Bible Prophecy as Evidence of a bible writers trustworthiness

[ppp]

Thanks, All these threads have really gotten much better with your input. I usually just bounce someone else's good point.

That is so kind. That you!

 

[joelr]

Can you please point out Babylon on a map 3000 years ago, and put it against a modern map of Babylon, you are referencing.
I want to see exactly what you are talking about.

Wait you didn't bother to actually check to see if what you were claiming was true? You just believe anything you read in apologetics?


Babylon - Wikipedia

 

[Redemptionsong]

No objective evidence, anecdotal subjective claims, and hearsay abound.



The Spider Man movie has New York in it, if you go to New York will Spider Man be there? It's not a very compelling claim.



I think you might want to look superstition up in the dictionary. Love is a word we use, to describe a wide variety of emotions. I love a cold glass of cider on a hot day, by your rationale there is a deity in my cider.

Can you provide objective evidence for anything? The answer is a resounding 'No'.

Based on Cartesian doubt, you cannot prove anything. You may be conscious of being conscious but you rely on sense data for information. The acceptance of sense data as true is all a matter of faith.

Even mathematics is a game. If the participants don't agree on the symbolism, the rules are broken and the game fails.

The conclusion l reach is that all reason is based on faith. Logic, which underpins reason, only works if you accept the premises as valid or true.

Love, to my understanding, is not just an emotion. Agape love, the purest unselfish love, is a unifying spiritual power.

The Bible begins with God's creation. This was an act of love, of begetting. So, according to scripture, God loves us before we can love God. All subjectivity is, consequently, dependent on God's objectivity.

It makes sense to trust in God's love.

 

[Sheldon]

Can you provide objective evidence for anything? The answer is a resounding 'No'.

No it isn't, this is just the same apologetics trick of trying to paint objective as an absolute.

The world is not flat, is an objective fact, and can be demonstrated as such with objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

The conclusion l reach is that all reason is based on faith.

Well you would of course, it suits your bias in favour of unevidenced faith based religion. However it is rank nonsense.

 

[Sheldon]

Even mathematics is a game. If the participants don't agree on the symbolism, the rules are broken and the game fails.

 

[Sheldon]

Love, to my understanding, is not just an emotion.

Your understanding is flawed, and I said a wide variety of emotions.

The Bible begins with God's creation. This was an act of love, of begetting.

So what, it is a creation myth filled with errant nonsense.

So, according to scripture, God loves us before we can love God. All subjectivity is, consequently, dependent on God's objectivity.

Circular reasoning fallacy, and the deity depicted in the biblical creation myth, also cursed its new human pets, and all their descendants, over some fruit it placed in harms way.

It makes sense to trust in God's love.

Or it will torture you forever when you die. Luckily there isn't a shred of objective evidence for the barbarically cruel deity depicted in the bible.

 

[JonSL]

There is plenty of professional, historical scholarship indicating the accuracy of various things in the Bible.

When Israel was founded in the late 40's, the Israeli military used Biblical passages to find certain obscure mountain trails, that helped them develop security for the state.

The Israeli government also used the Bible to find Solomon's mines. I believe that they were able to extract a great deal of ore from them.

Historians have written that the Bible accurately reports various military gear and operations of the day.

 

[MyM]

You haven't made any rational case, hence this latest vapid hand waving.

no worries for you then

 

[MyM]

Of course I was being serious, why would anyone think otherwise, unless they think forcing one's beliefs onto others is a good thing?

facepalm

 

[nPeace]

You mean the bible claims this happened, is it possible you really don't see the difference?

Scientists claim things happen. People believe them... including you. Can their claims be substantiated? Is the same not true of the Bible?
Please give an explanation for your answers.

No, that's a risible comparison.

This is just a flat out empty baseless ... cop out.
Rather than wave your hand in the air, and walk away, why not explain why the comparison is not fittingly accurate.
I have quite some time today.

Oh yeah. @Sheldon, thanks to @wellwisher I now remember, you did not answer my question. What is sin?
Don't run away.

 

[nPeace]

Wait you didn't bother to actually check to see if what you were claiming was true? You just believe anything you read in apologetics?

Are you asking, or making assertions?

Babylon - Wikipedia

Wait! This is a modern map.
You have not pointed out anything.
Did you understand the request? I'll repeat.
Can you please point out Babylon on a map 3000 years ago, and put it against a modern map of Babylon, you are referencing?

If you can't, I accept those admittance... no problem.

 

[wellwisher]

I think it is almost impossible to convince atheist by Biblical prophesies and Biblical ideals.

Because if atheist does not believe in GOD, surely he/she would not believe the Biblical Scriptures.

But archeological evidence that support Biblical Scriptures and prophesies are very convincing, particularly discovered by secular archeologists.

Biblical archeology also very important and beneficial and for those who believe in GOD.

Biblical archeology creates better understanding of life in the past and increases Biblical knowledge.

This is my own experience.

A good example of modern prophesy, that was supported by science and atheism was/is manmade climate change and global warming. This prophesy began to escalate and gained national recognition when Former VP Al Gore found a way to make a lot of money by capitalizing on "end of the world" fear mongering. "The end is near so repent".

According to Gore's original science based prophesy, the polar ice caps should be melted by now and we all should be under 20 feet of water due to rising seas. Like in Revelations, their gimmick to avoid this judgment, were regulations to limit carbon, but with exceptions. However, with the exceptions, one would not be able to buy or sell carbon credits unless one had the mark of the beast; sales slip paid to Gore and/or other leftist leaders around the world. The leaders of the left like to plagiarize the more popular schemas of bible prophecies since these can be used to move even godless people to action.

One of my favorites knockoffs, is the original sin knockoff, that is now called white guilt. Just as all humans have original sin due to the sin of two people; Adam and Eve, all whites should have guilt due to a 3% of whites from 250 years ago who had slaves. This plagiarized knockoff captured the hearts of their minions who thought this was original.

I remember in the early days of the global disaster prophesies of Gore, the oracles of statistics and computer modeling would try to fill in the details and timing of the global disaster prophesies. They painted a dire picture that was imminent. However, the computer models always exaggerated the outcome, in comparison to the hard data a year or two later. They appeared to over estimate man made and under estimate natural. Yet the leftist faithful would ignore this problem, and attempt to create converts even it took bullying to convince anyone. The ends would justify the means and all would be well.

This prophesy is not celebrated or placed in the bible of atheism because it did not pan out. Only the best or best get to be written as a reminder. Sometimes it takes hindsight to see what did pan out. These will then be compiled. The prophesy of getting rid of the police and coddling criminals, so the criminals will repent, will not found in that book.

 

[nPeace]

To a point. For instance, I accept that there was probably a King David, and probably a city of Jericho. I believe that there was a Babylonian Exile that happened mostly as it is recorded, as much of the text is corroborated by people from the other side. I do not accept that there was a worldwide flood, as there is overwhelming evidence against it.

Does that answer the question you are asking?


.

There is overwhelming evidence for a worldwide flood.
There is overwhelming evidence against a worldwide flood.
Those are both claims.
Both are believed.
Which is true?

 

[nPeace]

You are just repeating what you said previously in a slightly different way. The only way that we could be "fallen" is if we were ever perfect, and I see no reason to think that was ever the case. Everything being the product of natural processes accounts more than adequately for our fallible nature, without resorting to any supernatural explanations.

Everything being the product of natural processes accounts more than adequately for our fallible nature.
That's an interesting statement.
Can you take the time to explain it?
Reason being, no one takes out their appendix, thyroid glands etc., with the hope of a natural process replacing them, and restoring normal function to regulate vital functionality in the body.
When these are damaged, problems occur, which need to be "fixed" by an intelligent agent. Not natural processes.
Why is that?

 

[ppp]

There is overwhelming evidence for a worldwide flood.
There is overwhelming evidence against a worldwide flood.
Those are both claims.
Both are believed.
Which is true?

The first is being led by the conclusion. The second is following the evidence.

 

[ppp]

Reason being, no one takes out their appendix, thyroid glands etc., with the hope of a natural process replacing them, and restoring normal function to regulate vital functionality in the body.
When these are damaged, problems occur, which need to be "fixed" by an intelligent agent. Not natural processes.

This seems to me to be a complete non-sequitur, but I assume that you think it follows logically
Logically? You're going to have to take me along in baby steps if you want me to understand the connection.

 

[nPeace]

Google it, it's in the dictionary. In the meantime all I asserted was that there no objective evidence for sin, so your response below is an obvious straw man.

Looks like you are running away. Google it? Seriously? I told you "You mean there is no objective evidence that people are immoral, and people deteriorate and die? Unbelievable!"
You say that's not what you said, so we must not be talking about sin then. Or you don't know what sin is in the Bible.
I don't think you are really interested in objective evidence for anything.
That seems clearer, in light of the fact you have not responded to.... Oh wait! Are you editing your post?
Sorry if I responded too soon.

 

[nPeace]

The first is being led by the conclusion. The second is following the evidence.

That also is a claim.
The first is following the evidence.
You believe your claim. I believe otherwise.
Which is true?

 

[nPeace]

This seems to me to be a complete non-sequitur, but I assume that you think it follows logically
Logically? You're going to have to take me along in baby steps if you want me to understand the connection.

What do you want to know. I thought I was clear. Please elaborate.