Evidence -- making it useful

[1213]

Thanks, but I can read the Bible for myself.

So, do you know anybody doing these "signs" (which means miracles in John 3:2) these days?

Good that you can read. And my point was to say, in the case of Jesus, his actions was the evidence, for the people with him, that he speaks the truth.

At the moment no one comes to my mind that is doing the same miracles.

 

[Brian2]

The prophecy was about Nebuchadnezzar. It was not about Alexander the Great. Tyre was defeated before Nebby and after him. Those are just "So what" events. The prophecy was about how God was going to get back at the King of Tyre. Well that did not happen. Are you now saying that your God is so incompetent that the forgot that people died?

You have completely forgotten that the prophecy says that many nations will come against Tyre and do all the things prophesied. (Ezek 26:1-6) Nebuchadnezzar was from Ezek 26:7-11 and then it stops talking about what "he" would do and starts talking about what "they" would do, the other nations. This is in all the articles I posted about the prophecy.

Face it, it is a terribly failed prophecy. And even Alexander did not complete it. Yes, he defeated Tyre, but it recovered. It was never to be found again and yet you can spot it quite easily on Google Maps. This is where Christians lose credibility.

The nations did destroy Tyre as prophesied, both physically and as a great and powerful trading and manufacturing city.
The city had to be there in some form however so that the nations could keep coming up against it like waves (Ezek 26:3)

Or are you referring to the "City of Tyre destroyed by the Babylonians"? Yes, that one source referred to the mainland city incorrectly. Christians did impact what people called the area. But actual historians know its name. It was not "Tyre" That was Ushu:

Ushu - Wikipedia

From that article:

“[Tyre’s] numbers swelled greatly in time of war, when residents of nearby cities on the mainland (such as Ushu) found refuge on the island.” (Katzenstein, H.J., The History of Tyre, 1973, p10) "
Tyre regularly abandoned the indefensible cities on the land. The island was Tyre. It was what everyone was after. The land surrounding it was not of much value.

Three letters referring to Usu[edit]

1. EA 148–"The need for mainland Tyre".
2. EA 149–"Neither water nor wood".
3. EA 150–"Needed: just one soldier".

• "Ousous took a tree, and, having stripped off the branches, was the first who ventured to embark on the sea" (Eusebius, quoting Philo of Byblos, Praeparatio Evangelica Bk I, 10, 10)[2]
• “[Tyre’s] numbers swelled greatly in time of war, when residents of nearby cities on the mainland (such as Ushu) found refuge on the island.” (Katzenstein, H.J., The History of Tyre, 1973, p10)
• “Besides the city itself, well-protected by its location on an island, the kingdom of Tyre included a strip of mainland, whose center was the town of Ushu.” (Katzenstein, H.J., The History of Tyre, 1973, p29)
• “Ousoüs is, of course, Ushu or Uzu, the ancient name of the mainland city...During most periods, the majority of the population must have lived on the mainland, while the island area was an administrative and religious center. As an administrative center, it would have contained the palaces of the ruler and probably stations for the army as well, and as a religious center, it had temples serving the city and the region.” (Bikai, Pierre, The Land of Tyre, found in chapter 2 of Martha Joukowsky's “The Heritage of Tyre” 1992, pp13–15)
• Remarking about the many times Tyre was attacked leading up to, and including Nebuchadnezzar, Maurice Chehab, the Director general of Antiquities in Lebanon says, “If the invaders, however, sometimes succeeded in subduing the coast (i.e. Ushu), the island, which was the heart of Tyre’s maritime empire, eluded them.” (Chehab, Maurice, Tyre, trans: Afaf Rustum Chalhoub, p11)
• “A wall relief at Karnak lists the cities Sethos I (or Seti I, Ramesses II’s father) conquered, among them Tyre and Ushu. Ushu appears as if it were part of the Tyrian kingdom.” (Badre, Leila, Canaanite Tyre, found in chapter 4 of Martha Joukowsky's “The Heritage of Tyre” 1992, p 40) see also Katzenstein p 49, (both citing James B. Pritchard's Ancient Near East in Pictures nos. 327, 331)
• Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987, 1992. (softcover, ISBN 0-8018-6715-0)

I copied the above from your article about Ushu. If you read the highlighted bits you can see that Ushu was considered the mainland part of Tyre and Tyre was more than a city, it is referred to as the Tyrian Kingdom, the Island being the admin and religious centre and fortress and the mainland of this Kingdom was where most of the population lived in times of peace.
Thanks, an interesting article.

 

[Brian2]

Read this and guess who is being described (answer in the spoiler below):

Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed his mother that the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life, he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.

Who is this?
​

Spoiler: Answer

Apollonius of Tyana

Above text by Barth D. Ehrman

Apollonius of Tyana lived about the same time as Jesus, but much longer and the story was not written until 200-250 AD by a sophist Philostratus who wrote about other sophists and about Apollonius.
Does any similarity to Jesus surprise me? No.
Is any big comparison to Jesus justified? Not imo.

 

[PureX]

Someone proclaiming themselves to be a prophet doesn't mean anything. It's not evidence of anything but an unsubstantiated claim.

Someone ELSE proclaiming him to be a prophet IS evidence because they have experienced something that they have determined to be prophetic, via that person. Yet it's still just evidence of that. And is not evidence that WE should consider the fellow a prophet.

Prophesy is something that we have to experience for ourselves, to know. No one else can provide it for us. That someone else feels they have experienced it is evidence, but it's evidence that is of no practical value to us.

When we are discussing God, and especially religious claims about God, this tends to be the difficulty. There are many claims and lots of evidence, but it's mostly all of a type that is of no value to us, personally, until we can experience it for ourselves. And if we have not, it has not practical value.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have completely forgotten that the prophecy says that many nations will come against Tyre and do all the things prophesied. (Ezek 26:1-6) Nebuchadnezzar was from Ezek 26:7-11 and then it stops talking about what "he" would do and starts talking about what "they" would do, the other nations. This is in all the articles I posted about the prophecy.

No, once again you have demonstrated that you either didn't read the prophecy or did not understand it. Nebby was the leader of " many nations". He was a king of kings, and yes that phrase was used about him.

The nations did destroy Tyre as prophesied, both physically and as a great and powerful trading and manufacturing city.
The city had to be there in some form however so that the nations could keep coming up against it like waves (Ezek 26:3)

Oh please, no. Now you are using eisegesis. That was just a poetic phrase about the relentless attacks from Nebby.

Three letters referring to Usu[edit]

1. EA 148–"The need for mainland Tyre".
2. EA 149–"Neither water nor wood".
3. EA 150–"Needed: just one soldier".

• "Ousous took a tree, and, having stripped off the branches, was the first who ventured to embark on the sea" (Eusebius, quoting Philo of Byblos, Praeparatio Evangelica Bk I, 10, 10)[2]
• “[Tyre’s] numbers swelled greatly in time of war, when residents of nearby cities on the mainland (such as Ushu) found refuge on the island.” (Katzenstein, H.J., The History of Tyre, 1973, p10)
• “Besides the city itself, well-protected by its location on an island, the kingdom of Tyre included a strip of mainland, whose center was the town of Ushu.” (Katzenstein, H.J., The History of Tyre, 1973, p29)
• “Ousoüs is, of course, Ushu or Uzu, the ancient name of the mainland city...During most periods, the majority of the population must have lived on the mainland, while the island area was an administrative and religious center. As an administrative center, it would have contained the palaces of the ruler and probably stations for the army as well, and as a religious center, it had temples serving the city and the region.” (Bikai, Pierre, The Land of Tyre, found in chapter 2 of Martha Joukowsky's “The Heritage of Tyre” 1992, pp13–15)
• Remarking about the many times Tyre was attacked leading up to, and including Nebuchadnezzar, Maurice Chehab, the Director general of Antiquities in Lebanon says, “If the invaders, however, sometimes succeeded in subduing the coast (i.e. Ushu), the island, which was the heart of Tyre’s maritime empire, eluded them.” (Chehab, Maurice, Tyre, trans: Afaf Rustum Chalhoub, p11)
• “A wall relief at Karnak lists the cities Sethos I (or Seti I, Ramesses II’s father) conquered, among them Tyre and Ushu. Ushu appears as if it were part of the Tyrian kingdom.” (Badre, Leila, Canaanite Tyre, found in chapter 4 of Martha Joukowsky's “The Heritage of Tyre” 1992, p 40) see also Katzenstein p 49, (both citing James B. Pritchard's Ancient Near East in Pictures nos. 327, 331)
• Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987, 1992. (softcover, ISBN 0-8018-6715-0)

I copied the above from your article about Ushu. If you read the highlighted bits you can see that Ushu was considered the mainland part of Tyre and Tyre was more than a city, it is referred to as the Tyrian Kingdom, the Island being the admin and religious centre and fortress and the mainland of this Kingdom was where most of the population lived in times of peace.
Thanks, an interesting article.

Yes, and so what? There were both. But Zeke screwed up. Old Nebby never broke the gates to the city. That was supposed to happen. He never rode through its streets. That was supposed to happen. That Nebby would defeat the settlements was a no brainer. It was hardly a biblical prophecy since abandoning the land based cities was a known tactic. You are now claiming that I am a prophet because the next time you are on the road you will see a red car.

Do you not understand context at all? What was a rare event was the defeat of the city itself. And the Bible even admits that never happened.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Good that you can read. And my point was to say, in the case of Jesus, his actions was the evidence, for the people with him, that he speaks the truth.

At the moment no one comes to my mind that is doing the same miracles.

Can you think of a good explanation for why, with a human race that has been around for over 100,000 years, miracles (as proofs of the existence of God) happened only for a very short time around 2,000 years ago? For over 98,000 years, heaven wasn't interested in humans, and only got interested when it discovered Jews? Seem odd to me.

 

[joe1776]

I do not expect (or hope) that this thread will reach anything like the length of the late thread titled just "Evidence." However, I think it's time that we began having some discussion, since @TransmutingSoul seems determined not to discuss how evidence might be used or evaluated in his thread. (Why do I think it won't be so long? Because I do not anticipate the evidence insisters in the other thread to participate very much. From what I've seen, they don't have much to contribute.)

A bullet casing, found lying in the street, may well be "evidence" of something, and that something may well be a crime. Then again, it could be almost anything else, too: a relic dropped by accident, a deliberately placed clue in a private game about which we know nothing because we're not playing. So that bullet casing, while it might be "evidence," is entirely useless "as evidence" unless somebody starts asking -- and answering -- questions about it.

I think, for purposes of this thread, however, we should stick to those pieces of "evidence" provided in the other thread. For reference, these are:



I'll begin with my first, most obvious thoughts:

1. How can a person, who claims to be a "Messenger from God," be identified as such by any means other than his own claim?
2. Would it not be necessary to show that "The Revelation" they give could not have been given unless it were provided by God? And can it be shown, before whatever transformation and change is intended actually occurs, that that transformation will be for the betterment of humanity?
3. Would it be necessary to show that "The Word - The Message" could not have been written or articulated by a mere human, without divine assistance? How would that be accomplished? And, like the writings of Karl Marx, sitting in the British Museum, can they be demonstrated to be certain to give the desired results? It does not appear, after all, that Marx's words did.

We tend to think of high intelligence only as a positive factor when examining evidence. But when the human mind wants to confirm a bias, someone gifted with high intelligence can do a much better job of arguing the evidence-based position even when he or she is completely wrong.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What are the sorts of things that we require evidence for?

To put a man in prison for being suspected of a crime? Absolutely we want evidence: we demand that he be considered innocent until proven guilty, through the examination and testing of evidence before an impartial jury. We wouldn't have it any other way.

The landlord, renting an apartment, conducts a credit check because he wants some evidence that his new tenant can and does pay his bills on time.

To lend someone several million dollars to create a business opportunity, any bank would demand evidence that there is property to act as surety for the loan of their depositors' savings.

To show that you are capable of safely operating a motor vehicle, we insist that you be trained, take a test proving that you have learned well, and then ask you to purchase a licence -- and renew it from time to time.

To show that you are able to operate surgically on a human brain, we insist on many years of training, rigorous testing, internship and continual oversight by the profession before allowing you a licence to perform neurosurgery in our hospitals. And we do this for most other professions. We even train and licence many people in many trades. We want to be assured that they know how to do what they say they know how to do. We want evidence.

And we want evidence in thousands of other ways. Who would trust their child to the care of a stranger, without some evidence of their bona fides? Or even their pet?

And yet, there are those who will put their own child's life in danger by withholding a necessary blood transfusion because of a few words in a Leviticus 17. We would deny people, even our own children, the right to the happiness of living their lives according to their own natures because 2000 years ago people didn't understand how human sexuality and psychology work. We have gone to war because some people read the same book and get a different meaning -- becoming, for example, Protestant instead of Catholic -- as if we not only know with certainty God's existence but also what God wants.

But if we see a wet paint sign, we'll still touch it to be sure.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Good that you can read. And my point was to say, in the case of Jesus, his actions was the evidence, for the people with him, that he speaks the truth.

At the moment no one comes to my mind that is doing the same miracles.

Miracles are not strong evidence to the multitudes and not meant to be evidence of God beyond the confirmation given at the time. It can be shown with logic and reason why they are not good evidence for those that did not witness them.

Regards Tony

 

[Ella S.]

I always find it pretty amazing that evidence for God's existence is dismissed because of Occam's Razor, and turned into an assumption.

That's not what's happening here.

The naturalistic methodology of science is a common tool of skeptics even when it comes to analysing spiritual books like the Bible. God and the supernatural and prophecy and miracles are usually presumed not to be true.

Maybe you should ask yourself why that is. It's not because of a "scientistic bias" against the supernatural. It's because supernatural claims have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be false.

How many claims of miracles turned out to be hoaxes? Pretty much all of the ones we could properly investigate. When all of the miracles we can study are fake, then it's rational to conclude that any new supposed miracles we find are likely to be fake, too. That's called prior probability.

This is really the main reason that the writing of Biblical books can be put hundreds of years after what the Bible insinuates. Because the prophecies in the books are not true and so the book must have been written after the prophecies.

This is not only a strawman, but it's a strawman of an argument I didn't even make here. Do you need me to answer for every single skeptic in existence before you're going to be open to having a discussion?

Prophecy in the Tanakh wasn't even meant to foretell the future. They were meant as warnings to the audience. Also, all of the copies of the prophecies we have do have later dates than what the prophecies are about, which we can demonstrate using a variety of archaeological and historical tools such as carbon dating.

You're the one starting with a conclusion and cherry-picking the evidence to fit it. Methodological naturalism demands that we form our conclusions based on the evidence, instead. That's why it contradicts what you believe; you're demonstrably wrong.

Or when it comes to prophecies about Jesus that happened, it shows that the gospel authors must have made up the story of Jesus to fit prophecy.

That would be a ridiculous claim given that Jesus didn't actually fulfill any prophecies.

And when Biblical prophecy still comes true in this age, the prophecies are too vague and could mean anything.

You think otherwise, despite the fact that people have interpreted various supposed "prophecies" as "obviously" being fulfilled by any number of events for over a thousand years now?

So the likelihood that the voice that says He is YHWH and tells you the future, which comes true, in a culture where this sort of thing has happened in the past many times and in which YHWH saved your people from slavery in Egypt and is now your God and King, is 50% less likely to be YHWH than to be one of the countless other possible explanations you say exist.

Actually, if you're hearing voices, you're probably suffering from psychosis like all of the other supposed prophets we have in mental institutions right now.

Of course, if the future prophesied by those voices does come true, then there's probably something more going on. However, to just blindly believe the voice in your head when it claims to be Yhwh is completely irrational.

Even within Christianity, many monks and theologians would sooner say that you're falling prey to "prelest" and being mislead by demons who falsely claim to be God. So even if I'm being the most charitable I possibly can and I'm just giving you, for the sake of argument, that we can rationally assume Christianity to be true, then prophecy is still not evidence of God.

What is the probability that this "prophet" is just able to see the future accurately do you think? 50% by default I guess. Surely half of us humans can do that.

If we've already proven that the prophet's prophecies have come true, then we've already proven that they're prophesying the future.

If you're asking me what I think the probability of someone being able to tell the future is, regardless of whether God is involved in the process or not, I would say 0%. It's completely impossible. I'm only entertaining the idea for the sake of a thought experiment to demonstrate how, even if it wasn't completely impossible and we could show that it's happened before in the past, it would still not be evidence of God.

That's because you don't understand what evidence is or how it works, to the point that you think methodological naturalism is an anti-supernatural bias.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What are the sorts of things that we require evidence for?

To put a man in prison for being suspected of a crime? Absolutely we want evidence: we demand that he be considered innocent until proven guilty, through the examination and testing of evidence before an impartial jury. We wouldn't have it any other way.

The landlord, renting an apartment, conducts a credit check because he wants some evidence that his new tenant can and does pay his bills on time.

To lend someone several million dollars to create a business opportunity, any bank would demand evidence that there is property to act as surety for the loan of their depositors' savings.

To show that you are capable of safely operating a motor vehicle, we insist that you be trained, take a test proving that you have learned well, and then ask you to purchase a licence -- and renew it from time to time.

To show that you are able to operate surgically on a human brain, we insist on many years of training, rigorous testing, internship and continual oversight by the profession before allowing you a licence to perform neurosurgery in our hospitals. And we do this for most other professions. We even train and licence many people in many trades. We want to be assured that they know how to do what they say they know how to do. We want evidence.

And we want evidence in thousands of other ways. Who would trust their child to the care of a stranger, without some evidence of their bona fides? Or even their pet?

And yet, there are those who will put their own child's life in danger by withholding a necessary blood transfusion because of a few words in a Leviticus 17. We would deny people, even our own children, the right to the happiness of living their lives according to their own natures because 2000 years ago people didn't understand how human sexuality and psychology work. We have gone to war because some people read the same book and get a different meaning -- becoming, for example, Protestant instead of Catholic -- as if we not only know with certainty God's existence but also what God wants.

But if we see a wet paint sign, we'll still touch it to be sure.

Further to this thought:

We insist on proof of your children's vaccination before they go to school, and your pets' having had their shots before the can go to pet-care. But to hack off a bit of your son's willy, that just needs a Bible verse to make it mandatory!

We want ID proof of age before letting you have a beer, but for some, the only evidence that females shouldn't receive an education is something somebody says they were told by an angel (and then had to get somebody else to write down because the hearer was illiterate).

Many want proof absolute that vaccines won't make them magnetic (instead of protecting their lives), but think nothing of stories written in "reformed Egyptian" on golden plates that could only be read using "seer stones" peering into a hat that say Jesus visited America.

I don't know for sure, not being religious, but for these and so many other reasons, I can't help but think religion does tend to make one extraordinarily gullible.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Can you think of a good explanation for why, with a human race that has been around for over 100,000 years, miracles (as proofs of the existence of God) happened only for a very short time around 2,000 years ago? For over 98,000 years, heaven wasn't interested in humans, and only got interested when it discovered Jews? Seem odd to me.

And nowadays even the promised land (the chosen people) is devoid of all the spectacular miracles.

 

[rational experiences]

Men taught.

You are all baby men. Sex created.

By immaculate body is your bio life's supported against flame above burning light. Taught. Life's living is by immaculate terms.

Holy human mother. I'm a baby man...baby self however is not speaking. Only man owning sperm the adult father is. Yet you aren't father.

Told non sexual adult man self idolated theoried.

Symbolism of immaculate life support is man's tesching holy adult mother and man baby son.

Mother three. Mother. Sister. Daughter.

Notice no uholy word is used? As human sex the man chose also.

Now did you first self idolate?

Yes. Said man the baby life.

By theist man's belief I know God.

God however is by terminology only natural law life support of man's life now?

Exactly taught. Now. Presence. Life.

A human self idolator a man as adult but was a baby man first. Theories humans science against self presence.

Non existence.

Confessed. Says when only god existed its in gods terms. No human.

Machine science changed heavens mass. Men today are again experimenting to change heavens mass again. Are actually doing it.

Change.

Laws did not build his machine.

Pretty basic.

He places sun mass dust melt above us now as a machines beginnings.

A long time ago he heated melted ground dusts to build a machine.

Now he says above us is a machine. Below us is a machine. His God.

By two machines he says now in the middle being heavens I will react a reaction.

Where we exist.

He argues he says no I put the heavens inside my machine. No he hasn't. He put a gas inside the machine. Heavens isn't one gas.

Heavens is one mass.

So you realise a Theist baby adult man conned us by his word use. Self idolator. Taking an unnatural leadership role is never mutual or equal.

Father's role was mutual and equal in humans life laws. With mother with babies.

Now men proclaiming but I'm the highest spiritual life is as humans father's representative. Memory. You'll remember father he'll teach you self idolator you are wrong.

Father isnt any theist man. Father never pretended he was better than anything else.

Man's theism however had.

Father hadn't self idolated or placed any child higher than any other.

Man theist took on a role that had. Idolated. Gave self a position of speciality I got sacrificed yet I still live.

Only because you hadn't as baby human man created yourself. Theist.

Father mother had by human sex.

Why Jesus had self idolated and the bible proved men claiming self holiness and speciality were hypocrites first.

Life in law is mutual equal. We live we breathe in the same heavenly conditions.

All humans today born by sex.

Jesus a theist false taught his life hadn't come from sex and had come from a God. Proved men of science wrong.

God didn't own any humans life humans did equally.

If a human quotes I left God. It's because in teaching past humans life was sacrificed in its biology.

Gods body is exact position as said by a theist human. A huge descriptive analogy.

Owning God in human terms means it's type has to be present first for my own life to exist. A realisation not a theory.

To be human conscious is by humans realisation.

Why the bible was shut by legal sworn oath. No man is God.

The testimony proved man is one self. Was a self idolator versus natural human woman's human history.

Species one human.

In one species human man self idolated caused all of life's inherited problems.

His own confession. I hadn't acted like father had. My behaviours changed.

Therefore men teach men preach yet by personal intention role play self Idolating also.

Realised science as a man. Practiced science as a man. Hurt all life as a man. Told everyone man did it to himself.

Women can make exactly the same speech yet we can say yet I didn't. As the woman human.

My reviewed comparison human to human says how dare you theory a mother's life was the nothing womb of space. As your mind head a human man said her womb was a star mass. Not a man baby.

Review man as spiritual so now I speak on behalf of father lied. Father was not a self idolator man.

The daughter did...never the theist of human science.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Now, as to "the message."

We are told (by Muslims) that it is impossible that any human could write anything like the Qur'an. This is a huge claim! How many books have I read, how many have you read, that we thought, "my goodness, nobody could have done better than this?"

But is that true? How would you demonstrate that no human could write anything as "good" (or possibly as "true," or "poetic," or "divine") as the Qur'an? What does that even mean?

Then, when we read all of the destruction brought upon earth by God -- the killing of all but 8 of earth's human population, the deaths of the first-born of Egypt (who weren't doing anything to deserve it), the slaughter of the Canaanites, the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira -- how do we get to proclaim that "all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching?"

In both Bible and Qur'an, there is written no knowledge (and in fact blatant errors) about almost everything that science can teach us now -- so how do we imagine that either of them is of any use whatever in understanding our human nature?

And how, for goodness sake how, do we imagine for even a moment that much of the pablum presented by religious texts is really useful? How many of us "take no thought for the morrow" and hope that God will clothe us as he does the "lillies of the field?" No -- we put away money to buy a house, save for the kids' education, and hopefully our retirement (since the kids might not want to support us when we're done).

How many of us "turn the other cheek?" (Explain that in the context of America's fetish with the Second Amendment, please -- that would make for a pretty interesting essay.) Yes, when Jean Valjean stole the silver from the Bishop, the Bishop also gave him his candlesticks to "prove" to the police that he had given the silver voluntarily (so that he could "buy his soul for God"), how many of you would do that today?

I suspect that most would take him to court to get the silver back! (I'd be fascinated to hear from a member who disagrees with me on that last point.)

 

[muhammad_isa]

In both Bible and Qur'an, there is written no knowledge (and in fact blatant errors) about almost everything that science can teach us now..

That is blatantly false.
Please give us an example of something proved to be wrong, in the Qur'an.

 

[Brian2]

No, once again you have demonstrated that you either didn't read the prophecy or did not understand it. Nebby was the leader of " many nations". He was a king of kings, and yes that phrase was used about him.



Oh please, no. Now you are using eisegesis. That was just a poetic phrase about the relentless attacks from Nebby.

Ezek 26:3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves.
It says many nations and I must be wasting my time here.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, when Jean Valjean stole the silver from the Bishop, the Bishop also gave him his candlesticks to "prove" to the police that he had given the silver voluntarily (so that he could "buy his soul for God"), how many of you would do that today?

I suspect that most would take him to court to get the silver back! (I'd be fascinated to hear from a member who disagrees with me on that last point.)

I bet @Valjean disagrees.

 

[1213]

Miracles are not strong evidence to the multitudes and not meant to be evidence of God beyond the confirmation given at the time. It can be shown with logic and reason why they are not good evidence for those that did not witness them.
...

I can agree that something that happened a long time ago is not evidence for you. Those things were evidence for them who witnessed the events. And there were many witnesses allegedly. We are to believe because of the many witnesses. However, I don't think Bible is about believing, I think it is about getting the right understanding, wisdom of the just. That doesn't depend on you knowing or even believing God is real.

 

[1213]

Can you think of a good explanation for why, with a human race that has been around for over 100,000 years, miracles (as proofs of the existence of God) happened only for a very short time around 2,000 years ago? For over 98,000 years, heaven wasn't interested in humans, and only got interested when it discovered Jews? Seem odd to me.

I don't believe humans have existed 100,000 years. If it would be, why would humans have developed all most all the things during the last 6000 years and nothing meaningful in the first 90,000 years?

I believe God has always been interested about humans and for me the Bible and that humans exist still, is evidence of it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't believe humans have existed 100,000 years. If it would be, why would humans have developed all most all the things during the last 6000 years and nothing meaningful in the first 90,000 years?

So, you don't read science. Got it.

But let's just pretend for a moment that your 6,000 years is correct. Do you know how many of those years no human invented machines that could move us from place to place without using slaves or animals? Almost all of them. We got our first train in 1837, and our first automobile in 1886. Then, whoah! our first flying machine in 1903, only 17 years after the auto. And only 66 years after that, we had landed men on the moon, and brought them home. Scientific knowledge builds on prior scientific knowledge, and the rate of increase is quite incredible. That should answer your question, but I rather suspect it won't. You don't appear to think in that manner.

I believe God has always been interested about humans and for me the Bible and that humans exist still, is evidence of it.

The question is, what have you observed that makes you believe that? And what does the fact that the Enuma Elish and lethal parasites give you evidence of, with regard to God's "interest" in us?