Questions about the Bible

MeridianFlight said:
I don't see how the odds rapidly increase when you suggest a supreme being. The issue is the supreme being isn't necessarily something that can be tested scientifically. Just because it can't be tested doesn't mean it isn't there. Of course, there are those that would argue that just because it can be tested doesn't mean it is there, but that's some trippy thinking. Mind projection. w00t.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I explained that already. :)

Want me to go through it again?
 
ChickenSoup said:
Whatever... just, whatever....
Click to expand...

Now that was a lovely response!

I'm glad you say it's not impossible, that's a good start ;) And I did just take a long hard look and I find ID to be more probable than THSK (the horrendous space kablooie) Where did the atoms that exploded come from? :confused: did they randomly appear at some point?
Click to expand...

Note that I never said it was impossible, just extremely improbable.

You say that you find ID probable. How did you come to that conclusion? Or are we working with the same, scientific definition of probable?

I don't find evolution to be very scientific
Click to expand...

If you mean macro evolution, then I agree with you.

If you mean micro evolution, then you are wholely ignoring proof, evidence, and facts.

Please specify

A man that has lost his vocal chords (I've seen pictures) can speak and sing very well. Why? (he visited our church btw)
Click to expand...

see "Anecdotal Evidence"

The big difference here is that I don't mind saying, "I don't know". I don't NEED to have all the answers, therefore I don't need to make up gods to explain lightning and thunder. There's a reason that gods were invented.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
I understand that one cannot prove/disprove the existence of God through the use of science. Please allow me to clarify.

You are claiming it is more probable that life occurred spontaneously than for it to have been created. What I'm asking is this: how do you quantify the probability that God exists? Is it a mathematical calculation, or is it simply the same anecdotal and experiential evidence that Christians use to justify their belief in God? If it's the latter, how can you justify that your opinion is any more valid than anyone else's on the subject?
Click to expand...

Ah, now I understand :)

It's a matter of extrapolation.

Before we can even begin estimating the odds of a god creating the universe, we have to estimate the probability that a being like that could exist.

Now we are finite beings so we must begin with what we know, ourselves.

The possibillity that humans exist is 100%. When you being to calculate the probability that a human or other being could exist with powers beyond ours, the odds become smaller and smaller. Now extend that probability to an omnimax being and you can see how dreadfully remote it is.

Now I will be the first to admit that I am no statistician or mathematician so feel free to set me straight.

How do you justify claiming that the existence of God is less probable than an accident occuring?
 
Dark Virtue said:
Ah, now I understand :)

It's a matter of extrapolation.

Before we can even begin estimating the odds of a god creating the universe, we have to estimate the probability that a being like that could exist.

Now we are finite beings so we must begin with what we know, ourselves.

The possibillity that humans exist is 100%. When you being to calculate the probability that a human or other being could exist with powers beyond ours, the odds become smaller and smaller. Now extend that probability to an omnimax being and you can see how dreadfully remote it is.

Now I will be the first to admit that I am no statistician or mathematician so feel free to set me straight.

How do you justify claiming that the existence of God is less probable than an accident occuring?
Click to expand...

The biggest problem I have with that theory is that bacteria have no way of knowing that humans exist. To a bacteria, it is a dreadfully remote possibility that something as complex and intelligent as a human can exist, yet here we are typing back and forth to each other.

To answer your question, the probability of Jesus fulfilling all of the 300+ Messianic prophecies outlined in the OT is similarly infinitesmal, yet He did. Beyond that, my evidence is anecdotal and experiential, with one extremely powerful experience that finally settled my doubts once and for all which I wrote about here, but I copied the relevant part for you below.

me said:
About 7 years ago, I had just gotten engaged to my wife, and I was in spiritual crisis. I wasn't sure whether God was real or not, whether my salvation was real, and whether I could trust the Bible. I eventually reached the point where it was consuming me, and the doubts circled in my mind, ready to move in for the kill. Out of the blue one day (I found out later it was the exact moment that my future wife was praying for me) I shouted to God, "Put these doubts out of my head! I choose, BY FAITH, to believe in You, to trust in Your salvation, and to trust Your word!"

At that point I heard a voice in my head, as clear as day, telling me to grab my guitar, get in my car and start driving. I drove north for about 30 miles, until I came across this small, rural church outside of Wesley Chapel, FL. I figured taht the reason I was supposed to bring my guitar was to worship God, so I grabbed it and sat on a rock in the field behind this church, and started playing. The first song I sang was entitled "Sweet Wind."

The first verse of the song paints a picture of God as the wind that sweeps across all the land, and as I started singing, a breeze swept across the field, just enough to cool me down a bit. The second verse paints the picture of God as the cooling rain, pouring over our spirit, and the cloud above me opened up a little bit and I was in a mist-like rain. At this point, I became a bit worried, because the third verse talked about God's holy fire!

Sure enough, as I started playing the third verse, the rain stopped, and the cloud that was covering the sun moved just enough to where I was covered in immensely bright sunlight. As I finished the song, a cloud rolled back in front of the sun. (To show God's sense of humor, after about 30 seconds of contemplating how amazing God is, He dumped about 6 inches of rain on me in about the time it took me to grab my guitar and run to my car.)

I don't know why God doesn't give everyone who earnestly seeks Him that kind of experience. I only know that God was so pleased by my decision to step out in faith for Him, that He provided me with the truth I so desperately sought.
Click to expand...
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
I don't know why God doesn't give everyone who earnestly seeks Him that kind of experience. I only know that God was so pleased by my decision to step out in faith for Him, that He provided me with the truth I so desperately sought.
Click to expand...

Are you at least willing to admit that, if God DOES exist, that he does NOT provide enough evidence to those that ask?

For every story of conversion like yours, there are an equal amount of deconversion stories. What does that mean?

Here's an example:

http://www.ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php
 
Barker has free will. His choice to deny salvation is his choice. In no way does that freewill choice negate the evidence. Romans 1 is clear that man is without excuse. Dan will still be judged and held accountable just like you and I.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Dan's arguments for 'losing his faith' are simply put: weak. The arguments that he clings to so tightly have been soundly refuted illustrating to the world his extreme talent in denying true bible scholarship by not applying elementary hermeneutics or textual criticism.

Back to the OP, the auotgraphical texts are indeed infallible and inerrant and were inspired/God breathed. I would encourage everyone to read more on the "Doctrine of Inerrancy," and if there are questions, please PM me for a more "real-time" discussion. It's a little hard to build discussions now that things are moderated. :)
 
Watcher said:
Barker has free will. His choice to deny salvation is his choice. In no way does that freewill choice negate the evidence. Romans 1 is clear that man is without excuse. Dan will still be judged and held accountable just like you and I.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Dan's arguments for 'losing his faith' are simply put: weak. The arguments that he clings to so tightly have been soundly refuted illustrating to the world his extreme talent in denying true bible scholarship by not applying elementary hermeneutics or textual criticism.

Back to the OP, the auotgraphical texts are indeed infallible and inerrant and were inspired/God breathed. I would encourage everyone to read more on the "Doctrine of Inerrancy," and if there are questions, please PM me for a more "real-time" discussion. It's a little hard to build discussions now that things are moderated. :)
Click to expand...

Would you mind supplying me with these sound refutations?

Thanks.
 
I believe I've already addressed the inerrancy of the bible in earlier discussions.

To sum up long arguments. It ain't.
 
Eon said:
I believe I've already addressed the inerrancy of the bible in earlier discussions.

To sum up long arguments. It ain't.
Click to expand...

Oh?

Please link the thread...I'd love to reply.
 
Dark Virtue said:
Would you mind supplying me with these sound refutations?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Well most of what Barker does is simply argue from outrage, but a stellar example is his claim that Jesus was a "donkey thief."

Luke 19:29-34 "Jesus sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."

Barker wants to accuse Jesus of condoning the thieving of a donkey but this raises the question of if the disciples were truly stealing the colt on Jesus' behalf, commiting such a criminal act would have surley sparked outrage by the owners.

Owner - Hey, why are you loosing my colt there buddy?

Disciples - The Lord needs him

Owner - Oh, well certainly, he's all yours!


Another is the alleged crucifixion hour contradiction by John:

Barker argues that Mark reports the crucifixion at the third hour (Mark 15:25) and John says the sixth. The reality that seems to have passed Barker by is that Mark and the other synoptics are using Jewish time (sunset to sunset - third hour = 9am) and John is using Roman time, which is like our time (sixth hour = 6am). He also fails to note that John says about the sixth hour; he's estimating). We know from the synoptics that the crucifixion took over 6 hours. John's time was not a contradiction at all.



There are many more but I'm off to bed. :)
 
The donkey thing is a bit piddley, don't you think? God committed worse atrocities in the OT. I won't lose any sleep on taking a donkey. After all, the Lord did need it :)

As far as the hour of the cruxifiction, I'm sure you know full well that anything and everything having to do with the cruxifiction and the resurrection is up to interpretation. You can find a handful of wellmeaning scholars to support any time and any day.

Now if they ALL believed the same thing, that would be a different story.
 
Well God owns everything (since He is, after all, God), and you can't steal what is already yours, so, yeah. Donkey argument doesn't tell me anything
 
I affirm that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in God's providence can be ascertained from the manuscripts that are available today with great accuracy.

I also affirm that the translations and copies of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
 
Watcher said:
I affirm that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. Inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in God's providence can be ascertained from the manuscripts that are available today with great accuracy.

I also affirm that the translations and copies of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
Click to expand...

Are you a lawyer? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top