1. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    26 Apr '13 15:501 edit
    I'm not going to get into this too deep but all here have heard this, maybe have said it or have tried to use it to discredit the Bible.
    Some here say "show the scientific proof" of what it says on some issues or else "it just can't be true after all it was just a bunch of men that wrote all this down and we can't dig it up to actually touch it".
    An honest fact is that as time has passed more and more of the Bible has proved to have serious credence on many historical issues that the writer would have never known anything about because of time or distance or knowledge of.
    That tends to get ignored by the doubters.
    But lets think on this accusation. many say it was just man that wrote the Bible and there is no real proof that many things said in the Bible actually happened and cannot be true. "We can't touch it or see it so it never happend".
    Is this a correct way to think on things that we may actually have no proof of or can't see or touch?
    Is it fair to say that some things written may have happened but others didn't because it doesn't fit with my beliefs or theories? Can we pick and choose what we think is right to fit ones belief and say all the rest is wrong in reguarding Biblical issues?
    Is there anything that we accept as fact in our world or universe that we can't actually see or touch from the past or now?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Apr '13 16:23
    Originally posted by galveston75
    An honest fact is that as time has passed more and more of the Bible has proved to have serious credence on many historical issues that the writer would have never known anything about because of time or distance or knowledge of.
    That tends to get ignored by the doubters.
    Its not that it gets ignored, its that its not an 'honest fact'. Such claims have been discussed over and over on this forum but never substantiated.

    Is there anything that we accept as fact in our world or universe that we can't actually see or touch from the past or now?
    A very large proportion of what I accept as fact are things that I cannot see or touch.
    For things that I hear from others, I have various methods for judging the reliability of them, and so far, most of the Bible fails those tests badly.
  3. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    26 Apr '13 16:271 edit
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I'm not going to get into this too deep but all here have heard this, maybe have said it or have tried to use it to discredit the Bible.
    Some here say "show the scientific proof" of what it says on some issues or else "it just can't be true after all it was just a bunch of men that wrote all this down and we can't dig it up to actually touch it".
    An in our world or universe that we can't actually see or touch from the past or now?
    "I'm not going to get into this too deep..."

    Deep can be dangerous.

    Shallow is safer.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Apr '13 16:41
    Originally posted by galveston75
    But lets think on this accusation. many say it was just man that wrote the Bible and there is no real proof that many things said in the Bible actually happened and cannot be true. "We can't touch it or see it so it never happend".
    Is this a correct way to think on things that we may actually have no proof of or can't see or touch?
    Its interesting to note that I have never heard an atheist make that claim. The only people I have heard make that sort of claim on this forum are creationists.
    Can you quote a single person who made a claim even remotely similar, or is this one big strawman?
  5. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    26 Apr '13 17:02
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Its interesting to note that I have never heard an atheist make that claim. The only people I have heard make that sort of claim on this forum are creationists.
    Can you quote a single person who made a claim even remotely similar, or is this one big strawman?
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    How do you know Adam ever existed
    never mind that he lived 900+ years?

    Do you seriously think it is possible for anyone
    to live that long?

    Don't tell me the Bible says...........because that's all hocus pocus.


    This was the last that just came up but there have been many. I don't have the time to look them up but it has happened before on many threads...
  6. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    26 Apr '13 17:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Its not that it gets ignored, its that its not an 'honest fact'. Such claims have been discussed over and over on this forum but never substantiated.

    [b]Is there anything that we accept as fact in our world or universe that we can't actually see or touch from the past or now?

    A very large proportion of what I accept as fact are things that I canno ...[text shortened]... s for judging the reliability of them, and so far, most of the Bible fails those tests badly.[/b]
    Perhaps at another time you could post your #1 claim that has proven the bible false? Thanks...
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Apr '13 17:13
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I don't have the time to look them up but it has happened before on many threads...
    I notice that he does not use the argument you gave. So am I right that it was a strawman?
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Apr '13 17:15
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Perhaps at another time you could post your #1 claim that has proven the bible false? Thanks...
    Again, not what I said. I said the Bible fails my 'reliability tests'. ie I find no good reason to believe its contents are reliable.
  9. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93394
    26 Apr '13 17:32
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I'm not going to get into this too deep but all here have heard this, maybe have said it or have tried to use it to discredit the Bible.
    Some here say "show the scientific proof" of what it says on some issues or else "it just can't be true after all it was just a bunch of men that wrote all this down and we can't dig it up to actually touch it".
    An ...[text shortened]... in our world or universe that we can't actually see or touch from the past or now?
    what kinda things are you talking about? can you give a handful of the best examples of the bible predicting future events?
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    26 Apr '13 18:27
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Again, not what I said. I said the Bible fails my 'reliability tests'. ie I find no good reason to believe its contents are reliable.
    Can you give any more examples of your 'reliability tests', since the one you gave is very vague and unclear?
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    26 Apr '13 18:43
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    what kinda things are you talking about? can you give a handful of the best examples of the bible predicting future events?
    I can think of a few:

    1. The rise and fall of Empires. (Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman for example)

    2. The many prophecies concerning Christ, including His death, 3 days and 3 nights in the grave, and resurrection.

    3. The re-establishment of the Nation of Israel in one day.

    It also predicts things that are yet to be fulfilled.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    26 Apr '13 19:06
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Can you give any more examples of your 'reliability tests', since the one you gave is very vague and unclear?
    I didn't give any. The main test it fails is that it is in part written as a religious document which makes extraordinary claims, and in general I do not treat religious documents as reliable sources of information. That is not to say I ignore them altogether, but I require an extra level of confirmation when I know that the writer of a document has motives other than recounting history.
  13. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93394
    26 Apr '13 19:28
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I can think of a few:

    1. The rise and fall of Empires. (Babylon, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman for example)

    2. The many prophecies concerning Christ, including His death, 3 days and 3 nights in the grave, and resurrection.

    3. The re-establishment of the Nation of Israel in one day.

    It also predicts things that are yet to be fulfilled.
    the first two are pure nonsense and dont deserve a response.

    for the third you will need to back it up with evidence, what evidence do you have that the prediction is accurate and that the results are not a coincidental? have you data showing how many other countries have been re-established in one day? is it rare or common? given were have no time scale for this event, whats the likely hood that it would happen eventually anyway? is the prediction fair, was there already evidence that this was already a recurring event so had a higher chance of happening.

    you may scoff at these questions, but questions like these need to be verified, the worst thing to do is jump to a conclusion because its what you want to believe, give me solid evidence and ill be honest enough to say if i think you have a point.
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    26 Apr '13 19:37
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    the first two are pure nonsense and dont deserve a response.

    for the third you will need to back it up with evidence, what evidence do you have that the prediction is accurate and that the results are not a coincidental? have you data showing how many other countries have been re-established in one day? is it rare or common? given were have no time ...[text shortened]... to believe, give me solid evidence and ill be honest enough to say if i think you have a point.
    You will have to do the verifying, if you want to know the truth, which I don't think you are really interested in learning.
  15. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93394
    26 Apr '13 19:56
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You will have to do the verifying, if you want to know the truth, which I don't think you are really interested in learning.
    as you are the one making the claims the onus is on you to prove.
Back to Top