No, it actually isn't. The second is stronger than the first.I do not believe that leprechauns exist. And I believe that leprechauns don't exist. That is saying the same thing in two different ways.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, it actually isn't. The second is stronger than the first.I do not believe that leprechauns exist. And I believe that leprechauns don't exist. That is saying the same thing in two different ways.
Not just stronger, a whole different claim.No, it actually isn't. The second is stronger than the first.
I question "fulfilled prophecy". In many cases the prophecy is made after the fact, is so vague and general it could be fulfilled by any event, or people actively seek to fulfill the prophecy.For me there is much evidence that the Bible is the word of God in fulfilled prophecy. So that gives me confidence in the other things it says. I'm not saying that is sufficient proof for you. But that is one of the reasons I believe it.
Things like the 70 year Babylonian Captivity. There are many other things also.
It is not.I do not believe that leprechauns exist. And I believe that leprechauns don't exist. That is saying the same thing in two different ways.
No, that's saying two different things.I do not believe that leprechauns exist. And I believe that leprechauns don't exist. That is saying the same thing in two different ways.
That would be time wasting...if the universe has no logical beginning, it's cyclical, one is striving for what exactly...circular reasoning?Hindus and Buddhists do it much better. Care for a debate?
The goal is to get off the wheel. The Bodhisattva vow is to help others get off the wheel of SamsaraThat would be time wasting...if the universe has no logical beginning, it's cyclical, one is striving for what exactly...circular reasoning?
What do you mean by a "logical beginning"? I have never heard of logic entering the argument. That is unless one makes the error of assuming the existence of a god. Hmm, perhaps you could find a way to get evidence for your god if you could design a testable hypothesis around your claim.That would be time wasting...if the universe has no logical beginning, it's cyclical, one is striving for what exactly...circular reasoning?
That would be time wasting...if the universe has no logical beginning, it's cyclical, one is striving for what exactly...circular reasoning?
To attain liberation from the cycle.That would be time wasting...if the universe has no logical beginning, it's cyclical, one is striving for what exactly...circular reasoning?
Can you prove it was written after the fact?If only it weren't written after the fact. Just because it is written *about* a certain time doesn't mean it was written *at* that time.
You re the one that wants to use them.. That puts the burden of proof upon you. There is strong evidence that some of the "prophecies" of the Bible were written after the fact. For example the one that specifically claims that Cyrus would become ruler of Babylonia.Can you prove it was written after the fact?
Can you prove it was written after the fact?
Another is the pattern of accuracy. If book that was supposedly written in 1780 predicts a future President, Donald Trump, and gets quite a bit of the history of 2016 right but somehow messes up quite often on the history of the late 18th century, George Washington manning the airports for example, then we could be pretty sure that it was not written in 1780 but some some time after 2016. I do believe that some of the "prophecies" of the Bible follow that pattern.Well, if all copies and mentions of the text happen after a certain time, and the number of mentions increases quickly after that time, it is good evidence of the text being written at that time.
Do you have any evidence that it was written earlier?
Can you tell me which you are referring to specifically?Well, if all copies and mentions of the text happen after a certain time, and the number of mentions increases quickly after that time, it is good evidence of the text being written at that time.
Do you have any evidence that it was written earlier?
The Old Testament was well known to the authors of the New Testament. The New testament authors tailored their narratives to reflect the OT narratives, bolstering the authority of the new scripture.Can you prove it was written after the fact?
Hi Valjean,The Old Testament was well known to the authors of the New Testament. The New testament authors tailored their narratives to reflect the OT narratives, bolstering the authority of the new scripture.
Do you consider the dates given by the writers of the books to be evidence? I suspect not.Well, if all copies and mentions of the text happen after a certain time, and the number of mentions increases quickly after that time, it is good evidence of the text being written at that time.
Do you have any evidence that it was written earlier?
Very poor evidence, at best. It is easy enough for a writer at a later date to *claim* an earlier date and *claim* to be by the prophet. Such writing by later authors is *common* in ancient texts. Given that 'publication' wasn't a thing at the time, there would be very little to dispute such claims.Do you consider the dates given by the writers of the books to be evidence? I suspect not.
Jeremiah: This book has two textual traditions, a shorter one in Greek contained in the Septuagint (so third century) and a shorter Masoretic one in Hebrew dating from the 2nd century BC. The Greek was certainly the product of an oral tradition going back farther, but it was also extensively rewritten before the final version. In any case, internal evidence shows it to be from the early Persian period (after 539BC).Can you give me dates you would accept for the books of Jeremiah, and Daniel being written by?
Any prophecy you care to support.Can you tell me which you are referring to specifically?