Who Owns Truth Anyway ?

Originally posted by sonship

Well, let's see. I would like you to name another single book written on earth, which in as many words as you find concurring between Genesis chapters one and 10 tells us this many things:

1.) the origin of the heavens and the earth
2.) the origin of living things
3.) the origin of the creation of human beings
4.) the origin of a seven day week
5.) the origin of the institution of marriage
6.) the names of the first man and woman
7.) the origin of the design of man
8.) the origin of the names of the animals
9.) the origin of sin and wrong doing
10.) the origin of death
11.) the origin of clothing
12.) the origin of the first worship of God
13.) the origin of the first man-made religion
14.) the first murder
15.) the first city built
16.) the origin of musical performance
12.) the origin of workers with metals
13.) the origin of agriculture industry
14.) the origin of polygamy
15.) the origin of calling on God by name
16.) the longest living man
17.) the reason for divine judgment
18.) the first record of divine salvation from divine judgment
19.) the origin of human government
20.) the origin of monotheism
21.) the origin of the diversity of human languages
22.) the origin of the scatter and spread of people over the earth

How exactly do you argue that this list of 22 things is evidence of divine inspiration?

Originally posted by sonship

Am glad you are looking to spend more time on this issue. Perhaps you have realised it is not such a minor issue after all?

What is more significant is the personality, character, words, impact, and expression of [b] Jesus. I mean "We don't know where He was born" is not a question of no signifcance. But if you don't take what it ...[text shortened]... one[/i] book that tells man as much in as many words as the book of Genesis 1 through 11.[/b]

Just because the bible gives you answers to these questions doesn't make the answers right. In fact, a cursory glance though your list reveals that a lot of the answers given in the bible to these questions are obviously wrong. If it were actually inspired by the one true god, surely they'd all be correct?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Just because the bible gives you answers to these questions doesn't make the answers right. In fact, a cursory glance though your list reveals that a lot of the answers given in the bible to these questions are obviously wrong. If it were actually inspired by the one true god, surely they'd all be correct?

The standing question IS what other writing of one book tells us as many things.

Well you can give me your top two or three things I mentioned that you know without a shadow of a doubt, are just wrong.

It is not enough to say "I don't believe that because there is this other theory."

What do you know is factually wrong about my list of revelations from God.

I know about Lucy's bones.
Doesn't mean there was not a first man and a first woman the names of which God tells us.

I know about the Big Bang cosmology.
Doesn't mean God did not "[create] the heavens and the earth" in the beginning.

I know languages is a intricate field of study.
Doesn't mean all mankind could not have started with one common language.

i am going to go by what we are told and how we are told it.
Interpretation of ancient Hebrew may be up to debate on certain matters.

So what is known to you to be factually wrong about the things I mentioned?
A keyword there is "KNOWN" " to be factually wrong " there.

Originally posted by sonship
What do you know is factually wrong about my list of [22] revelations from God.

On what basis are you asserting that they are "revelations from God"?

Originally posted by sonship
The standing question IS what other writing of one book tells us as many things.

Well you can give me your top two or three things I mentioned that you [b]know without a shadow of a doubt, are just wrong.

It is not enough to say "I don't believe that because there is this other theory."

What do you know is factually wrong about ...[text shortened]... bout the things I mentioned?
A keyword there is "KNOWN" " to be factually wrong " there.[/b]

There really is no point in you and I having this discussion. You just go ahead and believe all that stuff, and good luck to you.

Originally posted by sonship

Am glad you are looking to spend more time on this issue. Perhaps you have realised it is not such a minor issue after all?

What is more significant is the personality, character, words, impact, and expression of [b] Jesus. I mean "We don't know where He was born" is not a question of no signifcance. But if you don't take what it ...[text shortened]... at tells man as much in as many words as the book of Genesis 1 through 10 (maybe 11 too).[/b]

Well, as you tender the bible, clearly works of fiction are acceptable. My candidate would therefore be Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the ring.

If you require a more sensible response, then what about the Koran or Vedas? Have you pondered at great length these religious writings, if only to discount them?

Originally posted by FMF
If you don't think the purpose of the Bible was to establish a framework for social and moral order by way of a set of rules and beliefs, then you should just come out and say so.

Your wretched and beggarly claims stand refuted by history. I suggest that you take your medicine and suck it up.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
There really is no point in you and I having this discussion. You just go ahead and believe all that stuff, and good luck to you.

Bye.
I sure don't need your "luck."

Originally posted by sonship
Bye.
I sure don't need your "luck."

Your nobility and charm humbles us all, I'm sure.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Your nobility and charm humbles us all, I'm sure.

Ok now that the claim 'the bible was written for political purposes' has been soundly refuted do you dissenters have any more truth claims?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok now that the claim 'the bible was written for political purposes' has been soundly refuted do you dissenters have any more truth claims?

The claim I made was that "the purpose of the Bible was to establish a framework for social and moral order by way of a set of rules and beliefs". If you believe you have refuted this, you might want to point out the post in which you did so. As far as I can make out, you were carefully ignoring what I was saying for several pages and just talking past me. That is not what 'to refute' means.

Originally posted by FMF
The claim I made was that "the purpose of the Bible was to establish a framework for social and moral order by way of a set of rules and beliefs". If you believe you have refuted this, you might want to point out the post in which you did so. As far as I can make out, you were carefully ignoring what I was saying for several pages and just talking past me. That is not what 'to refute' means.

Whatever you say dude. It was sufficient for me to show that both the Bible and history demonstrate that rather than be written for political purposes (denigrated to politics with a small p) the bible was infact written as far as Christians are concerned to get out of politics. This you claimed was due to a peculiar interpretation of the text specific to Jehovahs Witnesses and when shown the historical evidence for the stance your claim was exposed for the fabrication that it proved to be and melted away into cyber space like mascara on a rainy day.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...the bible was infact written as far as Christians are concerned to get out of politics.

Tell you what robbie. Go back and find the post of mine where I have made the claim about the Bible that you are referring to and repost it verbatim here and then repost your supposed refutation of it underneath.

I don't think you have even acknowledged or addressed what my actually claim is, let alone refuted it. But if you present them one after the other, we shall see.

Originally posted by FMF
Tell you what robbie. Go back and find the post of mine where I have made the claim about the Bible that you are referring to and repost it verbatim here and then repost your supposed refutation of it underneath.

I don't think you have even acknowledged or addressed what my actually claim is, let alone refuted it. But if you present them one after the other, we shall see.

I have addressed it, you inadvertently blurted out that the belief that Christians were not to be part of the political system was due to a particular interpretation of scripture specific to Jehovah's Witnesses and history stood up and testified against you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have addressed it, you inadvertently blurted out that the belief that Christians were not to be part of the political system was due to a particular interpretation of scripture specific to Jehovah's Witnesses and history stood up and testified against you.

Repost my claim about the purpose of the Bible.
And repost your refutation of it underneath.
Easily done and it will settle it.
If you have refuted my claim, it will be clear.