The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[Lowpro]

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.

No there is NO WAY your argument is logical. Take the New Testament for example. WE ALL KNOW that the four Gospels were written from the perspective of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were not written by God, they were not written by Jesus. They were written by some guy who heard it from some other guy who heard it and finally put it to paper. There is no deceit by God in this; the four Gospels are completely man-derived. No one can claim otherwise, and yet you're just a'doin it. But this doesn't mean God doesn't exist either, because these books have no horse in that race. If someone were to say "The Gospels are proof of God's existence" then sure, we can say they aren't, but they also don't say "the Gospels somehow prove God doesn't exist, or is a deceiver either"

God doesn't have a horse in that race. Really...he doesn't.

I really really cannot understand how you can make a tenable argument that what I'm saying is shenanigans. You can have ALL the books about God in the world that have God speaking directly to someone (Deuteronomy and Exodus are fine examples) but those books aren't WRITTEN by God. They're written by people. They can claim just about anything they want, and we can treat it just as we treat anything PEOPLE say. But you cannot say that because a person wrote about something God said means it MUST be accurate.

 

[Blue Mountain]

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

Was I the only one to misread the highlighted text as tasty humans?

 

[joobz]

No there is NO WAY your argument is logical. ... They were not written by God, they were not written by Jesus.

Stop strawmanning my argument. I did not say god wrote the bible. Reread what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

I am, for sake of argument, permitting the possibility that god exists. If we work on that basis, then my arguments hold true. It demonstrates the fundamental problem that both DOC and Marduk must address. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Lowpro]

Stop strawmanning my argument. I did not say god wrote the bible. Reread what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

I am, for sake of argument, permitting the possibility that god exists. If we work on that basis, then my arguments hold true. It demonstrates the fundamental problem that both DOC and Marduk must address. Nothing more nothing less.

I'm not strawmanning your argument, you're being deliberately obtuse. You're saying that because books exist that claim to be the word of God (or at least have conversations from God) that they MUST be accurate (at least, for the choice that Marduk and DOC desire to have) There is no reason to assume that's true. Divine Inspiration cannot automatically be a free pass to be forever true (realistically speaking of course...). That you're saying it has to be one of only two options isn't fair because that first option is baseless (God said it, so it must be accurate). You HAVE to consider that....people, not God, wrote it, and people...can bull@#(! like crazy. That doesn't mean God should suffer for people making crap up though... I'm sure if God existed, people throughout the ages have given him a real headache with the crap they make up using him. God's existence doesn't hinge on the stories about him. It's not fair to DOC and Marduk that you're making that the ONLY options available is all. There's more integrity to just say "Look, the authors were full of it. Doesn't mean God was full of it, just means the authors were. Why is there no germ theory? Because the authors didn't know tiddlytits about germs." I mean, isn't that....the honest choice?

I edited this into my previous post:

I really really cannot understand how you can make a tenable argument that what I'm saying is shenanigans. You can have ALL the books about God in the world that have God speaking directly to someone (Deuteronomy and Exodus are fine examples) but those books aren't WRITTEN by God. They're written by people. They can claim just about anything they want, and we can treat it just as we treat anything PEOPLE say. But you cannot say that because a person wrote about something God said means it MUST be accurate or MUST include specifics to germ theory... that is just stupid

Bolded parts are a current revision

 

[X]

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.

Why do you pick and choose from two completely different creation myths, DOC?
It's dishonest.

 

[Lowpro]

There is no possible way to derive that from my argument. The Bible was written in the language of the day, nothing more or less. It was written from the POV of people who did not have (among other things) germ theory, yet it speaks to the fact that under the sanitation laws the house of a deceased person was to be treated as "unclean", and that one should make the latrine separate and distant from one's encampment.

No deception, simply depicting events and matters in terms the people at the time could understand.

Hardly revelatory. Hygiene was a common concept before the writings of the Torah/Bible surfaced. Do you think Roman soldiers crapped where they ate (the benefits of logistics, which came from armies conquering and learning how to have the most effective military power; hygiene was well practiced and preceded Alexander the Great) It is FAR more likely that the concepts of hygiene were usurped by writers and used as revelation.

 

[tsig]

No there is NO WAY your argument is logical. Take the New Testament for example. WE ALL KNOW that the four Gospels were written from the perspective of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were not written by God, they were not written by Jesus. They were written by some guy who heard it from some other guy who heard it and finally put it to paper. There is no deceit by God in this; the four Gospels are completely man-derived. No one can claim otherwise, and yet you're just a'doin it. But this doesn't mean God doesn't exist either, because these books have no horse in that race. If someone were to say "The Gospels are proof of God's existence" then sure, we can say they aren't, but they also don't say "the Gospels somehow prove God doesn't exist, or is a deceiver either"

God doesn't have a horse in that race. Really...he doesn't.
I really really cannot understand how you can make a tenable argument that what I'm saying is shenanigans. You can have ALL the books about God in the world that have God speaking directly to someone (Deuteronomy and Exodus are fine examples) but those books aren't WRITTEN by God. They're written by people. They can claim just about anything they want, and we can treat it just as we treat anything PEOPLE say. But you cannot say that because a person wrote about something God said means it MUST be accurate.

How do you know gods' betting habits?

 

[Craig B]

Hardly revelatory. Hygiene was a common concept before the writings of the Torah/Bible surfaced. Do you think Roman soldiers crapped where they ate (the benefits of logistics, which came from armies conquering and learning how to have the most effective military power; hygiene was well practiced and preceded Alexander the Great) It is FAR more likely that the concepts of hygiene were usurped by writers and used as revelation.

Matthew 15

1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

I think the elders go it right, and Jesus was wrong. Christian innovations in the matter of hygiene were catastrophic.

 

[Lowpro]

How do you know gods' betting habits?

It's a turn of phrase -.- the only people who effect the Gospels are the people who wrote them.

 

[Lowpro]

Matthew 15 I think the elders go it right, and Jesus was wrong. Christian innovations in the matter of hygiene were catastrophic.

Jesus and the Sunshine Gang loved to stick it to the Pharisees any way they could I bet they double dipped too.

 

[joobz]

I'm not strawmanning your argument, you're being deliberately obtuse. You're saying that because books exist that claim to be the word of God (or at least have conversations from God) that they MUST be accurate (at least, for the choice that Marduk and DOC desire to have)

Yes. That is my claim. If a book is the inspired word of god, it should be verifiably true and accurate.

There is no reason to assume that's true. Divine Inspiration cannot automatically be a free pass to be forever true (realistically speaking of course...).

Anything less would be indistinguishable from a non god-inspired source. Remember, we are discussing a book claimed to be relevant to our modern society.

You HAVE to consider that....people, not God, wrote it, and people...can bull@#(! like crazy. That doesn't mean God should suffer for people making crap up though... I'm sure if God existed, people throughout the ages have given him a real headache with the crap they make up using him.

In which case, it wouldn't have been the product of divine inspiration.

It's not fair to DOC and Marduk that you're making that the ONLY options available is all. There's more integrity to just say "Look, the authors were full of it. Doesn't mean God was full of it, just means the authors were. Why is there no germ theory? Because the authors didn't know tiddlytits about germs." I mean, isn't that....the honest choice?

Which falls into option 2.
The text wasn't divinely inspired.

You seem to take exception to the two options, but they really are what we have. If the text accurately reflects god's word "As written through man", then god intentionally lied to people.
The other option is to say that the bible isn't the inspired word of god.

 

[Wildy]

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.

But what about the other story which gives the order:

Gen 2:4b-5 - The Earth (and I'm guessing the universe)

Gen 2:7 - man

Gen 2:8 - all plants

Gen 2:18-19 - all animals

Gen 2:21-23 - woman

So if Genesis was supposed to explain science without confusing illiterate, uneducated people then why have the contradictory creation story? Are you saying that illiterate, uneducated people will not see a contradiction?

 

[Lowpro]

You seem to take exception to the two options, but they really are what we have. If the text accurately reflects god's word "As written through man", then god intentionally lied to people.
The other option is to say that the bible isn't the inspired word of god.

I took exception in that the omission (lying) was the fault of the author, not of God. It just seems like you have a baseless demand that God should provide all the information of germ theory otherwise he's lying (by omission) but you have to remember, Jesus isn't a fountain of knowledge. Sure people now think he was an avatar of God but Jesus was just knowledgeable of Scripture, which includes clean/unclean blah de blah. I'm sure he probably knew a bit about hygiene too probably because certain hygiene practices were already associated (hygiene and purification were closely associated), that comes as no surprise (and for anyone to say that's revelatory is deluded). I feel I have to include this reason, because if we're going to argue about why these hygiene passages are in the Bible, let's use common sense for a minute.

But that would explain those hygiene practices and it would seem unfair to go from this to "well why didn't Jesus teach them Germ Theory?" how could he? They have no idea of microbes. Does that mean God is lying by omission? No, there is no obligation by anyone to consider germ theory. Two reasons, the theist reason: "God doesn't have to reveal anything, God's will and all (GWIMW)" so you're stuck at that dead end. The rational reason: " God is a fictional character, and can only be utilized as far as the writer can imagine, and microbes ain't one of em."

But both are viable answers to the Germ Theory question, but you didn't let DOC/Muldur pick the theist answer. You gave them an unfair choice so to speak, or at least a loaded choice.

To bring it back to PROPER context you were giving Muldur the two options according to the stars falling to Earth; why didn't God be more specific and call them meteors, because actual STARS don't fall to Earth. Either God omitted by not defining what the two were so that the passage would be less nonsensical (to us) or the Bible isn't divinely inspired. I'm not defending Muldur's delusions, but this is obviously a cognate you're bickering over...

 

[pakeha]

...The Bible does not use 21st century technical language. It uses the every day language of a technologically less advanced people.

Welcome to the party, Muldur.
Your very apt comment about the language of the bible is perhaps the reason, I personally, reject it as of being of neither more nor less relevance in my life than, say, "The Golden Ass".

Would it surprise you to know that children are tortured and killed even today in the name of the bibical injunction:
"thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?

...The very existence of meteorites was not recognized until many centuries later....

About ancient meteorites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteorite#Meteorites_in_history

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

Would you care to give us references to those replies, please?
As a courtesy to new readers.

 

[DOC]

Yes. That is my claim. If a book is the inspired word of god, it should be verifiably true and accurate.

That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate. The only reason it seems inaccurate to some people is that either they don't see symbolism, or for example they mistake "different" accounts for "wrong" accounts. For example one person writes of two angels being at the tomb and another writer says one. That is a different account but one does not contradict the other. If one would have said there were 2 angels at the tomb and the other would have said there is "only" one angel then that would have been a contradiction, but they didn't say "only" one. It's like if I say get me a pencil, "there is one in that drawer". If the person opens the drawer and there are two pencils, that doesn't mean I was wrong. There is one pencil in the drawer (but there is also two). I would have been wrong however if I would have said there is "only" one pencil in the drawer.

Also, as one expert reported in a quote, it is almost impossible to 100% accurately translate the exact meaning into another language. But even with a partial translation you can usually get acceptable accuracy, but not always. That is also probably the reason for some of the problems. But a bible that is not 100 clear doesn't necessarily mean it is not 100% accurate. The vast majority of Christians don't put every verse under a microscope, they see the big picture and they accept that big picture. This can be compared to many skeptics who except the big Bang and abiogenesis without knowing almost anything about the details.

 

[DOC]

But what about the other story which gives the order:

Gen 2:4b-5 - The Earth (and I'm guessing the universe)

Gen 2:7 - man

Gen 2:8 - all plants

Gen 2:18-19 - all animals

Gen 2:21-23 - woman

So if Genesis was supposed to explain science without confusing illiterate, uneducated people then why have the contradictory creation story? Are you saying that illiterate, uneducated people will not see a contradiction?

You will find explanations on the net, but that is a whole other thread.

 

[Craig B]

You will find explanations on the net, but that is a whole other thread.

Do these explanations include an explanation of how the stars will fall out of the sky?

 

[DOC]

Do these explanations include an explanation of how the stars will fall out of the sky?

Probably not, just like they don't include an explanation how Christ is the vine and we are branches and also why Christ said we are the salt of the earth.

And even today we use the terms "sunset" and "sunrise" which are symbolic.

 

[zooterkin]

You're saying that because books exist that claim to be the word of God (or at least have conversations from God) that they MUST be accurate (at least, for the choice that Muldur and DOC desire to have) There is no reason to assume that's true.

There isn't, but it is a position that at least some Christians claim, that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I was going to look for an example, but one just arrived:

That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate. The only reason it seems inaccurate to some people is that either they don't see symbolism, or for example they mistake "different" accounts for "wrong" accounts.

 

[zooterkin]

That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate.

What's your position, DOC?