What would be the evidence for ex nihilo creation?

[AV1611VET]

Why should we learn anything from the past if it never actually happened?

A very good question!

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that means that everything you say, AV, is wrong, unless you're using the Internet in 95 AD to communicate with all of us here in your future.

But that must be wrong too, it's posted after 96 AD.

Yet that statement too must be wrong.

And that one is wrong too

So is that, and this one is wrong too.

Wait, that must be wrong.

.......

As I have said before, if an angel came up to me and said: "Thus sayeth the Lord: 'Praise ye the Lord! For He is risen, indeed!' --- I would reply: "Get thee behind me, Satan".

 

[Nathan Poe]

None --- but why would God include in this "false history" a conversation whereby He identifies Satan as 'a liar'?

Because one of the most common tactics for a liar is to shift the blame to someone else.

Also, why would He make this statement:

Because He's a liar?

 

[AV1611VET]

A member of my family who was burned at the stake took part in the translation of the Bible into English.

John, that's quite a heritage you got there! It's nice to meet you!

 

[Nathan Poe]

John, that's quite a heritage you got there! It's nice to meet you!

You mean you believed that?

 

[AV1611VET]

See, this is why ya'll come off so silly most of the time. Someone makes a point about a problem with your reaosning, and then instead of rebutting the point, you go and make the same error in response.

You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible.

What is so hard for you to grasp in that? Did you even read my post?

Do you not even read my signature? Do you even know what sola scriptura means? Have you ever met a real live KJVO? Do you know how comical "feeding" a sola scripturist scientific data that contradicts Scripture looks?

I realize only a sola scripturist knows how a sola scripturist thinks, but let's not go overboard the other way, okay?

p.s. Did you happen to read my post from about a month ago, when I said I won't buy a Bible that has the word 'mixt' spelled 'mixed' in Numbers 11:4? Even if it claims to be a King James Bible?

[bible]Numbers 11:4[/bible]

 

[RealityCheck]

You mean you believed that?

I know, really! It was said in 2006 after all... must be the words of Satan.

 

[RealityCheck]

AV - while YOU might accept the KJV as self-proven, the vast majority of the world does not, and has mounds of good reason not to.

 

[AV1611VET]

This indicates that you are incapable of distinguishing reality from (your interpretation of) the Bible.

Such a mindset would be idolotry (with regard to the Bible), and/or severe egocentrism (with regard to belief in your own interpretation).

Is Jesus guilty of bibliolatry, in your opinion?

 

[OdwinOddball]

Do you not even read my signature? Do you even know what sola scriptura means? Have you ever met a real live KJVO? Do you know how comical "feeding" a sola scripturist scientific data that contradicts Scripture looks?

I realize only a sola scripturist knows how a sola scripturist thinks, but let's not go overboard the other way, okay?

p.s. Did you happen to read my post from about a month ago, when I said I won't buy a Bible that has the word 'mixt' spelled 'mixed' in Numbers 11:4? Even if it claims to be a King James Bible?

[bible]Numbers 11:4[/bible]

Do you realise how comical it is to feed bible quotes to someone who thinks the Bible is an inacurate, mixed up, unverifiable book of superstition with no value beyond the occasional historical reference?

Just becuase you say all thes ethings, doesnt't mean they are right. You have your beleifs, you reject anything that contradicts them regardless of wether it is verfied or not, and then come to a scientific discussion board for what? Kicks? To cause endless circular discussion while we try to explain to you that things do not work the way you want them to? To redefine all the terms in order to give your idealogy some chance of survival? To score brownie points with your god?

There really doesnt seem to be a point. You cannot accept anything that contradicts your book, and I cannot accept anything that has as little evidence behind, and has as many errors and holes in it, as your book.

 

[RealityCheck]

Is Jesus guilty of bibliolatry, in your opinion?

The BIBLE did not exist in Jesus's day, therefore, Jesus could not be guilty of any such thing.

Scriptures existed, yes. There were many canonical Jewish scriptures that were considered holy in his time, which he knew, but which subsequently were not included in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparantly for the exact same reason you believe Young Earth Creationism. What exactly is the difference betweem 6,000 years and Last Thursday, theologically speaking?

Once again, Last Thursdayism implies deception; and, once again, I am not a YEC.

Doing ex nihilo creation with the appearance/illusion of age is inherently untrustworthy.

Except if the age is real, and not an "appearance/allusion".

 

[AV1611VET]

Because one of the most common tactics for a liar is to shift the blame to someone else.

And that's your impression of God? A liar who is shifting the blame on to everyone else? No wonder you're an atheist; but don't expect me to follow suit.

Because He's a liar?

Cute.

 

[JohnR7]

You mean you believed that?

It is kind of like Chedder man. He would have had 20 million living ancestors or decendants. Rogers may seem like a common name but we are all related. It goes back to the Rogers who came over on the Mayflower, from then it goes back to the famous martyer and from there it goes back to the king Roger II of sicily in the 1000's. I have not been able to trace it back any further then 950. At that point usually they go to DNA & population genetics to trace their family back further. I have not done that yet. I am waiting for someone else to do it and put the results out there for the rest of us, because it will all be the same.

In England they ran their "pedigree" based on being related to the right people. Why would that surprise you that I come from a "proper" family? Sense 1555 the family has grown from two people to 2 million people. There could very well be 5 million people alive today that can trace their ancestory back to the first martyr to earn the wrath of "bloody" mary.

It surprises you that I am related to someone that got on the bad side of the government at the time? This is a clear example of poe's law at work

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean you believed that?

Why wouldn't I? People are real, and they leave real posterities behind when they go. Some are famous, some aren't.

 

[JohnR7]

Do you realise how comical it is to feed bible quotes to someone who thinks the Bible is an inacurate, mixed up, unverifiable book of superstition with no value beyond the occasional historical reference?

Do you realize how sad it is for someone to be that wrong about something. How can we take you serious about anything, when you have proven yourself to be so wrong about what so many consider to be true.

In fact 1/3 to 1/2 of the people in this world would disagree with you. So why would you do or say something that would cause so many people to think you were mixed up and confused?

Your guilty of the very thing you accuse others of, because of your reacton to people who think the same thing about evolution as you think of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV - while YOU might accept the KJV as self-proven, the vast majority of the world does not, and has mounds of good reason not to.

Ya --- but which came first --- the people who don't believe in it --- or the "mounds of good reason not to"?

 

[OdwinOddball]

Do you realize how sad it is for someone to be that wrong about something. How can we take you serious about anything, when you have proven yourself to be so wrong about what so many consider to be true.

In fact 1/3 to 1/2 of the people in this world would disagree with you. So why would you do or say something that would cause so many people to think you were mixed up and confused?

Your guilty of the very thing you accuse others of, because of your reacton to people who think the same thing about evolution as you think of the Bible.

No John, theres a difference. Its the one that you never seem to understand. its the one that causes us to continue to have to ask the same question of you time and time again.

The difference is that science, and in this particular case the ToE has a very large amount of verified, tested, scientific evidence behind it. Evidence that regardless of wether you accept the conclusions drawn from it, is undeniable in its existance as you can actually see, touch, and examine it at will. Where as your beliefs have only the word of those that choose to believe it and a signle anceitn book, that you believers cannot even agree on.

It is this diffrence which causes this debate, and causes you to continue to try to change the subject.

Bring forth that evidence you have claimed to have. Stop dodging.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe God is really evil, and you just don't know it?

I think I'll let two excellent examples from history answer this:

• 20 March 1995 --- Shoko Asahara --- wanting to please his god (Shiva, the god of destruction), poisoned thousands of commuters in the subways of Tokyo, killing 12 people.
• 11 September 2001 --- Islams --- wanting to please their god (Allah, the moon god of the Quraysh tribe) killed hundreds in America.

Now I ask you, do you really want us to believe that God is evil?

I mean, what proof is there that the God of the Bible actually has your best intentions in mind?

By feeding 5000, healing the sick, raising the dead, taking our sins upon Himself and dying on a cross, weeping, stilling a storm, preaching w/o sleep day and night, accepting ridicule, being beaten to a pulp, whipped nearly to death, and then finally stumbling under the weight of the very cross that He had to carry to Calvary, with poisonous thorns driven into His head, and his beard plucked out. Spit upon, denied, mocked, He went through it all for you and me.

A liar will always claim to be telling the truth, to make the lie believable.

Like I showed Beastt, even a simple lie like it raining 41 days and nights, instead of 40, can lead to God being exposed.

 

[AV1611VET]

The BIBLE did not exist in Jesus's day, therefore, Jesus could not be guilty of any such thing.

Scriptures existed, yes. There were many canonical Jewish scriptures that were considered holy in his time, which he knew, but which subsequently were not included in the Bible.

I'll ask you a second time: Is Jesus guilty of bibliolatry, too?