Is Science getting closer to God and the Bible?

[Ocelot]

In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

Oh.. now you've spoiled the ending, I guess there's no point in me reading the rest of the book now.

 

[Henners]

In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

As the people of Israel are still awaiting the arrival of their Messiah, that would appear to be a bogus claim.

 

[Tanstaafl]

In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

There is no evidence Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

 

[Henners]

There is no evidence Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Of course he was.

He had to have been born in Bethlehem to fulfill the prophesy.

That's why they made up the ridiculous story about census-taking - so that the prophesy got ticked.

 

[six7s]

Oh.. now you've spoiled the ending, I guess there's no point in me reading the rest of the book now.

There is a sequel!

...if you like an ending with a twist...

....

...some truly bizarre (quite possibly drug-induced) scenes with dragons, horsemen and aliens - sort of an 'Apocalypse Now - the final chapter' on acid

 

[joobz]

Well you asked.
You gave an appeal to authority which provided no evidence simply some other guys assertion. This man is a christian looking for confirmation of his belief and is unlikely to be truly honest about such matters. Especially considering that his language is such hyperbole.

The posts that refuted this claim for pretty much these reasons are
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:373
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:379
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:380
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:392
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:142
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:143
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:144
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:145
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:148
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:151
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:152
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:154
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:169
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:232
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:21
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:22
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:26
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:27

Not once, in any of these posts have you actually presented ANY OF THE EVIDENCE that Thomas Arnold claims is so convincing. Knowing you, you would have presented it if it existed. The fact that you fail to do so is clear enough admission to me that you do not have such evidence and neither did Thomas Arnold.

I can't help but notice that you haven't countered my challenge.

May I assume, then, that you admit that you have no reliable evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. And that Thomas Arnold was merely exaggerating his position to support his religious faith?

 

[dacium2007]

The whole story of going to Bethlehem for a census is totally retarded and obviously a fabrication.

The supposed reason that Joe + Mary went to Bethlehem was because he (Joe) was in the blood line of King David, so they had to go back to Bethlehem. Never mind the fact that this was 1,000 years ago. So apparently everyone had to go back to the town here there ancestors from 1,000 years ago came from! Remarkable record keeping, not to mention complete nonsense.

 

[DOC]

I can't help but notice that you haven't countered my challenge.

May I assume, then, that you admit that you have no reliable evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. And that Thomas Arnold was merely exaggerating his position to support his religious faith?

No I won't admit I have no reliable evidence for the resurrection. Here it is.

"Evidence for the resurrection" by Josh Mcdowell

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

The Resurrection of Christ - The Best-Proved Fact in History
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_troc/

With regard to Thomas Arnold's quote and your so-called challenge I've already responded to Hokulele on that matter. To those who don't know Thomas Arnold was a famous Oxford historian who wrote the 3 volume "History of Rome" and gave this "professional opinion" about the "historical" evidence concerning the resurrection:

Oxford historian Thomas Arnold, author of the 3 volume "History of Rome", made this quote:

"Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through [the evidence for the resurrection] piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Source: Thomas Arnold, as cited in Wilbur Smith's "Therefore Stand" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945), 425-26

 

[six7s]

No I won't admit I have no reliable evidence for the resurrection. Here it is.

"Evidence for the resurrection" by Josh Mcdowell

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

The Resurrection of Christ - The Best-Proved Fact in History
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_troc/

DOC, you are yet again letting your confirmation bias blind you to reality...

If you cast your mind back to mid November, you might remember that when you posted nonsense about Henry M. Morris, I replied by raising points you (conveniently?) chose to ignore

N.B. Ignoring stuff that conflicts with your world-view does NOT mean your woo is true

It occurs to me that neither you nor your late friend Henry M. Morris^WP, formerly of The Institute for Creation Research have actually bothered to read the bile that allegedly supports your claim in the OP that "many scientific principles were actually presented first in the bile"

A probable boon to fostering your reputation as a 'credible' wooist is something called 'research', which can be facilitated by quite a few sites on teh interwebs

Please note: research does not mean rehashing the same old woo at sporadic intervals

 

[joobz]

No I won't admit I have no reliable evidence for the resurrection.

DOC, i'm not asking you to stop believing. I'm asking you to be honest. THere isn't evidence for it.

ALl you have is your faith, and that should be enough for you. Just realize that it's not enough for me.

Here it is.

as Six7s said, we have already gone over those. They amount to hearsay. Hardly the best evidence for anything. DOC, we are talking about the son of god here. There should be some other evidence....

 

[joobz]

With regard to Thomas Arnold's quote and your so-called challenge I've already responded to Hokulele on that matter.

So you haven't read the 3 volume history that he wrote? You do not know what he refers to when he makes that quote?

Again I say,
Not once, in any of these posts have you actually presented ANY OF THE EVIDENCE that Thomas Arnold claims is so convincing. Knowing you, you would have presented it if it existed. The fact that you fail to do so is clear enough admission to me that you do not have such evidence and neither did Thomas Arnold.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've decided to start reporting DOC for his spamming of the same stuff over and over again. I fully support his right to post whatever inane crap he wants, but I'm hoping the mods will do something about him wasting server space and bandwidth by posting the same garbage and links over and over and over...

If he'd address actual objections/rebuttals, he'd be good to go, but since he's just spamming, I feel I must react.

 

[edge]

Science is just one out come of God after all he invented it.
To become like a God we need all that we can get that is why we can't get it all.
The straw dragon wanted that too.
You worship the invention not the inventor.
That's the difference between a believer and an atheist.
You let your ego rule what you want to believe.
Where's my sword?

 

[Tanstaafl]

Where's my sword?

I suggest you dowse to find it.

 

[six7s]

Science is just one out come of God after all he invented it.

466 posts in 47 months... and it seems as though you haven't noticed that this a sceptics forum... too busy building a straw temple to your sky daddy I guess

You worship the invention not the inventor.
That's the difference between a believer and an atheist.

Actually, it's not

But don't let reality blur your vision

 

[lysdexia]

Science is just one out come of God after all he invented it.
To become like a God we need all that we can get that is why we can't get it all.
The straw dragon wanted that too.
You worship the invention not the inventor.
That's the difference between a believer and an atheist.
You let your ego rule what you want to believe.
Where's my sword?

"Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil" (I Thes.

But God inventd evil and ego.

 

[joobz]

Science is just one out come of God after all he invented it.

no he didn't.

The straw dragon wanted that too.

Maybe. he's your invention.

 

[arthwollipot]

Where's my sword?

You're not getting mine.

 

[six7s]

Where's my sword?

You're not getting mine.

I have a hunch he ain't getting any - and therein lies the problem

 

[halofish2000]

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood." Lev17:11 Why was bleeding or blood-letting a remedy for illness throughout the dark ages.

"and hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7 I thought Atlas held it on his shoulders