• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bible Prophecy as Evidence of a bible writers trustworthiness

nPeace

Veteran Member
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.
Do you believe in evolution?
I have wondered why people that do, think that every species alive today was the same as in ancient times.
Is it because they believe changes can only occur gradually, over millions of years?
Some scientists are against that view.
There are whales that eat vegetation, and whales that do not have teeth... and other animals have diverse features too.
So there was no need for seals to have existed in the form they are today. What existed may not even have been identified as a seal.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
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?
All good questions. Can I open a thread to discuss this overwhelming evidence with you?
 

JonSL

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

One reference for the information presented was a simple History Channel Show on Ancient Battles. The presenters included professors of history. And they are, by definition, credible sources.

If you want to Google it and find the title of that show, feel free. I think, max, it would take 5 minutes to find it on Google.

As far as the Israelis using the Bible to help map the State of Israel in the early days of the State? Oh, I think that would be a 10 second Google search, as would be the discovering of ancient mines.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
In other words, it was all bluster.
Ok, since you won’t … the Assyrians. Nope, no counter arguments found in their writings.

The Syrians. Nope, none there, either.

The Hittites. Nope, no debunking found in their writings, either.

The Chaldeans. Nope, none there, either.

The ancient Tyrians. Nope.


(Detecting a pattern yet?)
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
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...

I never made any such claim, that is a gross misrepresentation. You might want to refresh your memory of your superstition's 9th commandment.

However, there is a lot of evidence for believing rhat Jesus Christ walked the earth; had disciples ; taught about God... etc...

I don't believe you, as you have just made a bare unevidenced claim.

Biblical archaeology is also a science,

There is no such thing, and archaeology has disproved biblical claims, like the Noah flood myth, and the Exodus myth.

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.

I doubt it, but since all you have offered is a bare claim it is meaningless. Claiming religious scholars agree with each other, is like claiming flat earthers agree with each other. Well they would, wouldn't they.

Therefore, we can acquire evidence in various ways, and how that evidence is interpreted, is not in the favor of one group of investigators.
JYrZOW4.jpg
 
Last edited:

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Do you believe in evolution?

Straw man, accepted scientific theories do not require belief, in the way faith based beliefs do.

I have wondered why people that do, think that every species alive today was the same as in ancient times.

Straw man, again. What does that even mean?

Is it because they believe changes can only occur gradually, over millions of years?

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy


Some scientists are against that view.

If they had any credible scientific evidence against evolution it would have been falsified, that is how the methods of science work. Creationists unfortunately are shocking liars, who spread propaganda "lies for Jesus".

There are whales that eat vegetation, and whales that do not have teeth... and other animals have diverse features too.

So what?

So there was no need for seals to have existed in the form they are today. What existed may not even have been identified as a seal.

:eek:o_O:D:D:D:D:D

What on earth are you talking about...
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
One reference for the information presented was a simple History Channel Show on Ancient Battles. The presenters included professors of history. And they are, by definition, credible sources.

Another bare claim, and therefore the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.

If you want to Google it and find the title of that show, feel free. I think, max, it would take 5 minutes to find it on Google.

No thanks, I'm not researching your claim for you.

As far as the Israelis using the Bible to help map the State of Israel in the early days of the State? Oh, I think that would be a 10 second Google search, as would be the discovering of ancient mines.

So less time than it took you to type out a repetition of your unevidenced claim then.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I never made any such claim, that is a gross misrepresentation. You might want to refresh your memory of your superstition's 9th commandment.
Good. Glad to hear it.


I don't believe you, as you have just made a bare unevidenced claim.


There is no such thing, and archaeology has disproved biblical claims, like the Noah flood myth, and the Exodus myth.
Where? Oh. Google it. :facepalm:
That's nonsense. Biblical archaeologists have nowhere made any such determination.
In fact there are three theories for the Exodus and settling in Canaan.
They are theories by scholars who cannot agree.

Unfortunately, once again I expect a cop out by refusing to provide a source for your baseless assertions, just as you did before. ...and I am tired of it, actually.
It's not possible to have a proper debate with someone who will say whatever (I told you this before), and when asked for information to support those assertion, tell you "Google it". o_O
I also told you I won't respond to your claims unless you support them. So I am going to keep my word.
Where exactly did you see "archaeology has disproved biblical claims"? Or is that just a claim.
Then, it's a nonsense claim. In other words, false.

I doubt it, but since all you have offered is a bare claim it is meaningless. Claiming religious scholars agree with each other, is like claiming flat earthers agree with each other. Well they would, wouldn't they.
o_O What? Did I claim that "religious scholars agree with each other"? Where?
You are only showing what most Atheist do.
I made no such claim, and you know this.
You could have used the picture as the sole distraction, rather than add something no one said. That doesn't do well for you, does it.

...and more than that.
dishonesty-880.jpg
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Basic commonsense is supposed to prevail in humanity evolving healing consciousness after the kept evidence shroud Turin proof.

Seeing Baha'i teacher was murdered another proof.

Life was mind changed behaviours beliefs very strange when irradiated by a fallen saviour of man.

Baha'i human teaching stated how a man should think behave naturally. Yet past life choices behaviour the dark ages real.

The saviour notated for liars men self possessed was never a man or the man. It was theoried as theories about shifting mass as giant causes.

So water mass shifted into a beginning a small man's image first accumulated into the theist attacked as one man then into a giant man's cloud image.

Ice the mass saviour body shifted into melt.

Saviour star saving by cold gases mass ignited burnt fell. Old saviour status known about star fall. Given by men of science the status a saviour.

The actual teaching saviour of man fell. First advice ignored totally.

That was meant in teaching only a star saviour to fill up return earths Christ heavenly cusp. Gas mass by stone in space releasing cold gas replaced heavens.

As volcanoes where earths Christ gas spirit by erected mountain spurting was hot. First. Is hot today and not holy the teaching.

Earth Christ no longer holy. Star gas holy in space the saviour with ice mass the saviour.

Was a humans scientific teaching. About why life got sacrificed as both bodies changed.

As it is a humans living experience advised.

Gases in space first were instant cold in release.

Was a human scientific teaching for liars. The human scientist who said they time shifted when looking at old dead things or things they dug up out of earth. As the object age stated by a man only. The object stationery wasn't aging itself either.

Remaining present the whole time as a human in a fixed state human body lying about how form transports itself by a God in time. i need to know the type of God he says for a machines thesis.

As natural not a machine is living as it is naturally.

To want to know means I want to own cause yet the man is not the thought a God that caused it. As he never caused it as the man.

Ignored self possessed human destroyer advice.

Talking RA radiating radiations exact advice as the time shifter. In science status only earth masses. As just the human. Claiming back in time an irradiated human now would look like a human ape.

Proves he believes in time shift and wants to see it occur by experiments to learn how God RA time shifted an ape into a human being. But first the human biology must shift back to being the ape human.

If he caused it he can calculate how to put the human he hurt back into a real human by invention. As he has to control human removal cells then a human put back.

Then he says but as I don't want to experience the human sacrifice myself I need to freeze time bodily for myself. Dinosaur snap freeze I caused sacrifice of life and human Saint snap freeze in the same event.

Of the human life body. Knows he caused it as a human scientist as it happened to the human life body living.

It was instant he said a machine did it. Yet ape sex is supposedly how a human baby was conceived and not a machine. Sex was instant.

So you should see a lying theist for who he is.

It's his human rights to know he says I learn knowing by experiments only. The atmosphere became my new laboratory.

So his brother the scientist says I talk by my mind control of the machine constantly yet physically manipulated machine controls as RA releases radiation is dangerous. By machine wisdom. Known already. Exactly advised in science.

Now I have to speak through my designed attack causes a machine to advise you as a man science wants to burn you all to death the KING warning Stephen Haw King.

Pretty basic coded by man advice science coding to apply science is self O inherited proof for liars. Satanists pretending a new name as scientist made them holier. In O God theism.

Give self a new name I then become a new God.

Men claiming they spoke on behalf of gods mass existing as planet earth. Then a converted earth the machine. Then a reaction.

Three times lying.

The human scientist in person his self reviewed.

Karma.

A man as one self reviewed all things and egotistically pretended he created all things.

The human scientist.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Faith is shown to bring about evidence. For example, Noah believed that God was going to flood a wicked world. Noah followed God's will, and build an ark in the desert. What would have happened if he had waited for the flood before building his ark?

It's hard to stomach, but the unbeliever goes to his death stubbornly holding to the belief that his own finite intellect is greater than the Creator's! Maybe it's time you started listening to the claims!
Human life once lived in a nature garden and not a desert.

Geology says once forests existed where sand now is.

Life of humanity and it's garden nature together existed... said our human father a natural holy spiritual man. Was ignored by his Science son. Life lived upon on bared naked earth.

Life did not begin on flooded earths O God body.

Earth stone seal existed first by the moon's asteroid saving of earth. Ice melt off asteroid origin the flood. Sun attack blast of earth. Gods body O saved by the water and sealed.

Not in a desert.

So man built science nuked earths ground and removed the tree of life from its ground roots. Time shifted the garden to not existing.

By removing ground state back to God o opening by disintegration of the earth seal to the origin. Was man known thought thesis.. a mountain rising releasing Christ spirit as the mass now held beneath the tree of life.

Beginning thesis human man one self spiritual man not listening to his non science father.

Disintegrated stone particles allowed the volcano of rock to arise first.

The giant cloud angel heard speaking back was as his brain prickled bled. Cloud mass irradiated fell and burnt it's image into the mountain as it too disintegrated mass as his proof.

Man caused the mountain to fall also.

Men as one man any man lied.

The scientist. The temple science and it's rebuilding was hence outlawed.

Because man caused cause effects as machines don't exist naturally but man does.

Natural history beginnings of heavens gas was a mountain volcano arising. Theme an erection like a man's penis had sex with space womb.

Not any man's life history as God O terms.

No AH. Breaths oxygens status in biology life garden plant oxygenator only.

The reason man became aware garden began to burn. Man said I was sacrificed as he destroyed wood by building the UFO machine eye RA ark.

The confess of Sion.

Man never built a wooden ark. Trees on mountain were struck burnt stone melted eye ark form and ballast square stone was radiated cut by UFO ark hit. Temple on mount blown up.

Only men ∆ squared the circle as a block. O gods form in space pressure a O circle only.

Men know humans did not board on a God built ark. As told. The telling said life was murdered taken under the flood atop mountain cause by the man of god.

Theist scientists.

Wood existed.

Animals did not arrive in the desert 2x2 squared science formula. Life was leaving as the flood accumulated accumulating attacking ground water by abduction was built.

By life ground water oxygen mass life's removal of water biology animal human was taken aboard. As the UFO RA alien ark emerged by scientific causes.

We live consciously by gardens water oxygenation which is not a scientists history of substances.

Burning star asteroid saviour began giving extra radiation instead of a Christ gas replaced heavens.

The ark landing ended on the mountain as flooding stopped it.

Then ground flooding ceased it's deluge. Yet radiation fallout still causes inherited ark flooding. As flooding was inherited.

Was the one man the scientists earth o God teachings to the man destroyer. The scientist man.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Empathy does not necessitate action.

Jesus said, 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.' [John 15:13]

There is little reason for a man to lay down his life for his friends. Without God, there is no life after death. Atheism sees no possibility of post mortem existence.

For a man to lay down his life for his friends, he must understand the power of love. Such love knows no barriers; whether in life, or in death.

Jesus did what he preached. He died for his friends. This is because he had faith in love to overcome death.

Our faith in Jesus' ultimate sacrifice determines whether we are his friends, or his enemies.

IMO.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Empathy does not necessitate action.
But it can.


Jesus said, 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.' [John 15:13]

There is little reason for a man to lay down his life for his friends. Without God, there is no life after death. Atheism sees no possibility of post mortem existence.
I just gave you a bunch of reasons. See post #579.

If there is no life after death then this life that we're living now is all we get and that makes it infinitely more precious in my eyes, and worth protecting.
Why do you believe that there needs to be some sort of afterlife for a person to love another so much that they'd give their life for them? My mother would give her life for me in a heartbeat, if the situation required it.

For a man to lay down his life for his friends, he must understand the power of love. Such love knows no barriers; whether in life, or in death.
What's your point?

Jesus did what he preached. He died for his friends. This is because he had faith in love to overcome death.

Our faith in Jesus' ultimate sacrifice determines whether we are his friends, or his enemies.

IMO.
This is just preaching. :shrug:
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Maybe you could now give some examples of men and women who have offered themselves as a sacrifice.

Anyone who helped people escape from Nazi-occupied Europe.
Anyone who helped slaves escape America via the Underground Railroad.
The guys who went into Chernobyl to manually shut it down, after it exploded, knowing they' wouldn't make it out alive.
My dad, who risked his own life to pull a complete stranger out of a burning car on the highway.
All the first responders who rushed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 to save people after terrorists flew planes into them.


In war, soldiers do not sign up to die, they usually sign up hoping to kill the enemy, and survive.
But they're fully aware that they could be killed.

In peacetime, people offer love to friends and family, and do things such as donate organs, but rarely is a person required to exchange places with one condemned to death.
A person who donates an organ to another is risking losing their life.

In the wider sense, the love of Jesus is greater than the love of man, because Jesus did not just die for his friends, he died for all sinners (all men).
So you say. To me, that's just a story in an old book, meant to inspire some sort of moral teaching.

Your question was, "Is it possible to believe in true love and deny God?"
I say, yep.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Anyone who helped people escape from Nazi-occupied Europe.
Anyone who helped slaves escape America via the Underground Railroad.
The guys who went into Chernobyl to manually shut it down, after it exploded, knowing they' wouldn't make it out alive.
My dad, who risked his own life to pull a complete stranger out of a burning car on the highway.
All the first responders who rushed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 to save people after terrorists flew planes into them.



But they're fully aware that they could be killed.


A person who donates an organ to another is risking losing their life.


So you say. To me, that's just a story in an old book, meant to inspire some sort of moral teaching.

Your question was, "Is it possible to believe in true love and deny God?"
I say, yep.
l can accept that people take risks to help others, but the Gospel makes a greater claim. That a perfectly good man sacrificed his life to take the punishment of death, once and for all.

If you can see the good in acts of human kindness, what makes you so sceptical about the love shown by Jesus?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
l can accept that people take risks to help others, but the Gospel makes a greater claim. That a perfectly good man sacrificed his life to take the punishment of death, once and for all.
So what? That's a story in an old book, meant to convey some kind of moral teaching to its readers. That doesn't make it a true story.
It's a claim not in evidence.

If you can see the good in acts of human kindness, what makes you so sceptical about the love shown by Jesus?
What we're talking about here are your claims that "God is love" and, "Is it possible to believe in true love and deny God?"

We've determined that God is not love, rather, that love is love and God is God.
We've also determined that it's possible to believe in true love and deny God.
I don't need any Gods to love anyone, nor does anyone need belief in God in order to risk or sacrifice one's life for another.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
So what? That's a story in an old book, meant to convey some kind of moral teaching to its readers. That doesn't make it a true story.
It's a claim not in evidence.


What we're talking about here are your claims that "God is love" and, "Is it possible to believe in true love and deny God?"

We've determined that God is not love, rather, that love is love and God is God.
We've also determined that it's possible to believe in true love and deny God.
I don't need any Gods to love anyone, nor does anyone need belief in God in order to risk or sacrifice one's life for another.
What I call 'true love' is 'agape' love. The reason I asked the question 'Is it possible to believe in true love and deny God?' is because the question involves a truism. It's a rhetorical question.

I don't agree that 'love is love and God is God', or that it's possible to believe in true love and deny God.

The NT employs two words for love that have distinct usages. One is 'agapao', and the other is 'phileo'.

W.E Vine says the following things about 'agape' love. 'Christian love has God for its primary object, and expresses itself first of all in implicit obedience to His commandments. John 14:15,21,23; 15:10; 1 John 2:5; 5:3; 2 John 6. Self-will, that is, self-pleasing, is the negation of love to God.'
'Christian love, whether exercised toward the brethren, or toward men generally, is not an impulse from the feelings, it does not always run from the natural inclinations, nor does it spend itself only upon those for whom some affinity is discovered.'

Of 'phileo' love, Vine writes,''Phileo' is to be distinguished from 'agapao' in this, that 'phileo' more nearly represents tender affection.'

What this tells me is that a man's heart cannot express true 'agape' love until it exhibits righteousness ('the implicit obedience to His commandments'). Righteousness is, in other words, holiness.

This should help us to distinguish between two types of love; one that is restricted to this life, whilst the other extends to eternity. One is the love of the human soul, the other the love of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, being both man and God, expresses both types of love, making his love greater than that of any other man.

Unlike any other man, Jesus saw himself as God's sacrifice. He knew that he had been sent to die. [Evidence for this claim is to be found in the NT scriptures]
 
Last edited:
Top