Originally posted by DragonFriend"There has never been found a site that contradicts the Bible."
That position only works as a concept. If you actually look at the contents of the book, there is no way to come to that conclusion.
The Bible contains prophesy. How can a normal man accurately predict the furture?
Archeology supports it. There has never been found a site that contradicts the Bible. It has confirmed many many things in the Bible, but ...[text shortened]... tains elements from outside of time. How can a book like that be written by ordinary men?
DF
Absolutely, provided you ignore all that nasty evidence stuff.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzOK. What evidence directly contradicts the Bible?
"There has never been found a site that contradicts the Bible."
Absolutely, provided you ignore all that nasty evidence stuff.
And, please, be specific.
DF
[Edit] Ooops. Looks like bbarr was right.
Hey! We have a prophet among us!
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. No.
1. So you admit your analogy was faulty, then?
2a. My claim was not made in isolation - it's not like I started a new thread with it. It was a response to an earlier post (in fact, yours). So, if you're going to evaluate my claim, you'll need to look at the context of the discussion it was made in. That the words "Christian context" were not used i ...[text shortened]... assertion. What are the two propositions (or sets of propositions) that imply each other?
2a. You can't read and/or like telling lies.
2b. See 2a above.
5 edits
Originally posted by DragonFriendHow vague do I get to be? Suppose I were to predict the following:
Now, if you can accurately predict what's going to happen in 2206 I'll be impressed 🙂
DF
Verily, I say unto you, it will come to pass in the dark night of the world that a man will be born under a bright star, and lifted up by his brothers, and shed light upon the great nations, and they will tremble in this illumination.
Pretty vague, huh? I bet in the year 2206 something will satisfy the prophesy above. And if, God forbid, my words are taken as divinely inspired in the year 2206, then facts will be interpreted by the faithful so as to make them consistent with the above prophesy.
Prophesy is like dinner. You season it to your tastes.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, but wasting further time with you is fruitless. I specifically stated the premises in your circular argument but you choose to ignore that and say I never did. Thus, you are either incapable of understanding what I write or just being a jerk or, more probably, both.
LOL! Are you feeling alright?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Your "premises" are based on your misunderstanding of my statements. While this is understandable if you've just entered the discussion on page 5; you've been following it from the beginning - which makes it mystifying. Skip seems to have no problem grasping the context (he shouldn't - he established it).
Yes, but wasting further time with you is fruitless. I specifically stated the premises in your circular argument but you choose to ignore that and say I never did. Thus, you are either incapable of understanding what I write or just being a jerk or, more probably, both.
On the other hand, perhaps it's not so mystifying - you often exhibit a tendency to focus on narrow, literalistic interpretation (what ivanhoe calls "legalistic reasoning" ) without consideration for larger context.
2. As a point of logic, even if your premises were accurate statements of my position, it still wouldn't be circular reasoning. Look it up.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerPlease stop pretending you have any knowledge of logic. Please stop pretending that what you meant was that the Church was the "first Christians to discern that the books in the Old Testament were divinely inspired". Both are clearly lies.
1. Your "premises" are based on your misunderstanding of my statements. While this is understandable if you've just entered the discussion on page 5; you've been following it from the beginning - which makes it mystifying. Skip seems to have no problem grasping the context (he shouldn't - he established it).
On the other hand, perhaps it's not so m ccurate statements of my position, it still wouldn't be circular reasoning. Look it up.
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course. I'm the one who doesn't seem to be able to follow a conversation without losing the thread; I'm the one who asserts a logical fallacy where none is being made - so I'm the liar.
Please stop pretending you have any knowledge of logic. Please stop pretending that what you meant was that the Church was the "first Christians to discern that the books in the Old Testament were divinely inspired". Both are clearly lies.
Fine. Whatever keeps your fragile ego intact.
Originally posted by bbarrI agree, much of what is considered prophesy is vague, but those aren't the ones that impress me. How about this one:
How vague do I get to be? Suppose I were to predict the following:
[b]Verily, I say unto you, it will come to pass in the dark night of the world that a man will be born under a bright star, and lifted up by his brothers, and shed light upon the great nations, and they will tremble in this illumination.
Pretty vague, huh? I bet in the year 2206 som ...[text shortened]... m consistent with the above prophesy.
Prophesy is like dinner. You season it to your tastes.[/b]
Eze 26:12 And they shall plunder your riches, and make a prey of your merchandise. And they shall break down your walls and destroy your desirable houses. And they shall lay your stones and your timber and your dust in the midst of the water.
Is that specific enough?
DF
Originally posted by DragonFriendnot really. is this about the vikings?!
I agree, much of what is considered prophesy is vague, but those aren't the ones that impress me. How about this one:
Eze 26:12 And they shall plunder your riches, and make a prey of your merchandise. And they shall break down your walls and destroy your desirable houses. And they shall lay your stones and your timber and your dust in the midst of the water.
Is that specific enough?
DF