Science PROVES the BIBLE is True

[In situ]

I forgot to address this request of you.

it does not matter what evidence I produce. The question is what can you produce?

I am confused here. What is it you think I need "to produce" when I only have asked you to back up your assertion that "the bible is scientifcally proven"? Am I supposed to evidence your claims? I sorry but I cannot do that even if I wanted, because I dont even know what it is in the bible that is supossed to have been proven by science. Can you give some example?

 

[HitchSlap]

It is something you just can't understand by applying secular logic to spiritual matters!
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
A "Born Again" Christians receives help from the Holy Spirit...we just know and by faith we believe in the Bible...for you it is folly!

Hogwash. There is no special decoder ring that gives one a "supernatural" advantage over another.
Grow up.

 

[In situ]

It is something you just can't understand by applying secular logic to spiritual matters!

Are you saying the bible can only be proven true by spiritual means?

the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. A "Born Again" Christians receives help from the Holy Spirit...we just know and by faith we believe in the Bible...for you it is folly!

You seams to be saying one can only believe it if one already believe it, which is of course true by itself. But what make you believe it to be true in the first place? (This is the question I tried to get an answer to all the time but which I feel you have not answered yet).

 

[In situ]

Hogwash. There is no special decoder ring that gives one a "supernatural" advantage over another.
Grow up.

Even if that was the case, that a decoder existed, how would one be able to know one need a decoder if one does not have a decoder? Would it not be fair to ask for the decoder and then have it explained by those that claim to have one - is it not what I am doing right now? So far I been told I must believe a decoder exists, and if I do then it will exists, but I do not feel I have got a proper motivation to why I should carry such believe in the first place.

 

[bhsmte]

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought"- From Billy Madison.

That is a hilarious scene.

 

[In situ]

That's like saying, "I'm not bias toward Martians. I hate 'em all."

Are you saying when somebody thinks religions is silly it also implies they hate religion? If not, why did you pick this particular analogy?

 

[Robert Palase]

That's like saying, "I'm not bias toward Martians. I hate 'em all."

All religions are ridiculous, you of course think all but one of them is ridiculous.

 

[Born Again2004]

Are you saying the bible can only be proven true by spiritual means?

I am not stating the validity of anything...I do say, as a believer, the Bible says you, an Agnostic, can't under understand it. Saying that, there are plenty of things in the Bible which aren't disputed because of physical evidence....too many to discuss here but one is that even Muslim faith has records that Jesus really existed.
For you, yes it is the spiritual discernment that you lack, so I understand where you are coming from!

You seams to be saying one can only believe it if one already believe it, which is of course true by itself. But what make you believe it to be true in the first place? (This is the question I tried to get an answer to all the time but which I feel you have not answered yet).

Sorry, you won't understand or agree but I will do my best. It not as much as being a believer, as what being a believer means. A lot of people say that they are believers without even knowing what it means. There is a terminology that some of us understand and that is the difference between being a " Head Christian" and a " Heart Christian". What is known about a true Christian is that they know God has put his Holy Spirit in them....that is a Heart Christian. Those who know the Bible very well, say that they are believers but, do not have the spirit of God in them....they have had the chances so for but ,otherwise, have chosen not to personally commit to Jesus...they are the Head Christians....you will never understand, until you chose to receive Jesus in your heart....I didn't used to and was much like you!

 

[HitchSlap]

I am not stating the validity of anything...I do say, as a believer, the Bible says you, an Agnostic, can't under understand it. Saying that, there are plenty of things in the Bible which aren't disputed because of physical evidence....too many to discuss here but one is that even Muslim faith has records that Jesus really existed.
For you, yes it is the spiritual discernment that you lack, so I understand where you are coming from!

Sorry, you won't understand or agree but I will do my best. It not as much as being a believer, as what being a believer means. A lot of people say that they are believers without even knowing what it means. There is a terminology that some of us understand and that is the difference between being a " Head Christian" and a " Heart Christian". What is known about a true Christian is that they know God has put his Holy Spirit in them....that is a Heart Christian. Those who know the Bible very well, say that they are believers but, do not have the spirit of God in them....they have had the chances so for but ,otherwise, have chosen not to personally commit to Jesus...they are the Head Christians....you will never understand, until you chose to receive Jesus in your heart....I didn't used to and was much like you!

Right, the "True Christian" canard.

 

[AV1611VET]

All religions are ridiculous, you of course think all but one of them is ridiculous.

That's right.

Is something wrong with that?

 

[Born Again2004]

Right, the "True Christian" canard.

God Bless you too!

 

[joshua 1 9]

What is it you think I need "to produce"

You need to produce real evidence that can falsify the Bible. There is no evidence on Skeptic Dot Com. I have already shown that skeptics and scoffers have a reprobate mind and they fail at their attempt to suppress the Truth. We need to avoid this sort of minion - lemmings mentality and people need to learn how to use their brain and think for themselves.

 

[bhsmte]

You need to produce real evidence that can falsify the Bible. There is no evidence on Skeptic Dot Com. I have already shown that skeptics and scoffers have a reprobate mind and they fail at their attempt to suppress the Truth. We need to avoid this sort of minion - lemmings mentality and people need to learn how to use their brain and think for themselves.

When in doubt, shift the burden of proof.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you think that a person who was severely arthritic and who had lost all his teeth died in the prime of life?

I do not know where you got that quote from but it was not Wiki. The point is that it has long been establish that prehistoric man did not have the diseases that civilized man has. Science has their attempts to explain the reason for this but the real reason can be found in the story of Noah in the Bible. They claim that The life expectancy in prehistoric times was low, 25–40 years. But I am saying that prehistoric people lived longer than we do today because they did not age the way we do today. So of course they look younger then us in comparison. It is a little absurd to try to reason that they died in the prime of their life.

 

[bhsmte]

I do not know where you got that quote from but it was not Wiki. The point is that it has long been establish that prehistoric man did not have the diseases that civilized man has. Science has their attempts to explain the reason for this but the real reason can be found in the story of Noah in the Bible. They claim that The life expectancy in prehistoric times was low, 25–40 years. But I am saying that prehistoric people lived longer than we do today because they did not age the way we do today. So of course they look younger then us in comparison. It is a little absurd to try to reason that they died in the prime of their life.

Evidence????

 

[joshua 1 9]

Evidence????

You mean the ref? "The life expectancy in prehistoric times was low, 25–40 years" Schools History Project (26 September 1996).Medicine & Health Through Time: an SHP Development Study. Hodder Education. ISBN 978-0719552656.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean the ref? "The life expectancy in prehistoric times was low, 25–40 years" Schools History Project (26 September 1996).Medicine & Health Through Time: an SHP Development Study. Hodder Education. ISBN 978-0719552656.

Your link is not working. It does not go to your source.

 

[joshua 1 9]

When in doubt, shift the burden of proof.

As a general rule the skeptics like to move the goal posts and change the rules to try to gain an advantage. It does not very do them any good. In the political arena they call this gerrymandering.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Your link is not working. It does not go to your source.

The link is from Wiki, so the quote comes from wiki. If you dispute wiki then feel free to edit the article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The link is from Wiki, so the quote comes from wiki. If you dispute wiki then feel free to edit the article.

I would like to be able to read the quote in context. You quite often get your science claims wrong. And since you made the post the burden of proof is upon you. Also it seems that you do not understand how Wiki is done these days. It is no longer so easy to edit articles and enter bogus information. Wiki on settled science is actually a rather reliable source. On cutting edge matters you would be better off with professional journals. But almost everything debated here is rather settled and I in general do not have a problem with Wiki. That does not mean that people cannot abuse it by quoting out of context. That is why links for claims are very important.