• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
But I have a funny feeling a guy like Sir William Ramsey would not use your writings several times while doing his research. And I have a feeling they would not be an important part of the greatest selling book of all time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4242729#post4242729
Click to expand...
Makes no difference. The fact is that truth is not transfereable. The fact that one statement from a given source is true does not prove that another statement from the same source is also true.

In fact it is a very old propaganda trick to make a lot of obviously true statements and slip in a few lies. For reference, read any politician's speeches during the last few centuries.

Hans
 
DOC said:
If one believed the world was flat, as they did at that time, this would be theoretically possible. And even today we say things like sunset and sunrise which are not literally true but give us descriptive and picturesque wording.

Many people look at the writings of that time from our perspective which is a wrong thing to do.
Click to expand...

If one believed that a people could be sent down from Heaven, die then rise again, the Bible would be theoretically possible. Even today, we say things like, "Oh, you're a Godsend", which is not literally true but give us descriptive and picturesque wording.

Many people look at the stories from that time as having some kind of higher 'truth', which is the wrong thing to do.
 
DOC said:
But I have a funny feeling a guy like Sir William Ramsey would not use your writings several times while doing his research. And I have a feeling they would not be an important part of the greatest selling book of all time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4242729#post4242729
Click to expand...
Why does that matter, DOC?

Either an argument is valid or it isn't. Either containing accurate descriptions of countries lend truth to all associated text or it doesn't. If it isn't valid when I do it, it isn't valid when applied to the bible. Otherwise, you are simply doing what is called special pleading. It's a form of circular argument.

1.) The bible is special because it is true.
2.) The bible is true becuase of Fallacy X.
3.) Fallacy X doesn't apply to other cases because we know the bible is special.
4. Therefore Fallacy X proves the bible true.

Regardless of who makes the argument, The argument is nonsense. The fact is Sir William Ramsey made a terrible logical mistake and my example statement demonstrates this. It is for you to either learn from his mistake.
 
paximperium said:
NO.
A sunset is a DESCRIPTIVE term. It is not literal and is understood to not be for thousands of years. It happens. A sun sets at a specific area. It has a specific meaning.

What's your excuse for someone claiming the see nations from on top of a mountain?
Click to expand...

Once again people are injecting our 21st century geographical perspective into the world 2000 years ago. When he was talking about the kingdoms of world he was talking about the known world at that time from his likely flat earth perspective. This is much ado about nothing. The main essence of the bible is spiritual anyhow, not geographical or scientific. You will notice that the one book of the bible that dealt with some scientific related themes Genesis is a very small part of the bible. This shows that the emphasis is not on science but on spiritual matters. Countries like India and Pakistan might have made great strides in science lately (India actually made a moon landing recently) but as we can see by the recent massacre in Mumbai this means little if your spiritual house is not in order.
 
DOC said:
Once again people are injecting our 21st century geographical perspective into the world 2000 years ago. When he was talking about the kingdoms of world he was talking about the known world at that time from his likely flat earth perspective.
Click to expand...
Okay, name that mountain that can see all these nations.

The main essence of the bible is spiritual anyhow, not geographical or scientific.
Click to expand...
Here comes the weaseling.
You will notice that the one book of the bible that dealt with some scientific related themes Genesis is a very small part of the bible. This shows that the emphasis is not on science but on spiritual matters.
Click to expand...
What a joke. Genesis deals with fantasy. It has never dealt with scientific matters.
Countries like India and Pakistan might have made great strides in science lately (India actually made a moon landing recently) but as we can see by the recent massacre in Mumbai this means little if your spiritual house is not in order.
Click to expand...
You are a disgusting life form.
 
DOC said:
You will notice that the one book of the bible that dealt with some scientific related themes Genesis is a very small part of the bible.
Click to expand...
Only literalists think Genesis is dealing with "some scientific themes". Genesis is an allegorical account of creation that deals with spiritual themes.

Of course, that's because the Bible is supposed to be a spiritual guide, not a historical document.

I always thought Christians believed that faith is the belief in things not evidenced (or whatever that quotation is). You should be reveling in the fact that it isn't historically accurate. If the Bible could be proven then believing in Jesus wouldn't be a matter of faith.

Countries like India and Pakistan might have made great strides in science lately (India actually made a moon landing recently) but as we can see by the recent massacre in Mumbai this means little if your spiritual house is not in order.
Click to expand...
Don't be disgusting. Christianity has it's own share of bloodied hands, and a lot of the India-Pakistan violence can be traced back to the colonization by Anglican Britain. So let's not point fingers to deflect from the inadequacies of your ill-considered arguments.
 
marksman said:
Don't be disgusting.
Click to expand...
@DOC: being a self-deluding, ignorant and mind-numbingly pig-headed troll in regard to your own sky-daddy myth is one thing... being rude is another

marksman said:
Christianity has it's own share of bloodied hands, and a lot of the India-Pakistan violence can be traced back to the colonization by Anglican Britain
Click to expand...
Reporter: "What do you think of Western civilisation"
Ghandi: "I think it would be a good idea."

:)
 
DOC said:
Once again people are injecting our 21st century geographical perspective into the world 2000 years ago. When he was talking about the kingdoms of world he was talking about the known world at that time from his likely flat earth perspective.
Click to expand...
God had a flat earth perspective ?
The main essence of the bible is spiritual anyhow, not geographical or scientific.
Click to expand...
So you disagree with Geisler and Sir William Ramsey. Welcome on board.
 
DOC said:
No, it wasn't it was the Bible.
Click to expand...


Define "greatest selling". I currently have 3 different versions of the bible, only one of which I paid for.

But hey, it was only $1 at a yard sale.

How many copies of the bible were actually purchased by the owner rather than printed with the intention of being given away?
 
paximperium said:
DOC, if you want to use Ramsey's argument as your own, you may want to find his actual words instead of using secondary evidence from a terrible apologist like Geisler.
Click to expand...

You call Geisler a terrible apologist. This implies that you think there are some good ones out there, but I don't think that is the case. Correct me if I'm wrong by naming some you think are good.
 
Hokulele said:
Define "greatest selling". I currently have 3 different versions of the bible, only one of which I paid for.

But hey, it was only $1 at a yard sale.

How many copies of the bible were actually purchased by the owner rather than printed with the intention of being given away?
Click to expand...

And how many of those Bibles are collecting dust in hotel room drawers or being used to roll cigarettes in prisons?
 
DOC said:
You call Geisler a terrible apologist. This implies that you think there are some good ones out there, but I don't think that is the case. Correct me if I'm wrong by naming some you think are good.
Click to expand...
Saint Thomas Aquinas is a good start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom