exists to support a same state past. How else would we come to understand the creation era, if we had no scientific evidence, and had the honesty to accept the bible for the evidence it is?

No dad. You said that no evidence could ever exist to falsify your theory. Your own words for the third time: none does, or has, or ever will exist.

Since science does not know, and cannot know, one must turn to the records. And no science does exist or ever will to oppose the truth.

Thanks for reenforcing my point.

BTW: You have so far received ZERO votes out of 32 in my Creationist Pet Theory poll. Congrats on continuing to be A Lonely Church Of One. Too bad you are the only one of the three advocates to not even have the courage to vote for you own theory.

 

[Split Rock]

dad, if you ever feel like having a sensible discussion about this, get back to me.

Don't hold your breathe!

 

[dad]

dad, if you ever feel like having a sensible discussion about this, get back to me.

If you ever mature to where you recognize sensible, get back to us.

 

[dad]

I realize you think the data is both accurate (it is not) and supports your split/merge silliness. That is the only reason this thread exists at all.

So which is it? Accurate, or not? Do you deny ancient sun or moon or star measurements, in relation to earth?

No dad. You said that no evidence could ever exist to falsify your theory. Your own words for the third time: none does, or has, or ever will exist.

Well, since science only deals within certain known limits, and the ideas from the bible that I offer cover far beyond that, science can't oppose them. Science is same state religion. At least all so called science, that pretends to deal in the future or the creation debate!

BTW: You have so far received ZERO votes out of 32 in my Creationist Pet Theory poll. Congrats on continuing to be A Lonely Church Of One. Too bad you are the only one of the three advocates to not even have the courage to vote for you own theory.

So, if we take away non bible believer's votes there, how does it break down? Did anyone that matters vote? If they matter, in a way that enables them to judge the ideas of bible believers, they would have to be one. How many voters there believe in Adam and Eve, and the garden, and the flood as real events?

 

[sandwiches]

Well, since science only deals within certain known limits, and the ideas from the bible that I offer cover far beyond that, science can't oppose them. Science is same state religion. At least all so called science, that pretends to deal in the future or the creation debate!

So, is there evidence or not? Very simple question, yes or no?

 

[dad]

So, is ties as evidence?here evidence or not? Very simple question, yes or no?

For what? And what qualifies as evidence? There is evidence that science cannot prove a present state past. Do you see anyone doing it??!!

 

[Split Rock]

So which is it? Accurate, or not? Do you deny ancient sun or moon or star measurements, in relation to earth?

The accuracy has already been dealt with in this thread. None of it points to the laws of physics being different a few thousand years ago, or the spiritual mixed in with the physical anyway.

Well, since science only deals within certain known limits, and the ideas from the bible that I offer cover far beyond that, science can't oppose them. Science is same state religion. At least all so called science, that pretends to deal in the future or the creation debate!

If you state ahead of time you wil accept no evidence that falsifies your dogma, then you will never be convinced that you are wrong. This attitude of yours just reinforces your hubris, arrogance and blasphemy. Your interpretation of scripture is not infallible and you are not God.

Tell me straight out, dad. If you are all wrong, how would you ever find out?

So, if we take away non bible believer's votes there, how does it break down? Did anyone that matters vote? If they matter, in a way that enables them to judge the ideas of bible believers, they would have to be one. How many voters there believe in Adam and Eve, and the garden, and the flood as real events?

There are now a total of 34 votes in. 6 voted for the other two pet theories or "I don't know." I know at least 4 are creationists and the other 2 are likely creationists. There also may be some among the 28 who voted that they are all wrong. So what? Only some people are important, now? Well then I guess that means you are the only one who is important to you dad, since no one voted for the split/merge theory. Once again, we see how arrogant and full of yourself you are.

Matthew 5:5 "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

 

[sandwiches]

For what? And what qualifies as evidence? There is evidence that science cannot prove a present state past. Do you see anyone doing it??!!

Is there objectively verifiable evidence of a different state past, yes or no?