Atheism (3)

Dave Ellis said:

I see your detection of logical fallacies hasn't improved any.... That in no way is poisoning the well.

If you are writing a new testament document, and you are aware of the old testament prophecy.... it's quite easy for you to write a fulfilled prophecy into the story.

Using biblical sources to confirm prophecies were fulfilled is senseless. The authors would have had no way to know if the prophecies were actually fulfilled, but had a vested interest in showing the prophecies happened. It's not a reliable source.

We need outside evidence to confirm these events actually happened, and there are none.

Click to expand...

Your position is untenable for one glaring reason.

You say that for a miracle recorded in the bible to be credible, it must have an extra-biblical attestation.

This is clearly false. Jesus could have performed numerous miracles and the disciples who saw them could have recorded them in their respective gospels. In fact, this is exactly what happened.

The question remains not is there extra-biblical attestation for said miracles, but are the gospels reliable texts for ascertaining the veracity of the miracles recorded in them. Surely extra-biblical attestation would help confirm the veracity of the miracles but as far as it being necessary, this simply is not true.

The gospels stand or fall on their own merit, just like any other ancient piece of literature.

gradyll said:

I personally agree that isaiah has one author, but worst case scenario I am unsure as to why this would invalidate the prophecies if there were three isaiahs. The prophecies are still over 500 years in advance.

Click to expand...

I agree, but to admit that the prophecies that have been fulfilled are valid then they would have to admit that the bible is relevant as a historical prophetic document.

Dave Ellis said:

I see your detection of logical fallacies hasn't improved any.... That in no way is poisoning the well.

If you are writing a new testament document, and you are aware of the old testament prophecy.... it's quite easy for you to write a fulfilled prophecy into the story.

Using biblical sources to confirm prophecies were fulfilled is senseless. The authors would have had no way to know if the prophecies were actually fulfilled, but had a vested interest in showing the prophecies happened. It's not a reliable source.

We need outside evidence to confirm these events actually happened, and there are none.

Click to expand...

You need outside evidence? The Rebirth of Israel
Ezekiel 37. Explain to me how Israel is not now a nation.

trientje said:

I agree, but to admit that the prophecies that have been fulfilled are valid then they would have to admit that the bible is relevant as a historical prophetic document.

Click to expand...

If the "prophesies" of the Bible were plagiarized from a devil worshiping witch doctor would you contend that validates the Bible?

Can you demonstrate that the "prophecies" were made before the fact? Can you demonstrate that the fulfillments of those "prophecies" were not inserted after the fact? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If I "prophesy" that the Jesus is going to come sitting on a cloud, tomorrow, and other "prophets" say that he will come the day after tomorrow, and still others, the day after that, ad infinitum, and after several millenia he does finally show up, are we then to cry from the rooftops that the one prophecy was valid. and ignore the others?

And after two thousand years, it is a fact that he still hasn't shown up. Of course, it is possible that he did show up, noticed the nonsense that was being preached in his name, and the horrors being perpetrated in his name, and turned around and left in disgust. I wouldn't blame him.

Christians have made his name a laughingstock and a matter for contempt and disdain. If heaven is going to be full of Christians, then there will be better company in the other place.

trientje said:

You need outside evidence? The Rebirth of Israel
Ezekiel 37. Explain to me how Israel is not now a nation.

Click to expand...

Are you aware of the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Elioenai26 said:

If I may perchance ask several questions?

What does this matter? There are numerous other prophecies in the Bible that have either been partially fulfilled or completely fulfilled, specifically with regards to Christ.

Do you maintain that all of these too are to be disregarded?

If so, why do you suppose that they should? What solid irrefutable proof do you have that we should take your word or someone else's word over that which has shown to stand the test of time and remain successfully unrefuted for well over two thousand years?

Do you not have a predetermined naturalsitc view which precludes you from accepting the miraculous before you ever even objectively and honestly look at the Bible?

Click to expand...

First of all, no, I did not have a predetermined view before I looked at the bible. Each time I read it, it seems a little more untrue (to put it mildly).

The bible has been regarded as true over centuries past, because we were more primitive human beings. As I said earlier - do you believe that eating a frog would cure your flu? No. Why? Because those ideas were written by primitive men with very little knowledge of the world, and they needed something by which to explain, cure, and understand the world, humans and disease. Same goes for the bible. At the time, these quack doctors were taken very seriously - now we know better. The bible is in the same ball-park.

There are many prophecies that have been successfully proven to be untrue. Why, then, do you ignore these, and continue to say that the bible is absolutely correct?

If all of these things came true, then why were they not reported in places other than the bible? Why now can we prove that these things did not happen? Because they DIDN'T happen.

trientje said:

I agree, but to admit that the prophecies that have been fulfilled are valid then they would have to admit that the bible is relevant as a historical prophetic document.

Click to expand...

yeah

Dave Ellis said:

I see your detection of logical fallacies hasn't improved any.... That in no way is poisoning the well.

Click to expand...

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.

from:

Fallacy: Poisoning the Well

If you are writing a new testament document, and you are aware of the old testament prophecy.... it's quite easy for you to write a fulfilled prophecy into the story.

Click to expand...

possible, yes, probable? no. That means that all the disciples that wrote the new testament lied, then died. For the lie!

Using biblical sources to confirm prophecies were fulfilled is senseless. The authors would have had no way to know if the prophecies were actually fulfilled, but had a vested interest in showing the prophecies happened. It's not a reliable source.

We need outside evidence to confirm these events actually happened, and there are none.

Click to expand...

thats true, they knew some of the prophecies were fulfilled but not all. What point does that make? You still have not addressed my prophecy regarding daniel.

Gracchus said:

If the "prophesies" of the Bible were plagiarized from a devil worshiping witch doctor would you contend that validates the Bible?

Can you demonstrate that the "prophecies" were made before the fact? Can you demonstrate that the fulfillments of those "prophecies" were not inserted after the fact? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If I "prophesy" that the Jesus is going to come sitting on a cloud, tomorrow, and other "prophets" say that he will come the day after tomorrow, and still others, the day after that, ad infinitum, and after several millenia he does finally show up, are we then to cry from the rooftops that the one prophecy was valid. and ignore the others?

And after two thousand years, it is a fact that he still hasn't shown up. Of course, it is possible that he did show up, noticed the nonsense that was being preached in his name, and the horrors being perpetrated in his name, and turned around and left in disgust. I wouldn't blame him.

Christians have made his name a laughingstock and a matter for contempt and disdain. If heaven is going to be full of Christians, then there will be better company in the other place.

Click to expand...

how about this one:

Over Seven Centuries before the birth of Christ God told the Prophet Isaiah that the time span between the Commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah would be exactly 476* years. (*seven=heptid). We know from any historical record that the order was in fact issued on March 14, 445B.C. When you add 173,880 days (476yrs) to the 14th of March, 445B.C. you come to April 6, A.D.32. Palm Sunday, The exact day Jesus entered triumphantly and openly into Jerusalem. [Predicted: Daniel 9:25/ Fulfilled: Luke 23:18]


 B.C. 445 A.D. 32 = 476 years (B.C. 1 to A.D. 1 = 1 yr.)
476 X 365 = 173,740 days
Add for leap years = 116 days
Mar. 14 to Apr. 6 = + 24 days (inclusive)
= 173,880

Dave Ellis said:

Are you aware of the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Click to expand...

self-fulfilling? So the nation of Israel, and millions of people look on that prophecy as fulfilled and they are believing a self fulfilled prophecy? If I were told that the sky was full of strange objects by millions of people, I would at least look at the sky to see what they are saying. You are in denial because if you were to at least take a look you would be admitting that just maybe there is something to look at.

gradyll said:

how about this one:

Over Seven Centuries before the birth of Christ God told the Prophet Isaiah that the time span between the Commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah would be exactly 476* years. (*seven=heptid). We know from any historical record that the order was in fact issued on March 14, 445B.C. When you add 173,880 days (476yrs) to the 14th of March, 445B.C. you come to April 6, A.D.32. Palm Sunday, The exact day Jesus entered triumphantly and openly into Jerusalem. [Predicted: Daniel 9:25/ Fulfilled: Luke 23:18]


 B.C. 445 A.D. 32 = 476 years (B.C. 1 to A.D. 1 = 1 yr.)
476 X 365 = 173,740 days



Add for leap years = 116 days
Mar. 14 to Apr. 6 = + 24 days (inclusive)
= 173,880

Click to expand...

Please site your reference. Where did you get your information? And what "order" are you referring to?

Gracchus said:

If the "prophesies" of the Bible were plagiarized from a devil worshiping witch doctor would you contend that validates the Bible?

Can you demonstrate that the "prophecies" were made before the fact? Can you demonstrate that the fulfillments of those "prophecies" were not inserted after the fact? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

If I "prophesy" that the Jesus is going to come sitting on a cloud, tomorrow, and other "prophets" say that he will come the day after tomorrow, and still others, the day after that, ad infinitum, and after several millenia he does finally show up, are we then to cry from the rooftops that the one prophecy was valid. and ignore the others?

And after two thousand years, it is a fact that he still hasn't shown up. Of course, it is possible that he did show up, noticed the nonsense that was being preached in his name, and the horrors being perpetrated in his name, and turned around and left in disgust. I wouldn't blame him.

Christians have made his name a laughingstock and a matter for contempt and disdain. If heaven is going to be full of Christians, then there will be better company in the other place.

Click to expand...

So you are proclaiming that the bible is pure fallacy? That all the people who contributed to the bible plagiarized and made the whole thing up? Is that what you are proclaiming? What about the dead sea scrolls? Was that just something some evil fools wrote and threw away in the sand? And so you think that after you die there will be better company in another place? Years ago as a young person a bunch of us were sitting in bible study. We were fooling around and saying that we were going to hell to be with our friends. The preacher turned around and said, "there are no friends in hell" According to this" fallacy" book there are two places for us after we die. Heaven or hell and guess where there will be no friends and a total separation from God.

SaraJarvis said:

First of all, no, I did not have a predetermined view before I looked at the bible. Each time I read it, it seems a little more untrue (to put it mildly).

The bible has been regarded as true over centuries past, because we were more primitive human beings. As I said earlier - do you believe that eating a frog would cure your flu? No. Why? Because those ideas were written by primitive men with very little knowledge of the world, and they needed something by which to explain, cure, and understand the world, humans and disease. Same goes for the bible. At the time, these quack doctors were taken very seriously - now we know better. The bible is in the same ball-park.

There are many prophecies that have been successfully proven to be untrue. Why, then, do you ignore these, and continue to say that the bible is absolutely correct?

If all of these things came true, then why were they not reported in places other than the bible? Why now can we prove that these things did not happen? Because they DIDN'T happen.

Click to expand...

What prophecies have successfully proven to be untrue? Could you cite them for me?

trientje said:

What prophecies have successfully proven to be untrue? Could you cite them for me?

Click to expand...

As I have already stated, I'm not here to list things. However, for the sake of debate, I'll give you a link to a few. I mean, everyone else seems to be copy and pasting things...

Failed Prophecies

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

Just a few there, for you.

SaraJarvis said:

As I have already stated, I'm not here to list things. However, for the sake of debate, I'll give you a link to a few. I mean, everyone else seems to be copy and pasting things...

Failed Prophecies

Failed biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

Just a few there, for you.

Click to expand...

OK lets take one of these "failed prophecies".

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Christians say that this verse is a prophecy of Jesus' birth to a virgin. There are a couple problems with this prophecy...First, virgin in this verse is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah", which actually means "young woman". A young woman is not necessarily a virgin. "Bethulah" would have been the correct word to use if the author meant virgin. Second, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus referred to as Immanuel.


Immanual is mentioned in the new testament. Matthew 1:23. Immanuel "God with us" is a concept used throughout the bible. As for the words Almah and Bethulah. the word Almah as it is used to describe Mary means virgin, a word that has undergone a great transformation in our present language. The word Almah used in Isaiah 7:14 simply means a young woman. Although it is sometimes used in the sense of a sexually pure woman. Bethulah means virgin in the sense that we understand it. The context will usually point out the correct usage. Maybe, instead of arguing about a book that you really have no knowledge of you should at least study the bible first then come back and argue with some knowledge. the meaning of words change with society the same is true in the bible.

trientje said:

OK lets take one of these "failed prophecies".

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Christians say that this verse is a prophecy of Jesus' birth to a virgin. There are a couple problems with this prophecy...First, virgin in this verse is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word "almah", which actually means "young woman". A young woman is not necessarily a virgin. "Bethulah" would have been the correct word to use if the author meant virgin. Second, nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus referred to as Immanuel.


Immanual is mentioned in the new testament. Matthew 1:23. Immanuel "God with us" is a concept used throughout the bible. As for the words Almah and Bethulah. the word Almah as it is used to describe Mary means virgin, a word that has undergone a great transformation in our present language.The word Almah used in Isaiah 7:14 simply means a young woman. Although it is sometimes used in the sense of a sexually pure woman. Bethulah means virgin in the sense that we understand it. The context will usually point out the correct usage. Maybe, instead of arguing about a book that you really have no knowledge of you should at least study the bible first then come back and argue with some knowledge. the meaning of words change with society the same is true in the bible.

Click to expand...

Okay, now you're simply interpreting what you wish to hear, when it comes to the virgin terminology. Is Jesus ever directly called Immanuel?


What about Damascus?

What about the Nile?

What about circumcised people?

Please, don't act as though I know nothing about the bible. My attitude on this is incredibly apathetic because of the attitude that I'm aware you will respond with - hence why I posted a link instead of searching for articles.

Elioenai26 said:

Your position is untenable for one glaring reason.

You say that for a miracle recorded in the bible to be credible, it must have an extra-biblical attestation.

This is clearly false. Jesus could have performed numerous miracles and the disciples who saw them could have recorded them in their respective gospels. In fact, this is exactly what happened.

The question remains not is there extra-biblical attestation for said miracles, but are the gospels reliable texts for ascertaining the veracity of the miracles recorded in them. Surely extra-biblical attestation would help confirm the veracity of the miracles but as far as it being necessary, this simply is not true.

The gospels stand or fall on their own merit, just like any other ancient piece of literature.

Click to expand...

The problem is, is that even biblical scholars agree the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, or people that had ever met Jesus. They are not reliable sources, which is why we'd need extra-biblical evidence to verify what they wrote.

SaraJarvis said:

Okay, now you're simply interpreting what you wish to hear, when it comes to the virgin terminology. Is Jesus ever directly called Immanuel?


What about Damascus?

What about the Nile?

What about circumcised people?

Please, don't act as though I know nothing about the bible. My attitude on this is incredibly apathetic because of the attitude that I'm aware you will respond with - hence why I posted a link instead of searching for articles.

Click to expand...

Is Jesus ever directly called Immanuel?
OK, it is important that when we study scripture we study verse within context. Verse reveals verse So when you read in Matthew 1:22-25.


"So the Lord's promise came true, just as the prophet had said, A virgin will have a baby boy, and he will be called Immanuel, which means "God with us" After Joseph woke up, he and Mary were soon married, just as the Lord's angel had told him to do. But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus. So yes, The name Jesus and Immanuel are directly connected. To study a book doesn't mean you have to agree with its content. But to be scholarly and be able to state your beliefs and opinions with any credibility then studying and knowing your subject of disagreement is a must. I have been studying the bible for a long time and have to tell you, the more I learn the more I realize that I don't know much. But I'm trying and studying so in that fact it makes what I do know present me as credible. If your attitude is one of being apathetic because of the attitude I will respond with then I need to clarify. I respond with good intention as to what knowledge I have concerning the bible. I'm trying to tell you how to study it in order to understand what is written in it.

gradyll said:

how about this one:

Over Seven Centuries before the birth of Christ God told the Prophet Isaiah that the time span between the Commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah would be exactly 476* years. (*seven=heptid). We know from any historical record that the order was in fact issued on March 14, 445B.C. When you add 173,880 days (476yrs) to the 14th of March, 445B.C. you come to April 6, A.D.32. Palm Sunday, The exact day Jesus entered triumphantly and openly into Jerusalem. [Predicted: Daniel 9:25/ Fulfilled: Luke 23:18]


 B.C. 445 A.D. 32 = 476 years (B.C. 1 to A.D. 1 = 1 yr.)
476 X 365 = 173,740 days
Add for leap years = 116 days
Mar. 14 to Apr. 6 = + 24 days (inclusive)
= 173,880

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence that shows that Jesus triumphantly entered Jerusalem on April 6, 32AD? Or are you just taking the word of an anonymous guy, who wasn't there, writing this down based on what some other guys told him decades after the fact?