Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It wouldn't be to just an individual, everyone would read it. Which is what is happening now. No it doesn't, it validates the harmony of the Bible, which presents no truth. It is impossible for you to verify anything that the bible says has happened, because they never did, and there is no evidence for them. Harmony of the Bible is not dependant on theology alone. The theology presented in the Bible is dependant on the truth it talks about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Prove it - or debate Asimov - you've reached a crossroads here, Sub. We're not letting you off the hook. The questions you ignore will keep coming back to you. We want you to be honest with yourself, so PROVE what you are saying. That - or release yourself from this thread and do the debate..... I am merely defending my faith in God and Christ as my Savoir. No need for a 1 on 1 debate, ask them here. I have literally answered dozens of questions already. That is the point of this thread, so go ahead and ask, no crossroads but a straight path, none of you have put me on a hook because the truth I am telling you sets me free! Answering questions is not a debate. You have presented no truth or knowledge. Knowledge must be demonstrated to be true before you can claim it as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 No it doesn't use the theory of evolution to explain why Noah didn't have to get as many animals on the Ark. Yes, it actually does. I just listened to the debate with the unltra fundi guy from Dinoland amusement park and he said exactly those words. He just believes that evolution does happen within a species (or "Kinds"), but not from species to species. I'll provide the link to the debate if you require proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I will argue the principle of what you are saying. I find your statement above to be extremely flawed. How are you getting these infallible, "spot-on" interpretations, through an angel of God whispering to you? You are stating as fact what no theologian or scholar has ever claimed to able to do, and rightly so, which is claiming to find the one, and only one interpretation for everything! If I am mistaken in reading what you're saying here, then please, I'd like to see where you actually feel there may be several possible ways to read something, even though you may feel one interpretation may be more supportable than another? If you say you feel this way, or can show me you've said that, it will make a difference. Otherwise, how can any sane, rational human being accept you as the perfect interpreter of God's word? If you mean exactly what statement above says, I have to say you sound completely self-delusional. No real scholar ever speaks in such absolutes! I hope I'm just reading your words too literally? Please tell me I am? It is spot-on for a Christian interpretation. I am asking you to challenge me on that statement, so go ahead and do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I am merely defending my faith in God and Christ as my Savoir. No need for a 1 on 1 debate, ask them here. I have literally answered dozens of questions already. That is the point of this thread, so go ahead and ask, no crossroads but a straight path, none of you have put me on a hook because the truth I am telling you sets me free! Honestly, I hope you hold on to your faith sub. I feel you are one of the many that need it in order to survive. Some people need to have something concrete to base the purpose of their life on and they would fall apart emotionally if anything happened to it. Keep the faith... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Harmony of the Bible is not dependant on theology alone. The theology presented in the Bible is dependant on the truth it talks about. It's not even dependant on theology, sub_zer0. It's dependant upon plot consistency. The truth of your theology is dependant upon factual representation of historical events, which it does not contain. In order to show the bible is true, you cannot presuppose it is true. In doing so, you ignore anything that possibly contradicts with what the bible says (which you admit you have done). You're putting the cart before the horse, and committing a fallacy, sub_zer0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It is spot-on for a Christian interpretation. I am asking you to challenge me on that statement, so go ahead and do it. If so, then you speak for all Christians? Do they accept you as their interpreter of scripture for them?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Prove it - or debate Asimov - you've reached a crossroads here, Sub. We're not letting you off the hook. The questions you ignore will keep coming back to you. We want you to be honest with yourself, so PROVE what you are saying. That - or release yourself from this thread and do the debate..... I am merely defending my faith in God and Christ as my Savoir. No need for a 1 on 1 debate, ask them here. I have literally answered dozens of questions already. That is the point of this thread, so go ahead and ask, no crossroads but a straight path, none of you have put me on a hook because the truth I am telling you sets me free! OK... Then..... answer my question: Here is what I do to solve my little problem that you think I face. You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth. Than anything that contradicts that on major doctrinal issues isn't the truth. Simple as that! "You see I take the presupposition that the Bible is the only truth." PROVE IT ... Prove to us that the Bible is the only truth!!!!! Don't just say it, PROVE IT. By what authority, outside the Bible, can you prove that the Bible is the "ONLY TRUTH"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It's not even dependant on theology, sub_zer0. It's dependant upon plot consistency. The truth of your theology is dependant upon factual representation of historical events, which it does not contain. In order to show the bible is true, you cannot presuppose it is true. In doing so, you ignore anything that possibly contradicts with what the bible says (which you admit you have done). You're putting the cart before the horse, and committing a fallacy, sub_zer0. I sure can presuppose it is true and in doing so anything that contradicts it is not true. That is how I veiw it and how it is supposed to be viewed. By what authority, outside the Bible, can you prove that the Bible is the "ONLY TRUTH"? Again, you name it, archeology and history both validate the Bible in many ways. If so, then you speak for all Christians? Do they accept you as their interpreter of scripture for them?? By Christian you mean they have a relationship with Christ and believe the Bible is Gods Word, etc, etc, then YES! Again, it isn't them accepting me it is what Christianity is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It is spot-on for a Christian interpretation. I am asking you to challenge me on that statement, so go ahead and do it. If so, then you speak for all Christians? Do they accept you as their interpreter of scripture for them?? Let me restate my question: Do all Christians concur with your interpretation of scripture? Yes or No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 And he never saw it. That is exactly my point. He won't see it...he can't see it. It's not his fault. My point as well. Evolution never happened and was not needed to repopulate the earth after the flood. I understand that you understand it that way. But that is not what I meant. NotBlinded... that is why this is so sad Everyone knew what you meant except Sub. And - you know that is why we are pressing him, don't you? I'm not trying to be mean here... but .... man ... he came to this forum. He's been here for many days now. Something inside his skull (or heart) must be wanting a wake up call. Yes, maybe you are right, but what might happen to him if he answers that call? Is there someone with him to help him? I try to place my family where he is and what would happen to them if I took away their faith...somehow. I don't know if I would be able to support them through it. Although he is here (someplace that certain members of my family would never be), I can't help but wonder if he is ready. Maybe though you do have a point. If he is not ready now, maybe he can look back on this experience someday and gain wisdom from it. Being here is a path he has chosen to take. Okay...I agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It is spot-on for a Christian interpretation. I am asking you to challenge me on that statement, so go ahead and do it. If so, then you speak for all Christians? Do they accept you as their interpreter of scripture for them?? Hell no ... I do not accept Sub as interpreter of scripture for me, or for 90 fricken percent of the Biblical scholars who view documentary hypothesis as valid. You're on your own, Sub.... you're interpretations wouldn't hold water in the average seminary discussion. Hell they wouldn't hold water in my mainstream congregation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I sure can presuppose it is true and in doing so anything that contradicts it is not true. That is how I veiw it and how it is supposed to be viewed. And I would bet that this is the only area of your life that you live by this principle. If not, there is no way you could ever be wrong about anything and you could get yourself killed that way. What if you presupposed bleach to be good for drinking and nothing anyone else said about it was heeded by you because you presupposed it was safe? Life doesn't work like that sub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It is spot-on for a Christian interpretation. I am asking you to challenge me on that statement, so go ahead and do it. If so, then you speak for all Christians? Do they accept you as their interpreter of scripture for them?? Hell no ... I do not accept Sub as interpreter of scripture for me, or for 90 fricken percent of the Biblical scholars who view documentary hypothesis as valid. You're on your own, Sub.... you're interpretations wouldn't hold water in the average seminary discussion. Hell they wouldn't hold water in my mainstream congregation. Sub, is OM a Christian? If so, why does OM disagree with you. If no, please tell OM why the relationship with Christ in this person's life is invalid in your eyes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Why don't you guys change my mind. Make the Bible say something else that it doesn't mean to convince me some more.... ;p We could do that... But we're letting you do that to the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Why don't you guys change my mind. Make the Bible say something else that it doesn't mean to convince me some more.... ;p We could do that... But we're letting you do that to the Bible. That's funny. Actually Sub, why don't you ask it this way, "why don't we make it say something other than what I see it saying"? It sounds too arrogant the way you stated it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It is spot-on for a Christian interpretation. I am asking you to challenge me on that statement, so go ahead and do it. Then be so kind as to explain why there are so many different types of Christian and why they all interpret it in a different way... You're either going to ignore this, claim there is no difference, or insist that they aren't "True Christians" One thing you won't do, is admit that you're wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I sure can presuppose it is true and in doing so anything that contradicts it is not true. That is how I veiw it and how it is supposed to be viewed. Then you are not presenting truth, but your own personal belief. Since you are unable to present it as true, you fail in showcasing your theology. Again, you name it, archeology and history both validate the Bible in many ways. It validates that the places and names in some of the events depicted in the bible is accurate, it doesn't validate that the Bible is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 It is spot-on for a Christian interpretation. I am asking you to challenge me on that statement, so go ahead and do it. Then be so kind as to explain why there are so many different types of Christian and why they all interpret it in a different way... You're either going to ignore this, claim there is no difference, or insist that they aren't "True Christians" One thing you won't do, is admit that you're wrong... Would you stop using your power of prophecy CT! You know that really scares me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 By what authority, outside the Bible, can you prove that the Bible is the "ONLY TRUTH"? Again, you name it, archeology and history both validate the Bible in many ways. You keep saying archeaology and history validate literal interpretation of the Bible in many ways. And yet you bring nothing concrete to the discussion. Go get the archealogical evidence ... Sub... please do. Before you do though, you best keep in mind that I am a major history buff. My book case is plumb full of books on ancient archeaology. Starting from the earliest civilizations in the Middle East - at Sumer - and going through the entire period in which the Bible was written. They don't just sit on the book case either, Sub. They get use. So don't come in here with any pansy theology that you "presuppose" is truth. You're better off with Asimov - he displays more compassion for you than I can muster at this point in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Again, you name it, archeology and history both validate the Bible in many ways. Both archeology and history validate the Illiad in many ways... Both archeology and history validate the Gone with the Wind in many ways... Both archeology and history validate the Torah in many ways... (which, by the way, is not the same as the OT... the OT is nothing more than an interpretation of the Torah to fit it in with Xtian beliefs) It's extremely common to pepper a work of fiction with real-life references... but those references don't make the fiction true. Give us something else, something that isn't used by works of fiction to lend credability to themselves, that validates the Bible. Would you stop using your power of prophecy CT! You know that really scares me... Hey, since I'm making prophecies and they keep coming true, does this mean I've got a direct line to God? I sure can presuppose it is true and in doing so anything that contradicts it is not true. That is how I veiw it and how it is supposed to be viewed. And what proof do you have that it's supposed to be viewed that way? I ask simply because we had a merry old time debating about whether it was supposed to be literal or metaphorical... (ie, not true, just telling you a story with a message hidden inside it) So, what's your proof? (you're gonna use the Bible as proof, aren't you?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 By what authority, outside the Bible, can you prove that the Bible is the "ONLY TRUTH"? Again, you name it, archeology and history both validate the Bible in many ways. You keep saying archeaology and history validate literal interpretation of the Bible in many ways. And yet you bring nothing concrete to the discussion. Go get the archealogical evidence ... Sub... please do. Before you do though, you best keep in mind that I am a major history buff. My book case is plumb full of books on ancient archeaology. Starting from the earliest civilizations in the Middle East - at Sumer - and going through the entire period in which the Bible was written. They don't just sit on the book case either, Sub. They get use. So don't come in here with any pansy theology that you "presuppose" is truth. You're better off with Asimov - he displays more compassion for you than I can muster at this point in my life. Ah O-M..... you make me nostalgic. A few months ago we had a different visitor.....much like Sub. I just kept posting the same request/demand/insistance..... PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD. Over and over again. *sigh* And to see a Christian make the same request of another christian makes me feel very warm and fuzzy. He can't do it by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 sub_zer0, it appears that you have made a number of assertions that are unsupported by you: 1) That Christianity is true. 2) That Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. 3) That archaeology and history (Do you mean historical writings?) support the validity of the bible. 4) That a global flood occured. 5) That evolution does not occur. 6) That the Bible is entirely true. So...I have to ask, when are you going to back up anything you say? Are you going to keep ignoring our requests and run the risk of looking like a fool? Once again, sub_zer0, I am not making any claims to my intelligence or ability to debate. I am not automatically declaring victory or assuming that I'm right. You are. Allow me to ask you a question: Are you interested in bringing people to Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I sure can presuppose it is true and in doing so anything that contradicts it is not true. That is how I veiw it and how it is supposed to be viewed.May I ask why? I'm not asking you to prove to me why I should, I just wonder why you presuppose The Bible to be the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Ah O-M..... you make me nostalgic. A few months ago we had a different visitor.....much like Sub. I just kept posting the same request/demand/insistance..... PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD. Over and over again. *sigh* And to see a Christian make the same request of another christian makes me feel very warm and fuzzy. He can't do it by the way. Thanks White_Raven...You're right ... he can't. I appreciate the compliment, but it's hard to feel anything but saddness mixed with anger. QUOTE(sub_zer0 @ Feb 9 2006, 10:35 PM) I sure can presuppose it is true and in doing so anything that contradicts it is not true. That is how I veiw it and how it is supposed to be viewed. I don't know if that statement speaks more to arogance or ignorance. Either way - if he's for real - he's got BIG problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts