The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

Ha! I’m not surprised. IOW, you don’t really want to debate, you just want to preach, like your buddies.

No. It’s not the “same difference.” What we know that, apparently, you don’t, is that translation involves much more than transliteration. It’s a subtle twist of words that means something entirely different. It’s like the placement if a comma that will change the meaning of a sentence, even though the same elements are there.

You’re word-mongering, just like your ilk always do. Your argument seems reasonable, but it isn’t at all, once it’s parsed out.

You’ll have to do much, much better. No one’s buying it.

All that, and nothing to support it. Oh right. Your words are all we need.

Spoiler: Spout Spout

 

[sojourner]

All that, and nothing to support it. Oh right. Your words are all we need.

Spoiler: Spout Spout

Pot, meet Kettle. Are your words all we need? The difference is that I’m stating known facts about translation. People know this stuff. It needs no “proof.” You’re spouting some apparently secret dogma that begs evidence. Which do you think is more compelling?

As usual with your bunch, all we get is subterfuge and attitude, no real argument or evidentiary position. Y’all really need to dream up a new MO.

 

[nPeace]

Pot, meet Kettle. Are your words all we need? The difference is that I’m stating known facts about translation. People know this stuff. It needs no “proof.” You’re spouting some apparently secret dogma that begs evidence. Which do you think is more compelling?

As usual with your bunch, all we get is subterfuge and attitude, no real argument or evidentiary position. Y’all really need to dream up a new MO.

Here we go again.

 

[sojourner]

Here we go again.

Give us something other than vapid claptrap, and the tune might change. So far, you’ve provided no evidence for your outlandish claims. Give us some debate meat, we’ll chew it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Give us something other than vapid claptrap, and the tune might change. So far, you’ve provided no evidence for your outlandish claims. Give us some debate meat, we’ll chew it.

If he had any he would have posted it a long time ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster I actually forgot to mention...
So since you don't see no whales morphing from four legged creatures... You have faith in it.
Have a good day.

I don't need faith, since I have evidence.

Whale Evolution: Theory, Prediction and Converging Lines of Evidence - Articles
The evolution of whales
Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia


I keep telling you... one has no need to invoke faith to accept claims, if those claims can stand on their own merrits.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So because you know the sun rises and sets, does not mean you know it will do so tomorrow, or the next day.

Because I know HOW the sun rises and sets. Not merely that it does, but HOW it does what it does and WHY. Because I understand the very mechanics that make that happen.

And because we understand the mechanics thereof, we ALSO understand what kind of things would have to happen for the sunrise/sunset NOT to happen. And each and every single plausible way that that could happen, ends in the total extinction of all life on the planet.

This is called knowledge.

You require faith.

No. Just like you don't require "faith" to know that if you drop your keys, they'll fall to the ground and not shoot off into space.

I have reasonable expectation based on understanding and demonstrable knowledge that there is a creator.

You don't. All you have are claims.

I know this, because:
- if there was demonstrable knowledge, aking to the knowledge that results in predicting with sunrises with extreme precisions, for a creator, then Nobel prizes would have been handed out for that and it would be common knowledge. But that's not the case.

- if there was demonstrable knowledge and for some reason it didn't become common knowledge, surely forums such as these would be spammed up with that evidence, to prove all non-believers wrong. That doesn't happen either.

- all people, like you, who continue to claim that they have such demonstrable knowledge, always seem to be completely unable (or unwilling) to demonstrate that knowledge. All you folks do is claim you have this knowledge. Instead of claiming it, show it.

Both are evidence based. There are no differences.

Claiming it doesn't make it so.
What evidnece?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, the poster wouldn’t answer me, either. The claim of “evidence” apparently cannot be shared with us “swine.”

I find it distrubing that that poster also felt the need to rate your post with "winner", noting full agreement.
So apparantly the poster indeed thinks of us as "swine" and not being "worthy" of his so-called amazing "demonstrable knowledge" and "evidence".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't need faith, since I have evidence.

Whale Evolution: Theory, Prediction and Converging Lines of Evidence - Articles
The evolution of whales
Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia


I keep telling you... one has no need to invoke faith to accept claims, if those claims can stand on their own merrits.

Creationists, especially YEC's simply cannot understand the concept of evidence. In fact they cannot afford to let themselves understand the concept of scientific evidence.

 

[sojourner]

I find it distrubing that that poster also felt the need to rate your post with "winner", noting full agreement.
So apparantly the poster indeed thinks of us as "swine" and not being "worthy" of his so-called amazing "demonstrable knowledge" and "evidence".

Yeah. Lots of “Christian humility” there, huh?

 

[Goodman John]

I understand what you believe. That doesn't answer my question though. Do you mind answering it?

My apologies; I seem to have gotten lost in the teapot tempest going on here. Would you be so kind as to repeat your question?

 

[nPeace]

I don't need faith, since I have evidence.

Whale Evolution: Theory, Prediction and Converging Lines of Evidence - Articles
The evolution of whales
Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia


I keep telling you... one has no need to invoke faith to accept claims, if those claims can stand on their own merrits.

You don't need faith. You have evidence. !!!!!!!!!!!???

May Jehovah bless you and safeguard you.
May Jehovah make his face shine upon you, and may he favor you. May Jehovah lift up his face toward you and grant you peace.
Thank you Jehovah.

TagliatelliMonster, what is evidence?
I need to take a breather before looking at your next post.

 

[nPeace]

My apologies; I seem to have gotten lost in the teapot tempest going on here. Would you be so kind as to repeat your question?

Sometimes we go off the rails a bit, but I think everyone seems to be doing a fairly good job of maintaining focus. Still having a go at the Bible.

I think you might have gotten lost in the post, so I don't mind isolating the question.
In your view, whom is Jesus referring to at Luke 12:4, 5?

 

[nPeace]

Because I know HOW the sun rises and sets. Not merely that it does, but HOW it does what it does and WHY. Because I understand the very mechanics that make that happen.

And because we understand the mechanics thereof, we ALSO understand what kind of things would have to happen for the sunrise/sunset NOT to happen. And each and every single plausible way that that could happen, ends in the total extinction of all life on the planet.

This is called knowledge.



No. Just like you don't require "faith" to know that if you drop your keys, they'll fall to the ground and not shoot off into space.



You don't. All you have are claims.

I know this, because:
- if there was demonstrable knowledge, aking to the knowledge that results in predicting with sunrises with extreme precisions, for a creator, then Nobel prizes would have been handed out for that and it would be common knowledge. But that's not the case.

- if there was demonstrable knowledge and for some reason it didn't become common knowledge, surely forums such as these would be spammed up with that evidence, to prove all non-believers wrong. That doesn't happen either.

- all people, like you, who continue to claim that they have such demonstrable knowledge, always seem to be completely unable (or unwilling) to demonstrate that knowledge. All you folks do is claim you have this knowledge. Instead of claiming it, show it.





Claiming it doesn't make it so.
What evidnece?

If you were physically blind, would you know that the sun rises and sets? You might say, you can feel it.
Correct? How do you know what it is that you are feeling? Yes. Someone may tell you?
What if your sense of sensation was not working correctly? Worst yet, what if it were totally insensitive - dead?
You might just have to accept what is told to you - knowledge others gained.

What if you are spiritually blind?
What is you are spiritually dead?
You might have to accept what is told to you - knowledge others gained.
Oh wait...
There is no such thing as spiritual... Right?

 

[sojourner]

If you were physically blind, would you know that the sun rises and sets? You might say, you can feel it.
Correct? How do you know what it is that you are feeling? Yes. Someone may tell you?
What if your sense of sensation was not working correctly? Worst yet, what if it were totally insensitive - dead?
You might just have to accept what is told to you - knowledge others gained.

What if you are spiritually blind?
What is you are spiritually dead?
You might have to accept what is told to you - knowledge others gained.
Oh wait...
There is no such thing as spiritual... Right?

But that's not evidence. No one has seen God, measured God, quantified God. No one. That's why we must accept that there is no objective evidence for a God that we can hold out here in front of ourselves and measure. It's all interior. It's all subjective. It's all intuitive. End the end, it's all metaphor.

 

[Goodman John]

Sometimes we go off the rails a bit, but I think everyone seems to be doing a fairly good job of maintaining focus. Still having a go at the Bible.

I think you might have gotten lost in the post, so I don't mind isolating the question.
In your view, whom is Jesus referring to at Luke 12:4, 5?

Luke 12:4 appears to be in reference to worldly oppressors, ie, those who would oppose Jesus' followers. Once you're dead- by hook or crook- they are powerless to do anything else to you, so they can go bite a big one. Sure, they may have your body, but it's just meat and bone- *you* are already long gone.

12:5, on the other hand, appears to be a reference to God. (In my view, this indicates God's selection of those souls which are pure enough to be readmitted to the spiritual realm and rejection of those which are not; those not being up to snuff are sent back to the physical realm- this world being Hell in itself- for another attempt at redemption.) ((For mainstream Christians, it would likely indicate God casting people into Hell, it being in their mind the ultimate eternal punishment.))

 

[nPeace]

But that's not evidence. No one has seen God, measured God, quantified God. No one. That's why we must accept that there is no objective evidence for a God that we can hold out here in front of ourselves and measure. It's all interior. It's all subjective. It's all intuitive. End the end, it's all metaphor.

Please help me with this. I must be confused.
Tell me, what is evidence?
For example, what is the evidence that someone is really, really hungry?

 

[nPeace]

Luke 12:4 appears to be in reference to worldly oppressors, ie, those who would oppose Jesus' followers. Once you're dead- by hook or crook- they are powerless to do anything else to you, so they can go bite a big one. Sure, they may have your body, but it's just meat and bone- *you* are already long gone.

12:5, on the other hand, appears to be a reference to God. (In my view, this indicates God's selection of those souls which are pure enough to be readmitted to the spiritual realm and rejection of those which are not; those not being up to snuff are sent back to the physical realm- this world being Hell in itself- for another attempt at redemption.) ((For mainstream Christians, it would likely indicate God casting people into Hell, it being in their mind the ultimate eternal punishment.))

At least you agree the killer is God. That's good

So do you associated the word kill, or destroy, in those verses, to mean something other than kill or destroy? Why?
The first use of the word kill in literal, as you agreed, so why now would one make the second use figurative? Are they not the same word?
.

 

[sojourner]

Please help me with this. I must be confused.
Tell me, what is evidence?
For example, what is the evidence that someone is really, really hungry?

I didn’t say that evidence was necessary in order for something to be reality. There are stars for which we don’t yet have evidence. But they still exist. Evidence is objective. There is nothing objective we can discern about God. It’s all subjective. God is an interior, intuitive proposal. You intuit God. But you don’t have evidence for God.

 

[nPeace]

I didn’t say that evidence was necessary in order for something to be reality. There are stars for which we don’t yet have evidence. But they still exist. Evidence is objective. There is nothing objective we can discern about God. It’s all subjective. God is an interior, intuitive proposal. You intuit God. But you don’t have evidence for God.

Evidence is objective to whom?
You still haven't told me what is evidence. I get the impression that some here are equating evidence with proof of something (particular).

For example...
Something tugs at my shirt.
I see nothing, but it's evidence of something. I have evidence... of something. I don't have to know what that something is. Do I?.
So do I not have evidence?