Bible Prophecy as Evidence of a bible writers trustworthiness

[Redemptionsong]

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

If objectivity is not universally acknowledged, then it becomes a particular, subjective affair. So, objectivity must be absolute!

Science becomes convincing when a theory is supported by good evidence. The reason the earth is not believed to be flat is because enough evidence has been produced to convince people otherwise. But, logically, such reasoning is still based on inductive methodology, providing probability, not proof. A 99.9% probability is not proof.

Proof is arrived at through deductive reasoning, and is only possible if you work from a 'universal' proposition. The problem for humans is that they do not have omniscience. Without it, they cannot provide proof of anything.

It should be evident to anyone who studies the history of scientific discovery, that science is not static. It constantly changes and updates based on new discoveries.

God does not change because God has always been omniscient, and his truth is eternal.

 

[ppp]

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

I have no idea what you mean by true. Do you?

 

[ppp]

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

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

 

[nPeace]

@Policy obviously you have no reasonable and coherent response.
This is not the place for childish games, so have a good day, and take care.
Bye now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In one of my posts about this I mentioned religion is being used as a crutch. It's related to the Santa Claus thing too. The kid thinks he's going to be rewarded for being good. There's a huge reward for believing in Jesus. But the Christian has to go all in. And I'm sure they feel it and are really changed. But, if they did it the right way, it was all Jesus that did it. They aren't able to do it on their own. Thus, the crutch part of it. Without the belief in Jesus, they will fall back into their old habits. So, I don't know. It's like it is all very real to them. But if Jesus isn't real, it was all in their mind. What do you think?

I agree and that's a good point. I mean, if someone found a belief in Jesus useful in helping them get their life together and get off drugs, then all the power to them. That's not an easy thing to do, by any means. On the other hand, as you point out, if that belief falters, changes or dissipates, then all that hard work potentially goes down the drain, if that crutch is removed. I think it keeps people from recognizing that they have actually done it on their own and that they deserve the credit for it, which is a sort of reward in itself, if you ask me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only thing that enabled your dad to quit smoking was ... his love for you.

If love changed your dad, why are you so adamant that love cannot change you? Every Christian will testify that the love of Jesus is the core of their faith.

I'm sorry but I don't know what this has to do with my post you were responding to about doubting scripture.
When did I say love can't change me?

 

[Sheldon]

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.

You seem to reel of claims, but don't demonstrate any evidence to support them. A claim for evidence, is not itself evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

no worries for you then

In what sense worries? What a strange comment.

 

[Sheldon]

Scientists claim things happen. People believe them... including you. Can their claims be substantiated?

You're kidding right?

Is the same not true of the Bible?

No of course not.

Please give an explanation for your answers.

Science is the systematic study of the natural physical world and universe through observation and experiment. It gathers and tests evidence and hypothesise, it rejects all unfalsifiable claims as unscientific, its results are subject to continuous scrutiny, and all scientific facts, no matter how well evidenced, must remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence. This is the very antithesis of faith based beliefs in unfalsifiable claims and beliefs that often have no explanatory powers whatsoever.

↑
Isn't what you describe there, like the diverse theories that the various scientist all claim is true, and one group can claim that theirs is true?
"Look at these bones. They look like... and look at this... this says that this is the case... and..."
Sheldon 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.

It is a risible comparison, that is not remotely comparable with the reality of scientific methods. Even a layman with the most basic grasp of what science is would find this a risible comment, hell anyone who Googled the definition of the scientific methods would see it.

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

Google it, I'm not looking up word definitions you're too lazy to learn yourself.

 

[Sheldon]

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 second one if you value scientific rigour over unevidenced archaic superstition. There is no evidence in the geological evidence for a global flood.

Twenty-one Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood

 

[Sheldon]

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.

Learn the definition of sin, it's not my fault you don't understand why your claim was a complete straw man. It takes seconds to Google a simple word definition, it seems you're either too lazy or too dishonest to bother.

 

[Sheldon]

If objectivity is not universally acknowledged, then it becomes a particular, subjective affair. So, objectivity must be absolute!

So the shape of the earth is a matter of opinion then, given there are people who still claim it is flat?

 

[Sheldon]

Science becomes convincing when a theory is supported by good evidence. The reason the earth is not believed to be flat is because enough evidence has been produced to convince people otherwise. But, logically, such reasoning is still based on inductive methodology, providing probability, not proof. A 99.9% probability is not proof.

I never mentioned proof.

 

[CG Didymus]

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?

How literal do you take the flood story? Did it happen a little over 4000 years ago? Was Noah somewhere 500 years old when he built the ark? And he lived to be over 900 years old? Was he and his family the only humans left alive? So, 4000 or so years ago, there was only Noah and his family, and all of us are descended from him and his sons? All animals that survived were on the ark? So, when the ark came to rest, there weren't that many animals in the world and all of them were in one place? So, except for the animals that stayed in that area, the rest migrated to other parts of the world? How long did that migration take? How high was the highest mountain? And how much water would it take for the flood to cover it?

Is there really "overwhelming" evidence for a literal interpretation of the flood?

 

[CG Didymus]

I agree and that's a good point. I mean, if someone found a belief in Jesus useful in helping them get their life together and get off drugs, then all the power to them. That's not an easy thing to do, by any means. On the other hand, as you point out, if that belief falters, changes or dissipates, then all that hard work potentially goes down the drain, if that crutch is removed. I think it keeps people from recognizing that they have actually done it on their own and that they deserve the credit for it, which is a sort of reward in itself, if you ask me.

Since differing and contradictory beliefs still work to get the person off of their bad habits, then is it the religion that is really doing it? In a way I think it is, at least in the person's mind.

Some Christians friends of mine went back to sex, drugs and alcohol after an incident at their Church caused them to doubt. But then I found out that those same friends were doing some sex and some alcohol while their beliefs appeared to be strong and dedicated to living for God. Now alcohol was not forbidden but sex before marriage was. So, religion wasn't being used as a crutch. It was more of a facade.

But then what do think of religion as being a replacement drug? Especially in a Holy Roller Church. Their services got everybody on an emotional high. Oh, and that was the kind of Church those friends of mine went to.

 

[CG Didymus]

The second one if you value scientific rigour over unevidenced archaic superstition. There is no evidence in the geological evidence for a global flood.

Twenty-one Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood

That olive tree wasn't in too good of shape. I forgot about the trees and other plants. Noah and his family and all the animals would have gotten off the ark to a drowned world. I also wonder about the mammals that can swim. Did the seals and polar bears need to get on the ark? Or just hang out on some driftwood between swimming? But really, why doesn't it have to be literally true? Only for those whose faith is destroyed if the Bible isn't 100% accurate and inerrant.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'm sorry but I don't know what this has to do with my post you were responding to about doubting scripture.
When did I say love can't change me?

Scripture teaches that God is love [1 John 4:8]. If you believe love can change you, are you not admitting that God can change you?

Is it possible to believe in true love and deny God?

 

[nPeace]

You're kidding right?

No I indicate when I am, and I didn't

No of course not.


Science is the systematic study of the natural physical world and universe through observation and experiment. It gathers and tests evidence and hypothesise, it rejects all unfalsifiable claims as unscientific, its results are subject to continuous scrutiny, and all scientific facts, no matter how well evidenced, must remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence. This is the very antithesis of faith based beliefs in unfalsifiable claims and beliefs that often have no explanatory powers whatsoever.

Great. so you must not be talking about God.
As for the Bible, it does undergo investigative study.
What do those investigative studies show? What do we observe?
Read up on Biblical archaeology and the discoveries made
List of biblical figures confirmed by extra-biblical sources
Consider what else has been found about the Bible. Agrees with science
There is the historical accuracy, as well as what we are discussing here - prophecy.
We even have confirmation from historians. One of these confirms the prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled.

Now, clearly, if you want to make an argument against miracles, then your post was wasted, because science does not deal with the supernatural... as I assume you well know.
So may i suggest you make up your mind.

It is a risible comparison, that is not remotely comparable with the reality of scientific methods. Even a layman with the most basic grasp of what science is would find this a risible comment, hell anyone who Googled the definition of the scientific methods would see it.

What are you talking about?
One scientist's interpretation, is just another to the other scientist's.

Google it, I'm not looking up word definitions you're too lazy to learn yourself.

Oh dear.
I know what sin is. Apparently you don't.
The mistake some people make, and you are making the same mistake, is to use definitions 2000-3000 years after their original use, and which are foreign to the Greek and Hebrew terms.
It's sort of like when you say "theory" in science, is not the same as "theory" in general, and "fact" in science is far removed from "fact" in general.
I think you can understand that.

 

[nPeace]

The second one if you value scientific rigour over unevidenced archaic superstition. There is no evidence in the geological evidence for a global flood.

Twenty-one Reasons Noah’s Worldwide Flood Never Happened

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood

I, unlike you, do not hold to the closed-minded view that science gives the truth each time, every time, and that it's the only source of truth... or avenue to truth.
Even scientists do not believe that, so I'm sorry...

However, there is a lot of evidence for believing rhat Jesus Christ walked the earth; had disciples ; taught about God... etc...
Biblical archaeology is also a science, and analyzing ancient documents and primary sources of historical data, allows one to come to a conclusion on matters of truth related to those documents.
Therefore, we can acquire evidence in various ways, and how that evidence is interpreted, is not in the favor of one group of investigators.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Scripture teaches that God is love [1 John 4:8]. If you believe love can change you, are you not admitting that God can change you?

Is it possible to believe in true love and deny God?

God can't be love because love is love.
God is God.

Yes it is absolutely possible to believe in love and not believe in God(s).