Religion

Father Forgive Him For He Knows Not What He Says...

The Bible is a bunch of uncited garbage. You're telling me to examine the Bible as if it's fact, while it itself cannot prove anything that it says. Maybe I should study Dianetics (big to Scientologists) and then use that as proof that psychiatry is evil. LOL

The Bible needs to make sense, which it does not. I'm a little too old for imaginary friends.

Your whole argument here is based on subjective, personal opinion, which I find funny. You want objective proof for the Bible to be true, yet you appeal to and conclude with a subjective opinion on the matter. The truth of the matter is the Bible has impeccable credentials. Anyone who has taken the time to study the manuscript evidence of the Bible will know that, at least on a historical level, the Bible has reliable testimonies.

You've stated that the Bible doesn't make sense. Maybe to you it doesn't, but this is just speculation. Millions upon millions of people who have read the Bible have had their lives changed, questions answered, and God's presence bestowed on them because of the truth and clarity from the Scriptures. I think your problem is you look at the Bible as just another book. It is a supernatural book, and it is the one book in the world which has the power to change individuals and societies both externally and internally. I come to you as a witness that this is true, and that the Bible is indeed the very word of the living God.

The real proof of the Bible's supernatural power and illumination comes when one not only reads its pages but also inculcates its previous precepts through humble and self-sacrificial obedience to the One Who is the object of those pages, namely, God. It is the promises of Scripture which attest to its own authority and accuracy as being the true revelation of God.
 
To the people out there that read the bible...what bible exactly are you reading? And why have you chosen that? What makes you think it isn't just made up propaganda? Just curious because I want to read something...but something good not full of propaganda (if that even exists lol)

I read the NIV Study Bible. It reads in todays dialect without the thou's, thy's, and thee's making it easier to understand. I was instructed to start at the New Testiment and then continue on to the Old. It really is an inspiring read. Never thought I would get as far through the Bible as I have, but some nights I can't put it down.

I was raised going to church but never felt anything. I stopped going as a teen and popped in once in awhile when my life was really going down the tubes and then left again as I felt it did nothing for me. I went through many years of doubt and suspicion when it came to religion and found myself to be much more spiritual than religious. The problem is that many religions distrort the text and meanings of the bible for their own good. Whatever gets the people in the doors...we'll tell them it's ok. My sister who was a hard core partier and what-not decided to turn her life around for not only herself, but her son. After talking to a co-worker she decided to attend his Apostolic church and since became a minister and not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. I admired her for this and finally decided to attend. I had been "searching" for a church that spoke the true gospel and with her church I have.
The way I see it, it doesn't hurt to have faith, believe in a higher power, be a better person, and live a better life. If my faith were to wind up being "wrong" what did I really have to lose? I'm happier, my marriage is stronger, and I am finally at peace with not only my life, but the happenings of the world today. Fighting temptation ain't easy, but the benefits are undeniable. I judge no one and respect everyones opinion as I have shared many of the same struggles and doubts. JMHO.
 
Your whole argument here is based on subjective, personal opinion, which I find funny. You want objective proof for the Bible to be true, yet you appeal to and conclude with a subjective opinion on the matter. The truth of the matter is the Bible has impeccable credentials. Anyone who has taken the time to study the manuscript evidence of the Bible will know that, at least on a historical level, the Bible has reliable testimonies.

You've stated that the Bible doesn't make sense. Maybe to you it doesn't, but this is just speculation. Millions upon millions of people who have read the Bible have had their lives changed, questions answered, and God's presence bestowed on them because of the truth and clarity from the Scriptures. I think your problem is you look at the Bible as just another book. It is a supernatural book, and it is the one book in the world which has the power to change individuals and societies both externally and internally. I come to you as a witness that this is true, and that the Bible is indeed the very word of the living God.

The real proof of the Bible's supernatural power and illumination comes when one not only reads its pages but also inculcates its previous precepts through humble and self-sacrificial obedience to the One Who is the object of those pages, namely, God. It is the promises of Scripture which attest to its own authority and accuracy as being the true revelation of God.

Let me make it clear for you: I object to it because there is no evidence backing it up. If I ask for evidence, you point me to the Bible. uh... what if it's a book of lies? Written by man after all! You need evidence before you can believe in something. Well, you don't, but then how can you turn around and tell me that there are gaps in the evolution argument? Look at the gap in your own belief? One big gap LOL. The Bible reminds me on the Grand Canyon.
 
Last edited:
Let me make it clear for you: I object to it because there is no evidence backing it up. If I ask for evidence, you point me to the Bible. uh... what if it's a book of lies? Written by man after all!

That logic is too sound for Theocrat.
 
I think every reasonable man should question a book saying things like humans living up to 900 years, a talking snake, a magical appletree, a talking donkey, a burning and talking bush, a rib-woman, humans being made by blowing air into dust, a cosmic jewish zombie and so on...
The bible does have a bit of historical accuracy, mostly when it comes to the Roman ages in the New Testament.
 
Some Historical/Archeological Evidence of the Bible

Let me make it clear for you: I object to it because there is no evidence backing it up. If I ask for evidence, you point me to the Bible. uh... what if it's a book of lies? Written by man after all! You need evidence before you can believe in something. Well, you don't, but then how can you turn around and tell me that there are gaps in the evolution argument? Look at the gap in your own belief? One big gap LOL. The Bible reminds me on the Grand Canyon.

The following comes from the archeological work of Dr. Richard M. Fales.

Archaeology and History Attest to the Reliability of the Bible

The Bible is still the world's best seller, and has been translated into more than 1400 languages. It was written over a period of 1500 years by kings, statesmen, prophetic seers, intellectuals, and commoners. All 66 books of the Bible are uniquely in harmony and agreement with each other.

In contrast to the fans of the Bible, critics looking for the flyspeck in the masterpiece allege that there was a long span of time between the events recorded in the New Testament and the writing down of those events. Then they say another gap exists archaeologically between the earliest copies made from the autographs of the New Testament. In reality, the alleged spaces and so called gaps exist only in the minds of the critics.

Notice how no other ancient book's text is questioned or maligned like that of the Bible. For instance, Aristotle's Ode to Poetics was written between 384-322BC. Our earliest copy of this work dates 1100AD, and we find there are only 49 extant manuscripts. Note that the gap between the original writing and the earliest copy is 1400 years. A second example is Plato's Tetralogies, written 427-347 BC. Our earliest copy is 900 AD, and there are only 7 extant manuscripts to study. The gap between the original and the earliest copy is 1200 years. What about the New Testament? Jesus was crucified in 30 AD. The New Testament was written between 48-95 AD. The oldest mss date to the last quarter of the first century, and the second oldest 125 AD. This gives us a narrow gap of 35 to 40 years from the originals written by the apostles. From the early centuries, we have some 5300 Greek mss of the New Testament. Altogether, including Syriac, Latin, Coptic and Aramaic, we have a whopping total of 24,633 texts of the ancient New Testament to confirm the wording of the New Testament scriptures. So the bottom line is, there was no great time period between the events of the New Testament and the New Testament writings. Nor is there a great lapse of time between the original writings and the oldest copies. This means that with the great body of mss evidence, it can also be proved, beyond a doubt, that the New Testament says exactly the same things today as it originally did nearly 2000 years ago.

Critics also charge that there are not ancient writings about Jesus outside the New Testament. This is another ridiculous claim. Writings that confirm his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection are found in Flavius Josephus (AD 93), the Babylonian Talmud (70-200 AD), Pliny the Younger's letter to the Emperor Trajan in about 100 AD, the Annals of Tacitus (115-117 AD), Mara Bar Serapion (sometime after 73 AD), and Suetonius' Life of Claudius and Life of Nero (120 AD). Another point of contention arises when critics of the have knowingly or unknowingly misled people by implying that Old and New Testament books were either left out of or were added into the canon of scriptures at the great ecumenical councils of the churches which met in 336, 382, 397, and 419 AD. As a matter of fact, one result of these gatherings was to confirm the Church's belief that the books already in the Bible were divinely inspired. So, what we actually find, then, was that the Church, at these meetings, neither added to nor did they take away from the books of the Bible. At the time of the early church's ecumenical councils, the 39 Old Testament books had already been accepted, and the New Testament, as it was written, simply grew up with the ancient church. Each document being accepted as it was penned in the first century was then passed on to Christians of the next century. So, this foolishness about the Roman Emperor Constantine dropping books from the Bible is simply uneducated rumor.

Prophecies that already have been fulfilled from both the Old and New Testaments also add credibility to the text of the Bible.. The scriptures predicted the rise and fall of great empires like Greece and Rome (Daniel 2:39, 40). It also foretold the destruction of cities like Tyre and Sidon in Isaiah 23. Tyre's demise is recorded by ancient historians, who tell how Alexander the Great lay siege to the city for seven months. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon failed in a 13-year attempt to capture the seacoast city and completely destroy its inhabitants. During the siege of 573 BC, much of the population of Tyre moved to its new island home approximately ½ mile from the land city. Here it remained surrounded by walls as high as 150 feet until judgment fell in 332 BC with the arrival of Alexander the Great. The siege lasted seven months, and during that time he fulfilled the remainder of Zechariah's and Ezekiel's prophecy concerning the city at sea by completely destroying Tyre, killing 8,000 of its inhabitants and selling 30,000 of its population into slavery. With Alexander's wrath almost complete, he now dragged 4,000 desperate souls to the beach and viciously crucified them. How could he reach the island that was a ½ mile at sea with an army of infantry and calvary? He fulfilled the details of the prophecy (Zechariah 9:4 and Ezekiel 26:12) and scraped up the dust and rubble of the old land city of Tyre, just like the Bible predicted, and cast them into the sea, building a 200-foot-wide causeway out to the island. Alexander's death and the murder of his twin sons was also foretold in the scripture. Another starling prophecy was Jesus' detailed prediction of Jerusalem's destruction, and the further spreading of the Jewish diaspora throughout the world, which is recorded in Luke 21. In 70 AD, not only was Jerusalem destroyed by the future emperor of Rome, Titus, but another prediction of Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:1-2 came to pass. The destruction and complete devastation of the temple of God.

In the book of Daniel, the Bible prophesied and promised the coming of the one and only Jewish Messiah prior to the temple's demise. There is only one candidate that fits this biblical scenario just prior to 70 AD. The Old Testament prophets declared he would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) to a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), who would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 1:12-13). The Bible further states that he would die by crucifixion (Psalm 22) and be buried in a rich man's tomb. (Isaiah 53:9). There was only one person that fits all of the messianic prophesies of the Old Testament who lived before 70 AD: Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Mary.

Yes, the Bible is an amazing book. It was not written as a book of science, yet it contains many amazing scientific facts. When the rest of the world believed the earth was flat or was supported on the shoulders of the mythical god Atlas, or said that it rested on the back of an elephant who stood on the back of a turtle that was swimming in a great endless sea, the Jewish prophets wrote that (Job 26:7)M, "God hangeth the earth upon nothing," and implied that the world was round (Isaiah 40:22) when it said, "It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth."
Read the Bible for yourself! Don't rely on others who have told you what they think it says. It is altogether possible that an individual religious leader's interpretation is at best just that, just another man's interpretation. Don't get your facts from secondhand sources --- read the Scriptures for yourself --- and do it with an open mind.

CHARTS​


I could give more examples which attest to the historical/archaeological accuracy of the Bible from other authors and sources, but I just want you to know that the evidence is out there, and all you have to do is look for it instead of standing back, presuming that there is none. Do some homework and be diligent! God is nigh, my friend, and He has been pleased to provide evidence for the truth of His own divine revelation. This isn't rocket science, after all.
 
Kade and Logic (Like Apples and Oranges)

That logic is too sound for Theocrat.

How do you prove logic, Kade? You still can't account for logic in any objective, rational, or absolute way in your humanistic religion.
 
I didn't respond to you at post #127... OptionsTrader did...

That's just the point, he didn't!
Unless you can point out where he answered my question, I still await a response.

Till there is an answer to that question, I'll rest my case!
 
That's just the point, he didn't!
Unless you can point out where he answered my question, I still await a response.

Till there is an answer to that question, I'll rest my case!

What question? There's 17 pages of nonsense, please restate the question :)
 
Question the Absurd

I think every reasonable man should question a book saying things like humans living up to 900 years, a talking snake, a magical appletree, a talking donkey, a burning and talking bush, a rib-woman, humans being made by blowing air into dust, a cosmic jewish zombie and so on...
The bible does have a bit of historical accuracy, mostly when it comes to the Roman ages in the New Testament.

I think every rational, moral, and wise man should question a religion which teaches that the universe exploded from nothing, non-life produced life, plants and animals are related, chemicals can think on their own, humans evolved from apes, there are no absolutes in morality, law, science, and truth (among other things), no one can know if there's a God, Charles Darwin was a genius, America was founded on "Atheism," and other laughable absurdities. This religion is dangerous, and needs to be stopped at all costs, before more human minds are lost in irrationality and more human lives destroyed by immorality.
 
I am afraid you do not understand entropy. This is, however, a humerous and vastly popular misrepresentation of entropy and attempting to use science as "proof" of a supreme being is hypocritical. Those who believe in God like to shun science when science illustrates that the existence of God is not testable and there is zero scientific proof of the necessity of a God, however they are quick to bastardize the second law of thermodynamics at will.

Please be so kind as to explain how I bastardized the second law of thermodynamics. Do you ever see the opposite of entropy in anything non living?

Here it is again.
 
How do you prove logic, Kade? You still can't account for logic in any objective, rational, or absolute way in your humanistic religion.

Technically, we only need to go with what works. Logic works, so it is used. Pray for Rushdoony to come back to life, and if he does, I'll be a believer.
 
I think every rational, moral, and wise man should question a religion which teaches that the universe exploded from nothing, non-life produced life, plants and animals are related, chemicals can think on their own, humans evolved from apes, there are no absolutes in morality, law, science, and truth (among other things), no one can know if there's a God, Charles Darwin was a genius, America was founded on "Atheism," and other laughable absurdities. This religion is dangerous, and needs to be stopped at all costs, before more human minds are lost in irrationality and more human lives destroyed by immorality.

I heard that Darwin reconciled himself to God on his death and in affect denounced his own teachings. But I'm not sure if thats true, I'll check it out.
 
Even the amoeba needs to have a creator. Otherwise, entropy would prohibit it from existing .

You don't want to go down that road...you know where it ends...you have been down it before....

Seems I must have forgotten going down that road.

Evolution is not a lie, we see it when bacteria develop a resistance to antibiotics. It is the method organisms adapt to changes in the environment.

I don't however, believe evolution is how life was created.
The change from disorder to order is not what we observe when studying physics. Such a change would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Since we always observe entropy in non biological systems (organisms), it does not make sense, disorder would somehow change to order without a coordinated external source of energy applied with the purpose of bringing the organism into existence.

In a world void of organisms, it would be necessary to construct an organism in order for one to exist. Once in existence, the organism would only be able to adapt to the environment if it had been constructed with the ability to reproduce.

Now if we observe the organisms ability to survive (live) and reproduce, we may understand how the organism is able to evolve (adapt to the environment).

Since we have now defined what causes organisms to be able to evolve, we understand what evolution is.

Evolution is the ability of an organism to live and adapt to the environment. This ability is an attribute of the organism, not the manner in which it was brought into existence.

I am afraid you do not understand entropy. This is, however, a humerous and vastly popular misrepresentation of entropy and attempting to use science as "proof" of a supreme being is hypocritical. Those who believe in God like to shun science when science illustrates that the existence of God is not testable and there is zero scientific proof of the necessity of a God, however they are quick to bastardize the second law of thermodynamics at will.

Please be so kind as to explain how I bastardized the second law of thermodynamics. Do you ever see the opposite of entropy in anything non living?

Here is the gist of the entire subject I was discussing.
 
Back
Top