What proof would you need? (2)

[Zaius137]

So, which is it?

Moses got his education from the Egyptians or he got it from Noah?

Moses was educated in Pharos courts. Did you mentally go threw my short history? There was very good continuity of generations to Moses from Jacob.

It is clear that the scriptures themselves claim to be inspired by God. So the account is reinforced by direct inspiration and the continuity of generations.

Here are some of my favorite reasons to believe the Bible…

There are very good reasons for believing in the Bible. All of which are accepted in the academic community. We as Christians accept the Bible as truth by our minds, hearts and faith and God proclaimed his word to be true. That is good enough for me. But here are the secular reasons:

• Expositional Consistency.
• Historical Accuracy.
• Prophetically accurate Predictions of 100%.
• Source of unbiased law.

Good reasons to believe any truth.

 

[Gath]

That's is the next step in the evolution worldview. Once an intelligent being can no longer be ignored as the "force" behind it all, instead of turning to God, atheists will turn to the stars.

You seem to think that atheists are atheists because they don't want to believe in God. This is not true at all. To be honest, as an atheist, I would much rather live in a world where a God existed and I got to go to an awesome afterlife after I died. However, there is no evidence that our world is such a world, therefore I will not believe that it is. If it was proven that an intelligent being was the force behind evolution, I would believe in said being.

 

[Huram Abi]

Moses was educated in Pharos courts. Did you mentally go threw my short history? There was very good continuity of generations to Moses from Jacob.

It is clear that the scriptures themselves claim to be inspired by God. So the account is reinforced by direct inspiration and the continuity of generations.

Here are some of my favorite reasons to believe the Bible…

.

I'm not suggesting that you not believe the bible. I am suggesting that a literal interpretation is not a correct one.

If you can give scientific evidence that shows that trees grew and then the sun formed, I may reconsider, but until that happens I can't see that you are being entirely honest with yourself that a literal position is the best position to adopt.

 

[Zaius137]

You seem to think that atheists are atheists because they don't want to believe in God. This is not true at all. To be honest, as an atheist, I would much rather live in a world where a God existed and I got to go to an awesome afterlife after I died. However, there is no evidence that our world is such a world, therefore I will not believe that it is. If it was proven that an intelligent being was the force behind evolution, I would believe in said being.

Death is an event horizon not unlike the event horizon of a black hole. You probably don’t have problems with the black hole.

Evolution is nothing more than a secular fairytale and lacks empirical evidence. The Bible has withstood centuries of scrutiny.

 

[Keachian]

Death is an event horizon not unlike the event horizon of a black hole. You probably don’t have problems with the black hole.

Evolution is nothing more than a secular fairytale and lacks empirical evidence. The Bible has withstood centuries of scrutiny.

One of the things is during those centuries of scrutiny it wasn't always thought of literalistically and then 20th C. westerners decided about halfway through that it must be taken literally.

Do you consider yourself a fundamentalist?

 

[Gath]

Evolution is nothing more than a secular fairytale and lacks empirical evidence. The Bible has withstood centuries of scrutiny.

...Are you serious? Evolution is one of the most proven theories in existence! Or do nylon-eating bacteria not count as empirical evidence? Nor do the Galapagos finches? What about the flu virus? Ring species? The fossil record? Similarities in embryos? Convergent evolution? How is that not empirical evidence?

 

[Keachian]

...Are you serious? Evolution is one of the most proven theories in existence! Or do nylon-eating bacteria not count as empirical evidence? Nor do the Galapagos finches? What about the flu virus? Ring species? The fossil record? Similarities in embryos? Convergent evolution? How is that not empirical evidence?

because it disagrees with his misunderstanding of the Bible

 

[AV1611VET]

Impressive, considering English (including old English) is less than 1,000 years old.

Yes, English was dormant from BC 2247 - c. 1000 AD.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait...you think they spoke English before Babel?

Yes

English wasn't around in times of the Roman Empire, and it didn't really exist at all until 1000 A.D.

Don't worry -- it won't be on the Final.

Why do you think people spoke it before Babel?

Just an assumption.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

I believe those "books" to be the 66 books of the KJ Bible.

How is that logical at all?

Let's not bring logic into this, eh?

You do that and you'll end up not understanding a thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, which is it?

Moses got his education from the Egyptians or he got it from Noah?

Moses got his education from Egypt, a type of the world, according to Bible typology -- called the "iron furnace":

Deuteronomy 4:20 But the LORD hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.

Later in life, Moses, by faith, turned his back on Egypt:

Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

And Egypt was even placed off-limits to Old Testament saints.

Jeremiah was kidnapped and taken to Egypt against his will, and it is assumed he died there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Moses was educated in Pharos courts. Did you mentally go threw my short history? There was very good continuity of generations to Moses from Jacob.

It is clear that the scriptures themselves claim to be inspired by God. So the account is reinforced by direct inspiration and the continuity of generations.

Here are some of my favorite reasons to believe the Bible…

There are very good reasons for believing in the Bible. All of which are accepted in the academic community. We as Christians accept the Bible as truth by our minds, hearts and faith and God proclaimed his word to be true. That is good enough for me. But here are the secular reasons:

• Expositional Consistency.
• Historical Accuracy.
• Prophetically accurate Predictions of 100%.
• Source of unbiased law.

Good reasons to believe any truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

One of the things is during those centuries of scrutiny it wasn't always thought of literalistically and then 20th C. westerners decided about halfway through that it must be taken literally.

Not even close.

Here's the history of the allegoric method, from Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 21-22:

Philo adopted this concept of Aristobulus and sought to reconcile Mosaic law and Greek philosophy so that the Mosaic law might become acceptable to the Greek mind.

[To Philo] Greek philosophy was the same as the philosophy of Moses. ... And the aim of Philo was to set forth and illustrate this harmony between the Jewish religion and classical philosophy, or, ultimately, it was to commend the Jewish religion to the educated Greek world. This was the high mission to which he felt called, the purpose with which he expounded the Hebrew laws in the language of the world's culture and philosophy.

In order to effect this harmonization it was necessary for Philo to adopt an allegorizing method of interpreting the Scriptures.

The influence of Philo was most keenly felt in the theological school of Alexandria.
...

It was in this school that Origen developed the allegorical method as it applied to the Scriptures.

I might add that Peter S. Ruckman calls Origen a 'walking, barefoot, bastard', since Origen preferred to walk shoeless and wasn't saved (in Ruckman's opinion).

 

[Keachian]

Just an assumption.

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

I believe those "books" to be the 66 books of the KJ Bible.

This is my copy of the KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha KJ595:TA Black Calfskin - Academic and Professional Books - Cambridge University Press

It's a quite beautiful edition...

I think it has more books than 66

 

[Keachian]

Not even close.

Here's the history of the allegoric method, from Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 21-22:
I might add that Peter S. Ruckman calls Origen a 'walking, barefoot, bastard', since Origen preferred to walk shoeless and wasn't saved (in Ruckman's opinion).

I'm not talking about the heretic Origen. St. Augustine makes quite a good exegesis on the Creation accounts and it can hardly be said that Jesus talked about them literally

 

[AV1611VET]

...Are you serious? Evolution is one of the most proven theories in existence! Or do nylon-eating bacteria not count as empirical evidence? Nor do the Galapagos finches? What about the flu virus? Ring species? The fossil record? Similarities in embryos? Convergent evolution? How is that not empirical evidence?

Those are examples of [micro] evolution; for the big picture, you need to add some deep time, missing links, and worldly (unGodly) philosophy -- all brought together with human logic, calibrated equipment, and computers.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is my copy of the KJV New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha KJ595:TA Black Calfskin - Academic and Professional Books - Cambridge University Press

It's a quite beautiful edition...

I think it has more books than 66

From your link:

The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible was originally published in 2005 in a large format and, like the original King James Bible and successive editions until the nineteenth century, included the Apocrypha. As it has become known in the marketplace, a demand has become apparent for this Bible in a smaller, more manageable format. Its is therefore now being issued in Personal Size editions, either with or without the Apocrypha. This particular Bible includes the Apocrypha.

Nice try.

I have a digitally-remastered 1611 KJV, first edition; containing the Apocrypha.

 

[Keachian]

From your link:

Nice try.

I have a digitally-remastered 1611 KJV, first edition; containing the Apocrypha.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not talking about the heretic Origen. St. Augustine makes quite a good exegesis on the Creation accounts and it can hardly be said that Jesus talked about them literally

I really don't know who St. Augustine is, nor do I particularly care.

If he doesn't deliver my pizza, he's not too high on my list.

Know what I mean? --

 

[Gath]

Those are examples of [micro] evolution; for the big picture, you need to add some deep time, missing links, and worldly (unGodly) philosophy -- all brought together with human logic, calibrated equipment, and computers.

'Missing links' only exist because of the incredibly small number of fossils that exist. (According to some, all the fossils we have discovered represent less than 1% of every species that has ever lived.) Deep time has been shown to be true with every dating process...

What's your problem with human logic, equipment, and computers? They got us to the moon, after all. (As well as countless other things)

 

[AV1611VET]

'Missing links' only exist because of the incredibly small number of fossils that exist.

Yes, I know.

Evolutionists want us to connect their [1%] dots, then call it 'science', and we refuse.

(According to some, all the fossils we have discovered represent less than 1% of every species that has ever lived.)

Even if you had 99%, I still wouldn't believe it.

Deep time has been shown to be true with every dating process...

What you call 'shown to be true', I prefer to call 'made to be true'.

What's your problem with human logic, equipment, and computers? They got us to the moon, after all. (As well as countless other things)

I don't mind 'human logic', as long as it gets us to the moon and back safely, or makes my toothpaste mintier; but when 'human logic' sticks its nose into the Bible, it had better tread softly and not carry a stick.