The Creationist

[Ninevite]

Am I getting this correct. Did anyone who wrote the bible actually witness the events or is it all second hand information?

 

 

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to the events described in their gospels. Mark was an associate of Peter (an eyewitness to the events) and Luke was an associate of Paul. Saul of Tarsus was a Jew commisioned by the Pharisees to stamp out Christianity. He killed many Christians and imprissoned many more.

 

Later, in Syria, he encountered Jesus and was converted to Christianity. He changed his name to Paul and became the "legendary preacher" we have today. He wrote 13 books of the new testament. 14 if you count Hebrews, which I do, but he never mentions himself in that book as he did with all the others.

 

Luke traveled with Paul for many years and encountered many eyewitnesses of the events described in his gospel. He set out to make a "more perfect" account, presumably than Mark and Matthew as he found them to be a little incomplete.

 

Many athiests have called Luke an "historian of the first rank" praising his ability to record events in history with the utmost diligence.

[Guest]

Am I getting this correct. Did anyone who wrote the bible actually witness the events or is it all second hand information?

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

~

 

Jesus

 

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. John 6:46

 

Who Gave

 

And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door. And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. Exodus 33:9-11

 

The Word To Moses

 

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, Deuteronomy 34:10

 

Actually Witnessed The Events He Caused

 

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:16-19

 

And Jesus Will Cause The Final Pyrrhic Victory Of Those Evolutionary Faithful

 

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

 

Who Worship It Over The True

 

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Philippians 2:10

 

Author

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

Unless They Repent

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

 

And Allow The Creator To Bless Them

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Joe

[JDavis]

Instead of "rationalWiki" why not do some reading that is a bit more indepth..

 

I would suggest you start with

The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce

 

then maybe try

 

New Testament History by F. F. Bruce

 

or

 

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger

or

 

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition) by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman

[OneLight]

Please be respectful of the bible.  The authors of the Gospels are those whom they are names after.

[OneLight]

If anyone cares to view another site that discusses the manuscripts found, in comparison of other manuscripts, you can look here.

 

The New Testament is constantly under attack, and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics.  If the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer.  This is because the New Testament documents are better-preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writings.  Because they are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy... and they are very consistent.

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.¹ If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.²

 

The information is quite interesting and does debunk the critics who would like no more then to shine the shadow of doubt in scripture.

 

Another interesting fact that is often overlooked is that none of the Gospels ever mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.  If they were written after 70 AD, this would of been mentioned for historical evidence and fact.

[neil_]

 If your hangup is on the term "eternity", then pick something else.   

 

No, Gerald, that’s your “hangup”, not mine.

 

 

  You can use whatever term you prefer, but the point remains 

 

No, it doesn’t. Simply because we both agree that time had a beginning. And we both agree that there will be an ending. Therefore no eternity. The only eternity we can speak of must therefore reside outside time. And you know what that means, don’t you?

 

 

 thus the fallacy of false dilemma is proved.  

 

Far from it.

 

 

 I understand that's what you believe.  

 

Indeed, I believe the Bible. In other words, I believe God, while you believe Hawking. I guess this says it all, don’t you agree?

 

 

  First, why is atheism/theism the line between who can't use the other's work, and not something else (e.g., major religion or denomination)? 

 

Because of 2 things:

- atheism runs against theism

- all the science that I referred to was built by people who wanted to find out how God created the universe, not to exclude God from it.

 

 

  Second, why can't an atheist use a theist's scientific work? 

 

See above.

 

 

  The “current data” claims an accelerated expansion. So could you possibly reach the conclusion that big bang theory is true? 

 

  Yes. 

 

I already know the endless evolutionary ability to make empty claims. So I’m not interested in that. Looking forward for the “how”. So if you have any scientific arguments (not empty claims), post them. And don’t worry, you’ll get your Nobel prize if you’ll manage to do that…

 

 

 Sorry, but I'm not going to play this game where I ask you a question, you dodge it, ask me a question, then demand I answer your question first  

 

I already somewhat answered it, only that you didn’t like the answer. I implied that you most likely understand by “scientific community” only evolutionists.

 

That’s why I asked you and I’m asking you once again: is Robert Gentry a part of the “scientific community” or not, is he a scientist or not?

 

But I understand WHY you keep avoiding that question: because once you answer it, you can’t go back… And actually the situation is even worse for you: no matter which way you answer (yes or no), that would constitute evidence against your worldview.

 

 

 

 

  Another interesting fact that is often overlooked is that none of the Gospels ever mention the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.  If they were written after 70 AD, this would of been mentioned for historical evidence and fact.   

 

Very nice thought indeed !

 

 

 

 

 

Robby, my previous replies (two consecutive posts) were inserted mid-page (among answers actually posted afterwards). Please don’t miss them.

[RobbyPants]

 

then copies of the Iliad must be evidence that those stories happened.

 

No. Just as millions copies MORE of Harry Potter than of ANY scientific book doesn’t mean that Harry Potter events were true (or more true than those in the scientific book).

 

Now, the Bible is the most circulated book EVER. But the reason for that is NOT that it speaks about things people want to hear (that’s the reason only for crime books, mystery books, science fiction books etcetera). On the contrary, the Bible is actually the ONLY book in the world talking about things that people DON’T WANT to hear.

 

People of the world want to hear how smart they are. How beautiful they are. How rich they are – and so on. The Bible actually teaches them to say how fool they are. How ugly they are. How poor they are – in other words, how humble they SHOULD be. And how they should give their entire fortune to the poor, how they should love their enemies, and many other things that nobody wants to hear about, let alone actually do them.

 

So I’m letting you to find an explanation for why the Bible is most read book ever (many orders of magnitude more than any other book in mankind history), while all the time containing things that nobody wants to hear about…

 

Why would a book being widely read make it true. All that proves is that it is liked. And obviously, yes, people will buy a book that they like. You aserting that people don't like the Bible because of what it says, yet them buying it must makie it true is simply your asertion. You haven't proven that people don't like it, despsite it saying some things that people don't like. It says plenty of things they do like (such as heaven). Just peruse some of the signitures and interests in the profiles of posters of this forum: a lot of people deeply like the idea of humbling themselves to God.

You have no case that the Bible is the "ONLY" book that people don't like, or that not liking a book + a large audiance = truth. 

 

 

 

 

Those, too. Matthew was written anonymously by a Jewish Christian.

 

Let me guess: your source of information is talkorigins or wikipedia. Well, they will always tell you what you want to hear, won’t they?

 

 

 

 

 

How so?

 

Because this is what you previously said:

  

and I'm not even saying he's not the son of God, but I am saying that there is no compelling evidence to assert that God exists.

 

If you exclude God, you obviously exclude the Son of God, so there’s no reason for you to state:

“I'm not even saying he's not the son of God”.

 

No.

I stated I could not prove nor disprove God. That obviously doesn't mean that God does exist or God doesn't exist. So, that doesn't preclude God from existing. So, there is no contradiction there; just you insisting a conclusion that I didn't come to. I even covered that with my "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" saying, and you split that from the portion of my response so you could say that I didn't say it.

 

 

I'm adhering to the notion that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".

 

Despite the fact that I said that the entire universe is actual evidence for God...

 

The irony is that even you are evidence for God (and I mean that beyond matter, although the material you is yet again evidence for God): because you’re not engaging in these discussions to convince others that you are right, instead you at all times try to actually convince yourself that you are right…

 

It is not eveidence for God. There is no evidence for God that doesn't assume he exists in the first place. If you assume some other deity exists, suddenly, all of that "evidecne" starts to point to something other than God.

And no, I am not trying to convince myself I am right. That's just you dismissing my point of view for your own comfort. 

 

 

there is no compelling evidence that God does exist.

 

Oh, dear…

 

Seriously. Not one piece that doesn't require you to assume God exists in the first place.

[RobbyPants]

 

You're changing the topic again.

 

No, I’m not. I’m personally AT ALL TIMES talking about God. Even when proving big bang wrong. Simply because atheists embrace the big bang theory (and all other mainstream theories) purposefully to exclude God…

 

let's say you prove beyond a doubt that the big bang didn't happen

 

Already done.

 

and I accept your proof

 

Why don’t you? Let me guess: because at this point you don’t have another theory that purposefully excludes God… I mean, you wouldn’t switch to steady state after mainstream claiming for decades that steady state is a stupid teory, would you?

 

What does it matter if I don't? Again, you're setting up a false dichotomy. If I don't prove the big bang, that doesn't immediately prove God. You lump everything into two groups of "God" and "everything else", and act like if anything that falls into the subset of "everything else" is proven wrong, that suddenly, somehow, the entire subset is proven wrong. That doesn't logically follow. This is a fairly simple exercise on boolean algebra on sets. Let me spell it out a different way:

There are five conditions, A, B, C, D, and E. We will make the satement that if A is true, then B, C, D, and E must all be false, and if any of B through E are ture, than A must be false. So, it could be expressed as:

A = !(B | C | D | E)

(! is negation and | is inclusive or)

Now, if you prove that B is false, that doesn't automatically make A true. You also have to prove C, D, and E as false.

You haven't done that. You're just trying to set this up as A = !B and chipping away at B. And while the big bang would certainly preclude your version of God, they are not the only two possiblities. Trying to say that an unanswered question proves God is a simple God of the gaps argument.

 

 

 

 

How does that prove God? You're setting up a false dichotomy.

 

Absolutely not. You seem to consistently miss the main point of everything that we’re talking about.

 

In the largest frame (viewing things at the largest scale possible), it doesn’t matter HOW the universe got here, it only matters that it’s here. You atheists don’t have a logical explanation for the universe existing by itself – that’s the point.

 

Now, me going against big bang is another story. I do that because many atheists ingurgitate the big bang story in order to exclude God. In other words, they claim a continuously naturalistic explanation of things. So me taking away their big bang universe is meant to make them aware that their entire paradigm of viewing the world and therefore understanding things can be wrong (it is wrong, but I would settle for them admitting that it can be wrong).

 

Okay, we'll try it this way:

Everything in the universe was created by fleems. Fleems are subatomic particles that are responsible for the existance of all matter and energy in their current state. They eternal and timeless (they have been around for all of eternity). They cannot be directly observed, but we have evidence of their existance by looking at the existance of the universe.

There you go. Fleems are completely non-falsifiable. You cannot prove to me that they do not exist. It cannot be done. So, if you disprove the big bang, now you have to prove to me that it was God (and by God, I mean your God YHWH, and not some other god like Allah or Odin) and not fleems that created everything. You cannot do that.

Stop with the false dichotomies. 

 

 

 

 

You are bringing up his writings to reinforce the historicity of Jesus.

 

Absolutely not. That was only a COMPARISON.

 

Here it is again, perhaps this time more plainly: you believe Josephus as an account of historical events (mostly the Jewish-Roman war). Despite the fact that that account IS NOT consistently reinforced by other reports. And yet you exclude the veracity of Biblical accounts of Jesus, despite the fact that they ARE reinforced by other reports (including from ADVERSARIES of Christianity…).

 

Hopefully, now you’ll understand.

 

Actually, I wasn't concerened with Jospehus' other works, and haven't much looked into them. That being said, regardless of whether or not they are or are not widely accepted, I don't see how that proves Jesus. Especially if you're exlucing the parts about Jesus.

 

 

Your statement could be summed up as:

 

The Quran says Jesus is a prophet and cannot lie. The Bible says Jesus says he is the one way. Ergo, Islam is wrong.

 

Indeed.

 

you are saying that the Quran is wrong because the Bible says so?

 

No, my friend, that was my whole point: the Quran is wrong because the Quran says so…

 

(your next comments are thus mute)

 

I think your confusion is this: you mistake internal authority for external authority. Now, the Quran saying that Jesus was a prophet means accepting that what Jesus said was true, and thus what Jesus said becomes (willingly or not) part of the Quran (and therefore obtains the status of internal authority). So the contradiction of Quran is at all times internal.

 

On the other hand, the Bible does NOT accept ANY external authority (and it shouldn’t, as it’s the Word of God). So what Muhammad, Confucius etcetera say, and what Einstein, Hawking etcetera say, mean NOTHING for the Bible: the Bible stands by its own.

 

The problem is, you're taking the assertion from the Quran that Jesus is a prophet and cannot lie and are combining it with the Bible where he says that he is the way, and using that to prove Islam is wrong.

Those religions are mutually exclusive. You are cherry picking two sources to prove your point. The Quran posits that Jesus is a prophet (and cannot lie, by your own words), and that he is not the son of God or "the way". Ergo, the Quran just proved itself right, because Jesus can't lie and didn't claim to be the son of God.

 

 

(By the way, it's "moot", not "mute".)

 

 

Now, since I already showed that you ARE wrong multiple times in this post alone, would you agree that your main paradigm (an exclusively naturalistic worldview) COULD BE wrong?

No, you haven't. It's been primarily falss dichotomies, changes of subject, cherry picking, and incorrect boolean algebra.

That being said, I am willing to consider that I might be wrong. That's why I'm an atheist now and not still Christian like I was for the first 90% of my life. I got to where I am today precisely because I allowed myself to coniser that I might be wrong. It's just, I haven't seen any compelling reasons to change my mind in the past three years.

Edited September 9, 2013 by RobbyPants

[Ninevite]

Good luck, robby...

 

I'm sure God will understand when you explain you don't believe because a man couldn't prove to you He exists.

[RobbyPants]

Good luck, robby...

 

I'm sure God will understand when you explain you don't believe because a man couldn't prove to you He exists.

If he exists. What if Allah is judging me for not believing in him? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is judging me? Any proof that the Christian God exists relies on assuming he exists in the first place.

All you are doing in this post is dismissing what I'm saying without adding any reason why I should consider your point of view.