Blind Faith verses Revealed Faith.
Offline The reason why Atheism and Christianity finds it so difficult to find a common ground for discussion is that Atheism is a Blind Faith wheras Christianity is a Revealed Faith. Individually neitehr can be proven. The criteria each uses is so completely different that it is like talking apples and oranges. This conversation was started in a Live Chat so I will clip it here:
bibledoor: I am age challenged. LOL. 48 but somehow the younger dudes are more adept. hherbzilla: haha. ain't that the truth! bibledoor: I attended an Atheist / Christian debate on Saturday. THe guy defending Christianity was in his 80's. This gives me hope. Has anyone heard of "Dave Hunt" * Rook Hawkins joined the room. bibledoor: Rook trying to connect with you. Whitefox is my handle.http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_chicken_or_the_egg_sm.pdf
This article is my proof from science for God. It is very ineresting how science proves its own falacy. jcgadfly: and yet you're depending on science to prove God? bibledoor: No just showing by quoting it how absurd it can be. These guys published in 3 major papers their findings that the Egg was first and gave their scientific reasons why. jcgadfly: Oh...I thought you had to resort to science to prove God because religion has done such a poor job of it bibledoor: That is becasue Religion requires "Revealed Faith" wheras Science requires "Blind Faith". The two are incompatible. Both are illusive. Rook Hawkins: How does science require blind faith? bibledoor: You will get a chuckle if you read the article. jcgadfly: not sure where you get science being blind faith. all those experiments with repeatable results achilles308: sounds like someone has no understanding of the meaning of science Rook Hawkins: Indeed jcgadfly: tends to make that false Rook Hawkins: Gee...Here is an idea...if you want to test if air exists, you can stop breathing for a while and hold your breath and see what happens after 5 minutes bibledoor: Rook: Science is faith in something you didn't see. Religion is faith in something revealed by a God that no-one has seen. Rook Hawkins: Science - the value of testing a hypothesis. Bible...you can see the results of science jcgadfly: rather than wating for your God to decide to reveal stuff, science takes the risk and looks for itself Rook Hawkins: Like I saidyou can't see air, but want to prove that it is there? Stop breathing bibledoor: I am refering specifically to the science of origins. Rook Hawkins: it doesn't matter what science you're talking about you can still see results in ANY science Visit the natural history museaum and look at the transitional fossils bibledoor: No one saw it. But science beleives it. Wheras No one has seen God but they believe him. jcgadfly: where is the faith different then? Rook Hawkins: go to a lab where they are preparing pharmeceutical medicines - it is entirely based on the fact that evolution happens jcgadfly: God depends on people not knowing bibledoor: The only proof Christianity has is the Revelations of "the word of God" that is why I call it revealed faith. Faith in the possiblilty that God revealed himself. hherbzilla: yes - if that's a live question jcgadfly: "Blessed are they who have not seen (don't know) and believe hherbzilla: hear you bibledoor: Never proved it between species, just within species regarding evolution. Gods Word reveals that God set bounderies between Species. "According to their kind" etcetra. But I admit to evolution within a species. We just have to look at dog breeding as an example. * Rook Hawkins left the room. (After this the chat room froze.)
jcgadfly: where is the faith different then?
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
- Login to post comments
Fox, I don't think you got it.
You brought up two examples of blind faith, attributing one to religion and one to science. You brought up nothing of "Revealed Faith" which you claim is superior.
In reality, though, religion is the one where blind faith operates. You have to have blind faith in your god before he can even begin to reveal things to you. Science, on the other hand, tests things out and has verifiable results and doesn't have to have a God to offer them information once he deems them worthy.
Unless, of course, you've actually seen your God...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Good response and again exactly the response I hoped you would make.
What I am trying to introduce you to is this that Added to Blind faith the Christian has what he thinks is something revealed "the Word of God". If the word of God is not trustworthy then it doesn't count and what you say is right about the Christian having "blind faith". But it does not excuse the Atheist of his "Blind faith" which has nothing "Revealed" to add to it.
Lets say for argument this is how it is:
Atheist Christian
BLIND FAITH + SCIENCE vs BLIND FAITH + REVEALED FAITH
In the case of Creation Science relies on Philosophical arguments for it. It freely admits it never saw the creation of hte universe. It admits that it cannot find a central point for a big bang to have occured because the universe moves in differing directions. It admits that ENERGY is needed before the big bang occured. It admits that if you go backward into eternity past no-one knows which came first ENERGY or MATTER. Something like the Chicken and the egg argument.
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_chicken_or_the_egg_sm.pdf
See also
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_prehistoric_ecosystem_sm.pdf
Seel also
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_ASeriousChallengeToNDT_sm.pdf
See also
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_songofthewhale_sm.pdf
In effect SCIENCE when it regards ORIGINS is only a belief in ORIGINS without God but it has nothing to test to prove it. So it boils down that there is only BLIND FAITH left to support it.
On the Christian side of the argument. They must prove they have a REVEALED document or they are left with only BLIND FAITH as well. I believe the Bible proves itself through fulfilled prophecy, but the only way to prove this is to show from the Bible things that were predicted that later came true. But how can you use a single book to prove itself? My answer is it is not a single book, it was written over a 1600 year period of time with 39 different authors. Collected as a book it is the Christians declaration of whic texts the think were revealed by God. I can give 100's of ways that the prophecies indicate this to those that are willing to hear them out.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
You're killin' me with that tie, bro.
Interesting...
Blind faith + repeatable experiments w/observable results (which removes the blind faith by proving things instead of simply revealing them) is worse than Blind Faith + a book that says "God did it" (which does nothing to remove the blindness - the revelation only provides another layer of faith).
As far as the Bible revealing itself through fulfilled prophecy, please, give some examples.
The messianic prophecies were "fulfilled" because the gospel writers worked backwards to make their Jesus character fit. It's like making a "prediction" today about what happened yesterday.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Science has proven itself. Over and over. With objective, actual, real results.
The reason atheism and Christianity find it so difficult to find common ground is because Christians think that atheism is somehow based on some sort of faith. In fact, atheism is defined by lack of faith. It's not blind faith. It's not even belief. You understand that Harry Potter doesn't really exist. You don't have "faith" that Harry Potter doesn't exist; you know he is a fictional character, created wholecloth for the purpose of telling a story. So too atheists don't need faith that God doesn't exist.
Now, you talk about science as if it and atheism are the same thing. Allow me to assure you, not all scientists are atheists; nor are all atheists scientists, nor even educated in the sciences. Your talk of "blind faith" references science, not atheism.
However, since I also enjoy studying the sciences, I have one further assurance: science is not based on blind faith. Science makes but four assumptions of the universe:
1. The universe is objective
The universe has a base objective reality. If this isn't true, we're all living in a dream world anyway, so nothing matters.
2. The universe is observable
This is important, as it means that we can observe the universe, and know that our observations are of the objective reality of the universe. Our interpretations may not be objective, but our observations are. This allows scientists to gather data about the universe.
3. The universe is consistent
The laws of the universe are essentially unchanged under similar conditions. If you jump off a building today, the effect is the same the next time you jump off that same building. This allows other scientists to repeat the results of their fellow researchers.
4. The universe is holistic
The same laws that govern a rock dropped on earth apply to planets revolving around the sun, and the sun about the axis of the galaxy; and to the collision of galaxies, and so forth. Also, these laws are the same today as they were for as long as the universe enjoyed its current state of inflated space with galaxies and whatnot, and will continue until the heat-death of the universe. This allows scientists to make predictions about the universe using current theories and hypothesis.
The first three constitute the bare essentials of scientific observation. The fourth allows us to draw valid conclusions from our observations, and to test those observations to gain more information.
That's it. Now, if you can say that any of that is blind faith, then fine, call it what you will. However, this constitutes the bare minimum of assumptions necessary for interacting with reality at all. (Okay, the fourth condition might not be necessary, but it sure helps.)
All science is based on this. The scientific method used to prove evolution is the same scientific method that has given us every modern convenience you can state. There is not one part of your life that is not touched by the fruits of science. In matters of the study of the natural world, the scientific method has never failed. Not once. Scientists may have jumped the gun, or drawn erroneous conclusions from data, but the great thing is, science is self-correcting.
This is not just a bare assertion. This is provable. Science has given us verifiable, practical, and real results. It has given us atomic energy, Snickers bars, submarines, rocket ships, toasters, polyester jump suits, fire-retardant kids clothing, artificial sweeteners, and plastic football shoulder pads. It has given us computers, hair coloring, and on-line porn. Sciense has given us useful results. This is not blind faith. This is fact.
Tell me, Sir, what has the Bible given us that is comparable to the fruits of science? What has the Bible given us, period?
To question the theory of evolution through natural selection just becaue the Bible tells you it can't be true is to question all else. It's to disclaim the results of our scientific research, to say, "You, Sir, have accomplished nothing!" And that goes completely against the entire history of science, the history of our world since the Enlightenment.
If you wish to question the theory of evolution through natural selection, you must do so based on sound, verifiable scientific research, not on the claims of a book written 1900 years ago that can't even get the phylum of bats correct. There are definite issues within the study of evolution, topics that are hotly debated among scientists studying evolution. This doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution through natural selection. In fact, all these debates take place within that framework.
The reason evolution has survived for so long, after so many tests, is because it is the only theory that fits all the facts. In fact, it's the only hypothesis that has made predictions that have been validated. This, in the scientific community, is why it has been elevated to the status of "theory," because it has made so many valid predictions and survived all known tests, and is still making valid predictions today. It is assumed to be correct, because it has always been a predictor of unknown things, and those predictions have turned out to be true.
Again I ask, what comparable acheivement has the Bible given?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Science does not require faith of any sort, which is where the divide between science and religion actually lies.
By it's very definition, science relies on observation. In the realm of evolution and the origin of life, your claim appears to be "no one saw it, therefore it requires faith." A more careful analysis, however, reveals that this claim is baseless.
We have observed DNA, and know it is present. We have observed the role it plays in the functioning of cells, and, on a greater level, the development and functioning of larger organisms. These are things that have been seen. In addition, we have seen DNA change. We have seen species adapt and mutate. It is clear that this process takes place and can function to change a species over time.
Of course all of this has occurred in the present (or the recent past), and certainly no humans existed in the time before humans existed to observe the actual rise of the species. That does not mean, however, that there are not things that can be observed today that show events of the past. Like footprints show the passage of an animal in the past, so too are there indicators that can be seen today that inform us of the history of the development of human life.
The fossil record, of course, is the most obvious source of information of life in the past. Fossils give us a chance to see what animals looked like in the past, and in some instances suggest how they behaved. The "completeness" of the fossil record is something that people like to debate, but exactly what a "complete" fossil record would require is never made clear, and the fact that they exist (and therefore provide a current means of viewing the past) is indisputable.
Even without the fossil record, there is evidence that supports the theory of evolution. One of the more telling signs comes from the mitochondria within our cells. The mitochondria have their own set of DNA separate from our own nuclear DNA. This DNA being separate from our own tells us that the mitochondria likely developed on their own separate from people before entering into our current symbiotic-like relationship.
On a more macro-scopic level, you can read about the rather unpleasant subject of lice, and the relationship between the three species of human lice against gorilla lice, which may suggest some a totally different unpleasant result in terms of human-gorilla relationships, but nonetheless is indicative of the change of those species over time.
All of these things are things we can see now. No faith is involved at all. Yes, there are questions, and there are hypotheses, and to take those untested hypotheses as truth at this point would be to act on faith. Luckily we needn't take such things on faith, however, and can instead pursue further investigation into the world and discover the answers for ourselves.
Something that nobody has mentioned here is that if a theory is correct, we can make accurate predictions from it. Evolution's accuracy is attested by the hundreds of thousands of correct predictions that scientists make using principles of natural selection.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
MOD EDIT: I have no idea what has happened, or why this appears to be a post from the OP. Some sort of board glitch. In any case, I reposted all of the text from the post I was responding to. To the OP, I apologize for the confusion. We're still working out some details for our new site. HD
You must document this absurd claim if anyone is to believe it. The medical community is going to be devastated if you can prove it true, since so many thousands of medicines work precisely because of principles from evolution.
It might interest you to learn that until Darwin, there was no plausible alternative scientific explanation for life's diversity. Furthermore, the number of adherents to a belief is no reflection of the accuracy of the belief. Please see, "Appeal to Numbers" (argumentum ad numerum)
You're demonstrating ignorance of science, and committing logical errors, to boot. Pascal's wager, by the way has nothing to do with the scientific method. It's not even philosophically sound, and makes no attempt to follow the scientific method.
In science, we don't start with laws, nor do we ever say that anything is unbreakable. We gather facts, form hypothesis, make predictions, verify or falsify our hypothesis, and then repeat the whole process. If, at some point, we have overwhelming evidence that a thing is always so, we postulate (and then continually test) a theory to describe it. Gravity, my friend, is only a theory.
The science of evolution deals with natural selection, not abiogenesis. That's another discussion.
I'll let someone else tackle this nonsense.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
You seem to be making the same basic assumption by many theists make that science is the cornerstone of atheism. As a weak atheist, I am open to the possibility of a creator, however none of the religions I have studied stand up to the scrutiny I have assigned to it. Yes, I use science to validate some of my beliefs. However, I understand that scientists are human and prone to errors. The men that wrote, edited and voted to create the official canon for the bible were also human. It takes a lot of blind faith for me to believe that I can literally believe the bible is the infallible word of god when so many men were responsible for its creation. Skepticism in science is required, all others need not apply. However, skepticism in religion is why the are so many sects of christianity, islam, buddhism etc..... When someone is skeptical as to a concept of faith, they just go start another denomination. I can think of many good examples. The Shias and sunnis come to mind immediately.
Unfortunately, "science" is starting to become the cornerstone of the religious faith. As a former christian, when I was a praticing baptist, I would refuse to accept creation science as a method to validate my own faith because if you have proof, faith is not required. I don't think I felt threatened by the big bang theory or evolution because my faith was strong. Well, maybe not strong enough because I left the church more than 20 years ago and haven't looked back. Young Earth creationism and Intelligent Design are attempts to forestall the collapse of religious institutions. I believe because we are seeing a re-emergence of these ideaologies religion is afraid of losing its importance to society. Fight fire with fire I guess is a good analogy.
What methods are used to determine rather or not a prophecy was written prior to an event happening or written after the fact. I could make the arguement that if Daniel did predict the invasion of Babylon on 4 seperate occasions, then why not the times after 160 BCE? Is there a way to determine emperically that Daniel, for instance, wrote this prophecy? The point is, prophecy is difficult to prove. If I believed in prophecy, I would be worried that the stars will fall to Earth sometime soon as prophesied in revelations. However, modern astronomy tells us that it would be damned near impossible for that to happen. I will stick to this "blind faith" in science if the only other option is to believe the other.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
LOL
faith is unjustified belief. Period. That's it. calling it blind is redundant. calling it anything other than blind is contradictory.
If you had any justification for your faith, you'd have knowledge.
There's nothing more pathetic than watching a theist try to pretend that his faith is anything other than what it is: unjustified belief.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Again answering JCGADFLY's post,
This is another fulfilled prophecy related to Israel. I said in my last post that even Israels dispesion to all the nations and regarthering was prophecied.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
Well, since I asked for examples of fulfilled prophecies, I'll look at these.
1. You're assuming that the nation of Israel didn't exist until 1948 to make this prophecy work. Israel has gone through several exiles, returns and rulers since Zechariah supposedly wrote. You can't guarantee that the passage applies specifically to 1948-present.
2. It's not at all surprising that a book purporting to be about Israel and Jerusalem would mention those names. How does that make the Bible "revealed faith" and your god real, again?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hey it's Whitefox! How is your rump recovering after having it handed to you by me? You have not yet defended your site and I've had the article posted up for almost a year and a half.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
I have no doubt that the Bible is a revelation. It's a group of people revealing why they think things happened the way they did.
I still don't understand where it became God's revelation (given as much contradiction as there is in the Bible).
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I want to answer Rook briefly:
Rook I realized that your use of the Anotated Skeptics bible would be a huge undertaking to refute. I thought I'd go away and answer every question of that ASB bible and stopped at around Genesis 6 exhasted. Yes big. Very big. I hope some day to complete the exercise. Most people would avoid your topic because they can't be bothered. Mine has been for lack of time. I continue to write several responses on small issues but have never had the time to comprehensively answer them all so far. I don't want to bore you with all the other things I have been doing but this goes for anyone here. IF you pick a topic from the tracts I have produced in a directory I will give I will be glad to defend what I've written. I haven't yet written something for every single verse of the bible however that will satisfy rooks Annotated Skeptic Bible approach.
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/audio/1/WinOSFiles/pdf
Remind me Rook of the specific topic you left open and I will take another look at it.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
Ray, click the link in my last post to you.
That's quite a claim. Too bad you can't prove it.
Odd, though, since you supposedly have an omnipotent, loving being who wants to be known on your side (allegedly).
It's a great world, though, that people can go around claiming all sorts of unprovable things, and make money doing it. No?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
hey fox, Jesus wants you to say as he did, "I AM GOD, ye are god(s), this is the kingdom". Then all religion dogma is over and meaningless. Jesus was atheist, like Buddha. Good luck, save a xian, Jesus/Buddha would insist. God of Abe is an unhealthy idea.
Atheism Books.
Each post I think I will put another prophecy and try to answer a question, just because I stated there are over 300 of them.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? " -------------
Yes GOD does, and so "god of abe" and most of the bible can take a hike.
People today are as innately stupid as the ancients. Atheist Jesus weeps ....
Atheism Books.
Whitefox I completely agree with you, you have converted me to Christianity. I just started reading the bible again! Take a look at my findings:
So God made light, wonderful, slight problem though. The great, powerful, magical lord hadn’t made the sun yet so there was no source for the light. I am sure he somehow magically created light though. But wait a second; the laws of physics do not permit light without a source. Silly me, I am thinking with my old logic cap again, obviously he must have created the law of physics after he made light. I think I should just forget everything I know about light. I should delude myself into thinking that in his magical wisdom he created light and then he realized he was wrong and changed how light works.
Thanks again God, actually wait a second........ the moon isn’t a light, it simply reflects the suns light. God must have just got this one wrong, he thought he made a light but we all know how tricky creating a universe can be. I forgive him for this mistake; after all, we're all human. Well actually God is a super powerful, all seeing, all knowing being but I am sure he makes mistake too. My delusions still hold strong, oh praise be to thee my great and powerful lord.
Oh and I thought we humans domesticated wild animals, I didn’t know God created domestic versions for us. That God, he is always looking out for us, what a great guy. So the mountains of evidence that tell us about the human domestication of wild animals are all lies and instead God magically created them.
Oh wow he then created and blessed us all in one day. Well I thank him for that........ oh but, um.... actually never mind. Well actually no, what about Adam and Eve a page later? I thought God created a magical garden and he then created Adam. Adam named some animals, got bored and then God made Eve out of his rib. God is making my head hurt, did he spontaneously create humans or did he create one human and then create another sometime later?
You know what we can do? We can just pretend that God abbreviated the story on page one. But still it doesn’t fit since God made man all in 1 day yet Adam and Eve are created at different times. I have a solution, let’s just pretend that 1 day actually means more than one day to God. Wow, self-delusion is so much fun.
Let’s turn the page...........
Wait a second didn’t God make Man on the 6th day and birds on the 5th? This is a tough one, on the last page I am sure that’s what it said. Ok let’s just pretend it doesn’t say that. Actually I have a better idea, let say the story is not literal. Yey now I continue deluding myself in peace, ignorance truly is bliss.
Maybe this is why they call it blind faith. I mean it makes no sense, it is full of contradictions, it is full of scientifically incorrect assertions about the universe, yet we still blindly believe it’s true.
Well of course the prophecies prove it’s true......
Let me now make some prophecies
1. You will read my post and make a very long and very deluded counter post.
2. You will ignore my post because like I said, ignorance is bliss.
3. You will realize that you spent your life worshipping a false God and become an atheist.
4. You will realize that you spent your life worshipping a false God and become and commit suicide.
How about a few more prophecies that are a little more vague.
1. You will read my post and reply.
2. You will read my post and not reply.
3. You will not read my post and not reply.
Ok I have covered most of the logical outcomes, if any of those prophecies come to pass I am God's latest prophet. I mean I can see into the future, I can say now what will happen soon. Sure I gave a lot of different prophecies but we can just delude ourselves into ignoring the rest and I can be your new Jesus.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
NickB, you're my hero.
For all of your Genesis quotes I have tried to answer these all plus more questions than you've asked i my response to the Anotated Skepics Bible that I have started.
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/audio/1/WinOSFiles/tracts/eng_answers_for_skeptics.pdf
But if you seriously want to dialogue on these take them to Rooks Bible Innerancy thread and invite us there. I must say however I will run out of much to say after a few chapters of Genesis becasue I haven' researched much yet.
I said I would post another prophecy each time.
Does that not sound like the church in the Western world today? Is that not why many of you left the church? I believe you guys offer some of the chastening that the Lord wishes to give those that are lukewarm followers. God doesn't want to puke out his church but he will if they don't get serious. To find out how serious any Christian is that comes to your forum. Ask them this. "Have you ever read the Bible from cover to cover?" Insist on an answer. If they have then maybe they can represent the Lord they say they represent and perhaps they should be listened to.
God Bless,
Ray,
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
I know you are only interested in answering one post at a time, therefore I apologize for butting in. However, if the DSS are dated to 500 BCE and the exodus happened possibly 1000 yrs prior how is this evidence of prophesy rather than "history"? We don't know the name of the pharoah in exodus so independent verification is next to imposible if I may say. It's easy to view prophecy in the lens of today, however proof going back milennia are somewhat more difficult. This seems to be using the bible to verify its' own accuracy.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
Hey Fox, The Bible cover to cover is a COVER UP ....
Thats a fair question because I should be able to back up my claim for each prophecy I introduce. This prophecy was written during the 70 year captivity of Israel in Babylon. The Jews were all in one place "Babylon". Yet the prophecy regarded the gathering in of a scattered people. This often happens to the prophets. They themselves may even be thinking at the time their prophecies were for the immediate situation but in God's grand scheme of things he causes them to make prophecies which seem eroneous to the current situation and apply instead often to situations many thousands of years later. I will continue to offer prophecies just to give you a flavor of "Revealed Faith" I have been talking about. Here's a prophecy regarding the comming messiah. A messiah still looked for b the Jews. The Christians believe that messiah already came and he is Jesus. In fact Christos(Christ) in the greek is the direct translation for the hebrew word Hamashiak (Messiah). Both mean "Annointed One" literally.
I should add this that the temple in Jerusalem was reduced to a wailing wall 40 years after Jesus death and resurection, just as the prophecy also predicted. The Jews have other prophecies which I will point out to you later that indicate there must be a temple before the Messiah can come. THere has been no temple of Jerusalm since Jesus so no other imposter could claim to be the Messiah. Time has run out completely for this prophecy as well, so the Jews would prefer just to ignore it even though it is still in their Bibles.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
My parrot says "My Jesus is better than your Jesus"
Nice move totally ignoring my statement concerning the fact that the bible is full of prophecies that were never fufilled. Make enough claims, give them enough years, a lot will come true. For example I could say America will fall from power and China will be the worlds next most powerful nation. In 1,000 years that could happen, does that make me a prophet? So lets say some guys make hundreds of prophecies and over the course of 5000 years some come true, does that make them prophets?
You need to pull up every prophecy in the bible and you need to see the percentage of which came to pass. You also have to probably rate the prophecies since some are so vague it is almost impossible for them not to com true. Picking out the good prophecies and interpreting them in you own way does not make your argument any stronger.
That last prophecy sounds like a lot of things. butI am sure if you tell yourself it sounds like the church it will sound like church.
That link you sent (broken I had to track it down myself) does provide some very entertaining rebuttals. Like for example:
I see, so God was already light but just for the fun of it he created light which is really him to begin with. So he must have recreated himself as light and then two God existed one of light, one of dark and the dark God ate a cat and became a ninja. Does that make sense? Well your argument doesn’t either so I thought I would throw in some illogical crap to take up space too.
Seriously though, if God existed and he was the source of light he would not need to create light........ he (light) is already there.
Just when I thought theists arguments could not get any more ridiculous. I realize that when arguing the validity of scripture you can just make things up but come on..... God purposely filled the bible full of lies to spite us. You’re a nut.
You should have just used the crappy theist fall back argument about the bible being translated too many times.
Within the first two pages of Genesis the bible contradicts itself entirely.
Page 1 God creates fishes and birds on day 5, he creates mane on day 6.
Page 2 God creates man and then man is bored so he creates birds.
Page 1 God speaks everything into existence.
Page 2 God converts dirt into birds and ribs into women.
You say the first is chronological so on the 5th day God created birds and fish. At the begging of the 6th day God created land dwelling animals, then he created man.
In the second account the reason he created animals is because Adam was bored, his intent was to quell Adam’s boredom. So the animals are only created because God is able to observe Adam. However according to the chronological order Adam does not yet exist....... see where I am going? It is like making a sandwich for your imaginary friend.
If Adam does not yet exist to be bored then the reason for the creation of animals does not exist.
Anyway my prophecy was correct, you replied to my post, I am a prophet, worship me. As your new lord I command you to open your mind and abandon your ignorance.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Whitefox, my apprentice... you've forgot so many other faiths.
Honey nut faith
Chocolate faith
Pecan faith
Cheddar faith
Sour Cream and Onion faith
Coffee faith
Faith Hill
Sub-compact faith
Wall-to-wall faith
Batteries Included Faith
Honey nut faith
Chocolate faith
Pecan faith
Cheddar faith
Sour Cream and Onion faith
-------------- yeah just too name a few !
put some atheist girls on him , and See what happens !
This man is hurting and thinks it's love
, poor soul, and ME Jesus weeps again !
Atheism Books.
It also sounds like the church of Laodicea at that time.
I thought your God didn't care about good works and here you trot out a passage that claims he does. Which God is correct - both are in the Bible so you can't use that as a delimiter.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Answering NicKB
You mentioned that the link was broken. It appears that if the link is too long it wont work in this chat so I suggest you go to this FTP directory http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/audio/1/WinOSFiles/tracts/
Look there for the tract entitled eng_answers_for_skeptics.pdf
You can check out other stuff there to and come back to me on anything you see there.
I hope that link works. You mentioned that not all the prophecies have been fulfilled. You are correct. Approximately 25% of the bible contains prophecie. Approximately half of them have been fulfilled. I gave the example of Jean Dixons prophecy whereby there is no possibility of it being fulfilled now. She predicted that the Vietnam war woul result in World war III. Then I gave the most precise prophecy of hte bible which was fulfilled to the date predicted 483 years after it was given.
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/audio/1/WinOSFiles/Tracts/
again look for the tract eng_annointed_one.pdf
The thing different about the bible is that not one prophecy can be proven in error as the Jean Dixon Prophecy could. The other thing regarding fulfillment of Prophecy 100% is that the prophets had to establish their credentials with their piers if they were to be listened to. Moses for example made 10 Prophecies of plagues that subsequently occured in short order. After that he made prophecies that were fulfilled 1000's of years later and are still being fulfilled today. We would no know of these long term prophecies if it weren't for the fact that his short-term prophecies were verified, causing him to have followers interested in preserving his writings for future generations. Interesting Islam claims that Mohammed was the greatest prophet, greater than Jesus. Jesus prophesied his own death and resurrection. It was verified by over 500 witnesses. Mohammed never made a verifiable prophecy by contrast. I will use that prophecy and fulfillment in this post. Prediction.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
Unfalsifiability isn't usually something that one boasts about.
Of course the prophecies aren't in error.
Some fulfillments are created by future writers (Messianic prophecies come to mind - the gospel writers had those to draw from when they created Jesus).
Others have been dug up by apologists as examples of fulfillment to match significant historical events. They simply move the prophecy from event to event and call it fulfilled.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I am just taking a stab in the dark here but I think your 50% estimate is a little in favour of the theist argument. For a realistic estimate you would obviously have to eliminate all the prophecies fulfilled in the bible itself as we cannot prove their validity. You would also have to eliminate the prophecies which are fulfilled only because they are made. In other words the prophecies that people take it upon themselves to falsely fulfil after they read about them. I am sure when a rational, non-biased person looks at the facts, or even a panel of non-biased people the results would be significantly different.
You can say 50% are fulfilled since you are a believer and your main argument for the existence of God is the prophecies. But would you maybe call that bias? I think I would, I am sure everybody else here would too.
I remember the prophecy from Nostradamus about two brothers falling. Believers of Nostradamus took that prophecy to mean the fall of the two towers on 9/11. So a few centuries ago Nostradamus makes a vague reference to two brothers falling and when the towers fall people say he predicted the event. You are seeing what you want to see. The vague ones of which there are plenty probably have no relation to the events you attribute them to.
So please do use conjecture as evidence, to a logical person your interpretations of biblical prophecies are not evidence.
Furthermore your complete lack of logic and the fact that you make baseless claims in order to further your point do not do you much good. Anybody who has read that drivel you try to pass off as ‘proof’ for God existence knows that you have no concept of reality.
p.s. I mean the absurd claims you make in the PDF documents on your site not the posts in this forum.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I response to JCGADFLY:
The very first thing that God wrote with his own hand and gave to Moses was the 10 Commandments. In fact this is the very first instructions from God in written form that we have recorded, even though in the order of the bibles writing it doesn't appear on page 1 it is the most important writing. It is repeated 2x in the bible as well because it is so important. Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus 20.
I produced a questionare based on the 10 Commandments you may wish to try out. Its sort of like a score on how well you do in following it.
http://bible.no-ip.org/audio/1/WinOSFiles/tracts
look for eng_what_did_Jesus_Do_sm.pdf
The purpose for the 10 Commandments was to cause people to fell bad about their inability to satisfy God through their own actions.
The Bible says
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
DING, DING, DING! Whitefox wins the award for the most intellectually condescending, and ignorant statement of the month.
God only must prove 12% of himself to be the true God.
Your 'proof' is in your deluded interpretation and your belief that you will convert any atheists with your absurd arguments is merely an extension of the delusion
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
Reply to NickB's most recent comment.
If I were to be your lawyer. I might first show you the certificate of graduation from a law society on the wall showing my credentials. Then I might mention the area of the law that I specialize in to give you some confidence in my abilities. But if 100% of what I told you regarded this we wold have very little else to talk about and certainly your main concerns which have nothing to do with my credentials would not be addressed.
God designed what he prophesied about himself throughout the ages to give some truth to each subsequent generation that could be proved to them. But He uses this primarily to prove His credentials to us and that we should listen to Him. He has much more to say than only proving His credentials to us that He wants us to listen to.
Regarding Nostradamos. He gives an example of vagueness that cannot be proven. The prophecies of the Bible are much more specific than that. For instance the 483 years prophecy. There are varyig degrees of precision I will admit. So I will try to bring to your attention the most precise ones.
Reply to NickB's excellent prior post.
The bible is written by 39 different authors in effect it is 66 seperate books whch prove each other. So I offer that as a weak argument that it is not a single book that proves itself. I know that is not conclusive evidence.
The bible claims of the New Testament is claimed to be subject to attempts to make it fulfill the Old Testament. This argument was first made by the Jews at the council of Jerusalem in AD100 when they decided to ban the Septuagint (the greek version of the bible) for the reason that the word Christos was used to substitute for the Hebrew word Hamashiak in the Old Testament. This was making people believe that Jesus who was then known as "the Christ" in Jewish circles was indeed the promised Messiah. So they ordered all Septuagints in their synogogues burned. They did not argue however that Jesus never existed. Certainly they were aware of Jesus as a Historical figure. This 70 years after his death and resurection. In fact you will find no written records that doubt Jesus' existence in that time period. Certainly that would have been claimed if Jesus was a hoax. We can only go by what people understood who were closest to the events that happened. Our ideas 2000 years later don't count in deciding the Historicityof Jesus.
Are there any events that happend 70 years ago that we could compar such knowledge to today? Well we have the event of the Great Depression. I have not heard anyone try to prove it didn't happen, even though I doubt that anyone in this forum was alive at the time to experience it first hand. It takes centuries after an event has occured for us to have doubts about its historicity. Some will say but we have proof the Great Depression happened because people recorded these events in the newspapers etcetera.
We have proof also by eyewitnesses. Now we do not have the original paper that the New Testament was written on that we know of. But we have in the early second century almost the entire new testament quoted by those who debated its meaning in personal lettters sent to each other. In fact there is a bible called "the earliest Greek New Testament" I have in my possession which is based on 100's of fragments dating before 200 AD which when combined comprise 75% of the New Testament. This not the writings I spoke of we have many of those in full text. But these are pieces of the bibles New Testament many of which had portions eaten away by worms and mould and such but they have reconstructed and proven 75% of the bible based on these fragments the earliest of which dates to 115 AD. It is estimated that the New Testament itself was complete by the year AD 70 which is 40 years after the death an resurection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
If these texts were altered for example if they claimed Jesus was born anywhere other than Bethlehem and that was altered to Bethlehem to fit the prophecies we would expect to see that pointed out, especially by the concil of Jerusalem in AD100 by the Jews who were attempting to discredit Christ in any way possible as the reason for the council. We have no such counter claims like this in the historical record from that time.
If Jesus himself were to try to orhestrate his own life to follow the prophecies he would have some pretty big things to accomplish. And I doubt he would want to accomplish some of them if he were an imposter.
Here are some of the things He would have to accomplish.
The fact that this ruler exists from everlasting past indicates to that it is the Messiah being spoken of. Even the Iranians that visited Jesus at his birth understood this to be the case.
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/audio/1/WinOSFiles/tracts
look for tract: eng_the_magi.pdf
An imposter Messiah would also have to orchistrate things such that His own death would occur exactly 483 years after the prophecy started from Daniel 9. This is the one that I think an imposter would not want to do even if it did prove the fallacy he was trying to create.
again,
look for tract: eng_annointed_one.pdf
Even if all this could be accomplished by a false prophet he would have to make sure his death fulfilled the Psalm 22 prophecy.
He would also have to orchestrate somehow the fulfillment of this prophecy. (Approx 500 BCE)
The many nations part of the prophecy must be fulfilled. I think that the fact we attest to Jesus by the todays date is a reminder that many nations have been affected by Jesus. I think we could rule out that Jesus himself created a hoax. That still leaves open whether his followers or lets say folowers with no historical figure just their imaginations creatively created Jesus. I will post something more in that direction later.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
If they were so important, why were they amended? Could God not remember what he wrote from Exodus 20 to Deuteronomy 5?
Besides, those command were hardly original to the Judeo-Christian God. Other religions had similar rules concerning their supreme beings and older societies had rules for dealing with each other.
While you were looking in Romans, why didn't you look up where Paul tells the believers that they have no need to follow the Law even though Christ said they should?
I looked at your Ray Comfort-esque quiz. I lost interest when Ray gave it to our Mr. Sapient and said that lust was a natural impulse that Jesus would condemn for. God gave it to you but he has no problem destroying you for it? Talk about rigging the test.
So I have to blindly believe the revelations before I examine them? That's foolish on it's face - I hope you didn't mean that.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
39 different authors that prove each other? What book are you reading? This is exactly what I mean by a deluded interpretation of the bible. You believe before you read so you ignore all the mistakes and contradictions. You do not read with an open mind, you read with the belief that God exists. The very first page of the bible is in complete contradiction to the second, the word of God makes no sense from page to page the next.
I know you think you are some inspiring writer that will convert thousands of Atheists, thats why you spend so much timr compiling those writings. The truth is what you write is dull, unintelligent, illogical and completely uninspiring. You will not be able to convert anybody with an I.Q. over 100. Don't quit your day job.
Anyway I am done with this, it is impossible to argue with somebody who doesn't think logically. I say horse you say unicorn. I still can't get over that document I read in which you say that God probably made the bible illogical on purpose to spite us. How can anybody argue with that logic? You just make stuff up, not matter how irrational as long as it supports your delusions.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
I am new to your site and have been observing your discussions for a while with interest. I am not however new to Atheism or Christianity. I am a fallen one so to speak, an Ex-Christian, Ex-Catholic, and an Ex-Believer. I have attended years of parochial schools including a graduate degree at a Jesuit University. Like Whitefox I have read the Bible cover to cover many times in several versions. Unlike Whitefox I conclude that there is little factual basis in the Bible. My position is what I was taught and “believed” for years is not true. What is the truth? Who knows but not the myths and legends of ancient savage people from 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. I am also a published author and writer of skeptical books on ancient history and religion. I spent years researching and writing on the subject as well as discussing the beliefs with noted evangelicals. My observation is that serious belief in Christianity is based on a faulty OS (operating system). It is completely impossible for someone that operates in reality to understand how rational arguments, logic, and well-presented refutations can be simply brushed aside by the Christian.
Whitefox has the unmentioned goal in his posts of trying to bring converts to Jesus which is always a hidden program running in the mind of a Christian (sometimes it’s not hidden at all but blatant). All of his posts are intended to that end. Like Whitefox I have a hidden program running as well and that is to open the eyes of all those that can be made to see that religion is based in the realm of Sci-Fi and Fantasy.
I have had many lengthy discussions with Evangelical Christians in one on one encounters as well as group attacks (5 on 1, I was the 1). Their reasons for taking me on was to try and either show I was mistaken in my years of research and study, or to find a way to bring me back to Jesus. Their reason and interpretations are flawed as they accept without question the stories and tales of the Bible. Most have never questioned simple things such as the extreme errors in Daniel, the writing of Gospels 35-60 years after the events, or the lack of outside writers who lived near the Jesus events and wrote nothing.
As pointed out the Bible begins its journey into fantasyland on page 1. In good Sci-Fi stories one has to help the reader gradually accept the world he is transported into by the writer. Genesis does not do this but immediately takes the reader into an impossible world that is difficult to accept. As the story unfolds it becomes even more difficult to feel any of it is true as contradictions and fallacies on upon every single page. That is of course my opinion based on reasoning and logic not upon the emotionalism of Jesus belief.
When all else fails with a Christian, I just tell them, “Peace be until you, Have a Good Day, Be Happy”, and walk away. Far be it from me to try to overcome the centuries of indoctrination that have gone into their conditioning.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Has a prophecy in the bible ever predicted something before it happened?
That is, obviously the bible was written before the events, but are there prophecies that people read, and after reading knew something would happen (at a specific time and place) in the future, and so were prepared for it ahead of time? Or have all the prophecies been confirmed "after the fact"?
How do ypu know that the Bible was written before the events. I've never seen any time date stamps on any pages of the Bible. If you are referring to OT predictions of a Messiah, people in the future went back and found verses that they thought, "Oh this is just like Jesus, it must be a prediction". In the case of OT predictions in their time, who can tell it was before copyrights.
Then again, I think somewhere it says the Sun will rise in the East tomorrow.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Isn't this all a bit self-referential? You are begging the question by using the Bible to support... the Bible.
This would be like a rationalist saying, "Evolution is true because Darwin wrote about it in the Origin of Species." That isn't a sound argument. The assertion that the Bible is a true representation of God's Holy Word is merely an assertion made... in the Bible. The assertion that God even exists is merely an assertion made... in the Bible.
For a rationalist, this sort of argument is illogical. There is a way to prove all you say, and it is this:
1) Prove the existence of God
2) Prove that this God authored the Bible, either directly, or through human agents
It's only two steps. You should be able to do that. But, you'll have to start with step 1. As it is, you seem to assume both steps as axioms.
Please do not make assumptions about the reasons I believe there is no eternal soul. This falls under the same problems above-- you are begging the question.
The concept of a soul has no observable basis in reality. It appears more to be a wish that one will never die. So, it's not that I'd like to think there is no penalty in the afterlife for my wicked, wicked ways. It's that there is no evidence for an afterlife, no evidence for a soul.
Yes. The Bible does say this. However, this doesn't make it "Revealed Faith" in any way. In fact, it is still blind faith, in that you blindly believe that God exists in the first place. Without the supposition that God exists, there is no reason to believe the Bible. In fact, even if God exists, there is no reason to believe He is the God of the Bible, rather than the God of the Qur'an, or the Gods of the Indian Pantheon. So, you are making not one, but two leaps of faith.
I have looked. I have heard every single one before. I was married for several years to a woman of great faith, and we talked many times of the Bible, both for her reasons for believing, and my reasons for not believing. Although she never directly tried to convert me, she has raised every point you have raised. She also raised many, stronger points, that did not directly rely on the Bible; however, they ultimately all rested on the blind assumption that God exists.
As for the crucifixion:
1) God is everlasting, omniscient, and omnipotent
2) Jesus is God
3) Jesus sacrificed himself for our salvation
4) But, Jesus is everlasting, omniscient, and omnipotent
5) Therefore, his sacrifice was nothing more than a symbolic gesture
Now, I know the rationalisation that Jesus was also a man. But it doesn't change the fact that he is also God. I also realize that there is a "mystery." That is part of the spirituality, that Christ's sacrifice was somehow a real sacrifice, in spite of His divine nature.
This is logically unsound. There is no mystery: according to your own faith, Jesus is God. Therefore, his sacrifice was no sacrifice at all. There is no way he could have paid for your sins through his own death, as God cannot die. The shell God inhabited while playing Jesus might die, but that is hardly a sacrifice. As He is omniscient, He has already experience the deaths and pains of millions of people before.
So there is a third blind leap of faith-- that there is something especially mystical about the relationship between Jesus and God, that somehow allows the divine to sacrifice itself without really sacrificing anything.
I would rather live a rational life and burn in hell for eternity than to live an irrational life and live in heaven. Mostly, it's because I so firmly believe that the universe is a rational, objective, knowable place, that I am willing to take Pascal's Wager. Also, it's because I believe that it's not enough to be true to yourself; you must be true to others. And the only way to do that is by rationally observing reality, and making sure your knowledge is firmly based on the rational, observable universe.
Every decision we make in life depends on information. There is a lot of misinformation going around in the world, both accidental and intentional. Many decisions are based on incorrect information, leading to poor decisions. These poor decisions affect real lives, every day, in ways that the Bible cannot fix, and (if He truly exists) God will not fix.
One of my core ethical values is that it is a "sin" (to use a loaded term) to spread misinformation, as that misinformation may affect a real life in an adverse way. It is ethical to be sure of the information you propagate. Any information that is inconsistent with reality is misinformation. So, the spreading of information that is inconsistent with reality is a "sin."
I know your rebuttal: that your God is real, and so it isn't misinformation. But-- how can you know that? How can you be sure? Without objective, external evidence, how can you be sure?
The prophecies of the Bible are generally very vague. Many of the ones that aren't are retroactively fulfilled, or self-fulfilled. What about those that were not fulfilled, such as Christ's return?
This is an unequivecable statement about the timing of Christ's return. This prophecy, the greatest prophecy of the Bible, foretells Christ's return in the lifetime of some living before his crucifixion.
This is just as direct, just as as specific, as Jeane Dixon's failed prophecies.
I know that Christian apologists believe this prophecy was fulfilled with Christ's crucifixion and resurection. However, it is clear from the Bible that the "Kingdom of God" is established after the second coming, not because of the crucifixion.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Hello Wetfax, long time see no evil.
Calling atheism a "faith" is like saying that "off is a TV channel" or "bald is a hair color". Atheists have no faith whatsoever.
Just admit you have no evidence for the deity you want to be real.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_annointed_one.pdf
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
We find key people from this following list I will give you a link to then we calculate where in history they existed.
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/pdf/eng_ushers_notes_sm.pdf
The KJV bibles until the 1900's contained this dating references in the columns but Christians in the past century sucumbed to the claims of evolution and removed the dating from the columns. There was a time when you opened a KJV bible to discover on page one it said 4004 BC. This is knowable as God gave the clues all the way through the bible to calculate the dates all the way back to Adam.
Archiologists used to balk at this dating but everytime it proves true. Never an exception with every new discovery by them. They used to balk that locations even existed as told by the bible for example they used to say there was no place of Jerico. Not any more they discovered it and what amazed them was that the walls had fallen outward not inward as they expected of a City attacked. The bible says the walls fell of their own accord not by battle.
The bible does not only reveal the future it reveals the past.
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
We know that a lot of events that appear in the bible seem to get lot of "inspiration" from events at the time and other religions/cultures. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0dBFqJZc0 - just skip over to 1:50).
Also I might be reading it wrong but does it say there that Noah was 600 years old?
Answering NigeltheBold: I did stray from the topic to preach the gospel a bit there. I have clearly stated it now. That does require "faith in revelation to beleive". However until you have "Revealed Faith" you cannot believe it. So I will try to stick with the original topic which is "Revealed Faith" verses "Blind Faith". I have offered only Prophecy for my reasons for believing that the Bible "Reveals" things. These revelations of the bible help us to evaluate whether it is written only by humans or it has some kind of Supernatural Authority which I have claimed to be Gods authority. Lets look again at todays events that we all know and compare those to the prophecies of the Bible. We don't know as much about the prophecie of Jesus being fulfilled accurately as many have pointed out but we do have more of a sense of what is happening today as to whether the prophecies regarding today are accurate.
1. Gathering of the Jews again to Jerusalem. 1948 state of Israel reformed and 1967 when Jerusalem itself was captured. We used Amos ad Jeremiah's prophecies regarding this in a previous reponse.
2. Matthew 24:22 "Except those days be shortened, there would be no life on earth." Jesus refering to a final war claimed that there would be the possibility of whiping out alll life on the planet. Not even during WWII was this prophecy considered possible. But with todays stock pile of NUKES we all know it is possible today. JEsus knew almost 2000 years ago it would be possible or His ghost writers as some would prefer to believe.
3. Revelation 3:16-18 In this passage the Apostle John saw a time when the entire world could be ruled by a number. That wasn't possible back in the WWII timeframe but everyone would agree it is possible today. John saw that it would be possible almost 2000 years ago.
4. 2 Timothy 3:1,2 - Our generation is the first one that has been taught self-love. This was prophecied by the Apostle Paul 2000 years ago. see.
http://bibledoor.no-ip.org/audio/1/WinOSFiles eng_love_sm.pdf
5. Jesus also predicted a time of increasingly dangerous weather and other calamities which are out of the control of humans. See Matthew 24. It is not the individual prophecies that are so great it is the fact that all of them are converging all at once in what is called by the bible "the end times".
God says "Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet you shall be white as snow."
www.truthiswhatmatters.com & www.bibledoor.com
Actually I have several Bibles that have this dating in the margins, KJV, Douray-Rheims etc. Just because a date was placed next to a verse does not give it credibility as to the actual date of writing. As to this dating being knowable, I don't assume like you do that God did anything in the way of clues in the writing of the ancient savages of Palestine.
Archaeology does not generally accept the views you are presenting. I suggest you read the works of Israel Finkelstein from Tel Aviv University, such as "The Bible Unearthed" as a start. In his work he states that Jericho was an unwalled small village at the purported time of the alleged invasion by the Israelites. He makes the case that there was no invasion at all and the people of Judah and Israel were exactly the same as the rest of those who lived in Caanan They developed internally just as the rest of the people of Palestine. In the same invasion, after Joshua and the Israelites blew down non-existing walls they go on to destroy a city that was already ruins, AI. Ai meant ruins which it already was when Joshua's invasion ocurred in the dimension of Never Was. See the previous named book again. In fact ask yourself if there were in fact millions of invading Israelites at this time why the Assyrians, Hittites, Mitani, and the Egyptians did nothing about them. One of them would have taken notice and either eradicated them or allied with such a large army against the others.
There are archaelogists that do go out in search of Bible events and little support has been forthcoming. If you do know of a text or study by one, please so inform, as other than certain events little is known or can be proved. An example of proof that some of these people may have existed does not mean that the Bible stories are true, I'll give you that David's house was mentioned in the the Tel Dan Inscription but it also causes issues for other Bible events too. Here it casts doubt on Jehu as the killer of Jehoram and Ahaziahu as the King of Damascus, King Hazel takes the credit.
The Bible reveals nothing of the future only what you think it could be. Its accuracy in documenting the past is simply poor.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.