Once again, CREATIONISTS!

[AV1611VET]

[bible]Psalm 22:18[/bible]
[bible]John 19:24[/bible]

Well, that justification is reliant on the claim that whoever wrote down that the soldiers gambled for his clothes didn't just make it up, since he would have been aware of the prophecy in the first place.

Let me get this straight, FF. Are you trying to get me to believe the following scenario:

• The crucifixion is in progress. Some Roman suddenly says, "Hey, look at this! Read Psalm 22:18! Quick! Let's gamble for His clothing so that they'll think He's the Messiah!"

A Roman, no less. Then, to top that off --- that fooled John, who was not only present at the crucifixion, but was addressed by Jesus Himself in one of His seven sayings?

Is this what you want me to believe?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think we can all agree the bible says nothing about the big bang/expansion AV1. Not quite sure why you'd bring up two of all of the verses that say nothing about it. Why not just quote some commandments? they are just as irrelevant to the topic as these versus.

But that's not true. The poorly named Big Bang has left evidence behind such as expansion and radiation etc.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

The Bible talks about an expanding universe --- being expanded by God --- not physics.

 

[Deadbolt]

Hey AV1, Did you know that the Romans didn't crucify thieves?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey AV1, Did you know that the Romans didn't crucify thieves?

Really? Imagine that!

 

[Deadbolt]

But apparently they made an exception...twice in the same day if your book is to be believed.

 

[FishFace]

[bible]Psalm 22:18[/bible]
[bible]John 19:24[/bible]

Let me get this straight, FF. Are you trying to get me to believe the following scenario:

• The crucifixion is in progress. Some Roman suddenly says, "Hey, look at this! Read Psalm 22:18! Quick! Let's gamble for His clothing so that they'll think He's the Messiah!"

A Roman, no less. Then, to top that off --- that fooled John, who was not only present at the crucifixion, but was addressed by Jesus Himself in one of His seven sayings?

Is this what you want me to believe?

It most certainly is not. But you are trying to tell me that it absolutely, 100% certainly did not happen. And you can by no means be certain of that, so you can by no means be certain that the Bible is 100% correct - if part of the reason you believe it is 100% correct is this prophecy.

Anyway, even if I did need to establish that the prophecy was unfulfilled, or was added in afterwards, you've described a situation in which you assume that everything else in the Bible is true - something you're not allowed to do, since you haven't established the truth of the Bible yet.
Think to yourself - how did the writer (who was not necessarily John the Evangelist - that particular belief has been contested since shortly after the Gospel was written) come to write down that the soldiers gambled for Jesus' clothing?
Was he there with the soldiers when they did it? Probably not, even if he was an eyewitness, which is unlikely anyway. No - someone must have told him, or he could have inserted, since we've not yet established that the authors were telling the truth - this piece of information. The people around at the time clearly knew of the prophecy, since the passage itself says "that the scriptures might be fulfilled." Anyone who was over-zealous, or misheard, or through a chain of chinese-whispers, could have purposefully or accidentally introduced this falsehood.

You claim absolute certainty. You can only do this if the justification is absolutely certain. But it clearly isn't - I have just created a variety of possible scenarios in which this mistake may have been written in.
Your justification isn't absolutely certain, so you can't be absolutely certain.

There are really only two points you have available to dispute:

1. You could say that absolute certainty doesn't require certain justification. But that is absurd - how can you be certain of something if its foundations are shaky?
2. You could say that there are zero possible scenarios in which any of the prophecies on which you rely could have been mistaken. The only way you could do this is by appeal to the Bible - but that is circular reasoning.

What's left, AV? The whole of your debate on this board rests on you being able to solve this. Perhaps we should start a new topic, probably in General Apologetics, to discuss this.

 

[AV1611VET]

But apparently they made an exception...twice in the same day if your book is to be believed.

Twice in the same day? Are you gonna bring up the time factors now?

[bible]Mark 15:25[/bible]
[bible]John 19:14[/bible]

 

[Contracelsus]

Your paradigms are so ungodly - (atheistic).

I once saw a horror movie where there was a real evil scientist! It was scary.

Scientists can be really scary.

Especially the ungodly ones.

You don't have equipment sensitive enough.

Well, my Godmatic Time-of-Flight Ionizing Spiritronic Faithmeter hasn't budged off "zero". I even adjusted the gain all the way up to the "x Billy Graham" setting and I can't pick up any signal.

 

[Contracelsus]

The crucifixion is in progress. Some Roman suddenly says, "Hey, look at this! Read Psalm 22:18! Quick! Let's gamble for His clothing so that they'll think He's the Messiah!"

Well, that's just silly! Was there even a Latin translation of the Bible yet at that time?

Not to mention that it would only have been reasonable if they had been working off of the King James Version, and then it is unlikely that a roman soldier would have been trained in english.

I think you soundly trounced their argument AV1611VET!

 

[AV1611VET]

Then, to top that off --- that fooled John, who was not only present at the crucifixion, but was addressed by Jesus Himself in one of His seven sayings?

Was he there with the soldiers when they did it?

Why did you ask me this?

 

[FishFace]

Why did you ask me this?

Why did you respond to an insignificant part of the post and not the main point?

As an answer, because the quotation doesn't specify whether John was present with the soldiers when the gambled for Jesus' clothes. Did they do it right there at the foot of the cross? How do you know? Even if it said so in the Bible (which it doesn't) you haven't yet established that the Bible is true.

Now here is my post again - please, don't be rude, reply to it properly. As I said, your entire argument is based on this - if you just ignore it, then you lose whatever credibility you had.

Is this what you want me to believe?

It most certainly is not. But you are trying to tell me that it absolutely, 100% certainly did not happen. And you can by no means be certain of that, so you can by no means be certain that the Bible is 100% correct - if part of the reason you believe it is 100% correct is this prophecy.

Anyway, even if I did need to establish that the prophecy was unfulfilled, or was added in afterwards, you've described a situation in which you assume that everything else in the Bible is true - something you're not allowed to do, since you haven't established the truth of the Bible yet.
Think to yourself - how did the writer (who was not necessarily John the Evangelist - that particular belief has been contested since shortly after the Gospel was written) come to write down that the soldiers gambled for Jesus' clothing?
Was he there with the soldiers when they did it? Probably not, even if he was an eyewitness, which is unlikely anyway. No - someone must have told him, or he could have inserted, since we've not yet established that the authors were telling the truth - this piece of information. The people around at the time clearly knew of the prophecy, since the passage itself says "that the scriptures might be fulfilled." Anyone who was over-zealous, or misheard, or through a chain of chinese-whispers, could have purposefully or accidentally introduced this falsehood.

You claim absolute certainty. You can only do this if the justification is absolutely certain. But it clearly isn't - I have just created a variety of possible scenarios in which this mistake may have been written in.
Your justification isn't absolutely certain, so you can't be absolutely certain.

There are really only two points you have available to dispute:

1. You could say that absolute certainty doesn't require certain justification. But that is absurd - how can you be certain of something if its foundations are shaky?
2. You could say that there are zero possible scenarios in which any of the prophecies on which you rely could have been mistaken. The only way you could do this is by appeal to the Bible - but that is circular reasoning.

What's left, AV? The whole of your debate on this board rests on you being able to solve this. Perhaps we should start a new topic, probably in General Apologetics, to discuss this.

 

[h2whoa]

I think we can all agree the bible says nothing about the big bang/expansion AV1. Not quite sure why you'd bring up two of all of the verses that say nothing about it. Why not just quote some commandments? they are just as irrelevant to the topic as these versus.

More to the point, I think we can agree that AV was erroneous, unknowingly I'm sure, that there is no evidence left behind from the begining.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now here is my post again - please, don't be rude, reply to it properly. As I said, your entire argument is based on this - if you just ignore it, then you lose whatever credibility you had.

I'm not going to waste my time with something this long. Just count me rude and incredulous --- thanks!

 

[Psudopod]

In my opinion it should, if interpreted correctly. The reason it doesn't is twofold:

1. Your paradigms are so ungodly - (atheistic).
2. You don't have equipment sensitive enough.

Again --- just my opinion.

How can this be if there is no evidence for biblical creation and how do you examine evidence with a Goldly paradigm?

If I gave you a rock could you tell me how old it was using said Goldly paradigms? If I gave you a creature, could you tell me what species it was? Could you predict the outcome of chemical reaction?

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

The Bible says He did; q.v. the "and God said" phrases of Genesis 1.

So you do have evidence for creation then, the Bible. You see, if you don't have any evidence for something, there's no reason to believe it. So when the OP asked for evidence of creation, why did you not just say "the Bible", instead of trying to amaze everyone with your apple example?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can this be if there is no evidence for biblical creation and how do you examine evidence with a Goldly paradigm?

My "godly Paradigm" is the Word of God.

If I gave you a rock could you tell me how old it was using said Goldly paradigms?

No --- it would have to be dated. The difference is that an atheist would conclude that it grew that old, and a Creationist would believe it was made that old.

Notice that the two agree on the age, it's just how it got that age that is in question.

There's no reason science and Scripture cannot walk hand-in-hand.

If I gave you a creature, could you tell me what species it was?

If you're asking me personally, I can usually tell it's genera if it's a lutrinae, or a bovine, or equine, or something simple; but something like Canis latrans, or Canis lupus, or Ursus thalarctos maximus (?), I would have to look it up.

I can ask my wife if we're having galliforms for supper, and she knows exactly what I'm asking.

Could you predict the outcome of chemical reaction?

No --- I wouldn't know litmus paper if it turned blue on me.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you do have evidence for creation then, the Bible. You see, if you don't have any evidence for something, there's no reason to believe it. So when the OP asked for evidence of creation, why did you not just say "the Bible", instead of trying to amaze everyone with your apple example?

Because every time someone would ask me for evidence, I would post this as a response:

Until finally even I got tired of doing that.
​

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

Because every time someone would ask me for evidence, I would post this as a response:

Until finally even I got tired of doing that.
​

So what's with the apple thing then?

 

[AV1611VET]

So what's with the apple thing then?

The "apple thing" is to get them to admit there's no evidence.

That way when someone says, "Show me evidence for creation," we can say, "Didn't you just say there is none?"

 

[FishFace]

I'm not going to waste my time with something this long. Just count me rude and incredulous --- thanks!

Then you tacitly admit that you don't have 100% certain grounds for believing the Bible is 100% correct.

I can't see how validating your entire belief system could possibly be a waste of time when you are quite happy to spend ages wrangling over variously irrelevant analogies.

Anyway, I'll bookmark this so that we can all remember that, whenever you use the Bible as the sole guarantor of some point you make, you're completely unjustified.