Why... ?

[Tawhano]

It is the argument that the claims are only as good as the person making them.

Wrong! The argument is that once a person demonstrates he is not to be trusted then you do not trust him until such time as he redeems himself.

I can refute the claim that the Bible is a divine product, that it is inerrant, no one can refute my claims because they are true.

Your claims are easily refuted because they are based on ignorance. You haven’t interpreted one single verse correctly. All the arguments you provided can be found on any anti-Christian site and all of them have been refuted by much more learned people than you and I.

Backing? I don't need no stinking backing!

Arrogance isn’t a sign of being right. You already convinced us that you refuse any other valid view than your own so you do not need to repeat it. We are convienced you got nothing.

 

[CShephard53]

It is the argument that the claims are only as good as the person making them.

Yet no one has put that argument forth. Interesting perspectives have you.

The claims stand by themselves, until refuted.

Yes, they stand with no support, no backing, and no reasoning. They stand on nothing.

You can not refute the claims, so you argue that the claims are not worthy...

Another claim that I cannot do something, even though I cited a perfectly good source that refutes your claim the Bible isn't reliable- in the Gospels, at least.

He has not attacked one of the claims, he has not refuted one of the claims.

Stating you have no evidence is attacking your claim. Certainly you realize that. Certainly you noticed the book I cited as well.

Do we have evidence of serpents and donkeys talking?

Testimony in the Bible.

Do we have evidence of a man being able to walk on water that isn't frozen?

Testimony in the Bible.

Do we have evidence of a single ovum splitting to become a male child?

Show where in the Bible the egg was not fertilized.

Argue whatever you want about backing or unbacking... you are attacking me, you are not attacking the claim, because if Jesus himself came and said these things you would accept them in a second, without any question.

If we're attacking you, report our posts, as they'd be considered rude and ad hominem. Those get deleted.

Backing? I don't need no stinking backing!

You don't need evidence to back your claims? You don't need to make a defense of what you yourself have claimed? You're in a debate thread. Of course you don't need to, but it might be a good idea if you want to be taken seriously.

I can refute the claim that the Bible is a divine product, that it is inerrant, no one can refute my claims because they are true.

If you can refute it, then do it. So far, you haven't even come close. Claiming that your claims are true doesn't give us any reason to take you seriously. Backing that claim with some hard evidence might.

 

[KCDAD]

You’re a hoot you denied saying something so I quote where you say it and then you ask if I have no refutation. I refuted your denial of something that everybody can read for themselves. Is there a name for that behavior?

I never denied saying it. I in fact, repasted it and pointed out that you are unable to understand that the being is NOT the event in that statement. I used examples to help ease you into understanding and oyu couldn't handle those either. You repeatedly address my character rather than the substance of the argument.
The term applies to a concept that refers to a specific event.

A pitcher a concept that refers to a an event: throwing a baseball.
A potter is a concept that refers to a specific event: Making a pot. The Pitcher is not the baseball nor the throwing of it, and the potter is not the pot not the throwing of it. The concepts refer to the event and are in fact defined by that event.

Duh Duh and double duh-uh.

 

[KCDAD]

Wrong! The argument is that once a person demonstrates he is not to be trusted then you do not trust him until such time as he redeems himself.

Your claims are easily refuted because they are based on ignorance. You haven’t interpreted one single verse correctly. All the arguments you provided can be found on any anti-Christian site and all of them have been refuted by much more learned people than you and I.

Arrogance isn’t a sign of being right. You already convinced us that you refuse any other valid view than your own so you do not need to repeat it. We are convienced you got nothing.

I am redeemed! What difference would it make if the Bozo or Marshall Dillon made the statement? Respond, and refute the statement, not the stater.

Slowly... take a breath. Ok. Here are a couple of statements. You should be able to respond simply yes or no to them. Tell me if you agree or disagree.
The Bible is a divine product. Everything in the Bible is there because God wanted it there and nothing is not there that God wanted there.
The Bible has existed from the beginning of time. (John 1:1)
The Bible is the word of God.
Because God is good and perfect, the Bible is also good and perfect. There are no errors, no typos, no mistakes, no false statements, no misquotes... no errors. The book of Jashar is not a divine product and does not belong in the Bible, the same goes for the Apochrapha, and the rejected letters and Gosples of Thomas, Jesus, Mary, etc.
Do you agree with these statements?

I have already provided examples of these statements not being true.

 

[KCDAD]

If we're attacking you, report our posts, as they'd be considered rude and ad hominem. Those get deleted.

I don't run to mama to tattle when I can't come up with a reasonable response. I don't take offense because your failure to answer the argument makes you look foolish, not me.

What is rude? Someone who disagrees with you? (Stop using ad hominem because you apparently don't understand its meaning.)

 

[Tawhano]

The term applies to a concept that refers to a specific event.

Which is what I said. You said God was a concept and the definition you gave said God was a being.

repeatedly address my character rather than the substance of the argument.

The substance of your arguments is your character. You have nothing else. This is why you can not back anything up. It is just you.

 

[Tawhano]

I don't run to mama to tattle when I can't come up with a reasonable response.

What an absolutely childish thing to say.

 

[Tawhano]

What difference would it make if the Bozo or Marshall Dillon made the statement?

None to you, you would link to Bozo’s site as evidence as long as he said what you believed.

I have already provided examples of these statements not being true.

Unfortunately we are not privy to your fantasy world so we can’t see these examples you think show those statement being untrue.

 

[KCDAD]

Which is what I said. You said God was a concept and the definition you gave said God was a being.

The substance of your arguments is your character. You have nothing else. This is why you can not back anything up. It is just you.

A person is a concept. A person is a being. God is not a person. God is not a being, God is being, existence itself.

 

[KCDAD]

What an absolutely childish thing to say.

That is what I thought when I read the 5 reports.

 

[CShephard53]

A person is a concept. A person is a being. God is not a person. God is not a being, God is being, existence itself.

John 1:1-14. Read it.

 

[KCDAD]

None to you, you would link to Bozo’s site as evidence as long as he said what you believed.

Unfortunately we are not privy to your fantasy world so we can’t see these examples you think show those statement being untrue.

If Bozo said the ice is cold and fire is hot... yes, I would link to that and expect you to provide some contrary evidence or proof that both Bozo and I were wrong.
I wouldn't (well, in your case I would, actually) expect you to attack Bozo's TV show, his hair or his faith in God, instead of just proving that ice is not cold and fire is not hot.

 

[KCDAD]

John 1:1-14. Read it.

Ahhh the logos... you translate it as word, don't you?

I don't se anything about anything written. It is more than just a word that is spoken, too, and that is clear from the information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Please note the references to this WIKI article

Did you report another post? Why aren't they listening to you?

 

[Tawhano]

A person is a concept. A person is a being. God is not a person. God is not a being, God is being, existence itself.

Yes I got that already. The error you made was to provide a definition that said God was a being. I spotted your error brought it to question and you have been denying it despite it being there in black and white…well in your case blue and white.

 

[synger]

Please dial it back, people. If you wish to continue to discuss this topic, you will need to abide by the rules.

That means you need to stop calling each other names and attacking one another, and instead focus on the specific issues of disagreement, and why you disagree. When it gets personal, it can lead to flames.

 

[Tawhano]

If Bozo said the ice is cold and fire is hot... yes, I would link to that and expect you to provide some contrary evidence or proof that both Bozo and I were wrong.

Yes I know you would and in a serious, intelligent and sound debate I would not be expected to provide anything but distain for such shoddy debating skills.

I wouldn't (well, in your case I would, actually) expect you to attack Bozo's TV show, his hair or his faith in God, instead of just proving that ice is not cold and fire is not hot.

I would not attack Bozo's TV show, his hair or his faith in God. I have not attack you in this manner either. I have tried several times to get straight answers from you but it isn’t forthcoming and I now believe it won’t be either. I truly believe you are a troll and nothing else. You simply want to shake the Christian’s cages and attack their beliefs as ignorant, idolatrous and superstitious with absolutely no substantial evidence. That is a troll.

 

[CShephard53]

Ahhh the logos... you translate it as word, don't you?

I don't se anything about anything written. It is more than just a word that is spoken, too, and that is clear from the information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

Please note the references to this WIKI article

Did you report another post? Why aren't they listening to you?

Wikipedia is not a valid academic source, KC.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Joh 1:6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
Joh 1:9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
Joh 1:11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

In context, who is the Word? The logos is Christ, is God. Sure, in other places it is not. But I think you missed the point of my reference if you're talking about logos.

 

[KCDAD]

Wikipedia is not a valid academic source, KC.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Joh 1:6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
Joh 1:9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
Joh 1:11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

In context, who is the Word? The logos is Christ, is God. Sure, in other places it is not. But I think you missed the point of my reference if you're talking about logos.

Which is why I wrote: Please note the references to the WIKI articles

• The entry for "logos" in the standard work A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and H. Stuart Jones
• D. A. Carson (1991). The Gospel According to John. ISBN 0-85111-749-X
• Leon Morris (1995). The Gospel According to John (New International Commentary on the New Testament). ISBN 0-8028-2504-4
• The Apologist's Bible Commentary
• John Robbins (1993). "An Introduction to Gordon H. Clark" in The Trinity Review, July/August 1993.
• Guenther Witzany (2006). "The Logos of the Bios 1. Contributions to the foundation of a three-levelled biosemiotics". Helsinki, Umweb. ISBN 952-5576-01-9
• Guenther Witzany (2007). "The Logos of the Bios 2. Bio-Communication". Helsinki, Umweb. ISBN 952-5576-04-7
• Chris Leads (1990). Word Type in Ancient Formats.
• Musical rendering of John 1:1-5's Koine text
• Musical rendering of John 1:1-5's Van Dyke's Arabic translation

1. ^ Oxford Dictionary definition: -logy repr. F. -logie, medL. -logia, Gr. -logíā, which is partly f. lógos discourse, speech, partly f. log-, var. of leg-, légein speak; hence derivs. in -logia mean either
2. A Greek-English Lexicon
   
   From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   
   (Redirected from LSJ)d out how ump to:
   A Greek-English Lexicon
   Author Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie Country UK Language English Publisher Oxford University Press Publication date 1996 (9th edition) Media type Print (Hardcover) ISBN ISBN 0-19-864226-1 "LSJ" redirects here. For other uses, see LSJ (disambiguation).
   A Greek-English Lexicon is a standard lexicographical work of the Ancient Greek language, begun in the nineteenth century and now in its ninth (revised) edition. Based on the earlier Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache by the German lexicographer Franz Passow (first published in 1819, fourth edition 1831), which in turn was based on Johann Gottlob Schneider's Kritisches griechisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch, it has served as the basis for all later lexicographical work on the ancient Greek language (such as the ongoing Diccionario Griego-Español).
   It was edited by Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie, and published by the Oxford University Press. It is now conventionally referred to as Liddell & Scott, Liddell-Scott-Jones, or LSJ, and sometimes humorously referred to as "the big Liddell" (big little) or "the great Scott".

I already knew you respond that Wikipedia was not a scholarly source and that is why I checked the references for this particular entry before sharing it with you.. too bad you didn't. You just knee jerked your way away from any intelligent response because you have nothing substantial to add except defensiveness... too bad. Knowledge and learning are wonderful things...

 

[KCDAD]

Wikipedia is not a valid academic source, KC.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Joh 1:6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
Joh 1:8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
Joh 1:9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
Joh 1:11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

In context, who is the Word? The logos is Christ, is God. Sure, in other places it is not. But I think you missed the point of my reference if you're talking about logos.

The Bible is not a scholarly source, jaws. It is one compilation of many authors and languages in sometimes unrelated subjects and points of views, that the propagandists wish for the the reader to believe is a single work.

What makes you think there is anything in what is John's opening poem that relates to the person of Jesus?

 

[CShephard53]

Which is why I wrote: Please note the references to the WIKI articles

• The entry for "logos" in the standard work A Greek-English Lexicon by Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, and H. Stuart Jones
• D. A. Carson (1991). The Gospel According to John. ISBN 0-85111-749-X
• Leon Morris (1995). The Gospel According to John (New International Commentary on the New Testament). ISBN 0-8028-2504-4
• The Apologist's Bible Commentary
• John Robbins (1993). "An Introduction to Gordon H. Clark" in The Trinity Review, July/August 1993.
• Guenther Witzany (2006). "The Logos of the Bios 1. Contributions to the foundation of a three-levelled biosemiotics". Helsinki, Umweb. ISBN 952-5576-01-9
• Guenther Witzany (2007). "The Logos of the Bios 2. Bio-Communication". Helsinki, Umweb. ISBN 952-5576-04-7
• Chris Leads (1990). Word Type in Ancient Formats.
• Musical rendering of John 1:1-5's Koine text
• Musical rendering of John 1:1-5's Van Dyke's Arabic translation

1. ^ Oxford Dictionary definition: -logy repr. F. -logie, medL. -logia, Gr. -logíā, which is partly f. lógos discourse, speech, partly f. log-, var. of leg-, légein speak; hence derivs. in -logia mean either
2. A Greek-English Lexicon
   
   From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   
   (Redirected from LSJ)d out how ump to:
   A Greek-English Lexicon
   Author Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie Country UK Language English Publisher Oxford University Press Publication date 1996 (9th edition) Media type Print (Hardcover) ISBN ISBN 0-19-864226-1 "LSJ" redirects here. For other uses, see LSJ (disambiguation).
   A Greek-English Lexicon is a standard lexicographical work of the Ancient Greek language, begun in the nineteenth century and now in its ninth (revised) edition. Based on the earlier Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache by the German lexicographer Franz Passow (first published in 1819, fourth edition 1831), which in turn was based on Johann Gottlob Schneider's Kritisches griechisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch, it has served as the basis for all later lexicographical work on the ancient Greek language (such as the ongoing Diccionario Griego-Español).
   It was edited by Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones, and Roderick McKenzie, and published by the Oxford University Press. It is now conventionally referred to as Liddell & Scott, Liddell-Scott-Jones, or LSJ, and sometimes humorously referred to as "the big Liddell" (big little) or "the great Scott".

I already knew you respond that Wikipedia was not a scholarly source and that is why I checked the references for this particular entry before sharing it with you.. too bad you didn't. You just knee jerked your way away from any intelligent response because you have nothing substantial to add except defensiveness... too bad. Knowledge and learning are wonderful things...

Too bad it has nothing to do with anything. Just because you post some article from Wikipedia, then show it has some valid sources, does not mean that article came from those sources, nor does it mean that the content of the article has anything to do with whether or not the Logos is Jesus/God.

The Bible is not a scholarly source, jaws. It is one compilation of many authors and languages in sometimes unrelated subjects and points of views, that the propagandists wish for the the reader to believe is a single work.

What makes you think there is anything in what is John's opening poem that relates to the person of Jesus?

Not a scholarly source? Wow, then you've got to throw out pretty much everything else we know about ancient history, because it's not a 'scholarly source' either. Oh, and you've got more unbacked claims there.

If you can't see where in John 1 it's talking about Jesus, I can't help you.

Joh 1:15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"
Joh 1:16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
Joh 1:17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.