Judeo-Christian Bible--Proof, Divinely Inspired

[Aqueous Id]

Aqueous Id:
Maybe you should explain that to the publishers of the Encyclopedia Britannica. They devoted five (5) web pages on Isaiah's biography--the same Isaiah for whom you claim there is no "competent evidence". Not that encyclopedias are always right, but imagine that: the biography of a fictional character in an encyclopedia. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/295133/Isaiah

That article is written by a Jewish theologian whose religious beliefs cannot be differentiated from his academic expertise. His use of the label "biography" doesn't constitute competent evidence that Isaiah ever existed, or that such a person authored the book of the same name. Nor does he cite any such evidence, since, like all the legendary and fabulous characters in the Bible, Isaiah's existence cannot be traced to any artifact or to any document outside of the Bible.

False. There are no scriptures in the Judeo-Christian Bible that indicate earth is LITERALLY "flat, sitting on legs like table." The key word here is "literally".

What is so bizarre about this form of apologetics is that it appears to be a mutation on a slightly more rigorous form of literalism in which the apologist asserts that the Earth is flat, based on the cites from the Bible. I cited Jeremiah, which speaks of "the ends of the Earth" which contradicts your belief that prophets foretold that the Earth is spherical. Elsewhere in the OT are similar statements - that the Earth has four corners, pillars, and is immovable except when Yahweh shakes it. Putting this together you have the literal interpretation that the Earth is like a table, flat, square or rectangular and sitting on legs.

Now, suppose you prove your claim by quoting scripture?

I think you already know what Bible verses I am referring to.

 

[Billy T]

... Putting this together you have the literal interpretation that the Earth is like a table, flat, square or rectangular and sitting on legs. ...

Yes, but no suggestion of 'four legs" exists in the Bible. The earlier than King James versions, I think imply the table rest on the back of a giant animal or perhaps, it is "turtles all the way down" ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes, but no suggestion of 'four legs" exists in the Bible. The earlier than King James versions, I think imply the table rest on the back of a giant animal or perhaps, it is "turtles all the way down" ?

No one said FOUR legs.
However I provided quotes that used the word pillars. Near enough to "legs", methinks.

 

[Billy T]

Yes, but no suggestion of 'four legs" exists in the Bible. The earlier than King James versions, I think imply the table rest on the back of a giant animal or perhaps, it is "turtles all the way down" ?

True. I inferred "four legs" from your: "Earth is like a table, flat, square or rectangular and sitting on legs."

So I guess the Bible's main omission of facts, (true or otherwise) is about the "turtles, all the way down" for the n "pillars" to rest on.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Yes, but no suggestion of 'four legs" exists in the Bible. The earlier than King James versions, I think imply the table rest on the back of a giant animal or perhaps, it is "turtles all the way down" ?

Of course the nonsense here is the quibbling over the correct interpretation of myth, legend and fable.

I suppose a table needs only one central "pillar" but since the Earth is described as having "four corners", and Yahweh shakes the "pillars" (during earthquakes), we are left to infer that they must have thought a pillar supported each corner.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Of course the nonsense here is the quibbling over the correct interpretation of myth, legend and fable.

Yes... i skip that part an just discuss whatever claims they make... which Alter2Ego refuses to do cause that woud require her to express her own thouts insted of just tossin out a bible quote as if its "gold".!!!

 

[Alter2Ego]

Alter2Ego, it is quite possible for someone to make a claim that is correct while making that claim with no support whatsoever. Nostradamus was quite famous for it. It is quite possible to support a claim that is incorrect, as well as not support one that is correct:

Sarkus:
There is only one thing Notradamus was famous for: He was famous for writing "quatrains" (a quatrain is simply a poem with four lines). In order to make these quatrains vague--so that any meaning could later be applied to them--he used devices such symbols, metaphors, and deliberately misspelled words. As stated by one source:

"Most interestingly, many of the so-called Nostradamus prophecies circulating today are merely urban legends -- often his original quatrains are cut and splice to sound good after major world events. For instance, shortly after the September 11th terrorist attacks in the U.S., a large number of alleged Nostradamus prophecies began circulating the Internet and news media. Here are a few of them:

"In the year of the new century and nine months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror... The sky will burn at forty-five degrees. Fire approaches the great new city..."

"In the city of York there will be a great collapse, two twin brothers torn apart by chaos while the fortress falls the great leader will succumb third big war will begin when the big city is burning"

"It has been foreseen that exactly three hundred and fifty years into the future, Silver phoenixes shall strike down the twin brothers of oppression That carried the king's nation, which shall bring upon the apocalypse. In the City of God there will be a great thunder, two brothers torn apart by chaos"​

So, did Nostradamus predict the attacks against the Twin Towers in New York? No, Nostradamus didn't write these quatrains - they were tweaked and twisted to somewhat match the event."
http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/nostradamus-prophecy.htm​

Compare that to Bible prophecies that are clear and unambiguous when they describe specific events that will later be fulfilled exactly as prophesied. And compare that with the precise viewpoint descriptions give by Isaiah at Isaiah 40:22, and the viewpoint description given by Moses at Job 26:7.

Alter2Ego

 

[Alter2Ego]

MERRIAM-WEBSTER THESAURUS: "UNSUPPORTED": Synonyms: baseless, foundationless, invalid, nonvalid, unfounded, unreasonable, unsubstantiated, unsupported, unwarranted" http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/unsupported

Wrong again.
An unsupported claim is simply without support: it may turn out to be correct, it may turn out to be incorrect (meaning you were wrong in saying " An unsupported claim is proven to be entirely wrong."). It simply has nothing to justify making the claim at that time.

Which dictionary did you get that from? The same one from which you made the earlier fallacious statement that the claim by Moses about earth appearing to "hang upon nothing" was "unsupported" but "close to correct"? Never mind that according to the synonyms from Merriam-Webster Thesaurus, an unsupported claim is "baseless, foundationless, invalid, nonvalid, unfounded, unreasonable, unsubstantiated, unsupported, unwarranted"--all of which indicates an unsupported claim can never turn out to be correct.

Alter2Ego

 

[Seattle]

I can see how it is hard to prove "God" because of the way God is usually defined (spirit). We live in the material world and although there is no way to test something that is in a spiritual dimension there is no evidence that it actually exists.

Jesus, and everyone that goes to heaven, according to the Bible has a resurrection body which is material.

This should be testable. Where is "heaven" and how can material bodies exist there? Physics does apply to the material world and yet there is no physics that I know of that would support material bodies in a place called heaven unless you think heaven is just another planet.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus:
There is only one thing Notradamus was famous for: He was famous for writing "quatrains" (a quatrain is simply a poem with four lines). In order to make these quatrains vague--so that any meaning could later be applied to them--he used devices such symbols, metaphors, and deliberately misspelled words.

Whatever people have subsequently done is irrelevant to the point I made: that nostradamus made unsupported claims. So your comments here are moot.

Compare that to Bible prophecies that are clear and unambiguous when they describe specific events that will later be fulfilled exactly as prophesied.

Such as? And you're claiming they will be, or have been?

And compare that with the precise viewpoint descriptions give by Isaiah at Isaiah 40:22, and the viewpoint description given by Moses at Job 26:7.

The ones you seem to be playing rather loosely with definitions and metaphors so as to interpret it to fit you preconceived notions, you mean?

 

[Alter2Ego]

Whatever people have subsequently done is irrelevant to the point I made: that nostradamus made unsupported claims. So your comments here are moot.
Such as? And you're claiming they will be, or have been?
The ones you seem to be playing rather loosely with definitions and metaphors so as to interpret it to fit you preconceived notions, you mean?

Sarkus:

By your own admission, Nostradamus made UNSUPPORTED claims. An unsupported claim is, by definition, a claim that can never to proven correct. Why so? Because it is an invalid or unsubstantiated claim. I provided the synonyms from a well-known dictionary to make that point. Here is the weblink to the word "unsupported," as defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/unsupported

Nostradamus deliberately wrote poems that were ambiguous. He did this so that the words could later be easily manipulated/spliced up and moved around to different parts of a sentence. He could then take credit for accurately prophesying a later event. I gave an example of this at post 47.

Compare that to the prophecies in the Bible which are so on point that nobody had to splice up the words (move the words around) within Bible prophecies to make them fit a particular prophesied event. In fact, some Bible prophecies are so accurate that skeptics had to resort to the lame argument that the prophecies were written after the event. I will present one of those Bible prophecies in this thread shortly.

Alter2Ego

 

[Dywyddyr]

An unsupported claim is, by definition, a claim that can never to proven correct.

Wrong.

Compare that to the prophecies in the Bible which are so on point that nobody had to splice up the words (move the words around) within Bible prophecies to make them fit a particular prophesied event. In fact, some Bible prophecies are so accurate that skeptics had to resort to the lame argument that the prophecies were written after the event. I will present one of those Bible prophecies in this thread shortly.

Also wrong.

Troll added to ignore list.

 

[Sarkus]

By your own admission, Nostradamus made UNSUPPORTED claims. An unsupported claim is, by definition, a claim that can never to proven correct. Why so? Because it is an invalid or unsubstantiated claim. I provided the synonyms from a well-known dictionary to make that point. Here is the weblink to the word "unsupported," as defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/unsupported

Dywyddyr is somewhat more succinct than me, but to repeat him: you are wrong.
An unsupported claim is one which at the time it is made has no foundation in reason or fact. But, and here is the important part which you seem to struggle with, that claim can still later (i.e. after the claim is made) be found to be correct, or at least supported in some manner.
In which case the person making the claim got lucky with the truth of what they were saying.

Nostradamus deliberately wrote poems that were ambiguous. He did this so that the words could later be easily manipulated/spliced up and moved around to different parts of a sentence. He could then take credit for accurately prophesying a later event. I gave an example of this at post 47.

Irrelevant - as already explained.

Compare that to the prophecies in the Bible which are so on point that nobody had to splice up the words (move the words around) within Bible prophecies to make them fit a particular prophesied event. In fact, some Bible prophecies are so accurate that skeptics had to resort to the lame argument that the prophecies were written after the event. I will present one of those Bible prophecies in this thread shortly.

Again, as requested previously, provide them.

All you have done is repeat your same erroneous statement with regard the meaning of the phrase "an unsupported claim", repeat the same irrelevancy as to what Nostradamus' intentions were, and then merely repeated the claim that the Bible has fulfilled prophecies.

Is all you intend to do is to repeat yourself until we all grow tired of listening to you?

 

[madethesame]

can bible predicted that Big Pops will beat me in heaven ? I am not a christian.

 

[Photizo]

can bible predicted that Big Pops will beat me in heaven ? I am not a christian.

You'll be beaten outside of heaven.

 

[billvon]

Compare that to Bible prophecies that are clear and unambiguous when they describe specific events that will later be fulfilled exactly as prophesied. And compare that with the precise viewpoint descriptions give by Isaiah at Isaiah 40:22

"It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

Sounds like someone in a tree looking at people.

and the viewpoint description given by Moses at Job 26:7.

"The dead tremble,
Those under the waters and those inhabiting them.
Sheol is naked before Him,
And Destruction has no covering.
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.
He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it."

When did that happen?

 

[Alter2Ego]

Dywyddyr is somewhat more succinct than me, but to repeat him: you are wrong.
An unsupported claim is one which at the time it is made has no foundation in reason or fact. But, and here is the important part which you seem to struggle with, that claim can still later (i.e. after the claim is made) be found to be correct, or at least supported in some manner.
In which case the person making the claim got lucky with the truth of what they were saying.

Sarkus:

When do you intend to quote a dictionary where that definition is given for the word "unsupported"? Thus far, you are merely telling the rest of us what you claim the word means. Meanwhile, from another dictionary, below is the definition of "unsupported". Focus on the words bolded in blue.

unsupported
adjective based on conjecture, groundless, not authenticated, not established, not substantiated, suppositional, supposititious, unabetted, unaided, unassisted, unattested, unauthenticated, uncertified, uncollaborated, unconfirmed, uncorroborated, undemonstrated, unfounded, unproved, unseconded, unsubstantiated, unsustained, untenable, unvalidated, unverified, without basis, without foundation

Associated concepts: unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence

See also: baseless, helpless, ill-founded, inconclusive, powerless, solitary, unauthorized, unconfirmed, uncorroborated, unfounded
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unsupported
​

Now, suppose you show the rest of us where that definition says anything resembling “at that time” but "at a future time, it will be supported". If you can find a dictionary that backs up your claim that unsupported applies only to things not proven "at the time it is made, " be sure and provide the name of the dictionary, as well as the weblink to the dictionary so the rest of us can confirm it.


The forum is waiting.



Alter2Ego

 

[Sarkus]

When do you intend to quote a dictionary where that definition is given for the word "unsupported"? Thus far, you are merely telling the rest of us what you claim the word means. Meanwhile, from another dictionary, below is the definition of "unsupported". Focus on the words bolded in blue.

unsupported
adjective based on conjecture, groundless, not authenticated, not established, not substantiated, suppositional, supposititious, unabetted, unaided, unassisted, unattested, unauthenticated, uncertified, uncollaborated, unconfirmed, uncorroborated, undemonstrated, unfounded, unproved, unseconded, unsubstantiated, unsustained, untenable, unvalidated, unverified, without basis, without foundation

Associated concepts: unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence

See also: baseless, helpless, ill-founded, inconclusive, powerless, solitary, unauthorized, unconfirmed, uncorroborated, unfounded
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unsupported
​

Now, suppose you show the rest of us where that definition says anything resembling “at that time” but "at a future time, it will be supported". If you can find a dictionary that backs up your claim that unsupported applies only to things not proven "at the time it is made, " be sure and provide the name of the dictionary, as well as the weblink to the dictionary so the rest of us can confirm it.


The forum is waiting.

Oh, for Pete's sake!
What the &%$* is wrong with people on this forum that you have to explain to them the rudiments of the English language in order for them to understand what they themselves are saying to other people?

You claim that an "unsupported claim" can "never turn out to be correct". Are you honestly standing by this?
Seriously??
So if I claim that I will win something on the lottery tomorrow, not that I can win but that I will win, which is a wholly unsupported claim on my part... are you honestly saying that it is impossible for me to win on the lottery tomorrow?
Think it through before you answer.

As for the cherry-picked meanings that you bolded, which of them mean that it is impossible to actually happen as claimed: not established, not substantiated, unconfirmed, undemonstrated, unproved, without basis, without foundation.
So it is not established when I make a claim to someone that a 100-1 shot in a horse race actually wins, and I claim that it has. Neither of us have seen the race, nor know of the result... you are telling me that it can "never turn out to be correct"?
So it is not substantiated that a 100-1 shot in a horse race actually wins, and I claim that it has. Neither of us have seen the race, nor know of the result... you are telling me that it can "never turn out to be correct"?
So it is unconfirmed that a 100-1 shot in a horse race actually wins, and I claim that it has. Neither of us have seen the race, nor know of the result... you are telling me that it can "never turn out to be correct"?

Bear in mind that all of science was at some point undemonstrated, unproven, unconfirmed, not substanstiated, not established.
So according to you it can never happen!!

Want me to go on?

A claim, when made, can be unsupported. That does not mean that what is being claimed can not, at some future time, be supported.
Unsupported is an adjective that describes the noun at that current time. It is not an absolute position. To mean "always unsupported" we would have to qualify "unsupported" further with "always" or some such wording.

If you can not understand this simple English then please prefix your subsequent posts with a "Please excuse me - I do not understand simple English" so that we can treat your words accordingly.

I sincerely hope we are done here and that you can acknowledge your error and stupidity in this regard.

 

[Aqueous Id]

][/COLOR]
Compare that to Bible prophecies that are clear and unambiguous when they describe specific events that will later be fulfilled exactly as prophesied.

The only thing clear and unambiguous is the knowledge that so-called prophesies were written after the fact, as somewhat confused memories of events that had already occurred. Other unclear and ambiguous predictions also appear in the Bible, too, which are so vague and general, yet zealots keep claiming they apply to current events. The most widely referenced are the "prophesies" that the world will end "today".

Of course clairvoyance is impossible. And the most absurd of beliefs is that dreams reported in the Bible are taken as metaphysical revelations--especially those which are so bizarre they can only be the product of a deranged mind. We all know that our own dreams are highly imaginative, illusory, and capable of playing tricks on the mind. It defies common sense to treat these, above all, "literally".

And compare that with the precise viewpoint descriptions give by Isaiah at Isaiah 40:22,

No there is nothing precise about it.

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth

Yahweh cannot sit. He would need buttocks to do that. And he has no use for a throne since he can neither sit nor hold court. This is what is called the "anthropomorphic God". In your early schooling you should have learned that, at the dawn of history, humans were evolving out of animism into polytheism. Anthropomorphic gods represent the tendency of cultures to fall back to their animist explanations of phenomena, giving human qualities to the elements of Nature. The worst possible interpretation of this kind of superstition is that it is valid for literal treatment. It flies in the face of common sense to do that. It's insane


To sit above a circle is to sit above either a ring or a disk, with the people on one surface. On a sphere "above" is a relative term. If a Frisbee is "above" my head, it is "below" the feet of people in Australia, and it is somewhere else for the people on the various continents. It takes way too much equivocating to arrive at the Primitivist brand of literalism. Again, these are myths, legends, fables, dreams, hallucinations and chronicles, not predictions, and as far from "divinely inspired" as imaginable.

and its people are like grasshoppers.

People are the size of ants from my 20th story window. Does that make me greater than Yahweh? They needed to consult with Euclid before writing this. It's way too poorly thought out to be taken seriously.

He stretches out the heavens

That's a terrible translation. It borrows from the cults of ancient England. The word is simply "sky". They obviously think Yahweh is a superman who lives in the sky.

like a canopy,

Nonsense. It appears to be a dome. In fact it is air, then a vacuum, extending in all directions.

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

This is nothing more than the egocentric view. I live in a tent, therefore the whole Earth must be under a tent. A flat Earth, of course. This verse is utterly useless to shoring up your proposition.

and the viewpoint description given by Moses at Job 26:7.

Alter2Ego

He stretcheth out the north over the empty place


This is a reference to the apparent void at the axis. It's purely an illusion. And it reveals their ignorance of the southern hemisphere. In fact if they inferred a sphere as you claim, they would infer a South Pole. Therefore this proves they believed the Earth is flat.

and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

This contradicts your claim. And it's clearly ignorant of Earth's orbit. The Earth is not hanging. It is orbiting the Sun, acted on by the Sun's gravitational field and the tangent forces imparted to the accretion disk by the velocity of the supernovae remnants from which it formed.

Of course physical evidence can be tampered with, in the throes of denial, to conform it to one's beliefs -- at least you can convince yourself of that. But that is not even literalism. It's just denial.

 

[madethesame]

You'll be beaten outside of heaven.

So i must not die.