26% in U.S. do not know Earth goes around the Sun

JacobLaw · Mar 6, 2014

bhsmte said:
What some unknown authors wrote in a book does not = proof, sorry.

You can believe it on faith, no problem with that.

O quite contraire; the bible has been the most securitized book in the world. Several thing wrong with your statement, the authors are quite famous and witness and wrote by inspiration, and that does equal proof, regardless if some don't believe it.
And two; simply anyone that believes anything believes through faith; and that goes back to what I stated before you need to rightly divide the word of truth from versions of it so you have the right faith.

Don't you agree?

JacobLaw · Mar 6, 2014

Mr Clean said:
Ever heard of the Vedas? They have all sorts of religious stories in that book too. How about Lord of the Rings? Green Eggs and Ham?

Just because it appears in a book does not make it true, reliable, or accurate.

You have no idea who wrote the ancient texts that comprise your book. History knows that some parts of it were omitted because they were considered redundant or unimportant, so you don't even have the whole thing regardless which of the 20 versions exist out there today. Your entire stance is based on something that falls under the legal definition of hearsay....

There are a few things you said, some very wrong and some insight on another.

First of all to compare the comparisons you made to the King James Bible is extraordinary ignorant or foolish.
Second you contradict yourself to shame; what history are you talking about?
Are you just making it up as you go and seizing authority that you have no claim too?
Now the insight you accidently stubble on is the versions, however you fall quite short on that too; there is more than 20 versions in fact there may more closely up to a thousand.

See you think more highly of yourself than you ought.

AV1611VET · Mar 6, 2014

Mr Clean said:
AV - you are the one that said in another thread that you won't believe in evolution no matter how much proof is provided, so your sudden interest in the amount of proof needed in a discussion is a rather sudden turn of events...

Huh?

You must have me mixed up with someone else, eh?

AV1611VET · Mar 6, 2014

Mr Clean said:
Just because it appears in a book does not make it true, reliable, or accurate.

Yup ... including McGraw-Hill ... where it used to say Pluto was our 9th planet.

That wasn't true ... was it?

lesliedellow · Mar 6, 2014

Mr Clean said:
History knows that some parts of it were omitted because they were considered redundant or unimportant, so you don't even have the whole thing regardless which of the 20 versions exist out there today.

That sounds like the worn out atheist claim that every Christian text of the first century should have been included in the New Testament, and, if they weren't, they must have been excluded for some nefarious reason. It doesn't occur to them that the resulting New Testament would have needed a fork lift truck to pick it up.

Your entire stance is based on something that falls under the legal definition of hearsay....

If that was widely applied, it would make any sort of historiography impossible, wouldn't it? Nobody has got a time machine which lets them travel back into the past, and all they have to work with are documents written for some reason other than the convenience of future historians.

RDKirk · Mar 6, 2014

Mr Clean said:
Ever heard of the Vedas? They have all sorts of religious stories in that book too. How about Lord of the Rings? Green Eggs and Ham?

Just because it appears in a book does not make it true, reliable, or accurate.

You have no idea who wrote the ancient texts that comprise your book. History knows that some parts of it were omitted because they were considered redundant or unimportant, so you don't even have the whole thing regardless which of the 20 versions exist out there today. Your entire stance is based on something that falls under the legal definition of hearsay....

That pretty much eliminates all history up to the 20th century. No, wait, the first science fiction movie with special effects was in 1902, so you've just eliminated all history, period. There's been nothing written, recorded, or filmed that might not be fake--and certainly incomplete.

All historians are out of a job, thanks to your impeccable logic.

poolerboy0077 · Mar 6, 2014

JacobLaw said:
O quite contraire; the bible has been the most securitized book in the world. Several thing wrong with your statement, the authors are quite famous and witness and wrote by inspiration, and that does equal proof, regardless if some don't believe it.
And two; simply anyone that believes anything believes through faith; and that goes back to what I stated before you need to rightly divide the word of truth from versions of it so you have the right faith.

Don't you agree?

I certainly don't agree. The books certainly have names of people, like the Gospel of Mark, but this is not proof that men with these names wrote it because they are not so named in our earliest, extant manuscripts nor does the content of said books indicate authorship. Some books are authored by those persons classically attributed, though. For example, scholars have divided the Pauline epistles into three categories: those attributable to Paul (i.e., the undisputed Pauline epistles), those considered pseudepigraphic my most scholars, and those divide most scholars as to their authorship.

On your second claim, I also quarrel with that assertion. Belief can incorporate faith, but it is not necessary for it. For instance, in many cases where we use the term "believe" we can replace with the word "think" when making prognostications or forecasts based on prior knowledge like when we say, "I think/believe it's going to rain tomorrow based on these dark clouds." Assumptions, speculations, predictions, etc. -- all of these do not require faith.

ForJesusChrist · Mar 6, 2014

I have seen survey results like that it makes me wonder

dad · Mar 6, 2014

Mr Clean said:
There is no proof that any man has ever walked on water.

There is no proof that man has never walked on water. Therefore the reputable holy men of God who recorded the events cannot be doubted on any basis of proof!

There is no proof that Elijah existed or that a god sent fire to burn a wet log for him.

There is no proof that Elijah never existed or that a God did not send fire to burn a wet log for him. Therefore the reputable holy men of God who recorded the events cannot be doubted on any basis of proof!

There is no proof that someone named Jesus ever rose from the dead.

The year is set to Him. Hundreds of millions have met Him, and had His help in life. Multitudes died refusing to deny Him. All Scripture pointed to His coming before He came. All Scripture after Him points to the fact He came. It is actually not sane to deny He lived.

dad · Mar 6, 2014

lesliedellow said:
The thing which dad either can't get his head around, or doesn't want to get his head around, is that even if those things happened (and I believe that at least one of them did), one off miraculous events are not something which science can investigate.

Who says it could??

dad · Mar 6, 2014

lesliedellow said:
"Undefeated" he calls himself.

Only in the sense that you can't win an argument with a brick wall, because it has no arguments.

No. In the sense that you have no arguments worth their salt to offer, so we get this whining.

mzungu · Mar 7, 2014

dad said:
No. In the sense that you have no arguments worth their salt to offer, so we get this whining.

Or that you turn your back to any arguments presented to you no matter their worth? Sorry DAD but you are one of the people in CF that are not here to neither debate nor learn. :wave:

JacobLaw · Mar 7, 2014

poolerboy0077 said:
I certainly don't agree. The books certainly have names of people, like the Gospel of Mark, but this is not proof that men with these names wrote it because they are not so named in our earliest, extant manuscripts nor does the content of said books indicate authorship. Some books are authored by those persons classically attributed, though. For example, scholars have divided the Pauline epistles into three categories: those attributable to Paul (i.e., the undisputed Pauline epistles), those considered pseudepigraphic my most scholars, and those divide most scholars as to their authorship.

On your second claim, I also quarrel with that assertion. Belief can incorporate faith, but it is not necessary for it. For instance, in many cases where we use the term "believe" we can replace with the word "think" when making prognostications or forecasts based on prior knowledge like when we say, "I think/believe it's going to rain tomorrow based on these dark clouds." Assumptions, speculations, predictions, etc. -- all of these do not require faith.

LOL; I see your confusion and frustration. Look if you are going to ascribe to accusing the word of God as a hoax you can go stand in the long line of epic failures. You can stamp your feet and pound your hands and it is just childish foolishness.
But back to your confusion and frustrations; part of the problem you are having is you just don't know the language, you are caught up in defining God on your own terms, good luck with that, it's never going to get you anywhere.
If you want to know God you are going to have to humble yourself; except you are a failure of your own devise, ask for forgiveness and God will lift you up.
It is life of death, choose life and leave your pride behind.

lesliedellow · Mar 8, 2014

poolerboy0077 said:
I certainly don't agree. The books certainly have names of people, like the Gospel of Mark

Papias mentions the Gospel of Mark by name in the early second century.In any case, if somebody was going to invent an attribution, it would make more sense for it to be to one of the twelve disciples, rather than to a relatively unimportant figure in Acts.

According to Papias, Mark was written at the dictation of Peter. So why didn't he attribute the Gospel directly to Peter? Presumably because the attribution to Mark predated even Papias. If at least ten years is allowed for the tradition to become sufficiently well established for Papias to know of it, that pushes it back to within about thirty years of the date of composition.

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2014

lesliedellow said:
Papias mentions the Gospel of Mark by name in the early second century.In any case, if somebody was going to invent an attribution, it would make more sense for it to be to one of the twelve disciples, rather than to a relatively unimportant figure in Acts.

According to Papias, Mark was written at the dictation of Peter. So why didn't he attribute the Gospel directly to Peter? Presumably because the attribution to Mark predated even Papias. If at least ten years is allowed for the tradition to become sufficiently well established for Papias to know of it, that pushes it back to within about thirty years of the date of composition.

These guys need to learn two things:

1. God wrote the Bible.

2. Who cares if His secretaries were unknown or not? We say Ruth didn't write the book of Ruth; we say Esther didn't write the book of Esther; and we say the book of Hebrews was written anonymously -- yet we still ascribe verbal plenary inspiration to these books. Telling us Mark didn't write Mark, etc. is like telling a vegetarian that the price of meat just went up.

ChrisLeishy · Mar 8, 2014

Whoops! Time to have 26% more education and 50% less time watching TV and playing video games.

mzungu · Mar 8, 2014

AV1611VET said:
These guys need to learn two things:

1. God wrote the Bible.

2. Who cares if His secretaries were unknown or not? We say Ruth didn't write the book of Ruth; we say Esther didn't write the book of Esther; and we say the book of Hebrews was written anonymously -- yet we still ascribe verbal plenary inspiration to these books. Telling us Mark didn't write Mark, etc. is like telling a vegetarian that the price of meat just went up.

If God wrote the Bible then why did the elders at the Synod of Nicaea had to vote which gospels to keep and which to discard?

lesliedellow · Mar 8, 2014

mzungu said:
If God wrote the Bible then why did the elders at the Synod of Nicaea had to vote which gospels to keep and which to discard?

I wished atheists would read some history, or at least Wikipedia, before posting this nonsense for the umpteenth time. The canon wasn't even discussed at Nicea.

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2014

mzungu said:
If God wrote the Bible then why did the elders at the Synod of Nicaea had to vote which gospels to keep and which to discard?

Because scientists let wheat start growing among the tares, and a meeting was called [allegedly] to separate the two.

In addition, this meeting was [probably really] called to enthrone Constantine.

AV1611VET · Mar 8, 2014

lesliedellow said:
I wished atheists would read some history, or at least Wikipedia, before posting this nonsense for the umpteenth time. The canon wasn't even discussed at Nicea.

I keep using the allegory that a meeting was called to separate legal tender from non-legal tender: as in separating four-dollar bills from five-dollar bills and so on; and these guys are smart enough not to reply.

Then later, of course, the same old argument crops up again.

26% in U.S. do not know Earth goes around the Sun

Regular Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Follower of Christ

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

INVICTUS

Regular Member

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The beginning of wisdom-knowing you know nothing

INVICTUS

Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads