anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[Amethyst]

The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration.

 

A lot of the so-called archaeological evidence has been debunked. It proves nothing. Remember the shroud?

 

If you're going to use that as an example, then I guess Spider-Man is real, since it takes place in New York and New York actually exists.

 

Gee, I wonder where Peter Parker was during 9/11? We could have used him then.

 

[willybilly30]

By Kevin’s Reponses I see I should change the topic to does anybody know enough to answer this question.

but that would mean Kevin don’t belong here lol

[crazy-tiger]

KH> The Bible purports to be historical and proves to be factual.

Really?

 

Where is the proof that the Earth is resting on pillars? Where is the proof that the Garden of Eden existed? Where is the proof that the Flood happened? Where is the proof of the Tower of Babel? Where is the proof of the Plagues of Egypt? Where is the proof of the 40 years spent wandering around the desert? Where is the proof of the 10 Commandments? Where is the proof that Moses split the Red Sea? Where is the proof that an Egyptian Pharoah drowned there? Where is the proof that Mary was a virgin mother? Where is the proof that Joseph existed? Where is the proof that Jesus existed? Where is the proof that the sun stood still? Where is the proof that Herod order the Slaughter of Innocents? Where is the proof that Jesus performed miracles? Where is the proof that 500 dead people walked the streets? Where is the proof that Jesus was ressurected?

 

Where is the proof Kevin?

 

None of that "proof" is found anywhere outside the Bible... the only stuff that is, is the stuff that confirms the general background details.

 

Now, if the stuff from inside the Bible is proof that the Bible is factual, then stuff from inside the Quran is proof that the Quran is factual.

The Quran is older yet suffers from many errors including the contention that sperm comes from a man's chest, Jesus was not crucified, the sun set in a puddle of mud, etc.

The Bible contends that the moon is a light-emitter, that the heart is where the mind resides, that the sky is a solid entity that has openings for water to come through, that stars are set upon that entity, that the Earth is on pillars, that the Earth is floating on water, etc...

 

If you are saying that errors rule the documents, then you are ruling out the Bible!

Rule of thumb: give the ancient document the benefit of the doubt unless the writer disqualifies himself.

The Bible contains just as many errors as the Quran... if not more!

 

Since those errors have enabled you to claim the writer of the Quran has disqualified himself, then the writer of the Bible is just as disquaified.

The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration.

So does the Quran!

What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests.

Then apply them to the Bible the same way you are applying them to the Quran...

You didn't answer my question.

You haven't answered mine...

a: What is the reasoning that takes you from there possibly being a supernatural agent to it being a God to it being the God of the Bible?

 

b: Since there were no written accounts made by any of Jesus' contemporaries, and since those accounts that are assumed to be by his contemporaries are second-hand at best, and since there are admitted fakes in amongst those accounts, please explain how the NT documents could possibly be reliable.

Now... will you answer these?

 

 

To be blunt... it's time for you to put up or shut up.

[Ssel]

Hence the reason that even the Catholic church (yes, the guys who put together the Bible) are now admitting that parts are fictional.

I haven't been keeping up with the Catholics much in the last 20 years. I'm curious, what parts?

[crazy-tiger]

Hence the reason that even the Catholic church (yes, the guys who put together the Bible) are now admitting that parts are fictional.

I haven't been keeping up with the Catholics much in the last 20 years. I'm curious, what parts?

Can't remember the full list off-hand, but the parts of Genesis that deal with the creation are in there.

 

There's a subject about this in News and Recent Events, so I'll see if I can dig it out.

[Fweethawt]

Hence the reason that even the Catholic church (yes, the guys who put together the Bible) are now admitting that parts are fictional.

I haven't been keeping up with the Catholics much in the last 20 years. I'm curious, what parts?

Can't remember the full list off-hand, but the parts of Genesis that deal with the creation are in there.

 

There's a subject about this in News and Recent Events, so I'll see if I can dig it out.

 

I was already on it, CT.

 

CLICK HERE

[Mythra]

The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?

KH> You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Let's see now. Graves opening up and zombies walking around Jerusalem. Phillip transporting himself to another region. Talking donkeys. The sun standing still for 24 hours. A man three-days-dead getting up and walking around. A man walking on water. A basket of food feeding 5,000 people. Men living to be 900 years old. People floating up into the air. Plants growing before there was sunlight. Dry bones coming to life. Rabbits chewing their cud. Handling snakes, drinking poison, 4-legged insects, unicorns.

 

Real people, real times, real events. Sure.

 

What were you saying again about the sun setting in a puddle of mud?

[crazy-tiger]

There's a subject about this in News and Recent Events, so I'll see if I can dig it out.

I was already on it, CT.

 

CLICK HERE

Well, there you go...

[Fweethawt]

Let's see now. Graves opening up and zombies walking around Jerusalem. Phillip transporting himself to another region. Talking donkeys. The sun standing still for 24 hours. A man three-days-dead getting up and walking around. A man walking on water. A basket of food feeding 5,000 people. Men living to be 900 years old. People floating up into the air. Plants growing before there was sunlight. Dry bones coming to life. Rabbits chewing their cud. Handling snakes, drinking poison, 4-legged insects, unicorns.

 

Real people, real times, real events. Sure.

 

What were you saying again about the sun setting in a puddle of mud?

 

The satyrs, Mythra!!!

 

You forgot the satyrs!!!

 

[Ssel]

Thank you, tiger and Free

I just read that consession of the Biblical accuracies.

 

But I can warn you, in that consession, "they" are still very incididously and cleverly creating your trap. Its a chess game, choose not to be a pawn. But you can't do that by rebeling, else you merely change which color of pawn you are.

[mwc]

... , the sun set in a puddle of mud, etc.

Ummm...with Allah anything is possible.

 

mwc

[crazy-tiger]

Thank you, tiger and Free

I just read that consession of the Biblical accuracies.

 

But I can warn you, in that consession, "they" are still very incididously and cleverly creating your trap. Its a chess game, choose not to be a pawn. But you can't do that by rebeling, else you merely change which color of pawn you are.

What makes you think we're rebeling? I know they think that, but that's their problem... and it's twofold. They don't notice that we're not pawns anymore and don't recognise that there's a whole new aspect to the game now.

 

Besides, pawns can be very effective in the right situation...

[LloydDobler]

I say the evidence is very good for the resurrection. Therefore, it seems we have a divine miracle on our hands.

What evidence is that again?

The Bible purports to be historical and proves to be factual.

So stop saying you proved it and prove it. And stop asking us to prove your straw man arguments. You're just dodging the questions.

The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events.

It also describes false places, false people, imaginary times and impossible events. I know you know that this statement of yours means absolutely nothing. A real setting and historical characters do not make fiction into fact. You're just regurgitating statements from the apologist handbook at this point.

We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?

I asked you first.

You have corroboration that resurrection happened? Where?

 

I know you know that your argument extends equally to all ancient mythical literature. You're really on thin ice and just keep repeating yourself hoping it somehow makes sense. But it doesn't.

 

I'll say it again. We're exactly the same, I just believe one less religion than you do. I don't turn my brain off when it comes to the bible. Apply the same harsh sword of reason to the Bible that you do to the Quran or the book of Mormon and you will realize what a sick twisted thing the Bible really is.

 

Why don't you just clearly state that the only reason you believe these things about the bible is because of faith and that without faith nobody can possibly believe it? You're basically lying when you say things like 'proven' and 'factual' in regards to the bible. And that 'worldview' nonsense is straight out of the TAG handbook, and TAG has been thoroughly debunked repeatedly here.

[SkepticOfBible]

KH> The Bible purports to be historical and proves to be factual. Why should I deny it? Why should I compare it to fictional literature when the writers did not intend it to be fictional? Rule of thumb: give the ancient document the benefit of the doubt unless the writer disqualifies himself.[/color]

 

Then I guess you have also given the Quran and Bhagwad gita a the benefit of doubt, or are you applying double standard.

 

Millions of Mormons also accept the extra ordinary revelation of Joseph Smith, which was very similar to St Paul, yet you don't accept the book of Mormon as inspired text.

 

KH> ...unless the writer disqualifies himself. First, I said ancient document.

 

What is your defination of ancient? The Mahabharata and Ramanya predates the Bible by any standards. Yet you don't hold them to be true.

 

The Book of Mormon does not apply and it would take me hours to even scratch the surface of errors in the Book of Mormon and how badly Smith disqualifies himself.

Give us your summary of your objective criteria by which you disqualify the book of Mormon and the Author.

 

The Quran is older yet suffers from many errors including the contention that sperm comes from a man's chest, Jesus was not crucified, the sun set in a puddle of mud, etc.

 

Oh I see, so now you accuse of the Quran about making Scientific and Historical errors. And what about the various Scientific and Historical errors in your protestant bible. Here are a few list

 

Scientific Errors

 

According to Nahum 1:3, clouds are actually not particles of water vapour in the atmosphere, they are dust kicked up by god's footprints.

 

According to Job 37:2-3, thunder is not the rapid expansion of air caused by the intense heat of a lightning bolt, but the voice of god.

 

According to Jeremiah 30:23, a tornado is not the product of a large weather system, but a weapon god uses to kill those who sin.

 

According to Isaiah 13:13 and Psalms 18:7, earthquakes are not the result of tectonic plate activity, but a weapon god uses against sinners when he is really pissed off.

 

According to Hosea 13:15 and Psalms 107:33-34, a river drying up is not the result of a dry season, but a sign that people near the river must have sinned.

 

Likewise, according to Deuteronomy 28:22-24, drought is god's reaction to sinners living in the area.

 

Christians till the end of the 19th century believed that the earth was flat, and earth was the centre of the universe thanks to the bible.

 

Rabbits Chew Cud

 

It classifies Bats as Birds

 

It claims that Ostriches are not cruel and stupid birds who abandon their eggs to die after laying them(Num 39:13-16)

 

The mustard seed is the smallest seed.

 

Locust, grasshopper and the cricket have four legs

 

 

Historical Errors

 

The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem for the first time (without actually destroying it). By that time Jehohiakim was dead and his son, Jehoiachin, was ruling (Dan 1:1)

 

 

Apparently, the author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as "Evilmerodach" [see 2 Kg.25:27 and Jer.52:31]). In 560 BCE, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar. (Dan 5:2,11,18,22)

 

Darius the Median is a fictitious character whom the author perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, who came to the throne in 521 BCE, 17 years after the fall of Babylon. The author of Daniel incorrectly makes him the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus. (Dan 5:31)

 

"These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing." But no such site is known in history. Some translations (ASV, NAB, NIV, RSV, NRSV) rename Bethabara as Bethany, but Bethany is a suburb of Jerusalem and, therefore, not "beyond the Jordan." (John 1:28)

 

Bad History of Daniel

SAB

 

 

The bible goes even further in making a mistake by contradicting itself on the same event. The Four Gospels are rife with such examples. You start with the Genealogy for starters. There is an active thread going on in the colloseum on this, and till date no christian has been able to resolve it. FYI, the Colloseum is made for more civilised debate.

 

Secondly, and more importantly, unless a worldview, religion, or belief system can adequately defeat my worldview, objectively and subjectively, why should I discard it?

 

Ok, then please lay out your objective criteria that would defeat your world view.

 

The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?

 

I conceded that the bible describes some real places, some real people, and some real events, but just because some of them are true doesn't make it all true. By that standard are you gonna acknowledge that the City of Atlantis and Cyclops actually exists, or that Archilles was powerful being but had a weak heel.

 

Please give us your defination of Archealogical Evidence and Textual Evidence

 

Where is your archeogical evidence for the following?

 

The Garden of Eden

 

The Race of Giants that David and Isrealites fought

 

The Worldwide flood

 

The Tower of Babel

 

The Location of Mt Sinai

 

The Exodus

 

The tallest Mountain where Satan showed Jesus all the Kingdom of the World during the Great temptation.(This was one of the verses that Christians believed the Earth was flat. The flat earthers to this day believe that earth is flat and that "Satan Decived Christian" like you are gonna go to hell for believe Satan)

 

The resurrection of the Saints and opening of the graves which only St Paul(or whoever wrote the Book of Acts) talked about. What happened to those resurrected Saints?

 

The place where christ was crucified. Are there any secular records for this event?

 

The Tomb where christ was buried

 

 

 

The bible cannot even settle many of it’s theological debates. Here is one honest Christian bible study group, which shows this fact

http://www.twopaths.com/biblefaq.htm]

Bible Study[/url]

[MQTA]

IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?

 

If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?

 

To take one example, examine the evidence for the Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.

 

Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. Hercules got born as a human from the union of God (Zeus) and the mortal and chaste Alcmene, his mother. Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Like Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

 

Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have ancient accounts from Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer that depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules.

 

Christians love to cite Joesphus' brief mention of Jesus in Antiquities, but how many Christians know about his many more references to Hercules? (see Antiquities 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1) Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.

 

Some critics doubt that a historicized Jesus could develop from myth because they think there never occurred any precedence for it. We have many examples of myth from history but what about the other way around? This doubt fails in the light of the most obvious example-- the Greek mythologies where Greek and Roman writers including Diodorus, Cicero, Livy, etc., assumed that there must have existed a historical root for figures such as Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Minos, Dionysus, etc. These writers put their mythological heroes into an invented historical time chart. Herodotus, for example, tried to determine when Hercules lived. As Robert M. Price revealed, "The whole approach earned the name of Euhemerism, from Euhemerus who originated it." [Price, p. 250] Even today, we see many examples of seedling historicized mythologies: UFO adherents who's beliefs began as a dream of alien bodily invasion, and then expressed as actually having occurred (some of which have formed religious cults); beliefs of urban legends which started as pure fiction or hoaxes; propaganda spread by politicians which stem from fiction but believed by their constituents. Scientology provides a glaring modern example of a cult founded by a science fiction writer that has now progressed to a full fledged religion within just 50 years!

 

People consider Hercules and other Greek gods as myth because people no longer believe in the Greek and Roman stories. When a civilization dies, so go their gods. Christianity and its church authorities, on the other hand, still hold a powerful influence on governments, institutions, and colleges. Anyone doing research on Jesus, even skeptics, had better allude to his existence or else risk future funding and damage to their reputations or fear embarrassment against their Christian friends. Christianity depends on establishing a historical Jesus and it will defend, at all costs, even the most unreliable sources. The faithful want to believe in Jesus, and belief alone can create intellectual barriers that leak even into atheist and secular thought. We have so many Christian professors, theologians and historical "experts" around the world that tell us we should accept a historical Jesus that if repeated often enough, it tends to convince even the most ardent skeptic. The establishment of history should never reside with the "experts" words alone or simply because a scholar has a reputation as a historian. If a scholar makes a historical claim, his assertion should depend primarily with the evidence itself and not just because he says so. Facts do not require belief. And whereas beliefs can live comfortably without evidence at all, facts depend on evidence.

 

 

another awesome site, has the whole thing on ONE page, covers it all.

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[Vigile]

P2 - In order for a miracle to happen one would have to presuppose that a God exists.

 

You lost me on this one as well Asimov. I haven't finished the thread yet though so perhaps you have already answered.

[Amethyst]

I suspect that it doesn't matter how much we can prove that the Bible isn't factual. Kevin will just ignore everything we say with his Christian-colored glasses anyway. I bet he won't even bother to take a critical look at the Bible because he is afraid that it might not be true after all, just like most fundies.

 

Logic says that if you have to ignore all the evidence to the contrary and constantly try to convince yourself that something is true in order to keep believing in it, it's a lie.

[Vigile]

So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration.

Kevin H

 

You have GOT to be kidding.

 

You might as well say "You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart"..

 

If that's your evidence, you might as well cut and run, dude.

 

In fact that is his evidence. He will cut and run, but only after he acuses us of playing unfair and attacking him with ad homs a few more times. The bible is right, there is nothing new under the sun.

[Kevin H]

[

quote name='Amethyst' date='Dec 6 2005, 08:46 AM' post='114976]

I suspect that it doesn't matter how much we can prove that the Bible isn't factual. Kevin will just ignore everything we say with his Christian-colored glasses anyway. I bet he won't even bother to take a critical look at the Bible because he is afraid that it might not be true after all, just like most fundies.

 

Logic says that if you have to ignore all the evidence to the contrary and constantly try to convince yourself that something is true in order to keep believing in it, it's a lie.

 

 

KH> The above is known as Poisoning the Well.

 

KH> The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?

 

 

Kevin H

Gone with the Wind describes real places, real people, real times and real events... there is overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration.

Are you going to claim that Gone with the Wind is ALSO factual?

 

 

KH> Is Gone with the Wind intended to be an historical document, or is it fiction using historical settings? How do you know?

 

Oh, and maybe you'd like to detail this corroboration for us... and don't try anything by Ron Wyatt, he's a known con-job.

 

 

KH> Don't know him.

[Kevin H]

Here is contemporary evidence for Alexander the Great. Go ahead and provide something similar about Jesus for us. Or stop comparing real individuals to mythological ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KH> Very good. This is the stuff I like to see. But note that the point I am making is the first histories and bios of Alexander the Great are about 4 centuries after he lived. Not so with Christ.

 

Kevin H

[crazy-tiger]

KH> The Bible descibes real places, real people, real times and real events. We have overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration. What are your tests for whether ancient writings are historical, fictional, or a combination of both? I have three basic tests. What are yours?

 

 

Kevin H

Gone with the Wind describes real places, real people, real times and real events... there is overwhelming archeological and textual corroboration.

Are you going to claim that Gone with the Wind is ALSO factual?

KH> Is Gone with the Wind intended to be an historical document, or is it fiction using historical settings? How do you know?

Probably fictional with historical settings...

Now, is the Bible intended to be historical, and how do you know?

Oh, and maybe you'd like to detail this corroboration for us... and don't try anything by Ron Wyatt, he's a known con-job.

KH> Don't know him.

I'm surprised, since he's the one who claimed to have found archeological evidence for the Exodus and Noah's Ark...

 

But, when you get the chance, please provide details of the corroboration that you claim proves the Bible.

 

Here is contemporary evidence for Alexander the Great. Go ahead and provide something similar about Jesus for us. Or stop comparing real individuals to mythological ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KH> Very good. This is the stuff I like to see. But note that the point I am making is the first histories and bios of Alexander the Great are about 4 centuries after he lived. Not so with Christ.

 

Kevin H

Excuse me?

That particular history of Alexander was made almost at the time... Hell, the damn thing's a DIARY! You don't go making a diary 400 years after the event.

 

 

You really are trying to blind us with bullshit now, aren't you?

[MQTA]

How come the Bible doesn't have a Bibliography????

[Vigile]

 

KH> Very good. This is the stuff I like to see. But note that the point I am making is the first histories and bios of Alexander the Great are about 4 centuries after he lived. Not so with Christ.

 

Kevin H

 

*sigh*

 

why does this argument keep coming up? You would think that with my eternal soul on the line that evidence for the life of christ could at least be a bit more irrefutable. Whether or not Alex lived or was born of immaculate conception does not make a difference how I spend eternity. You claim however that the life of Jesus does make a difference yet here we are debating the issue because it is in fact not obvious that he ever lived or if he did that he was who many claim him to be.

 

So my question is, why are you grasping for straws when the very future of mankind rests on the question if you are right? You make an extraordinary claim, provide me with some extraordinary evidence or stop wasting our time.

[Kevin H]

To all the Lion's Den participants on this thread. I came here as a Christian interested in what "Ex-Christians" had to say. After testing the waters I have found some of you conversant on the issues.

 

However I have found much ignorance in the following areas:

 

1). Proof, certainty, and the nature of evidence.

 

2). Fictional vs. historical literature and genre.

 

3). Canonicity.

 

4). Cumulative case.

 

5). Hearsay evidence.

 

6). Josephus and the interpolations.

 

7). Alexander the Great and contemporary biographies.

 

8). Assuming Naturalism to prove naturalism.

 

9). Circular reasoning.

 

10). Corroboration as evidence.

 

11). Mythology

 

12). Sagan's Balance ("extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence").

 

13). Manuscript and textual criticism.

 

14). Dating of the Gospel of Thomas.

 

15). Requiring we know what a person looked like before accepting historicity (!).

 

 

So, I will take your advice and limit myself to the Arena. I will debate the following three topics in order.

 

 

A). Is Christianity Credible?

 

. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

 

C). Does God Exist?

 

 

If you're interested let me know or make a proposal in the Arena. I'm requesting this because most of you know this forum and I am a newbie. I have found Lloyd, Crazy Tiger, Mythra, and Pritishd to be knowledgeable and enthusiastic. I have sadly found most of you rude, angry, or hurting. I'm in good company. I can be those things as well.

 

But to be fair, a little about me. I have been debating for nearly 10 years online. I teach and lecture on Christian apologetics, theology, and philosophy. I produced and hosted a call-in radio show featuring the top thinkers in this field. I am currently producing and co-hosting a radio show hosted by Dr. William Lane Craig.

 

I have a lame website with great resources www.defendthefaith.com and you can read more about moi.

 

I am not interested in "grudge matches" or sophism. The issue is the identity of Christ, not winning debates. But, if you wish to make a fool of me and my faith, here's your chance!

 

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin H

[Vigile]

Dude, you are breaking my balls.

 

Give me a break.

 

You come in here with this as your evidence:

 

KH> I try not to ever use circular logic. I have given lines of evidence to support various views here. Each line of evidence can be examined and fleshed out individually.

 

So I'll do it for the Bible. Here are some lines of evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration.

 

1). There is good reason to believe God exists.

 

2). The New Testament documents are reliable.

 

3). Being reliable, they reliably report the life and words of Christ.

 

4). Examing the earliest reports and traditions on Jesus we can conclude he was a unique man who performed miracles, fulfilled prophecies, led a sinless life, and rose from the dead.

 

5). Therefore we can conclude Jesus was the divine Son of God and the predicted Messiah.

 

6). As such, he is authoritative in all he affirms.

 

7). In the New Testament documents, which are reliable, we have Jesus recorded as affirming the Old Testament as the word of God and promising the inspired New Testament.

 

8). Therefore, on the authority of Christ, we can affirm the Bible is the word of God.

 

9). The Bible as a whole has an amazing unity for its timespan, contains fulfilled prophecies, has archeological confirmation, and the confirmation of textual criticism, etc. IOW, the Bible holds up well under scrutiny.

 

10). Therefore, as a cumulative case, we can conclude that the Bible is the word of God.

 

And then you have the nerve to tell us that we don't understand the meaning of evidence and basically insult our intellectual capacity. I'm happy you found a few friends to play with here, but seriously, what have you brought to the table. Back up your claims to our ignorance by providing some meat to your argument. Again, you make extraordinary claims and then provide us with this shit? "There is good reason to believe God exists." Could have fooled me. What is that good reason oh great debator sir? We await your reply with bated breath.