So nobody wants to bite on the whole prophecy angle huh? You know, doing things that were previously foretold and having people do things that they could not have controlled.
As I said before, one person out of the roughly 106 BILLION people that have ever lived that has fulfilled all the prophecies.
That is definitely something that confounds non-believers.
I see two problems in logic.
First, (as somebody alluded to previously) we don't know what the prophecy failure rate is. The Bible records a few 'false prophets' and lots of warnings about them, but very few times when a true prophet was recorded to be wrong (falling out of favor with God). How many times have things happened that were NOT prophesied? That too is a failure. The easy way out is to say, "Divine will." Which brings us to the second problem.
I have no problem at all with saying everything is divine will and beyond human understanding and supernatural. That's a faith-based proof and if you have faith, you need nothing else. But when in order to make a human argument you bring in logic when it's convenient and then exclude logic when it is not convenient, you're not playing fair with the rules. Either adopt logic or reject logic. You can't have it both ways and make a logical argument.
B
__________________
“There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.”
Otto von Bismarck
We believe in free markets, individual liberty, private property and, most of all, strictly limited government.
--- Robert Levy
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
--- JFK
My whole point is to bring statistics to what has been written in the Bible.
The usual suspects here have repeatedly used statistics to bolster their arguments and positions. I would like to see what they say to things like:
- If the earth were 10% farther from the sun, it would freeze.
- If the earht was 10% closer to the sun, it would bake.
- If the earth was 20% closer to the moon, twice daily 35-50 foot tidal waves would be the normals tide action.
I'm sure many of us have heard the odds of a planet like earth existing out of random chance has been figured by some as less than one chance in 10 to the 139th power (ten thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion).
I'm just interested in what McBear, TOB (theonlybiker), FTL, etc. would say about such things.
I've posted this numerous times. It is good to take these references and just check out how accurate they are. Remember first off the first "direct" prophecy of Jesus started as early as the first book, Genesis. I say "direct, because there is no mistaking these when looked at closely. This link consists of about 75 "direct", and yet there were many hundreds that were indirect.
I've also posted that if 7 of the "direct happened as shown,(considering just those close to Christs crucifiction ) the odds would be 10 to the 17th power. I don't know the math as accurate, but I would assume it's close. C'mon math majors. You know how many 0's that would run out to be.,
Remember I'm only claiming that number on 7 items. Look at the reference now !!!
The problem with that form of argument is this: It uses the outcome as proof of the input. That works for first-order things but gets pretty unwieldily for higher-order chained events.
For example, we could say, "Here is an egg and here is a chicken, this proves the theory of organic evolution."
Let's assume that there is only one planet with carbon-based, intelligent life ever occurred in the universe. Let's say that the chances are very small, as small as you want to suggest -- I'll accept any real number. What does that prove? It proves nothing at all. There are all manner of improbable events that happen at any given instant. Some of them are (almost) uncountably highly unlikely, yet they happen. Does that mean God played a hand in every improbable event?
Concerning prophecies, we either must accept that the Bible is a scientific instrument of record or it is not. You cannot have it both ways. If it is a scientific instrument of record then it is testable. If it is testable then we should test it against known events and probabilities. If it is not testable then it is not a scientific instrument of record and we cannot use it to verify scentific events.
The problem with that form of argument is this: It uses the outcome as proof of the input. That works for first-order things but gets pretty unwieldily for higher-order chained events.
For example, we could say, "Here is an egg and here is a chicken, this proves the theory of organic evolution."
Let's assume that there is only one planet with carbon-based, intelligent life ever occurred in the universe. Let's say that the chances are very small, as small as you want to suggest -- I'll accept any real number. What does that prove? It proves nothing at all. There are all manner of improbable events that happen at any given instant. Some of them are (almost) uncountably highly unlikely, yet they happen. Does that mean God played a hand in every improbable event?
Concerning prophecies, we either must accept that the Bible is a scientific instrument of record or it is not. You cannot have it both ways. If it is a scientific instrument of record then it is testable. If it is testable then we should test it against known events and probabilities. If it is not testable then it is not a scientific instrument of record and we cannot use it to verify scentific events.
B
But what about stuff in the Old Testament about the Messiah having his side pierced? Or that he would be given vinegar for his thirst? Or that his clothes would be gambled for?
All stuff that Jesus could not control.
Then of course there are all the miracles he performed.
But what about stuff in the Old Testament about the Messiah having his side pierced? Or that he would be given vinegar for his thirst? Or that his clothes would be gambled for?
All stuff that Jesus could not control.
Then of course there are all the miracles he performed.
Is it your argument that the Bible is an instrument of scientific record?
You must understand TNT.
Folks want to argue these things are irrelevant. We know better. It doesn't even enter in to the faith argument or Bible as science book (since it's not). When we number crunch it, it gets too astounding to wrap your brain around. Folks won't do that for Biblical principles, and yet will do it for other things as a means of proof. Go Figure.
You must understand TNT.
Folks want to argue these things are irrelevant. We know better. It doesn't even enter in to the faith argument or Bible as science book (since it's not). When we number crunch it, it gets too astounding to wrap your brain around. Folks won't do that for Biblical principles, and yet will do it for other things as a means of proof. Go Figure.
Again, I must sleep
aard
It is either a sceince book or it is not. If it is a science book then it is testable. I'm fine with that. Let's check it's credibility.
If it is not a science book then for goodness sakes, don't use it to support a science argument. Use it, as Martin Luther said in a similar context, "by faith alone."
It is either a sceince book or it is not. If it is a science book then it is testable. I'm fine with that. Let's check it's credibility.
If it is not a science book then for goodness sakes, don't use it to support a science argument. Use it, as Martin Luther said in a similar context, "by faith alone."
Is it a science book? No.
Is a transcript of a trial a science book? No.
I do believe that the Bible is a historical record.
I think that the parts of the Bible that were written dozens of generations before Christ was on the face of this earth, that give specific "tests" so that we would know who it was, can not be simply ignored because they do not meet the 2009 version of what a peer reviewed scientific paper is.
I mean we have a whole Climate Summit going based on stuff that meets that definition that has been shown to be deliberately misleading. But I digress...
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
