25 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, you said so, but yet the one in the bible did. And if you think the bible is true, then either snakes does in fact talks or the bible is a fake. Which one is it?
i did not state that the snake was symbolic, i stated that snakes don't talk.
Okay, your turn.
25 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe has stated that textual integrity has nothing to do with accuracy of content
he has stated that there is no evidence that the content has not been altered, i have provided ample evidence to demonstrate that it has not, he made the statement, he will now demonstrate, evidence to the contrary, if he cannot then he should shut up. He has stated that textual integrity has nothing to do with accuracy of content (a rather feeble a ...[text shortened]... then he will shut up. The matter is quite clear in my mind, as for you noobsters, who can say?
Just because something has been copied accurately it doesn't automatically make it true does it? That's basic common sense.
You didn't answer my question as to why you think everybody else but you can easily follow this thread?
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is not I that lives in a fantasy world.
well then live your life by the principles contained in the lord of the rings, for God knows your posts contain as much fantasy.
It appears to me you don't know anything about scripture, your simply a mouth piece for your own prejudices, nothing surprising there.
I haven't claimed to know much about scripture. Knowledge of scripture is hardly relevant in this instance.
Isaiah has remained unchanged for thousand years, confirmed by archaeology (the dead sea scrolls), its text dated through scientific means, its contents subjected to analysis, the conclusion, the text is essentially the same as when it was penned.
Though I dispute your conclusion, the conclusion itself is not what I was getting at.
Your evidence to the contrary is non existent,..
True. I haven't given any evidence to the contrary, because I didn't challenge the claim.
....indeed, you reply with your usual nothingness with a straw man argument, it has nothing to do with accuracy of content, well ok, you will now state what content has been altered and on what basis that we are to accept that it has been altered and to state how it changes the meaning.
OK, so you are playing dumb are you? How many times must I point out that there is a difference between text that has not been altered and text that tells the truth? The text of this post was unaltered despite travelling thousands of kilometers between me and you, yet does that make its contents automatically true? How hard is it for you to see the difference?
If you cannot nor will not, you will stop wasting our precious seconds with these mundane arguments. You do not read scripture you have no interest in it and to be honest, you don't know anything about it. The worst kind of atheist or theist is that which projects his ignorance onto others in the name of reason, if you don't know anything about a subject then just shut up about it.
And that from the person who a few pages ago didn't want to talk to me because you thought I was being rude. 🙂
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobi am perfectly aware of that fact, it is not in dispute, well he has been afforded the opportunity to demonstrate which part is inaccurate, or untrue as you put it. where is it? shall he find it within the pages of the Lord of the Rings? shall he dig it up from the caves of Qumran? shall he quickly google some search for Biblical inaccuracies in the book of Isaiah and cut and paste them? I am amazed that someone who does not read scripture should be such an authority on it, are you not? What indeed would a confirmed atheist be doing reading scripture, please tell. I deny your assertion, that is why i never answered it.
[b]He has stated that textual integrity has nothing to do with accuracy of content
Just because something has been copied accurately it doesn't automatically make it true does it? That's basic common sense.
You didn't answer my question as to why you think everybody else but you can easily follow this thread?[/b]
25 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadit was not being rude, its simply a statement of fact which applies to me as to others, when we project our ignorance, i include myself in this, its hardly fitting nor fair, is it. If you are offended by my candid statements then i apologise, profusely! I take everything back a thousandfold and apologise for my behaviour, if your quick ill even go back and remove the offending text, with your permission of course 🙂
It is not I that lives in a fantasy world.
It appears to me you don't know anything about scripture, your simply a mouth piece for your own prejudices, nothing surprising there.
I haven't claimed to know much about scripture. Knowledge of scripture is hardly relevant in this instance.
Isaiah has remained unchanged for thousand years, conf on who a few pages ago didn't want to talk to me because you thought I was being rude. 🙂
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAgain you demonstrate deliberate obfuscation and flawed logic. I did not state that there was interpolation, I stated that you cannot rule it out. If presented with a 'prophecy' which cannot be proven to pre-date the events prophesied, the rational position is clearly to assume that it does not. And I find myself entirely unsurprised that the desert site of Babylon remains uninhabited to this day. As for learning that scripture is 'not a mundane thing to be treated as if it were ordinary', alas I must decline your kind exhortation. There are many sources of scripture, and I see nothing to recommend one from another so therefore will take the rational approach and judge them all suspect, all mundane.
Not so fast there oh great and illustrious putty cat, the very details of the prophecy itself lend to their credentials. Babylon remains uninhabited to this very day does it not? despite the efforts of world rulers like Saddam Hussain to try and rebuild it. It is nothing short of astonishing to be honest. Indeed what is the basis of the statement th ...[text shortened]... ordinary, no no, godbreathed my rational friend regardless of your most ardent protestations. 😉
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatoh you bad ol putty cat, nothing is ever concrete with you guys, everything is airy fairy, what if and maybe, its possible that, it could be the case, its reported that etc etc, its naught but non information masquerading as information for it purports to tell us something but in fact says nothing at all. Very shoddy journalism if you ask me. It may have been an interpolation, evidence nil! the prophesy may have been written before the event, evidence nil! there is nothing either logical, reasonable nor rationale for assuming a position without evidence, quite the contrary, its termed an assumption and at its very worst a prejudice. Your position is the same as Fabian, if an event can be demonstrated to have followed the laws of the natural world then it happened, if not, then it did not happen, basis for the assumption, zilch!
Again you demonstrate deliberate obfuscation and flawed logic. I did not state that there was interpolation, I stated that you cannot rule it out. If presented with a 'prophecy' which cannot be proven to pre-date the events prophesied, the rational position is clearly to assume that it does not. And I find myself entirely unsurprised that t ...[text shortened]... nother so therefore will take the rational approach and judge them all suspect, all mundane.
you would not be astonished if someone told you that in 200 years New York would be laid a desolate waste and uninhabited for evermore, man, even if a person did rise from the dead, it would not be enough for you sceptics!
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadOK let the text speak for it's self.
And I am willing to bet that to anyone but a believer, Isiah is vague at best too.
I must also point out that the claim that Jesus fulfilled those prophesies was largely made by writers who had read Isiah. eg the story of Jesus' birth was made up in order to try and fit him to the prophesy.
There is of course no archeological evidence of Jesus' virgin ...[text shortened]... an me announcing that I knew about 9/11 before it happened but didn't tell anyone till now.
Isaiah 9
Birth and Reign of the Prince of Peace
1But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish; in earlier times He treated the and of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on He shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles.
2The people who walk in darkness
Will see a great light;
Those who live in a dark land,
The light will shine on them.
3You shall multiply the nation,
You shall increase their gladness;
They will be glad in Your presence
As with the gladness of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
4For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders,
The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian.
5For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult,
And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire.
6For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.
Verse 6 can't be lightly dismissed
Taken from www.biblegateway.com version is NASB
Manny
25 Nov 10
And Isa 53
Isaiah 53
The Suffering Servant
1Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
3He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
7He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
8By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
9His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
10But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
11As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
12Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.
Can't dismiss this chapter at all. Who is this suffering servant? Read the gospel accounts. It's speaking of the Christ. lastly Isaiah was written about 1000 years before these events occurred.
Manny
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy dear Rob, until such a time as people can be relied on to tell the truth only, it seems to me that it is simply not rational to believe a second-hand account of a miracle. The logical, reasonable and rational approach is to doubt that which seems fantastic until it can be independently verified, and such verification is of course not possible with ancient scripture. This is not taking a position, it is quite the opposite. I fully accept the possibility that everything in the bible may be true, but I see no good reason to assume that it is! And let us not forget, if there is a god, it is he who endowed us with the gifts of logic and reason in the first place.
oh you bad ol putty cat, nothing is ever concrete with you guys, everything is airy fairy, what if and maybe, its possible that, it could be the case, its reported that etc etc, its naught but non information masquerading as information for it purports to tell us something but in fact says nothing at all. Very shoddy journalism if you ask me. It may ...[text shortened]... evermore, man, even if a person did rise from the dead, it would not be enough for you sceptics!
Incidentally, should I receive credible, independent verification that a person had risen from the dead, I would be most curious to learn more.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by menace71With respect, Manny, I have to disagree - I find no difficulty whatsoever in dismissing scripture in it's entirety for the reasons outlined in my last few posts to Robbie.
And Isa 53
Isaiah 53
The Suffering Servant
1Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearan ...[text shortened]... the Christ. lastly Isaiah was written about 1000 years before these events occurred.
Manny
25 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatthe line it has been drawn, the curse it has been caste, so be it! The only difference that i can see is that i am prepared to impute pure motives to the Bible writers, why, because i know they wrote in very candid terms about their failings as well as their success, time and again! Put it this way me ol china cup, if someone told you the truth about Babylon and it happened, or told you the truth about Tyre and it happened, or told you the truth about Jerusalem and it happened, would you not be inclined to believe them, a fourth or fifth time?
My dear Rob, until such a time as people can be relied on to tell the truth only, it seems to me that it is simply not rational to believe a second-hand account of a miracle. The logical, reasonable and rational approach is to doubt that which seems fantastic until it can be independently verified, and such verification is of course not possible wit ...[text shortened]... ndent verification that a person had risen from the dead, I would be most curious to learn more.
25 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat depends entirely on what they were telling me. If it involved flying unicorns, let's say, or dead people coming back to life - most probably not. Particularly so since we don't even know for sure who it is telling us these things. Or what else they may have said but which has since been forgotten.
the line it has been drawn, the curse it has been caste, so be it! The only difference that i can see is that i am prepared to impute pure motives to the Bible writers, why, because i know they wrote in very candid terms about their failings as well as their success, time and again! Put it this way me ol china cup, if someone told you the truth abo ...[text shortened]... ut Jerusalem and it happened, would you not be inclined to believe them, a fourth or fifth time?
edit: And I'm not even impugning the motives of these anonymous writers. They may have been mistaken, misinformed or exaggerated, all in good faith.
25 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatLol, ok cat dude, i see you will not be convinced, what if we discuss the fall of Tyre next, or Jerusalem next? or we can talk about anything you are desirous of.
That depends entirely on what they were telling me. If it involved flying unicorns, let's say, or dead people coming back to life - most probably not. Particularly so since we don't even know for sure who it is telling us these things. Or what else they may have said but which has since been forgotten.
edit: And I'm not even impugning the moti ...[text shortened]... onymous writers. They may have been mistaken, misinformed or exaggerated, all in good faith.
25 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell I'll be honest with you Rob, apart from a couple of cave sites in the Levant my knowledge of middle-eastern archaeology is pretty scant. And does it not seem to you that with our fundamentally different outlooks, any discussion on spiritual matters is likely to end in the same stale-mated position? That said, I have very much enjoyed this exchange of views and would be delighted to compare memes with you again should we discover a fruitful subject.
Lol, ok cat dude, i see you will not be convinced, what if we discuss the fall of Tyre next, or Jerusalem next? or we can talk about anything you are desirous of.