Historical Evidence for the Book of Ruth

[angels4u]

Yes, I am accountable for my choices to an extent. If I know the consequences of my actions and I perform that action, then I am responsible for that.

 

But I would never willingly choose to be tortured forever. Who would? That's absurd. If my actions somehow lead to consequences I honestly didn't know would happen, I can't necessarily say I'm responsible for those consequences,especially when the consequences are brought on by someone else such as God who didn't adequately explain the consequences in a clear manner. Kind of like rules to a game. If the rule maker doesn't adequately explain the rules, how can he hold people who break them accountable?

 

 

 

John 3:16:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

Dr.God did give a remedy for sin,you can apply it to your life or let the sin of unbelieve have it's way and that is ultimately  death.

[Guest shiloh357]

Where it seems you and I part ways is that I think holding believers' claims up to a higher standard than most historical documents is fair because believers claim infallibility, where as most historians don't do that with their claims. If I claim I can break the javelin throw record, it's fair to hold me up to a higher standard than you would a high school thrower.

 

But you to be confusing issues, here.   Confirming every detail would not have any bearing of infallibility, necessarily.  Infalliblity rests on the events actually happening, not on whether you can find sufficient historical records  to corroborate the facts/details.  You are using the wrong standard of measure to infallibility.

 

Your javelin analogy doesn't work here.  Ruth is a book of history.  It is natural if you make claim about possessing a particular  fantastic ability that you would be expected to demonsrate that.   The problem is that when it comes to an historical narrative, we don't have that kind of luxury of observation.  Historians are similar to foresenic investigators who are trying to examine a dead body and piece together how a person died from the evidence they have available.  They are not held to the same level or nature of proof that you would be held to in terms of throwing the javelin.   The forensic investigator can demonstrate from a reatlively good level of certainty how a person died and how long they have been dead.   But if they had to meet the level of proof you are demanding, they would never arrive at  a conclusion.

 

 

 

shiloh357, on 25 Nov 2011 - 6:28 PM, said:

... But you cannot treat a sickness or disease without first coming to terms with the fact that you are indeed sick and need of a remedy for it. Just as some people will go for months or even years living in denial that they are diabetic, have cancer or have heart disease, many live in denial about their sin-sick condition. And like cancer, and heart disease and diabetes, the consequence for ignoring it can be fatal....

 

 

Why did you include my comments, here?  I don't think I was addressing you with these comments in this thread.

[Swoosh]

But you to be confusing issues, here.   Confirming every detail would not have any bearing of infallibility, necessarily.  Infalliblity rests on the events actually happening, not on whether you can find sufficient historical records  to corroborate the facts/details.  You are using the wrong standard of measure to infallibility.

I think part of this is the terms we're using for certain ideas. I'm thinking of facts as partly being the events that actually happened. For example, Ruth 1:16 is a claim that Ruth said something. I'm looking at that as an event and fact, using those two terms interchangeably. Are you using the terms "fact" and "events" to talk about different ideas? It would seem that you are.

 

 

Why did you include my comments, here?  I don't think I was addressing you with these comments in this thread.

We weren't. Ninhao brought it up when he gave me a link to that thread, so I was really responding to him. I forgot that it may notify you as well.

[Swoosh]

 

Yes, I am accountable for my choices to an extent. If I know the consequences of my actions and I perform that action, then I am responsible for that.

 

But I would never willingly choose to be tortured forever. Who would? That's absurd. If my actions somehow lead to consequences I honestly didn't know would happen, I can't necessarily say I'm responsible for those consequences,especially when the consequences are brought on by someone else such as God who didn't adequately explain the consequences in a clear manner. Kind of like rules to a game. If the rule maker doesn't adequately explain the rules, how can he hold people who break them accountable?

 

 

 

John 3:16:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

Dr.God did give a remedy for sin,you can apply it to your life or let the sin of unbelieve have it's way and that is ultimately  death.

 

Ok. Islam also gave me a proposed remedy to my "sickness". Radical Islam gives a proposed remedy to my sins. Buddhism (though not necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity) gives a proposed remedy for my sickness too. Which one is right and how do I know? and what about the thousands of other proposed sicknesses and remedies out there? (in keeping with the analogy)

[Guest ninhao]

 

Swoosh, on 02 Dec 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

I don't know of any tests or evidence that can be performed that can convince me. That doesn't mean I'm not objective. I can objectively look at the evidence already presented and judge it as unconvincing.  If a scientist in a lab can't think of an experimental design to test a hypothesis, that doesn't mean he's not objective. Just means his creativity is limited in that respect.

 

 

Ok. I accept your scepticism based upon the absence of a standard you are comfortable with. This has no bearing on whether an historical event is factual though, of course.

 

 

Yes, I am accountable for my choices to an extent. If I know the consequences of my actions and I perform that action, then I am responsible for that.

But I would never willingly choose to be tortured forever. Who would? That's absurd. If my actions somehow lead to consequences I honestly didn't know would happen, I can't necessarily say I'm responsible for those consequences,especially when the consequences are brought on by someone else such as God who didn't adequately explain the consequences in a clear manner. Kind of like rules to a game. If the rule maker doesn't adequately explain the rules, how can he hold people who break them accountable?

 

 

I’m not seeing any absurdity here. If the consequence of unbelief is eternal punishment, and God has stated this, I’m not sure how you can plead ignorance. Are you saying you don’t understand the the consequences of your choice, as described by God, or that you don’t accept those consequences?

 

Here’s the rule so that you can be clear of God’s position and cannot claim He didn’t let you know.

 

Joh 5:24  "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

 

Rev 20:15  Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

 

 

Is it not the doctor's/God's job to give me a diagnosis of this sickness? He supposedly knows more about this sickness than I do. Where is this doctor? I'd like to meet him so we can discuss this sickness in a rational manner. There, I expressed my desire to meet him. If he doesn't come, he either doesn't want to come or can't. Or he may just not exist.

As for what is called the "sickness", perhaps the doctor's apparent absence in the face of a direct request to meet him means we should stop relying on him to fix it and start fixing it ourselves.

 

 

 

 

 

God has diagnosed your sickness as sin. If you’re in denial about your sickness you won’t seek help.

 

Are you saying you understand your position of rebellion against God and that you accept the only cure for your “sin sickness:” is to accept Jesus the Christ as your Lord and Saviour ?

 

Remember God searches the heart so any insincerity is futile I suggest you fall upon your knees and show humility before Yahweh.

 

Heb 11:6  And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

[Guest ninhao]

 

Ok. Islam also gave me a proposed remedy to my "sickness". Radical Islam gives a proposed remedy to my sins. Buddhism (though not necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity) gives a proposed remedy for my sickness too. Which one is right and how do I know? and what about the thousands of other proposed sicknesses and remedies out there? (in keeping with the analogy)

 

 

Hello Swoosh,

 

Can you tell me the remedy Islam gave you and your understanding of the remedy Buddhism offers. 

 

The truth is that humans cannot possibly meet God's Holy standard and the remedy must be propitiated by a Holy God. Do you understand this concept ? 

[Fez]

When it comes to the way most Christians view the Bible, there is no room for being wrong as there is for historians and court cases. They completely believe it is true. Every detail. Not subject to change. My reason for asking the original question was to understand the source of this confidence.

 

The source is Faith, faith in the Most High God, and the fact that His Word is true. Now I know that's hard to understand, as believe it or not many of us were where you are right now.

 

Secondly and something I don't think you have been asked, and considering your requirement for proof of most things before you can believe them, 

 

Do you accept that the holocaust occurred and that 6,000,000 people were murdered?

[angels4u]

 

 

Yes, I am accountable for my choices to an extent. If I know the consequences of my actions and I perform that action, then I am responsible for that.

 

But I would never willingly choose to be tortured forever. Who would? That's absurd. If my actions somehow lead to consequences I honestly didn't know would happen, I can't necessarily say I'm responsible for those consequences,especially when the consequences are brought on by someone else such as God who didn't adequately explain the consequences in a clear manner. Kind of like rules to a game. If the rule maker doesn't adequately explain the rules, how can he hold people who break them accountable?

 

 

 

John 3:16:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

Dr.God did give a remedy for sin,you can apply it to your life or let the sin of unbelieve have it's way and that is ultimately  death.

 

Ok. Islam also gave me a proposed remedy to my "sickness". Radical Islam gives a proposed remedy to my sins. Buddhism (though not necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity) gives a proposed remedy for my sickness too. Which one is right and how do I know? and what about the thousands of other proposed sicknesses and remedies out there? (in keeping with the analogy)

 

Did Mohammed carried your sins? What does Buddism promise you? I will garantee you that when you open the Bible --start to read in the book of John that God will open your heart for the TRUTH so you may understand otherwise he can harden your hearth also,the choice is your until the day when it's to late..

 

Lets reason and open your Bible and ask before you start reading if God will reveal Himself to you. ,it is YOU who has to make the dissicion,are you happy right now and look forward to the day to be absent from the body and to be walking on streets of gold?   I wouldn't even mention the other horrible place you will go if you don't make things right with God, you probably know the place I'm talking about?

 

Just be humble and bow your knees you will not be sorry you did.

[Guest shiloh357]

Ok. Islam also gave me a proposed remedy to my "sickness". Radical Islam gives a proposed remedy to my sins. Buddhism (though not necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity) gives a proposed remedy for my sickness too. Which one is right and how do I know? and what about the thousands of other proposed sicknesses and remedies out there? (in keeping with the analogy)

 

Actually that is factually incorrect.  The theology of Islam regarding sin is not at all what is taught in the Bible.  The Bible teaches that sin is problem requiring redemption.  The Bible teaches that sin is separation from God and that the problem of that separation is seen in the "sins" we commit.  In other words there is a "sin principle" working in the heart which is the source of the sinful deeds we commit.   The Bible teaches that the "sin principle" is something man is incapable of addressing and is thus in need of a redeemer or savior to reconcile man back to God.  Hence, Jesus is that Savior who satsified God the father's justice against sin and God is at peace with man in terms of his justice.   Man must, however, appropriate that peace, by placing faith in Jesus.  In the Bible no one goes to heaven for being good and no one goes to hell for being bad.  The only people who go to hell are those who reject Jesus.  That is why a person can be in prison as serial killer, accept Jesus' payment for his sin and go to heaven when he dies, wheras a "good" person who loves his family, gives to charity, pays his taxes and is an all around decent person can still go to hell on the grounds that he rejected Jesus.   Hell is chock full of "good" people.   But God's standard isn't goodness.  His standard is righteousness and you can only appropriate righteousness from Him.

 

Islam, on the other hand, views sin and good deeds from the vantage point of debts and credits. One must be a pious enough Muslim to offset evil deeds with good deeds.  The problem is that one can be a good Muslim, but if he/she wasn't good enough for the time needed sufficient to offset evil deeds you still go to hell.  So being a good Muslim doesn't gurantee you anything.   Allah, furthermore, is capricious and can arbitrarily send anyone to hell that he wants for no reason at all even if they were a good Muslim.   So none of the "requirements" of Islam for going to heaven are binding on Allah.   Islam doesn't see sin as a sickness or as something you need to be redeemed from.  It sees sin as something you have to work off with good deeds for the possibility of maybe going to heaven.

 

Buddhism doesn't approach life from the standpoint of sin, but from the standpoint of suffering.  Buddhism doesn't address any "sickness" of sin, but rather addresses the issue ot alleviating suffering through the process of removing any ability to feel.  Life is suffering and all pleasure is an illusion.  The goal is to achieve Nirvana and then simply die and exist in limbo.

 

It is amusing to watch atheists like yourself  try to lump all religions into the same pot as if they all makes the same claims.   It demonstrates the usual deficit of knowledge that people like you possess when you try to talk religion with us. 

[Swoosh]

 

Ok. Islam also gave me a proposed remedy to my "sickness". Radical Islam gives a proposed remedy to my sins. Buddhism (though not necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity) gives a proposed remedy for my sickness too. Which one is right and how do I know? and what about the thousands of other proposed sicknesses and remedies out there? (in keeping with the analogy)

 

Actually that is factually incorrect.  The theology of Islam regarding sin is not at all what is taught in the Bible.  The Bible teaches that sin is problem requiring redemption.  The Bible teaches that sin is separation from God and that the problem of that separation is seen in the "sins" we commit.  In other words there is a "sin principle" working in the heart which is the source of the sinful deeds we commit.   The Bible teaches that the "sin principle" is something man is incapable of addressing and is thus in need of a redeemer or savior to reconcile man back to God.  Hence, Jesus is that Savior who satsified God the father's justice against sin and God is at peace with man in terms of his justice.   Man must, however, appropriate that peace, by placing faith in Jesus.  In the Bible no one goes to heaven for being good and no one goes to hell for being bad.  The only people who go to hell are those who reject Jesus.  That is why a person can be in prison as serial killer, accept Jesus' payment for his sin and go to heaven when he dies, wheras a "good" person who loves his family, gives to charity, pays his taxes and is an all around decent person can still go to hell on the grounds that he rejected Jesus.   Hell is chock full of "good" people.   But God's standard isn't goodness.  His standard is righteousness and you can only appropriate righteousness from Him.

 

Islam, on the other hand, views sin and good deeds from the vantage point of debts and credits. One must be a pious enough Muslim to offset evil deeds with good deeds.  The problem is that one can be a good Muslim, but if he/she wasn't good enough for the time needed sufficient to offset evil deeds you still go to hell.  So being a good Muslim doesn't gurantee you anything.   Allah, furthermore, is capricious and can arbitrarily send anyone to hell that he wants for no reason at all even if they were a good Muslim.   So none of the "requirements" of Islam for going to heaven are binding on Allah.   Islam doesn't see sin as a sickness or as something you need to be redeemed from.  It sees sin as something you have to work off with good deeds for the possibility of maybe going to heaven.

 

Buddhism doesn't approach life from the standpoint of sin, but from the standpoint of suffering.  Buddhism doesn't address any "sickness" of sin, but rather addresses the issue ot alleviating suffering through the process of removing any ability to feel.  Life is suffering and all pleasure is an illusion.  The goal is to achieve Nirvana and then simply die and exist in limbo.

 

It is amusing to watch atheists like yourself  try to lump all religions into the same pot as if they all makes the same claims.   It demonstrates the usual deficit of knowledge that people like you possess when you try to talk religion with us. 

 

While I appreciate you making sure, I am aware of the ways these religions view sin/suffering. Reading the context of what I said would help you out a bit. The point I was making is that these religions claim there is some type of "sickness" and describe a way to get rid of that sickness, whether it be good deeds, faith in Jesus, or trying to get rid of suffering through Nirvana. The other point of lumping them all together was that neither of them have evidence of this "sickness" and/or their supposed remedy. Of the religions I've mention, the closest one that comes to be confirmed is Buddhism's suffering. But its remedy of Nirvana has no evidence that I know of.