Proof the Judeo-Christian Bible Inspired of God

Unbelievable, . . sorry man, I have not had a Bible lobotomy and your all powerful mythical sky daddy is not a conscious entity that gives a flying fig about whether or not I can regurgitate any part of the Bible. It's just a book, written by men with the limited understanding they had of the world around them at the time.

Your version of Christianity is just another version, though it does seem to take a lot more effort in lying to yourself than some of the other versions.

I will give you somewhat of an answer to your 4th question: I would not blame an imaginary entity for anything. If the being you and others like you describe actually existed, he would have found a much better way to communicate with us than through a book laden with errors and atrocities.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
How convenient. Now that I put direct questions to you that show how ridiculous you sounded when you pointed at the Roman Catholics' errors about the earth being the center of the universe--as if the Catholics represent all Christians--you give the usual cop-out response concerning the Bible: "It's just a book, written by men...."

If the Judeo-Christian Bible is just a book written by men, how do you explain the accurate fulfillment of almost 2,000 Bible prophecies? In some instances, the prophecies were so detailed that skeptics started claiming they were written after the fulfillment of the event. Mind you, the skeptics had no evidence to prove what they were saying. My point is that humans are incapable of writing detailed prophecies of events that took place later on--in some instances, centuries after the prophecies were written. How do you explain that, Gomeza?

ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:
Until you can present Bible book, chapter, and verses where there are examples of the Bible being "a book laden with errors and atrocities," you're merely expressing your opinion. This is a public forum where everybody has an opinion. Since your opinion is no more credible than anybody elses, you need to back up your statements with documentary evidence. You presented none.

 

What an IDIOT. You keep claiming that there is 2000 prophecies but so far you have refused to give one example. Don´t you ever get tired of being laughed at?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
Say, what! You're giving me an ultimatum! Don't make me laugh. I am presenting evidence for the benefit of those who are willing to be reasonable and are open-minded. Skeptics are not open-minded.

For instance, I gave the definition of "scientific theory" at Post 15 and provided the weblink where I got the definition. As you can see, Corwin at Post 22 is objecting to my definition and presenting one that he apparently dreamed up. According to him, "A Theory is a hypothesis (or equation) that has been used to correctly predict a future event."

That definition is false. Theories can be disproven and they often are. I am not going to knock myself out arguing with Corwin about his erroneous definition. If he wants to believe theories "correctly predict a future event," after he already saw my definition with the weblink, let him continue believing that. Clearly, I won't get anywhere in persuading him that my definition is correct and his is not.


Again, I presented evidence in my OP that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. I will present three major prophecies in future posts--when I'm good and ready.

 

Obamanation -to- Alter2Ego:
If the Romans did not write a word of scripture, can you present us with a copy of the bible that predates the bible issued by the Romans in the First Council of Nicaea in the 325ad, without all those silly Roman additions? What I would be most interested in is a copy of one of the gospels penned in the hand of one of the apostles. Hell, I'd settle for one of the gospels penned in the hand of someone who knew one of the apostles. Hell, I'd settle for one of the gospels penned in the hand of someone actually alive during the time Jesus was alive.Hell, I'd settle for one of the gospels penned in the hand of someone alive within a generation or two of Jesus being alive.

Shall I hold my breath?

 

Translation - "don't ask questions, just blindly accept everything I say".

I'm sorry I didn't see any evidence there.

We have already talked about how earth is spherical and NOT a circle. And we have also talked about the fact that gravity is not "nothing". It's about time that you admit your errors.

 

If you look at the links I gave you, they come from 'Strong's Concordance' which is a highly respected, world reknown reference amongst theologians. Each link gives the concordance number where the translation can be found. If you think that Strongs has the Hebrew translations wrong, I would suggest you contact them immediately. I'm sure they will be very grateful to know that their world respected theologian scholars have got it wrong.

"Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, generally known as Strong's Concordance, is a concordance of the King James Bible (KJV) that was constructed under the direction of Dr. James Strong (1822–1894) and first published in 1890. Dr. Strong was Professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary at the time. It is an exhaustive cross-reference of every word in the KJV back to the word in the original text."

"Many scholarly Greek and Hebrew Lexicons (e.g., Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Thayer's Greek Dictionary, and Vine's Bible Dictionary) also use Strong's numbers for cross-referencing, encouraging hermeneutical approaches to study."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong's_Concordance



There is no doubt amongst serious scholars...'chuwg' means 'circle' and 'duwr' means 'ball'.

The writing is directed at the same audience that the Resurrection is directed at. If the one is not to be taken literally, why should the other?

He was imprisoned to all intents and purposes.... by being put under 'house arrest' for 9 years.

The 1st Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with any issue of the Bible and nor did the 2nd Council of Nicaea for that matter. The first Council of Nicaea was supposed to deal with the nature of the Trinity and the divinity of 'The Christ' but wound up being a refutation of Arianism. The second Council of Nicaea dealt the re-establishment of the veneration of icons. Neither of these dealt directly with the contents of the Bible. That was directly addressed at the Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397.

I wouldn't if I were you.

Give us one...that does not rely on the Bible for confirmation of fulfilment.

They were in the case of Daniel.

Well lets have a look at some of the errors....

Bible chronology give an age for the Earth of some 6000 years old but there is undeniable proof that the Earth is old. Humanity itself is much more than 6000 years old, evidenced by old cave paintings, archaeology, hominid fossil record etc.

No Noachian Flood.
The survival of Egypt's "Old Kingdom", and the total lack of all the massive geological evidence that a recent worldwide inundation would inevitably leave behind (massive run off channels, massive water erosion, total disruption of Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet layers, and so forth).

No Tower of Babel
Pretty self-explanatory, this. There is no evidence of any pre-Babel "common language" in written records, no sign of any post-Babel "confusion of languages" towards the end of the second millennium BCE (the alleged time of Babel).

No Exodus.
No trace of the movement of several million people through the Sinai desert, no trace of their supposed encampment at Kadesh Barnea for many years. Where are the latrines, the corpses of those who must have died during that time, and so forth?

No Conquest of Caanan.
The Hebrews are Caananites. Their language evolved from Caananite and their religion evolved from Caananite polytheism. We know this from Caananite records such as the Ugaritic texts.

No "Golden Age" of Solomon.
This "great empire" was never mentioned in the records of other surrounding civilizations.

Failure of Ezekiel's "Tyre Prophecy".
Ezekiel falsely predicted that Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon would take and permanently destroy Tyre. But Tyre survived Nebby's 13-year siege. Apologists have sought to cut this prophecy into 2 parts and have Alexander fulfil the second part centuries later (as he DID take Tyre), but this merely creates two failures where there was previously one: Nebby failed to take Tyre as prophesied, Alex failed to permanently destroy Tyre as prophesied.

Failure of Ezekiel's "Egypt Prophecy".
After the failure of the Tyre prophecy, Ezekiel promised Egypt to Nebby as compensation. Nebby was to ransack Egypt so thoroughly that it would be uninhabited for 40 years. Historical records show that this did not happen.

Failure of the "Babylon Prophecy" (Isaiah and Jeremiah).
Both of these prophesied that the Medes would take and permanently destroy Babylon. But the Medes were conquered by the Persians, who then went on to peacefully take (and not destroy) Babylon.

Numerous historical inaccuracies in Daniel.
While Daniel was supposedly written in the 6th century BC, it was actually written four centuries later and gets many details wrong.

Herod/Quirinius issue
Matthew's Jesus was born in Herod's time: Luke's Jesus was born at least a decade later, when Quirinius was governor of the region (as confirmed by various historical sources).

No "Massacre of the Innocents".
We have accounts from Herod's enemies, describing his various "crimes". The Massacre is not among them. It was invented by Matthew to draw a parallel between Jesus and Moses (who also supposedly survived an infant massacre, by Pharaoh).

No "zombie invasion of Jerusalem
The dead supposedly rose from their graves and wandered about in Jerusalem, and there was supposedly a supernatural darkness for several hours: numerous historians in the vicinity failed to notice these, as did all the gospel authors except one: obviously invented.

Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai.
Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 BCE, which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. In other words, there was no Canaanite city there for Joshua to conquer.

Jericho
The walls of Jericho did not come tumbling down at the sound of Joshua's trumpets. They came tumbling down at about the same time as Ai. c2300BCE..a thousand years before Joshua.

 

If you want atrocities, you can go here....
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html

 

Sorry, I have to post another picture I saw during the weekend. Pretty fitting.

 

WRONG.
You are forgetting St. Paul. He was born a Roman. He was famous for being born a Roman.

Scripture attributed to Saint Paul include
- Romans
- First Corinthians
- Second Corinthians
- Galatians
- Ephesians
- Philippians
- Colossians
- First Thessalonians
- Second Thessalonians
- First Timothy
- Second Timothy
- Titus
- Philemon

WRONG.

Many many times the Bible references a Father who is God (John 3:16), a Son who is God (Philippians 2:5-8; John 1:1), and a Holy Spirit who is God (Acts 5:3, 4). all three are referenced to be a part of the same God.

As to the fires of hell:
Mat 5:22 - "But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Also, read Revelations. There are references to the "fires of hell"

Dante wasn't born until 1285.

That is a big fat load of anti-Catholic bigotry.

People that claim to appeal to the "open minded" are usually close-minded themselves. And skeptics are not automatically close-minded. Skeptics simply ask for reasonable proof.

Mikael makes a reasonable request - he's asking you to prove that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. The Roman Catholic church actually has a very intelligent literary proof that proves that the Bible is indeed inspired. Do you know what it is, Alter2Ego?

 

Next: You can add me to the list of those asking for some form of proof of the 2,000 fulfilled prophecies, or is that preposterous claim just your opinion without "documentary evidence"?

The evidence that the Bible is nothing more than a book written by men should be a conclusion drawn by everyone living in the modern era with a rational mind. The fact that there are people who are willing to lie to themselves to the extent that you do, or manipulate truth and reality to pander to their own wishful thinking is nothing more than a demonstration of the powers of social conditioning and indoctrination.

The really sad part of it all is that no one other than strangers in a forum will speak with you in a rational and realistic manner, sad because your best hope for deprogramming comes from those you are intent on arguing with. You may not even be ready for deprogramming yet, for some it takes years, some never get there but many more fall off the hallelujah rails in surprisingly short order. It is the perpetual effort of reconciliation that eventually wears them down. So many of your type wake up one day to admit to themselves they have nothing but internet memes, the opinions of other members of their cult and a bushel full of lies they have fabricated themselves . . . what wonderful life guiding principles.

Does rational thought ever enter into the picture for you? If it does try this: You are a member of a very small modern era religion claiming to number from 7-8 million worldwide. The biblical interpretations you adhere to are unique amongst modern day Christianity. You insist that your group and only your group is correct in their biblical interpretations and that the Bible is at the very least the inspired word of God. How can it possibly make any form of sense that the "inspired word of God" is only known by and accessible to such an historically insignificant group? Extrapolating from 1870 until the present using today's subscription numbers, your group could not have exceeded 50 million members in total throughout its entire history or in much simpler terms, a small fraction of a percent of all of mankind have known the "true word of God" . . . meanwhile, countless other groups have made the same claim.

So in summarizing what the other cult members will never tell you: it's just a book, written by ignorant and superstitious men. The book does not contain any hidden, profound or arcane knowledge, nothing exists within it that is anachronistic to the contemporary knowledge of its authors. Humans do not have the ability to prophesize. . . . and now the biggie: Your religious fervor has a shelf life, if you have been with your cult for awhile you will already notice some people missing at your weekly meetings.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- CORWIN:
Until you can present at least one verse of scripture from God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, where it says the Apostle Paul was Roman Catholic, your argument is dead in the water. Don't waste your time telling me, "The Roman Catholics said it." That won't fly because it's circular argument. Your proof must come from the scriptures where it specifically indicates Paul became Roman Catholic.

For more on this, see my thread entitled: "Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?" When you get there, you will find my responses at Post 23, Post 26, and Post 28. In fact, anything dealing with the pagan trinity will be found in that particular thread. Below is the weblink that will get you there quickly.
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=2532313&page=2&posted=1#post17972121

 

Are you aware that Jehovah idiots didn´t exist at that time, so he certainly didn´t belong to your cult?

 

Is that so?? In fact, your The Judeo-Christian Bible is very clear that there is a very real, literal Hell that lasts for a literal eternity, where the wicked will be tormented in literal fire. You say there isn't. Well let's see!

Matthew 13:41-42 says, "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”


Revelation 14:9-11 says "And another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."”

Matthew 3:12 says, "And His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

Matthew 5:22 says, "whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."

Matthew 18:8-9 says, "And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire. 9"And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into the fiery hell."

Matthew 25:41 says, "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels.

Jude 7 says, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire"

Revelation 20:15 says, "And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Luke 16 says that the Rich Man suffered in a literal, fiery place of torment.

....yet YOU say there is no mention of a literal hell fire in the Bible?? I suggest you look again.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- GOMEZA:

Considering the schooling I gave you my thread dealing with macroevolution myth--in fact you were so thoroughly debunked that you lapped your tail and disappeared from the thread--you are hardly in a position to accuse anyone about "programming."

In the macroevolution myth thread, you kept regurgitating the same nonsense. Meanwhile, I presented scientific quotes from... get this... pro-evolution scientists who were having to admit there's no evidence for macroevolution in the fossils record. In addition to that, I quoted from school textbooks and scientific websites. Your rebuttal was to could come up with a lousy YouTube video in which some person was reciting his personal delusions. Amidst all that, it was your usual: "You don't understand evolution theory," and "Go get a Webster's Dictionary."

 

No you didn't. You quote-mined them.

 

Gimme a break man . . . a man my age shouldn't laugh so hard, I might break something.

I guess you are referring to the thread where you feebly attempted to debunk a term not used in science (Darwin's Macroevolution). Between your quote mining, improper use of scientific terms, links to creationist memes, quotes from creationist blogs and ongoing obfuscation of the dialog, you may have used an actual quote or 2 from a "pro-evolution" website but almost never accurately.

It was like talking to a rabbit with its eye on a piece of carrot . . . singular of mind and limited in comprehension.

And you now declare victory . . . still RFLMAO . . . too friggin funny

By the way: macro evolution refers to changes above the species level, it does not refer to some ridiculous metamorphosis of one species into another

 

WRONG.
You are forgetting St. Paul. He was born a Roman. He was famous for being born a Roman.

The Apostle Paul was a Roman, and was a Catholic. That is YOUR definition, NOT mine.

The actual term "Roman Catholic" wasn't used until the 17th century. The term "ROMAN Catholic" was first used in England in the 17th century to differentiate the Catholic Church based in Rome from the Catholic Church of England. Understand?

Now, you wrote "The Roman Catholics--and that's ROMANS as in the same people who executed Jesus Christ--did not write a word of scripture."

The Apostle Paul was a ROMAN - and that's ROMAN as in the same people who executed Jesus Christ (YOUR definition, NOT mine). And Paul wrote a LOT of scripture.

Unlike you, I've actually received a formal education on the history of Christianity. But don't take my word for it, Wikipedia is pretty accurate when it comes to the history of Christianity.

I've already shown you wrong on the Holy Trinity and Fires of Hell. Much of everything else you have written is incorrect, too.

Whatever you are, Alter2Ego, you only represent yourself. You have a poor understanding of the history of Christianity, and your behavior here is sinful and unforgiving - very un-Christian.

As far as Evolution is concerned - Evolution is consistent with Christian teachings. Now, the Old Testament is the Bible of Judaism, the root of Christianity. And conservative Judaism always taught that the Genesis story is not to be taken literally, But, at some point in the 19th century, some Christians broke with Christian teachings and tradition and took it upon themselves to contradict God's intentions and take the story of Adam and Eve literally - forgetting that the purpose of that story is to teach us about guilt and shame. That's not Christian, either.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- CORWIN:
Below is the apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians condemning idolatry—the mainstay of the Roman Catholic Church.

"But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man." (1 Corinthians 5:11)



"{9} What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, {10} nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)


"Neither become idolaters, as some of them did; just as it is written: 'The people sat down to eat and drink, and they got up to have a good time.' " (1 Corinthians 10:7)


"Therefore, my beloved ones, flee from idolatry." (1 Corinthians 10:14)



Now, Corwin, suppose you explain to this forum how Paul could have possibly affiliated himself with Roman Catholicism—which is a Christian religion known for idolizing statues, saints, the Virgin Mary, etc.—when it's clear from what Paul wrote that he condemned idolatry? How do you explain that inconsistency? And I'm still waiting for you to produce scriptures from the Judeo-Christian Bible where it says Paul became Roman Catholic.

 

You are really an idiot. He told you that Roman Catholic is a term from the 17th century but you just don´t get it. The Jehovah pedophiles didn´t exist at that time so he definitely didn´t belong to your cult.