How do I know the Bible is True?

by SwedishChef 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  crownboy

  Some more bible errors here:

  http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html
• 

  SwedishChef

  AlanF,
  
  "Despite my personal interpretations of this verse, I know myself Isaiah 40:22 will not stand up under the attack of its critics. This verse has basically been neutralized in debates and is not worth getting into an argument over."
  
  I only said this only because of my experience here. There is no use arguing the point when it doesn't seem to hold any weight with skeptics. This is what I meant and should have said.
  
  But perhaps I was wrong in saying even that...The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p.249, p.5, does in fact support my view. It figures you had nothing to say about it.
  
  "In just a couple of minutes of reading I found many examples of the usual gross dishonesty engaged in by many creationist writers."
  Really, in just a few minutes of skimming you assessed that this person is purposefully lying to his viewers? Again, I refer to my statement I made to Rem - all my sources are bad, of course, because they dont support your view. That article does go on to say what Darwins views were and what evolutionists view are.
  
  I am sure if I cared enough, I could find plenty of dirt on these evolutionist scientists whom you hold in such great esteem.
• 

  SwedishChef

  Analysis & Gumby,
  
  If I did make sense of these verses for you, would you then believe? I highly doubt it. Your not searching for answers to these "contradictions"; the idea that the Bible is full of holes is what you have already made up your mind to believe. Nothing I say will change your mind.
• 

  AlanF

  SwedishChef posted an article "The Circle of The Earth" by Jerry D. McDonald, in which McDonald seems to have written:

  The final passage was Isaiah 40:22: 'It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth...' The word for circle in this passage is the Hebrew word Khoog, which, when in its masculine form as it is here means 'a circle, a sphere,' (The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p.249, p.5)

  The quoted reference work, Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon by Benjamin Davidson, is a fine reference tool, but is unfortunately somewhat out of date, having been published in 1848. It gives no scriptural examples where "Khoog" is used in the sense "sphere". However, a similar work, Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon was first published in rudimentary form in German in 1810 and appeared in its final version in English in 1847. It gives a similar definition to Davidson's lexicon, but contains more information on the masculine form of "Khoog": "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky, Pro. 8:27; Job 22:14; of the world, Isa. 40:22." So the definition "sphere" is derived by making an assumption with regards to what we are discussing the validity of, namely, whether those specific scriptural references that have been rendered "vault" in some bible translations mean "circle" or "sphere". So these definitions given in these 19th-century lexicons are simply outdated, as can be seen by comparing them to definitions given in modern lexicons and word-studies, such as the exhaustive Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament that I extensively quoted from in my earlier post. These modern lexicons never give the definition "sphere" for "Khoog", and TDOT shows why. Please read my earlier post on this for details.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  SwedishChef wrote:

  :: "Despite my personal interpretations of this verse, I know myself Isaiah 40:22 will not stand up under the attack of its critics. This verse has basically been neutralized in debates and is not worth getting into an argument over."

  : I only said this only because of my experience here. There is no use arguing the point when it doesn't seem to hold any weight with skeptics. This is what I meant and should have said.

  I see. In other words, even though your claims have been thoroughly discredited, you're still not going to abandon them. Yes indeed, you're a fine example of the intellectually dishonest Christian that has so badly discredited Christianity as a whole. Do you not know that honest Christians exist, and that they have no need to defend their faith with dishonest arguments?
  
  : But perhaps I was wrong in saying even that...The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, p.249, p.5, does in fact support my view. It figures you had nothing to say about it.

  I said nothing about it simply because you posted the information after I had started to work on my long reply. I have corrected this in my most recent post. The lexicon you used is outdated and wrong.

  :: "In just a couple of minutes of reading I found many examples of the usual gross dishonesty engaged in by many creationist writers."

  : Really, in just a few minutes of skimming you assessed that this person is purposefully lying to his viewers?

  Right. I've been down this path many times before, and I know all of the usual dishonest creationist tactics. Do you really want to go into detail about the dishonesty and misrepresentation on that website? I guarantee you, I will trash your arguments as thoroughly as I did your Isaiah-circle ones. Of course, that will mean nothing to you, who obviously prefer to hold on to discredited arguments rather than adjust your views in the direction of honesty.

  : Again, I refer to my statement I made to Rem - all my sources are bad, of course, because they dont support your view.

  Sweeping generalities are of no value at all. I gave specific examples of creationist dishonesty. You ignored the specifics and only managed this weak, meaningless generality -- yet another characteristic of typical creationists. You know perfectly well that when you get down to specifics, you have no case.

  : That article does go on to say what Darwins views were and what evolutionists view are.

  Which again are largely misrepresentative.

  : I am sure if I cared enough, I could find plenty of dirt on these evolutionist scientists whom you hold in such great esteem.

  What a moron you are! We're not talking about geting dirt on anyone -- we're talking about finding the facts of matters. I have given several examples of clear creationist dishonesty (or at best, downright incompetence, which amounts to dishonesty when you claim to be an expert). If you want to get into specifics, then get to it. Otherwise admit defeat and shut up.

  AlanF
• 

  gumby

  Analysis & Gumby,
  
  If I did make sense of these verses for you, would you then believe? I highly doubt it. Your not searching for answers to these "contradictions"; the idea that the Bible is full of holes is what you have already made up your mind to believe. Nothing I say will change your mind.

  SC,

  Actually I would like an explanation. If it is reasonable...I will consider it from a biblical perspective.

  Gumby
• 

  rem

  SC,

  I think everyone would be in agreement that this has not proved or disproved a thing.

  You would just love for everyone to agree with that statement, wouldnt you? The fact is that this whole discussion has proved something. It has proved that the Bible is not always scientifically accurate like you said when you started this thread.
  
  

  Rem, you seem to think that there is not a shred of evidence to back up the Bible. To think this is just plain ignorance. Like I've said before, there will always be people who say the Bible is wrong, and always be people who say the Bible is right. And both sides will have evidence to back what they believe.

  Im not sure what you mean by you seem to think that there is not a shred of evidence to back up the Bible. That doesnt even make sense. All I have been doing is showing you that you have been making absurd testable claims. Claims that are very easy to falsify. Instead of arguing, you should be learning from this. Dont use bad arguments anymore to defend your faith and I wont bug you.
  
  

  From a scientific view, there is no absolute proof to confirm that the Bible is right. And what I mean by this is, the only time there will be proof is when the last prophecy is fulfilled.

  Um, If you have to wait thousands of years for a prophecy to be fulfilled when the writers expected it to be fulfilled within their lifetimes or shortly thereafter, then I think we can safely say all of those are unfulfilled. Even if they are somehow fulfilled in the near future (Damascus destroyed, for example) the Bible was still wrong. The statute of limitations has past, buddy.

  And that prophecy is the return of Christ. Proof is what you can see. Believing in something you can't see is called faith.

  Another prophecy that people have been waiting thousands of years to see. A prophecy that was expected to be fulfilled way back in the first century! After waiting for something to happen for a couple thousand years, you just start to look pretty stupid. Hint: It aint happening, man.
  
  

  The Bible has never been proven wrong.

  There you go again with absurd testable claims. Do you have a chemical imbalance in the brain? The fact that the bible claims that insects have four legs (Leviticus 11:20) proves it is wrong in at least one place. Duh!

  There are no contradictions within these pages.

  Another ridiculous falsifiable claim. You are a retard.

  You failed to see the truth in Psalms 22: "they have pierced my hands and my feet". You wrote it off as some kind of mistranslation, you twisted the meaning of the verse. You said something along the lines of, "like a lion, they scratch at my hands and feet". Only problem is, that is not what it says. The only reason I can see for denying this passage is, it would mean you would have to admit to yourself that there is something to it.

  Sorry, but you are the one who have failed to see. You have glossed over the footnotes in the study Bibles regarding this scripture. Is this how you normally do your Bible study? Read the information again and again until you understand it.
  
  

  And I am still trying to figure out what "real research" is according to you.

  Real research means recognizing facts even when they go against your preconceived notions. It means not lying to bolster your argument. Your sources have been called out and been proven to be dishonest. You cant see the difference?

  Do you mean I should take a course in archeology, move to Israel, and start digging?

  I doubt you have the aptitude to ever do such a thing. But that is not what it takes to do real research. Its obvious you dont know what real research is because you keep trotting out bad sources and ignoring evidence.

  Just like me you rely upon what others have found and also upon hearsay. I take it you are not a historian, Hebrew scholar, or archeologist.

  You dont have to be any of those things to recognize dishonesty. The facts and evidence show this. Your sources have proven to be dishonest. Deal with it and stop crying, baby.
  
  

  But of course, my sources are all dishonest and yours are truthful. Every source which upholds your viewpoint is a good one, and every one which does not is a ridiculous copout.

  Wrong. Sources which are honest and congruent with the facts are good. Your sources make stuff up without evidence to back them. Those are dishonest sources. Learn it, live it, love it.
  
  SC, I have never taken you to task for having faith. The only thing that gets these debates going is when you make absurd claims that are demonstrably false. Yet you never learn and you do it over and over again. One can only assume that you have the reading comprehension of a kindergartener. The only other option is that you are an intellectually dishonest fool.

  rem

  Edited by - rem on 2 January 2003 21:35:15
• 

  Analysis

  SwedishChef

  Have you read the Bible Cover to Cover? I have three times looking for answers to my questions.
• 

  Realist

  SwedishChef,

  please give a listing of fullfilled prophecies that were written prior to the forseen event and which have actual evidence supporting it (for instance the piercing of jesus can hardly be viewed as evidence since jesus existence itself is not proven by sources outside the bible).
• 

  Stan Conroy

  SwedishChef,

  You should give this one up.

  What's for dinner?

  Stan