Rex

Joined

• started 5 topics
• posted 40 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Rex

• 
  8

  The Bible Fraud

  by sammielee24 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  has anyone read the bible fraud?

  it looked like an interesting read and just wondered if any of you read it and what you thought of it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  Crackpot stuff, he dredged up the old research from "Holy Blood: Holy Grail", which was an eighties 'Da Vinci Code'.
  
  Rex
• 
  34

  Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

  by Rex in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.

  when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

  (my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  Hi Tdoggy,
  
  >Funny that the Bible itself is just a BIG stack of presuppositions. I don't know what the "Atheist Bible" is but "The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories" is a good place to start.
  
  It is good in an amateur way. It is probably very good for this discussion forum. I hate(well, not really) to tell you this.....every facet of every chapter has been 'debunked' in apologetics literature. The Church has been defending itself ever since the beginning when the Jews tried to claim that the body of Christ has been stolen, despite the stone sealed and guarded by soldiers who were under the penalty of death.
  
  Now as far as scientific discoveries, this is constantly changing and in the midst of change there is about as much uncoerced agreement (gotta have 'tenure' and only the higher up prof's can give it!) as you'll find at a psychiatrist convention!!! LOL
  If an alleged 'fact' of science contradicts the Bible then all of the evidence isn't in or the presupposition is wrong to start with.
  
  Rex
• 
  34

  Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

  by Rex in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.

  when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

  (my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  Thanks for the dose of reality, Forsher!
  
  Rex
• 
  34

  Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

  by Rex in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.

  when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

  (my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  Hi Tetly,
  Er uh...are you serious, "scientists start with no presuppositions"????? EVERYONE has presuppositions, axioms, that they develop as time goes on and learning continues. The whole idea is to get to the point where you can consider the data for what it's worth rather than for what you think it's worth.
  
  The Atheist Bible? Naturalism is it's 'Old Testament', Evolution is it's New Testament and the alleged 'Age of Reason' is it's comparative interpretation of all facts, with the PRESUPPOSITION that 'no supernatural events occur because we cannot measure these in any way.'
  
  I do not see it, therefore it does not exist!!! LOL
  Rex
• 
  34

  Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

  by Rex in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.

  when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

  (my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  Galileo's persecution has absolutely no comparison to my post. You are talking about apples and oranges. His theory was proven and the Catholic Church leadership was wrong, not scripture.....
  Rex
• 
  18

  Christian Answer to Atheist Bible: the Flood

  by Rex in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  no, i did not write this.

  it is a compilation from academia: .

  the source of the gilgamesh epic .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  Hi Alan,
  You are arguing from presupposition. Your position determines your argument and your conclusion. Just because you say, 'it's been debunked', does not settle the question at hand. You also make the mistake of arguing with intimidation in mind by assumption that those who no longer use certain theories and explnations are somehow superior or 'more scholarly' than those who do not.
  Rex
• 
  34

  Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

  by Rex in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  here is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.

  when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

  (my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  Here is a very insightful article from Ken Ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.
  
  When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way. (My note: You've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.")
  
  Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
  
  The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
  
  Past and present
  
  We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
  
  However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
  
  Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
  
  On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
  
  Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
  
  Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
  
  That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
  
  ‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
  
  ‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
  
  ‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
  
  ‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
  
  These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
  
  It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
  
  I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
  
  It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
  
  However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
  
  As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
  
  However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
  
  What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
  
  Debate terms
  
  If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
  
  1.‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
  
  2. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
  
  A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
  
  Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
  
  Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
  
  1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’
  
  Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’
  
  Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
  Practical application
  
  When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
  
  ‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
  
  One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
  
  Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
  
  ‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’
  
  In arguing this way, a Christian is:
  
  1. Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
  
  2. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
  
  3. Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
  
  4. Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
  
  5. Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
  
  Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.
  Naturalism, logic and reality
  
  Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
  
  1.A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
  
  The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
  
  2.On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
  
  This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
  
  That's the conclusion of Ken's article. We were all raised in an environment that taught us not to think. This is how we fall into both religious and secular traps. We have each set up authority figures of one kind or another, then we have presuppositions to deal with, the 'axioms' that we use. Therefore, if it is my wish that I NOT be accountable to some supernatural being, then I will find evidence of this disbelief easily attainable. It works the other way as well. So what is the answer?
  Jesus Christ himself is the answer. He is the answer in the spiritual realm as well as the evidenciary realm of the natural world. Once, I cried out to Him to show me 'truth', because so much of what I had been taught was false. During the next several months He revealed Himself in ways that I could not explain. I investigated the trinity doctrine to try and disprove it....and in that investigation the Lord revealed Himself. A obedient church had been praying for me and my family for two years before we all came out of the cult. I did receive an occasional witness from one their number when we debated the subject of scripture. He had recently been converted, being a former agnostic.
  
  There are no accidents when we see the divine appointments being filled in our lives!
  
  My belief is built on the solid rock of the testimony and deaths of Christians from the very beginning of the church age. My belief is locked in by my daily communication and walk with my Lord and my God. My eternal soul is sealed by the Holy Spirit and He guides me in all things....
  
  Rex
• 
  18

  Christian Answer to Atheist Bible: the Flood

  by Rex in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  no, i did not write this.

  it is a compilation from academia: .

  the source of the gilgamesh epic .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  >and BTW the evidence is overwhelming that the flood was NOT GLOBAL
  
  Here is the basic problem for ex-JWs regarding the evolution/creation debate:
  
  It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
  
  Therein is the conflict that we have before us.....look for the next installment.
  
  Rex
• 
  18

  Christian Answer to Atheist Bible: the Flood

  by Rex in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  no, i did not write this.

  it is a compilation from academia: .

  the source of the gilgamesh epic .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  >and BTW the evidence is overwhelming that the flood was NOT GLOBAL
  
  Actually, NO it is not. That depends on whether you are naturalistic in your presuppositions or you allow for supernatural events. That comes down to world view. The naturalist world view itself is unsupported by the evidence in the sciences. There is shockingly little evidence in the fossil record to support the claims of evolutionists for instance. Remember the famous Scopes 'monkey trial'? The whole constructed evoutionary evidence for the prehistoric 'man' I question was a single tooth. That tooth was later determined to be from a pig. LOL
  As far as the water canopy theory it is even no longer used in intelligent design circles. The rain ncessary could have been caused by catastrophic volcanic activity along with the release of huge volumes of water from the 'deeps' and the mountain ranges we have today would not have existed in the heights we presently had.
  
  Rex
• 
  18

  Christian Answer to Atheist Bible: the Flood

  by Rex in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  no, i did not write this.

  it is a compilation from academia: .

  the source of the gilgamesh epic .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rex

  No, I did not write this. It is a compilation from academia:
  
  The source of the Gilgamesh Epic
  
  The date of the Gilgamesh Epic seems to be earlier than the reign of Hammurabi when Marduk succeeded to the supremacy in the Babylonian pantheon from Anu and Enlil40 because Anu and Enlil are still described as the chief deities (XI 15–16) in the Epic.41 At the same time, Heidel states, “It has long been recognized that the Gilgamesh Epic constitutes a literary compilation of material from various originally unrelated sources, put together to form one grand, more or less harmonious, whole.”42 Although the Gilgamesh traditions were distributed widely and numerous tablets have been discovered, unfortunately, a complete original text of the Gilgamesh Epic does not exist.43 The text and the date of composition of the extant manuscripts vary widely.44 The oldest version of the Epic, which is inscribed in the Babylonian dialect of Akkadian early in the second millennium B.C., is called the Old Babylonian Version.45 It is extant in a fragmentary state; therefore, its conclusion cannot be ascertained.46 A later version, the so-called “Standard Version,” consists of twelve tablets and is more complete.47 It was composed by Sin-leqe-unninni, a poet-editor who lived around the thirteen century B.C.48 In this version the flood account appears in tablet XI. Moran discusses that account as follows:
  
  It is generally conceded that the Flood was not part of the original epic, which may have referred to it, but only briefly. The long account in Tablet 11 seems to be told for its own sake. It seriously interrupts not only the flow of dialogue between Ut-napishtim and Gilgamesh but the otherwise smooth and natural transition from the end of the Tablet 10, where Ut-napishtim tells Gilgamesh about the assembly of the gods after the Flood, to Ut-napishtim’s rhetorical question. Finally, the story as told here is not an independent account; it draws on an identifiable source, the myth of Atrakhasis.49
  
  Generally, the flood account in the Atrahasis Epic tablet III is regarded as the source of the Gilgamesh Epic tablet XI because of many common elements and wordings.50 Actually, the hero’s name Atrahasis, which denotes “the exceedingly wise,” is used as another cognomen of Utnapishtim, the hero of the flood account in the Gilgamesh Epic (XI 187).51 The date of the original composition of the Atrahasis Epic also seems to trace back to before the reign of Hammurabi because of the superiority given to Anu and Enlil in the Epic.52 Even though the extant oldest tablets of the Atrahasis Epic date to the days of King Ammizaduga (1646–1626 B.C.),53 it is obvious that they are not the original, but copies.54 However, Heidel expresses the opposite view that the flood account in the Atrahasis Epic might have been rooted in the Gilgamesh Epic tablet XI.55 Whether the Gilgamesh Epic was the source of the Atrahasis Epic or the opposite, it is also recognized that the Atrahasis Epic is probably the version edited from various traditional materials.56 Therefore, there seems to have existed an older version from which both accounts derived. Moran also states the reason why the flood account was added in the Gilgamesh Epic as follows:
  
  It is also generally conceded that the one who added the story was the poet-editor of the prologue. He has a manifest interest in, and esteem for, “the knowledge of days before the Flood” that Gilgamesh brought back. He also speaks in the prologue of the secret things revealed by Gilgamesh but with only two formally identified, one of them the Flood Story. If the poet-editor was not the one who added the story, he certainly directs his reader to it and implies its importance.
  
  In the learned world of Sin-leqe-unninni, the Flood Story is certainly important, in that it is knowledge that, were it not for Gilgamesh, would have been lost. And it is not just any knowledge. It is knowledge about the most terrible event in human history. It is knowledge about a terrible truth: the gods can destroy and one may never know why. A wise man, Gilgamesh, should know this.57
  
  No longer can the Gilgamesh Epic be used to discredit the Flood of Noah!
  
  Rex