The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[joobz]

Well, I've already responded to all of these, some with several posts. If Muldur can add something, fine.

yes you did. It is why we can say definitively that you have failed to demonstrate any successful biblical prophecy.

 

[dafydd]

Well, I've already responded to all of these, some with several posts. If Muldur can add something, fine.

Yes you did,and you helped prove that the prophecies failed.

 

[dafydd]

The bible does not claim to be a science book, the vast majority of it deals with God's relationship with man, and spiritual and ethical matters. The little amount that does deal with science themes like Genesis could have been to satisfy the natural curiosity of the illiterate uneducated people in a manner they could easily understand without confusing them, and distracting them from the more important spiritual matters and ethical matters.

But with that said the Bible does seems to know a lot about science:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7

Now back to prophecy.

That is science for five year olds. I can't believe that you are being serious.

 

[dafydd]

Then why do so many Christians refuse to accept evolution?

Because they treat the bible as a science book.

 

[joobz]

That is science for five year olds. I can't believe that you are being serious.

And of course, he left out bits like day and night existing before the stars.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

But with that said the Bible does seems to know a lot about science:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea

Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals

Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

You condensed that in a misleading way.

I think the science goes astray pretty early on:

"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

So, first earth and the heavens, later the sun? I don't think that's quite right.

And elsewhere in Genesis, is this:

"18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

Here, man was created first and was lonely, so God formed the wild animals and birds.

Also a bit off, though I'm sure the apologists just see these as "difficulties", not contradictions or just blatantly wrong.

 

[ddt]

The bible does not claim to be a science book, the vast majority of it deals with God's relationship with man, and spiritual and ethical matters. The little amount that does deal with science themes like Genesis could have been to satisfy the natural curiosity of the illiterate uneducated people in a manner they could easily understand without confusing them, and distracting them from the more important spiritual matters and ethical matters.

Let's turn those ethics upside down: if your God is a benevolent God, why didn't he include such simple precepts about basic hygiene so mankind would suffer less from diseases? As shown above, it would be simple to explain even to his then illiterate followers how this would work.

Now back to prophecy.

Oh yes. Is there any evidence forthcoming for any fulfilled prophecy?
And how is it with those NT translations? Any evidence for the plausibility of your claimed translations?

 

[joobz]

Let's turn those ethics upside down: if your God is a benevolent God, why didn't he include such simple precepts about basic hygiene so mankind would suffer less from diseases? As shown above, it would be simple to explain even to his then illiterate followers how this would work.


Oh yes. Is there any evidence forthcoming for any fulfilled prophecy?
And how is it with those NT translations? Any evidence for the plausibility of your claimed translations?

I find it interesting that both DOC and Muldur both make arguments that rely upon considering people at the time of the bible were intellectually unprepared to handle the ideas we know today. Yet, they take the text THESE SAME PEOPLE WROTE as the infallible word of god.

 

[ddt]

I find it interesting that both DOC and Muldur both make arguments that rely upon considering people at the time of the bible were intellectually unprepared to handle the ideas we know today. Yet, they take the text THESE SAME PEOPLE WROTE as the infallible word of god.

Yes, if these texts were indeed the infallible word of God, they don't paint a pretty picture of God. Apparently, omniscient God lowers himself to the intellectual level of his followers and his not in any way interested in educated them or to ameliorate their lives, except then to have them jump through all kinds of hoops to please him. The rule about the latrines is a salient case in point: it's not about hygiene, it's about God not liking to see a turd here or there.

Nice fella, that God.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yes, if these texts were indeed the infallible word of God, they don't paint a pretty picture of God. Apparently, omniscient God lowers himself to the intellectual level of his followers and his not in any way interested in educated them or to ameliorate their lives, except then to have them jump through all kinds of hoops to please him. The rule about the latrines is a salient case in point: it's not about hygiene, it's about God not liking to see a turd here or there.

Nice fella, that God.

And why create man to poop if it offends his delicate sensibilities? Why create disease in the first place? So that you can withhold info on how to avoid or combat it?

 

[TimCallahan]

The bible does not claim to be a science book, the vast majority of it deals with God's relationship with man, and spiritual and ethical matters. The little amount that does deal with science themes like Genesis could have been to satisfy the natural curiosity of the illiterate uneducated people in a manner they could easily understand without confusing them, and distracting them from the more important spiritual matters and ethical matters.

But with that said the Bible does seems to know a lot about science:

Genesis 1:1a - the universe came first

Genesis 1:1b - then the earth

Gen 1:10 - then land and sea

Gen 1:21 - then life in the sea Gen 1;24-25 - then land animals Gen 1:27 - lastly humans

Also other biblical writers had other unusual scientific knowledge of such things as evaporation, condensation, a time when there was no precipitation. and that the earth hung suspended in space. Gen 2: 6,7 , Eccl 1:7 , Isa 40:22 , Job 26:7

Now back to prophecy.

Concerning the hilited area: Actually, in Gen. 1:20 God creates sea creatures and birds, before creating land animals. That's not science.

 

[TimCallahan]

No, they simply do not speak of the incident. None of the gospels are "clones" of the others. That one focuses on one detail that the others do not does not impugn either it or them. John is simply providing an additional detail.

This defense won't work on the last supper, a Passover meal according to the Synoptic Gospels; while, according to John, Jesus was crucified just before Passover.

It also fails to work on the conflicting Nativity stories in Matthew and Luke.

 

[Lowpro]

Exactly. If the bible was the inspired word of god, why wouldn't god have told them the truth regarding meteors?
We are left with only a few conclusions:
1.) God intentionally lied to people about reality.(withholding information and letting people form false opinions is a form of lying)
2.) The bible wasn't inspired by god. Which would only mean that either god doesn't exist, or that the bible is a false representation of his will.

Neither is a correct point. The Gospels are not divinely inspired as if God made them right it down, they're testaments to what the authors saw (at least superficially; we know that the gospels we have are not the originals of the writers, but words put to paper of their testimonies; chinese telephone and all)

As far as I know, God didn't write the Bible, and I doubt that's even up for discussion, so why try making it one of the choices? That's hardly fair...

To take it seriously, God couldn't have intentionally lied to people because God didn't speak as if the writers were some stenographer... people only wrote their interpretation of events (or more accurately...mythological stories), right? And yes there will always be uneducated Christians who think the Bible is the unerring word of God, and they're wrong AND stupid, but let's not assume every Christian is like this, though some are.

( I should add I'm not here to be an apologist, but my ************ sensor works regardless of whether I am a Christian or not.

 

[joobz]

Neither is a correct point. The Gospels are not divinely inspired as if God made them right it down, they're testaments to what the authors saw (at least superficially; we know that the gospels we have are not the originals of the writers, but words put to paper of their testimonies; chinese telephone and all)

As far as I know, God didn't write the Bible, and I doubt that's even up for discussion, so why try making it one of the choices? That's hardly fair...

To take it seriously, God couldn't have intentionally lied to people because God didn't speak, people only wrote their interpretation of events, right? And yes there will always be uneducated Christians who think the Bible is the unerring word of God, and they're wrong AND stupid, but let's not assume every Christian is like this, though some are.

The bible has multiple stories of god directly talking to people.
So, again, my argument stands.

ETA:
I guess we could add a third option of:
The authors were lying. But that would still fall under the category 2.

 

[Lowpro]

The bible has multiple stories of god directly talking to people.
So, again, my argument stands.

Yea but you're being obtuse. In Exodus/Deutoronomy God talks directly to people IN THE STORY. That's not the same trying to say God WROTE THE STORY (or at least, a stenographer was right next to everyone typing it up)

Your point does not stand joobz.

 

[Lowpro]

Sorry I noticed the edit after my post, so I'll address it in this one:

I guess we could add a third option of:
The authors were lying. But that would still fall under the category 2.

Bingo, and while saying the authors were lying may be a bit harsh (I prefer to think that the authors were writing fiction in the first place...)

It doesn't fall under category 2 however because you're accusing God of deception. HOWEVER I do like to think this makes an interesting case that if the AUTHORS made God first (probably the most likely thing...) then God would be an agent within a deceiving story...

 

[joobz]

Yea but you're being obtuse. In Exodus/Deutoronomy God talks directly to people IN THE STORY. That's not the same trying to say God WROTE THE STORY (or at least, a stenographer was right next to everyone typing it up)

Your point does not stand joobz.

I never stated that god wrote the bible. such a statement would be foolish. but clearly, the bible is supposed to be the inspired word OF god. If it contains errors, than either god 'lied'* in inspiring people, or that the information did not come from god (e.g., wasn't the inspired word).

I say lie to include lies of omission. It would be just as decietful to tell a falsehood as to withhold information critical information leaving people in ignorance. For instance, If Jesus was the son of god, then he would know Germ theory. Yet he never once shares this information... What does that say?

 

[Lowpro]

I never stated that god wrote the bible. such a statement would be foolish. but clearly, the bible is supposed to be the inspired word OF god. If it contains errors, than either god 'lied'* in inspiring people, or that the information did not come from god (e.g., wasn't the inspired word).

I say lie to include lies of omission. It would be just as decietful to tell a falsehood as to withhold information critical information leaving people in ignorance. For instance, If Jesus was the son of god, then he would know Germ theory. Yet he never once shares this information... What does that say?

Look you don't understand what "Inspired word of God" means. It doesn't mean "Inspired word FROM God"

I just think blaming God is the ultimate strawman when you should be blaming the authors for the many many many many many errors in the Bible.

Also... how the hell do you expect Jesus to know about Germ Theory? There is no reason why we should expect the Son of God to be omnipotent because omnipotent wasn't a characteristic of God then. Seriously that's like asking if Noah saves the Penguins and Kiwi's too....of course he couldn't have. They had no idea ABOUT penguins and Kiwis. Look if you're not going to assume God exists, then why must you force an argument that must assume God exists. Isn't it more accurate to just argue the truth here, that the authors of the books of the Bible were people, not God and that they're stuck with the rules of being people (ie when you don't know tits for pancakes about penguins you aren't going to include them, and when you don't know about microbes you're probably not going to include them either?)

 

[joobz]

Look you don't understand what "Inspired word of God" means. It doesn't mean "Inspired word FROM God"

I call shenanigans on the distinction you are attempting to make. Especially since we have a variety of books which claim to state the words of god directly.

My argument is the logical conclusion if god is real. He is either directly deceitful or does not care to actually share truth. The alternative solution is that the bible is NOT of god, either because the authors lied about it. This says nothing regarding whether or not god is real.

 

[joobz]

Also... how the hell do you expect Jesus to know about Germ Theory? There is no reason why we should expect the Son of God to be omnipotent because omnipotent wasn't a characteristic of God then.

I think you mean omniscient.