Originally posted by lce:
Practically, there is no perfect straight line n there is no perfect humanwould someone wrote his wrong doing in his autobiography?
So in other words, what I am hearing is that you want to charge that the Bible is corrupted but then you have no idea or evidence concerning:
1. What has been corrupted?
2. How it has been corrupted?
3. Where it has been corrupted?
4. When it was corrupted?
5. Who corrupted it?
I think this charge would have been thrown straight out by the judge in a court of law.
It is precisely because the Bible records the actions of man (warts and all) that it is one evidence in favour of it not being a mere invention of man.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:So in other words, what I am hearing is that you want to charge that the Bible is corrupted but then you have no idea or evidence concerning:
1. What has been corrupted?
2. How it has been corrupted?
3. Where it has been corrupted?
4. When it was corrupted?
5. Who corrupted it?
I think this charge would have been thrown straight out by the judge in a court of law.
It is precisely because the Bible records the actions of man (warts and all) that it is one evidence in favour of it not being a mere invention of man.
that last statement sounds wrong...
all historical text records the actions of men and is in fact written or invented by men. Why in this case if the bible also records the action of men would not be a invention of men?
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:that last statement sounds wrong...
all historical text records the actions of men and is in fact written or invented by men. Why in this case if the bible also records the action of men would not be a invention of men?
Please define what you mean by "invention" of men, are you saying that it is FICTION from man's imagination, or it is written as a record of what happened? Christians hold that the Bible is a truthful record of God's dealings with man.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Please define what you mean by "invention" of men, are you saying that it is FICTION from man's imagination, or it is written as a record of what happened? Christians hold that the Bible is a truthful record of God's dealings with man.
invention of men are the words used by you? and now im to define it for u?
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
invention of men are the words used by you? and now im to define it for u?
Fair enough, though it would been rather clear what I meant. I just wanted to be sure we are all on the same understanding. Bible critics like to say that the Bible was written by man to control the masses i.e. it is invented fiction, no real truth to it at all. But what Christians are saying is that while the Bible is written by men it is not a mere invention of men. It is a truthful record of God's dealings with man.
Better?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:The URL itself already tells a lot about the prejudice of the author than about the subject matter. It is then no wonder that it is more Bible bashing than intellectual arguments presented. The author exhibits a cavalier dismissive attitude and shows no interest in taking creationists seriously. Without casting pearls before swine I shall not waste too much time responding to such people who does not treat those with whom they disagree due respect and civility. Only a few points would suffice, and I don't suppose you are keen to defend anything on this website, nor do you ever intend to engage seriously. As I have shown in the earlier posts you have been wrong on the duration of the Flood already.
A world wide flood would leave massive amounts of geological evidence behind; and it just doesn't exist.
Indeed the Flood must have left evidence behind. Creationists say the evidence is there before us. Both creationists and evolutionists are looking at the same world, same geological features, but having a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION on how it came to be so.
Every ancient culture had its history and its mythology. When an ancient culture records stories about talking snakes, magic fruit, people living inside of giant fish, and gathering representative members of every species of animal and living on a boat for almost a year, one should automatically realize that they were recording their mythology and not their history.
Which begs the question, why should anyone "automatically" realise that this is mythology and not history? The author is not even making an argument, just an assertion that he assumes must be true.
The Great Pyramid of Cheops was built about 2589-2566 BC, about 230 years before the flood, yet it has no water marks on it.
MOST creationists believe that the pyramids were built AFTER the Flood, not before (see http://creation.com/the-pyramids-of-ancient-egypt). Of course you would then say the dates don't match up. Oh really? Then you should catch up with the view that the Egyptian chronology is in need of an overhaul (see http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match).
But I must also point out that there is at least one creationist David Larsen I read (http://www.amazon.com/Dinosaurs-Ark-David-Larsen/dp/1572585692), who believe that the pyramids were pre-Flood and that there are water marks on it (see http://www.examiner.com/article/the-great-pyramid-and-the-great-flood and http://www.helium.com/items/277259-how-water-affects-land-formations-and-erosion).
Where did the water needed for the flood come from? Where did it go? The atmosphere only holds enough moisture to account for about an inch of water worldwide. To cover even Mount Ararat, where Noah's Ark supposedly landed after the flood, in 40 days would require over 400 feet of water per day. That's not 400 inches, but 400 feet a day. And Everest would require 725 feet per day - that's 30 feet of water per hour! Some claim that the mountains didn't exist before the flood. But even Bible speaks of great mountains in the time before the flood. Were these great mountains mentioned in the Bible only a few feet high?
The author, like most Bible critics, obviously did not read the Bible carefully. Why should mountains at that time be the SAME mountains we see today? Creationists believe that the present mountains were uplifted as the floodwaters receded. Also the main source of the water is from under the ground when the Bible states that the fountains of the deep burst open. Mind you there are still large amounts of subterranean water in the earth today. Then of course there is the 40 days of rain. And where did the water go? See http://creation.com/where-did-all-the-water-go
This would suffice for now. I want to put my pearls to better use. All these usual objections have been answered and addressed. Don't just accept what any epic idiot tells you (lest you become one yourself), read up the other side here http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers
Nothing was answered... Most were appeals to authority arguments...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:So in other words, what I am hearing is that you want to charge that the Bible is corrupted but then you have no idea or evidence concerning:
1. What has been corrupted?
2. How it has been corrupted?
3. Where it has been corrupted?
4. When it was corrupted?
5. Who corrupted it?
I think this charge would have been thrown straight out by the judge in a court of law.
It is precisely because the Bible records the actions of man (warts and all) that it is one evidence in favour of it not being a mere invention of man.
same, wat proof tat yr bible is not corrupted? wat court of law wld tat be?
if i were to compare yr bible to the book of I Ching or the books on Confucious . perhaps i should take them as gods.
religion is a powerful tool to delude the weaks.
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Nothing was answered... Most were appeals to authority arguments...
Please be more specific. What is your issue with my answer? I can also say that your website established nothing. Also appeal to authority and incredulity. Is that how you want this to go?
LOL a repeat of eternal hope forums!
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:LOL a repeat of eternal hope forums!
Which is not how I want it to be, but apparently the Bible critics want to do it that way.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Which is not how I want it to be, but apparently the Bible critics want to do it that way.
how bible critics react also depends on how the bible is defended yes no? I mean you haven't realised it is a 2 way thing yet?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Please be more specific. What is your issue with my answer? I can also say that your website established nothing. Also appeal to authority and incredulity. Is that how you want this to go?
It would have been better if you stated prior... using it as counter argument... I'm not even trying to argue anything yet...
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Please be more specific. What is your issue with my answer? I can also say that your website established nothing. Also appeal to authority and incredulity. Is that how you want this to go?
It would have been better if you stated prior... using it as counter argument... I'm not even trying to argue anything yet...
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
how bible critics react also depends on how the bible is defended yes no? I mean you haven't realised it is a 2 way thing yet?
Of course I know it is a two way thing. Haven't you realised that I keep talking about being interactive, a discussion, a dialogue?
Anyone can make motherhood statements and sweeping assertions and nice sounding anti-Bible or ant-religious slogans. But constructive and productive dialogue must go beyond that.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:Of course I know it is a two way thing. Haven't you realised that I keep talking about being interactive, a discussion, a dialogue?
Anyone can make motherhood statements and sweeping assertions and nice sounding anti-Bible or ant-religious slogans. But constructive and productive dialogue must go beyond that.
But constructive and productive dialogue must go beyond that.?
open up yr mind first
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
It would have been better if you stated prior... using it as counter argument... I'm not even trying to argue anything yet...
Yes, I noticed you haven't argued anything yet, simply a dismissive remark that my replies appealed to authority.
Anyway, there is NOTHING wrong with appeals to authority per se. We do it all the time when we argue and quote sources to support our views. The issue is whether it amounts to a FALLACIOUS appeal to authority.
Originally posted by lce:
But constructive and productive dialogue must go beyond that.?open up yr mind first
What does being open-minded means? It means being willing to interact with new ideas. The Free Dictionary defines it thus,
open-minded - ready to entertain new ideas; "an open-minded curiosity"; "open-minded impartiality"
The fact that I am here interacting with all your views shows that I am open-minded, even when I do not agree with them. I respect your views enough to evaluate them and critiqued them. But I suspect that your definition of being open-minded means that I must agree with you that the Bible is false, erroneous etc etc. But validating or agreeing with opponents' views is NOT what open-minded is about.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:What does being open-minded means? It means being willing to interact with new ideas. The Free Dictionary defines it thus,
open-minded - ready to entertain new ideas; "an open-minded curiosity"; "open-minded impartiality"
broad-minded - inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own; "a judge who is broad-minded but even-handed"
The fact that I am here interacting with all your views shows that I am open-minded, even when I do not agree with them. I respect your views enough to evaluate them and critiqued them. But I suspect that your definition of being open-minded means that I must agree with you that the Bible is false, erroneous etc etc. But validating or agreeing with opponents' views is NOT what open-minded is about.
first dun quote the yr bible, its not a book of law
Originally posted by lce:first dun quote the yr bible, its not a book of law
That's like during a duel you tell your opponent not to use his weapon and drop it. Only a fool would do that. The Bible is the Sword of the Spirit by which we demolish arguments raised against the knowledge of Christ. I am not going to lay down the Bible.
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
That's like during a duel you tell your opponent not to use his weapon and drop it. Only a fool would do that. The Bible is the Sword of the Spirit by which we demolish arguments raised against the knowledge of Christ. I am not going to lay down the Bible.
so this is to say tat u have nothing to prove tat jesus is god other tat the bible?
wat a pathetic soul , puttin all yr faith in a book written by man
Originally posted by lce:so this is to say tat u have nothing to prove tat jesus is god other tat the bible?
wat a pathetic soul , puttin all yr faith in a book written by man
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Spiritual truths and theological statements are not the subject of empirical proofs. Please understand what proofs are about. My faith is in God and His Word. God is the divine Author of the Bible even though He used men to write them. Call me pathetic or what not, such condescension refutes nothing and invalidates nothing about the Christian faith. You put your faith in your own fallible human reason while I put my faith in God's infallible Word that is the basis of my reasoning.
u cant even reason yr own blind faith , so pls drop this
STOP
Originally posted by lce:u cant even reason yr own blind faith , so pls drop this
STOP
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
My faith is a reasonable faith. But atheism is irrational.
But atheism is irrational. Some aethists have very good reasoning and of course it is rational. So atheism is irrational is just a sweeping statement.
Originally posted by winsomeea:But atheism is irrational. Some aethists have very good reasoning and of course it is rational. So atheism is irrational is just a sweeping statement.