I struggle with...

[AV1611VET]

If you were educated about the Babylonion captivity you would realize how foolish you sound claiming that the Jews no longer practiced Judaism for the 70 years they were there.

I said IF there were Hebrew priests in Exile, and they re-wrote the Bible, they would have been busted if they brought that garbage back to Jerusalem.

FOR THE THIRD TIME -- THE THIRD TIME, SCIENTIST:

If Martians came to Earth and kidnapped us and took us to Mars, and some hotshots wrote the U.S. Constitution from memory, that re-written document would have been used as kindling, if they brought it back here.

And only a scientist would wonder why.

 

[mark kennedy]

I said IF there were Hebrew priests in Exile, and they re-wrote the Bible, they would have been busted if they brought that garbage back to Jerusalem.

FOR THE THIRD TIME -- THE THIRD TIME, SCIENTIST:

If Martians came to Earth and kidnapped us and took us to Mars, and some hotshots wrote the U.S. Constitution from memory, that re-written document would have been used as kindling, if they brought it back here.

And only a scientist would wonder why.

They found the Law:

Hilkiah responded and said to Shaphan the scribe, "I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD." (2 Chronicles 34:15)
​

The walls and the Temple complete Ezra read the Law in the same valley where Jesus would deliver the Sermon on the Mount almost five hundred years later. The smell of the sacrifices including the incense of the meal offerings would have filled the air. They were all in attendance in accordance with the Law that all the Jews must be there for the fall feasts. Some 40,000 in attendance and Ezra read the Law, I can assume all five books. Ezra also wrote the book that bears his name, edited Nehemiah and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Now modernists want us to believe he additionally wrote the Pentateuch, 1 and 2 Kings and all the poetic and prophetic literature of the previous thousand years, over night.

It makes a lot more sense that they found the scrolls and Ezra wrote a priestly commentary of the House of David known as Chronicles.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's not the original gospel, the identity of Jesus was secret while he was teaching the gospel about the Father.

You quote opinions from Paul after the gospel changed.

throughout scripture Jesus is the gospel...now sure where you are getting any other ideas from.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yet there is no evidence that the yarn was written by any anyone but ignorant pre-scientific goat-herders,

Now I know that the argument will be made that scripture isn't "scientific" which we already talked about Gen. not being a scientific treatise but a polemic but, the few places where there are scientific "discussion" in scripture has proven to be consistent with science today. I'll have to put some thought into one we can talk about since today is technically my day off, but scripture when read for comprehension does NOT disagree with science but agrees with it so I'm not really sure what your problem is. Seems to me that if "pre scientific goat herders" could get the science part right it would be impressive enough to take note how how they were able to do so without science.

 

[Speedwell]

Now I know that the argument will be made that scripture isn't "scientific" which we already talked about Gen. not being a scientific treatise but a polemic but, the few places where there are scientific "discussion" in scripture has proven to be consistent with science today. I'll have to put some thought into one we can talk about since today is technically my day off, but scripture when read for comprehension does NOT disagree with science but agrees with it so I'm not really sure what your problem is. Seems to me that if "pre scientific goat herders" could get the science part right it would be impressive enough to take note how how they were able to do so without science.

I don't think so. Believing that the universe was created on Oct 23, 4004 BC and that the Earth was entirely covered with water to the height of Mt. Everest for the entire year of 2348 BC is hardly "agreeing with science."

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't think so. Believing that the universe was created on Oct 23, 4004 BC and that the Earth was entirely covered with water to the height of Mt. Everest for the entire year of 2348 BC is hardly "agreeing with science."

wow, so you didn't read anything I said about what the Bible says about the flood and what it doesn't but you feel justified to make assumptions about what it says or better stated what it does NOT say and use your reinterpreted version would be what you say science says not what scripture says...geesh...

 

[Speedwell]

wow, so you didn't read anything I said about what the Bible says about the flood and what it doesn't but you feel justified to make assumptions about what it says or better stated what it does NOT say and use your reinterpreted version would be what you say science says not what scripture says...geesh...

Ah, but the people we actually have an argument with believe those things, believe that the Bible states them unequivocally.

 

[razzelflabben]

Ah, but the people we actually have an argument with believe those things, believe that the Bible states them unequivocally.

admittedly, many people believe their interpretations based on traditions over scripture but what did I say? Did I mention the traditions of people or scripture itself? Be careful in answering because I was clear in what I said and what I was talking about and my position throughout this thread, you know context further clarifies just in case you were not reading that particular post for comprehension.

 

[Colter]

The gospel changed from what to what ?

M-Bob

The gospel of Jesus, faith-trust in the Father, became a gospel about Jesus. Salvation by faith, personal spiritual transformation via the spiritual rebirth (real salvation) became belief that Jesus was a human sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world (theoretical salvation).

 

[Barry Desborough]

The gospel of Jesus, faith-trust in the Father, became a gospel about Jesus. Salvation by faith, personal spiritual transformation via the spiritual rebirth (real salvation) became belief that Jesus was a human sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world (theoretical salvation).

Do you really believe that this makes any sort of sense?

 

[Colter]

Do you really believe that this makes any sort of sense?

Yes I do, I was born again of the spirit April 26 1985. I am a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth.

My reply was about the Gospel that Jesus had hoped the Jews would respond to but rejected compared with Peter and Pauls Christian gospel after the cross.

 

[Colter]

throughout scripture Jesus is the gospel...now sure where you are getting any other ideas from.

There was a gospel before the cross. There is also a gospel about the cross.

 

[Colter]

I said IF there were Hebrew priests in Exile, and they re-wrote the Bible, they would have been busted if they brought that garbage back to Jerusalem.

FOR THE THIRD TIME -- THE THIRD TIME, SCIENTIST:

If Martians came to Earth and kidnapped us and took us to Mars, and some hotshots wrote the U.S. Constitution from memory, that re-written document would have been used as kindling, if they brought it back here.

And only a scientist would wonder why.

False equvilancy

 

[AV1611VET]

False equvilancy

Right ... and I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Coulter seems to think there were Hebrew priests writing the Scriptures during the Diaspora.

There has always been Hebrew priests. Today they mostly belong to the Cohan family where the priesthood is passed from one generation to the next. I do what I can to follow the guidelines for the priesthood that was given to us by Moses. As Peter says:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:" 1Peter 2:9

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe anything taught in the Bible because it is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. It is God-breathed. It cannot be false. And yes, it really does teach creationism. [Staff edit].

So, are you of the opinion that the whole Vatican, including the Pope himself and by extension the 1 billion-ish catholics (assuming they agree with their church leadership), are simply incorrect about their understanding of the bible?

Does their bible contain different stories then yours?
As you were asked before... what makes you think that YOUR understanding is the correct one?


Also, maybe that infamous Gallileo quote is appropriate here: "The bible tells you how to get to heaven. It doesn't tell you how the heavens go".

Any thoughts on that quote?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As has been said, we believe in creation because we believe in God. Furthermore, we believe that God has spoken and that his word is found in Scripture. Thirdly, Scripture teaches the doctrine of creation.

And after that "thirdly", you are right back at one. Closing up the circular argument quite neatly.

You believe in god and that he inspired the bible.
Yet the only source of this at your disposal, is the bible itself.
Next you believe what the bible says because you believe that god inspired it (as it is claimed in the bible itself...).

So you believe in god because "the bible" and you believe in the bible because "god".

You don't see the problem with this?

It's really very simple

Indeed, it is.

But for someone who does not believe in God it's incomprehensible.

You mean, it's incomprehensible for someone who isn't caught in the vicious circle of that neatly closed up circular argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. I did not say "we believe X because we believe X". I said "we believe X because we believe Y" and X follows logically from Y.

Nope. X doesn't follow from Y at all. Instead, Y is simply part of X.
As you said yourself: "god" because "bible" and "bible" because "god".

This is really the only way to explain why anyone believes anything - by appealing to other beliefs that we hold

Nope, not at all.
For example: I believe that jumping from the Eiffel Tower without a parachute, is a serious health hazard. Not because of "other beliefs" that I hold... but because of the objective empirical FACTS of physics.

See, some people consider it rather important to be rationally justified in ones beliefs - which is impossible to do if your justification for believing X, is simply "because I also believe Y".

This eventually leads to axiomatic beliefs that have no other explanation than that we believe them.

For superstitious beliefs (like creationism, astrology, etc), that is correct.
It's also why such beliefs are irrational.

When you need to support your beliefs with other mere beliefs, then you end up in GIGO town (= garbage in, garbage out)

The same is true for you. For example, if I asked you "why do you believe in evolution" you would say "because it's scientifically proven!" But what you're really saying there is "I believe in evolution because I believe in science". You believe because you believe.

Nope.
First, I don't believe in evolution.
Instead, I provisionally accept evolution as the best testable explanation that accounts for all the data.

And my acceptance of it is entirely justified by my understanding of the mechanism and my actual knowledge and understanding of the evidence and testability thereof.

At no point have I ever justified my acceptance of biology with "because scientists say so!".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Barry, why do you believe that science is the surest way to knowledge?

You can start with the fact that you are able to read this message.

I wonder if you actually have any idea what an enormous mountain of scientific investigation had to be done, before we knew and understood everything we had to know and understand to even be able to only IMAGINE a network like the internet and the devices that are used to connect with it.


Having said that....
I think the trackrecord of scientific investigation, speaks for itself.

I dare say that unless you find yourself in the jungle at this very moment, connected through a satellite connection, you more then likely find yourself in a room filled with objects, most of which could NOT have existed only 150 years ago and ALL of which are the direct result of a scientific understanding of physics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

These are good reasons why the scientific process is reliable. But these do not explain why science is the most reliable means of getting to knowledge. If God exists, wouldn't his word be a greater justification of knowledge than empiricism?

The proof is in the pudding.

Why don't you ask your god on how to unify relativity with quantum theory, or unify gravity with the other forces. In short: ask your god to provide you with a unified field theory of physics. Ask him for the plans and theoretical underpinnings of a cold fusion reactor. Ask him for a model of the universe that allows engineers to build a wormhole creating device that allows for instant travel from one side of the galaxy to the other.
Ask him for a knock-down cure for cancer.

Until he can actually provide you with such, there is no reason to assume that "asking god" is a more reliable method to learn about reality then actually studying reality.

As it stands now.... just about every significant scientific advancement throughout history, has displaced supernatural explanations of those phenomena...

I don't know of a SINGLE instance, where the "supernatural explanation" ended up being the actual explanation.