Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[Speedwell]

So can I, but I don't consider that "equally valid justification" that the Bible is a product of diabolical mimicry.

As I said, I give them credit for their Koran being spiritually written and sans corruption.

Do they do the same with our Bible?

Nope. They think it has been corrupted.

But all that aside, I have a feeling that if the whole world accepted the Bible as the valid word of God, it wouldn't make any difference to those who are convinced that It is just another piece of literature.

LOL! It wouldn't make any difference either to those who accept the Bible as the valid word of God already but think it is a different kind of literature than you do.

 

[Hammster]

Like many on these pages, Paul of Tarsus made claims.

So what...?

So you should repent and believe the gospel. I was like you, once. So was Paul. Dead in trespasses and sins. God has provided a way out, though, through the death of His Son who took the punishment meant for us. To receive that forgiveness you only need to repent and believe.

 

[Speedwell]

So you should repent and believe the gospel. I was like you, once. So was Paul. Dead in trespasses and sins. God has provided a way out, though, through the death of His Son who took the punishment meant for us. To receive that forgiveness you only need to repent and believe.

Amen. But what has that to do with the matter of determining the literary genre of the Genesis creation stories?

 

[Hammster]

Amen. But what has that to do with the matter of determining the literary genre of the Genesis creation stories?

That’s not the focus of the thread.

 

[Speedwell]

That’s not the focus of the thread.

It relates to how one evaluates the document in Kylie's challenge, does it not? Genre determination is part of evaluating any written material.

 

[Hammster]

It relates to how one evaluates the document in Kylie's challenge, does it not? Genre determination is part of evaluating any written material.

Genre wasn’t mentioned. But it’s not relevant because God explains later that the creation was six days. Not to mention, there’s nothing in the way it’s written that would lead the Israelites to think it anything other than six literal days.

 

[Speedwell]

Genre wasn’t mentioned. But it’s not relevant because God explains later that the creation was six days. Not to mention, there’s nothing in the way it’s written that would lead the Israelites to think it anything other than six literal days.

What a lot of assumptions you're not unpacking.

 

[Hammster]

What a lot of assumptions you're not unpacking.

Okay.

 

[BobRyan]

Pleased to hear it--SDAs do a lot of good in the world.

Thanks - my point was just to show that the SDA model of showing both Christians and non-Christians that the Bible is inspired by its own stated proof of predictions fulfilled - is not only compelling to other Christians but also to atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus etc.

But I would be disappointed to learn that they no longer preached the Gospel. .

So would I ... and so am very glad that is not the case.

Fortunately, I don't think you're telling me the truth about it.

I quote directly from objective outside sources in those posts - it is irrefutable fact that this method works - even non-SDAs admit it.

 

[BobRyan]

My distinct impression is that SDAs evangelize primarily by means of Christian witness.

I don't know of a single case where someone has been baptized into the SDA church without Bible study that includes proving that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that it can be trusted.

Not saying you cannot have whatever "impression" that you like.

They aid the poor, heal the sick and bring souls to Christ. .

You can be assured that "bring souls to Christ" is deeply immersed in "The Bible is the Word of God and can be fully trusted"... as it turns out.

Whoever said this was "either or" was not paying attention to details.

We don't have any cases of "you feed the poor? Well then I choose to be a Seventh-day Adventist even though I know that the Bible is not the Word of God" -- in fact we specifically prohibit that sort of thing in our baptismal vows and baptismal candidate Bible study course.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know of a single case where someone has been baptized into the SDA church without Bible study that includes proving that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and that it can be trusted.

And what draws them to a desire for Bible study and Baptism? What makes it seem like a good idea to them? Or do you just pick up people at random and dragoon them into Bible study until they agree to literal inerrancy--and then tell them about the Gospel of Christ?

Not saying you cannot have whatever "impression" that you like.



You can be assured that "bring souls to Christ" is deeply immersed in "The Bible is the Word of God and can be fully trusted"... as it turns out.

Whoever said this was "either or" was not paying attention to details.

We don't have any cases of "you feed the poor? Well then I choose to be a Seventh-day Adventist even though I know that the Bible is not the Word of God" -- in fact we specifically prohibit that sort of thing in our baptismal vows and baptismal candidate Bible study course.

What do you do about people (like me) who already believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but do not agree with your hermenuetics? We already know and believe the Gospel, so you can hardly keep it a secret from us until we agree to literal inerrancy.

 

[BobRyan]

And what draws them to a desire for Bible study and Baptism? What makes it seem like a good idea to them? Or do you just pick up people at random and dragoon them

Sometimes friendships and sometimes advertisements of the subject matter. Just like this forum draws people by subject topic.

What do you do about people (like me) who already believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God

We still offer them Bible topics that are interesting and go over the same "Bible proves itself to be inspired" studies - because a great many people who believe the Bible is inspired by infinite all-knowing God, have actually taken the time to look at the case in the Bible for why it most certainly is inspired. We would like them to be able to make that case with their friends and family.

If they stop us at that point and say "hey I am very convinced already that the Bible is not true - but for reasons of my own I choose to believe the gospel is true or at least parts of it... and most importantly I don't want to know any more than this" --- then we say "have a nice day" and we do not include them any further in Bible studies they have no interest in.

Recall - you are jumping into this discussion between me and one of the self-described atheists of this thread talking about why we choose not to use circular reasoning as our basis of proof for the inspiration of the Bible by God Himself.

1. The Bible claims it is inspired... so we show that claim but that does not "prove" it is inspired to one who does not already believe that point.
2. So then we show how Bible predictions and statements of fact have been proven to be true and that it conveys information that was unknowable at the time to normal human guesswork.

I claim it works pretty well - but more interestingly those articles from outside observers confirms the same point.

 

[Speedwell]

Sometimes friendships and sometimes advertisements of the subject matter. Just like this forum draws people by subject topic.





We still offer them Bible topics that are interesting and go over the same "Bible proves itself to be inspired" studies - because a great many people who believe the Bible is inspired by infinite all-knowing God, have actually taken the time to look at the case in the Bible for why it most certainly is inspired. We would like them to be able to make that case with their friends and family.

Recall - you are jumping into this discussion between me and one of the self-described atheists of this thread talking about why we choose not to use circular reasoning as our basis of proof for the inspiration of the Bible by God Himself.

1. The Bible claims it is inspired... so we show that claim but that does not "prove" it is inspired to one who does not already believe that point.
2. So then we show how Bible predictions and statements of fact have been proven to be true and that it conveys information that was unknowable at the time to normal human guesswork.

I claim it works pretty well - but more interestingly those articles from outside observers confirms the same point.

But then you went on to prove the Bible with prophecy. But prophecy doesn't prove the Bible, it proves prophecy.

Let me give you an example: BobRyan doesn't like Speedwell, because he "cheats" and believes the Gospel without believing in literal inerrancy; he even believes in the divine inspiration of scripture without believing in literal inerrancy. So BobRyan starts preaching against him, and because he is a charismatic and articulate speaker begins to gather crowds. Then one day BobRyan gets an honest-to-goodness vision from God (who evidently doesn't like Speedwell, either) that He will strike Speedwell down with a lightning bolt in one week's time. BobRyan speaks about this vision to his following and the NY Times stringer in his town hears about it and writes an article for the Times about it. You with me so far?

Now, one week later Speedwell is walking down Main Street where everybody (including the reporter) can see him when BAM! a bolt of lightning come out of a clear blue sky and blows Speedwell to bits. Now the reporter has a real front-page story Divine Prophecy Fulfilled! the headline reads.

So what does that prove? Well, it proves that BobRyan's prophecy was true.

But also, by your logic, it proves that the New York Times is the literal, inerrant and divinely inspired Word of God.

 

[BobRyan]

But then you went on to prove the Bible with prophecy. But prophecy doesn't prove the Bible, it proves prophecy. .

That is not logical since the prophecy you are reading is in the Bible. Pretty hard to find people that will go there.

 

[BobRyan]

Let me give you an example: BobRyan doesn't like Speedwell, because he "cheats" and believes the Gospel without believing in literal inerrancy; he even believes in the divine inspiration of scripture without believing in literal inerrancy. So BobRyan starts preaching against him,

Why would BobRyan even care to "preach against him" in that case??

BobRyan starts all of his Bible studies with "God has given everyone free will - you can believe as you wish... but if this topic is of interest to you (regardless of any starting bias you may have) ... then we will begin"

 

[Leaf473]

Following on from the earlier version of my Pool Challenge, found HERE...

Joe walks into a bar and sees a pool table. There are balls on the table, and it appears that the game has just begin, for most of the balls are still on the table. There's a document sitting on the edge of the table, and Joe picks it up and reads it. The document claims that the game had just begin, but nobody actually broke. Rather, claims the document, the balls were manually placed by hand in their current locations. However, Joe carefully checks the positions of the balls, and they are positioned in a way which is entirely consistent with having been broken in the regular way without being manually placed.

Question: Is Joe justified in claiming the documentation is correct?

***

Extra credit: There are two people nearby. Neither of these people were there to watch how the balls got into position, but they have both looked at the positions of the balls and read the document. Alfred says the document says the balls were placed manually, and that settles it. Bruce says that he has examined the table and found evidence the balls rolled into their current position, consistent with a regular break. Alfred disagrees, saying that evidence could have been caused by lots of things, and besides, it might not even be real. And, says Alfred, most people in the bar share Alfred's point of view, while only a few agree with Bruce.

Who should Joe listen to?

hi Kylie, nice to meet you!

I just stumbled onto this thread, and I think it's a great discussion starter.

so diving in, the first thing that comes to mind is the difficulty of placing balls in such a way that they appear to be the result of a break, and the savant level math skills needed to know that to be the case!

suppose the document says that the balls were placed by sophisticated laser guided robotic arms.

in that case, I can't see any significant reason for Joe to accept or reject the document's explanation.
of course, he could question why someone would go to the expense of using robotic arms.

moving to the idea of the Bible talking about God creating the universe, I don't see any reason that it could not have been created as though it had existed for eons.
(I think this view is sometimes called "last Wednesdayism".)

I know a lot of people consider it absurd, but a miracle will always produce a false backstory, imo.

 

[BobRyan]

So what does that prove? Well, it proves that BobRyan's prophecy was true.
.

It does not prove everything BobRyan ever said is inspired of God.

And a great many people today - even atheists "quote the Bible" when it serves their purpose to do so - we don't claim that this makes atheists "inspired by God"..

 

[BobRyan]

moving to the idea of the Bible talking about God creating the universe, I don't see any reason that it could not have been created as though it had existed for eons.
(I think this view is sometimes called "last Wednesdayism".)

I know a lot of people consider it absurd, but a miracle will always produce a false backstory, imo.

Well in procreation -- A human begins as a zygote - not viable in the wild.
Suppose the Bible said God created Adam on day 1 of Adam's life as a zygote and left him there in the dirt -- there would be no day-2 for Adam. So instead God created Adam as a fully capable adult...

but then the atheist evolutionist says "oh no wait! That would be God lying ... making it appear that Adam is 25 when in fact he is only 1 day old".

 

[Speedwell]

Why would BobRyan even care to "preach against him" in that case??

BobRyan starts all of his Bible studies with "God has given everyone free will - you can believe as you wish... but if this topic is of interest to you (regardless of any starting bias you may have) ... then we will begin"

It's just a story, Bob.

 

[Speedwell]

It does not prove everything BobRyan ever said is inspired of God.

And a great many people today - even atheists "quote the Bible" when it serves their purpose to do so - we don't claim that this makes atheists "inspired by God"..

No, but it proves the prophecy was true. The events of a prophecy made and its fulfillment prove it to be true.

And there was an account of the prophecy and its fulfillment in the NY Times.

Just as there are accounts of prophecies and their fulfillment in the Bible.

If the account of a prophecy and its fulfillment in the NY Times doesn't prove that the Times is the literal, inerrant and inspired Word of God,

why does the account of a prophecy and its fulfillment in the Bible prove that the Bible is the literal, inerrant and divinely inspired word of God?