Jump to content


Photo

Is The Bible God's Word?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 March 2017 - 02:19 PM

 

Piasan: Quantity does not mean quality.   In the US, we have a phrase:  "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull ****."

 

One of the most eloquent speeches in US history, Lincoln's Gettysburg address, was only 272 words.

 

But sometimes a lack of quantity removes the presence of any reasoning. For example if I say to you, 2no you are wrong", it simply isn't possible for such a short response to contain a counter-argument.

 

To reason your case you have to explain things, it is unavoidable. Even your post for example just now, took some reasoning to explain what you meant. You had to give an example, etc...but it seems to me Driewerf doesn't do anything except state things in short sentences.

 

That was the point I was making. I wasn't saying that my posts were of fantastic quality, I just think it is pretty unjust when someone provides over a thousand words of explanation and is basically replied to with a flippant fart in the face, because D's posts are quite frankly, contentless, 90% of the time.

 

Secondly, assuming you believe the bible is God's word, wouldn't a topic like this be the perfect place to support the position of defending the bible as God's word, if you believe in it, rather than arguing with the one making a case that it is God's word.

 

Assuming you believe the bible is God's word, because it seems you have made no comment on that, and have only defended an anti-theist that says it isn't His word.

 

 

 

Piasan: Another example.... in another discussion you had claimed accelerated nuclear decay.  You could have gone on for hundreds to thousands of words posting creationist research supporting such decay.  But I could still dismantle the claim with a couple dozen words from the leader of the R.A.T.E. project who pointed out that such decay would melt the planet.

 

:burp:



#22 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 07 March 2017 - 01:45 AM

Daisy, I've never heard of a Christian-atheist before. Care to explain that one for me? :think:

 

(welcome to the forum.)

 

(then again, there are the theistic evolutionists of course.

:rotfl3: 

:cry:

 

 

To be theist and accept science is not mutually exclusive. See Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Robert Bakker, George Lemaitre, Gregor Mendel and many others. Bakker, Lemaitre and Mendel are/were even members of the clergy.



#23 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 07 March 2017 - 07:22 AM

Driewerf the one-liner king, as predicted.

 

 

That's all you seem to do Driewerf - make  bare assertions to the contrary, without showing how any of the details of what I have said, are wrong. The reader is just supposed to GRANT that you are correct, by your mere utterance of words.

 

 

So now you're using "alternative facts". The real fact is that I have given  a concise reason why a certain argument is irrelevant of invalid: because the poster is simply repeating what is to be demonstrated, the argument applies to non-divine texts also or because you use circular reasoning.

It's not always necessary to use much words for that.

Big text walls are often used for hiding a lack of arguments, rather than for presenting an argument in a clear way.



#24 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 08 March 2017 - 12:47 PM

My personal perspective is that the Bible cannot be proved (using science) to be God's word. Or maybe it can, but I can't think of any possible way that it could ever be proved. 

 

The only way to know it is God's word is to follow these basic steps:

 

a) read it

b ) study it

c) apply its teachings

d) see if the teachings are good - "by their fruits ye shall know them"

e) pray about it - God may speak to your heart and tell you that it is His word

 

Once you've obtained a witness that the Bible is good and wonderful, you can begin to use faith that it is God's word.

 

TL;DR:

If you attempt to find scientific proof that the Bible is God's word before believing in it, you are missing the point.


  • piasan likes this

#25 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 March 2017 - 02:23 PM

Driewerf isn't looking for scientific proof. He was offered some very good extra-biblical evidence in the form of a video he did not watch and chooses to only focus on his strawman fallacy that I am in fact arguing "that the bible is the word of God because it says so". That wasn't even my argument!

 

See how he focuses on the one little point he thinks favours him but ignores the extra-biblical evidence I argued, which was mostly what my argument was focused on.

 

Driewerf is a bit of a troll, he ignores all of the valid points in a post and latches on to the things he thinks he can argue, which are to his advantage. 

 

As I said before, I offered evidence for his request, and I asked for him to provide evidence against the bible being God's word. He has none - he is playing the game of, "prove your innocence, go on, prove it...no I won't accept that as evidence, now provide some more!"

 

Notice the art of his naive game? It is to never place the burden of proof upon his own claims. He thinks therefore that if we don't have evidence the bible is God's word that it then follows that it isn't, or so he implies by taking the position he is taking, which means he basically only has an argument-from-ignorance.

 

Example;

 

"there is no evidence he is guilty of the crime, therefore he is innocent."

 

Driewerf's argument, though he hasn't perhaps stated it is this;

 

"there is no evidence in my opinion of the bible being God's word therefore it isn't so prove it is."

 

That way he avoids having to back up his own claim it isn't. 

 

Even if there was no evidence the bible is God's word, this isn't enough to infer that it isn't. (Argumentum ad ignorantiam)

 

So until Driewerf answers my request, instead of ignoring all of the salient points of that post where I provided archaeological evidence, then he won't fool me by ignoring my comments.

 

His little trick is to go silent for a day or so, or a period of time, then he comes back when he thinks I'm not there anymore and repeats his stupid ad nauseam SPAM in the hope I will forget the points I made. :rolleyes:

 

Since he is silent, we can only assume he accepts that Joshua's alter on Mt Ebal is indeed evidence for the bible, and all the other examples I have given.

 

Eddified, you are correct, we can't prove the bible but we can provide evidence that would be expected to exist if the bible was true, which is consistent confirmation-evidence. For example if the bible is false, why would we find Joshua's altar where the bible said it was located, with the remains of hundreds of bones of the type of animals the bible said were sacrificed? Why would we find the city of David and Hezekiah's tunnels if the bible is fabrication?

 

No, this doesn't prove the bible is God's word but it does show it is reliable. 

 

So then Driewerf's argument is what I refer to as a rigged dice. His tactic is a red-herring, to get us running around looking for evidence the bible is certainly God's word, knowing that it is not possible for us to find such consequential evidence.

 

This is not clever, but he thinks all of these predictable little tactics prove a great deal. All he has proven is that he wants to state the bible isn't God's word, but he has to provide evidence of his claim.



#26 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 08 March 2017 - 03:00 PM

My personal perspective is that the Bible cannot be proved (using science) to be God's word. Or maybe it can, but I can't think of any possible way that it could ever be proved.

 That's an honest answer, and I respect that. Really. But I hope you understand that this disqualifies the bible as an argument against the ToE, the age of the Earth, or any other scientific discussion. Some creationists, (Ken Ham, for example) dismiss any scientific finding they don't like with as only reason that it contradicts the binble ("fallible man's word against god's word").

 

The only way to know it is God's word is to follow these basic steps:
 
a) read it
b ) study it
c) apply its teachings
d) see if the teachings are good - "by their fruits ye shall know them"
e) pray about it - God may speak to your heart and tell you that it is His word
 
Once you've obtained a witness that the Bible is good and wonderful, you can begin to use faith that it is God's 

 I will kindly decline the offer.

TL;DR:
If you attempt to find scientific proof that the Bible is God's word before believing in it, you are missing the point.

 

Fine, as long as the bible wont be used in a scientific discussion.



#27 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 807 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 08 March 2017 - 03:03 PM

I'm sincerely interested in what skeptics think of the heptatic structure of the Bible as shown in the two shorter videos I posted above.

 

I'm particularly interested in hearing from someone who has dealt with data or software and who has relied on CRC or some other authentication tool for checking the integrity of their work.

 

Here are the YouTube links again. I'm not sure why they are not embedded. Possibly it's because they are older videos.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=flbaJfRwYxM

https://www.youtube....h?v=pxYwLvtnoyc

 

Please view the videos. They aren't long, nor are they "preachy."

 

A couple of things to think about when viewing the videos.

 

1) How could this authentication process be so consistent across 66 books by 40 authors over thousands of years without having some kind of external intervention?

 

2) Are there any other ancient documents that can be authenticated anywhere near as well?

 

3) What would it take to recreate this heptatic phenomenon across, say, the complete works of Shakespeare?

 

4) What other explanation could there be other than that the Bible is indeed God's literal word?



#28 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 08 March 2017 - 04:02 PM

 

Fine, as long as the bible wont be used in a scientific discussion.

OK, as long as you agree to keep wild speculation out of scientific discussions as well. This includes evolutionary theory.  :rotfl3:

 

I actually think the Theory of Evolution is falsified on *scientific* grounds alone. However those discussions are off topic in this particular thread.

 

@driewerf, it seems you are on the wrong forum. Have you checked out talk origins? <chuckle>



#29 eddified

eddified

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Mormon
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Utah

Posted 08 March 2017 - 04:08 PM

Oops, did I just break forum rules? Quote from "The Bible" forum rules:

 

non-Christians are not permitted to directly answer questions submitted in the opening post (non-Christians include Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses)[1], or otherwise present from a Bible advocacy position.

 

 

Specifically, by supporting the Bible did I "present form a Bible advocacy position?". If I broke the rules, I'm sorry. Please don't ban me, I'll be more careful in the future. Haha.



#30 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 14 March 2017 - 08:43 AM

OK, as long as you agree to keep wild speculation out of scientific discussions as well. This includes evolutionary theory.  :rotfl3:

 

I actually think the Theory of Evolution is falsified on *scientific* grounds alone. However those discussions are off topic in this particular thread.

 

@driewerf, it seems you are on the wrong forum. Have you checked out talk origins? <chuckle>

The ToE is no speculation but has firmly been established through 150 years of scientific research.



#31 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,541 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 31 March 2017 - 10:38 AM

My personal perspective is that the Bible cannot be proved (using science) to be God's word. Or maybe it can, but I can't think of any possible way that it could ever be proved. 

 

The only way to know it is God's word is to follow these basic steps:

 

a) read it

b ) study it

c) apply its teachings

d) see if the teachings are good - "by their fruits ye shall know them"

e) pray about it - God may speak to your heart and tell you that it is His word

 

Once you've obtained a witness that the Bible is good and wonderful, you can begin to use faith that it is God's word.

 

 

Hi eddified... There is only one problem with your list, item (e). This is contrary to what the Bible says to do. This is a well-known Mormon tactic that has been very effective. A co-worker friend and former Mormon made me aware of this, and since then I see and hear it all the time. The problem is that anyone could write a book and claim its divine, ask the person to pray about it, and if they get a tingly feeling on the hairs of their neck you've won a convert. The Bible on the other hand implores people to do their research and look at the evidence (e.g. Luke 7:22, Acts 17:11, Romans 1:20, Heb 11:1, 2 Peter 1:16, etc). Nowhere does the Bible say to ask God if his Word is true and he'll speak it into your heart. 

 

I truly hope you apply the standard you've placed on driewerf and compare Christianity to Mormonism with an open mind and sincerity. It was the comparison of evidence for each that led my co-worker friend to switch to Christianity. For example, solid evidence Joseph Smith was a con man, scores of prophesies spoken by Mormon "prophets" that failed to come true, no credible historical evidence for the Book of Mormon, etc. The Bible on the other hand has an incontrovertible track record on all disciplines of history. The latest groundswell is the incredible evidence for the Exodus

 

FYI if I recall it was the contradictory DNA evidence that was the final straw for my friend (he recently passed at a young age of 55; I was very thankful he converted to Christianity later in his life because I know I'll see him again). 

 

Fred



#32 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,374 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 April 2017 - 02:26 AM

Thanks for the links Fred, your page looks interesting, I'll read some of your stuff.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users