Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl

[Jordan8]

God created the sun after 4 days?

How dat man know 4 days past b

:x

 

[Comparison Ford]

How Christians gonna live they life for another man?

Might as well call Jesus "Daddy."

 

[girlthatsblanco]

I didn't say that you said it did. I responded to your response about placing higher value in something else that could possibly support the words of something that is a support of it's own claims.

Your question was asking if that would mean you're placing something as higher value if it is used as support for Biblical claims. My response is that something supporting something else does not mean that the support is greater than.

Or, in short, "Support does not equal 'higher than'." No need to point out what you didn't say, because your words are not being implicitly or explicitly called to light.

Support does not equal 'higher than'.

Support does not equal 'higher than'.

Ok. So there is no issue in using the Bible to prove the Bible.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Why is the most powerful being leaving his existence to "faith"? Why is it that everything that he's done happened in past and isn't happening anymore? Before his doing was seen literally first hand, but now he works in mysterious ways? The only thing God chose to leave behind is a book written in mystery?

Let's look at it from the other side. You think your religion is the complete truth correct? Why? Because it's what you chose? If you say because the bible there are other religions with their own ancient texts that claim otherwise, also have archeologists findings to support it, and claim to be written by their version of God. How did you arrived to your conclusion that Christianity is THE end all be all if you don't even know what the other religions are about?

You seemed to be locked in to your ideals, and that's fine, but think about your overall conclusion and then throw some logical thought processes into the mix. The bible is right because it said its right is NOT a logical thought process. Something not being disproved doesn't make it a truth.

I looked at the evidence surrounding the Bible and came to the conclusion that the Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses that reports supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine writings rather than human in origin.

And how is using the Bible to prove the Bible illogical? Historians use the same method to very the accuracy and validity of different documents.

 

[darthska]

I didn't say that you said it did. I responded to your response about placing higher value in something else that could possibly support the words of something that is a support of it's own claims.

Your question was asking if that would mean you're placing something as higher value if it is used as support for Biblical claims. My response is that something supporting something else does not mean that the support is greater than.

Or, in short, "Support does not equal 'higher than'." No need to point out what you didn't say, because your words are not being implicitly or explicitly called to light.

Support does not equal 'higher than'.

Support does not equal 'higher than'.

Ok. So there is no issue in using the Bible to prove the Bible.

For you, apparently not.

For me, using the Bible to prove the Bible presents as much of an issue as using Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer to prove the existence of red-nosed reindeer.

But I'm logical like that.

 

[gwap]

But I'm logical like that.

you are arguing against a religious person....lol

in this scenario you lose...

so unless you can provide an argument that they will see as spiritual insight... you won't get anywhere

religious belief is built on emotion...

you obviously don't have the ability to write in such a way as to provoke emotional introspection.

so just fall back.... you making yaself look bad

 

[blastercombo]

I looked at the evidence surrounding the Bible and came to the conclusion that the Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses that reports supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine writings rather than human in origin.

And how is using the Bible to prove the Bible illogical? Historians use the same method to very the accuracy and validity of different documents.

Did these same eyewitnesses go back in time? Because those same stories are written in OLDER texts that PREDATE the bible


Why is it illogical use the bible to prove the bible? I can write a book proving my book is correct using that mindset.

 

[rolaholic]

Bruh seriously...using the bible to prove the bible??

 

That's like me making a Big Foot movie and using the same movie footage as proof of it's existence 

 

 

[girlthatsblanco]

For you, apparently not.

For me, using the Bible to prove the Bible presents as much of an issue as using Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer to prove the existence of red-nosed reindeer.

But I'm logical like that.

But here is my issue with that. You and @Blastercombo are arguing that the Bible is essentially not written by God, but written by men's perception of God. (which is not accurate). I showed you both verses in the Bible to show you that the writings are God-breathed. Then you both agree that it is illogical to use the Bible to prove the Bible. Now consider this.

This statement is not only wrong, but completely misunderstands its own argument. Ironically, it makes the exact circular assumptions that it accuses believers of.

1. The “Bible” is not one book

When we are talking about “proving” or evidencing the truths of the Gospel message, we have to put our historian hats on (not our religious hats). The argument is meant to place Christians in this rather odd situation where they sound like they are saying the Bible is true because it says it is true. But the Bible is not one book. In fact, the term “Bible” is not in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of works that spans over a thousand years, written by dozens of authors, some who are connected, some who are not. All together there are sixty-six books in the Protestant Bible.

When we are talking about the claims of the “New Testament,” we are talking about the story of Christianity, the very foundation and apex of Christianity as it deals with the incarnation of Christ, who he was, and what he did. But even then, to say one can’t prove the New Testament with the New Testament is quite ill-informed and unreflective. The designation “New Testament” (along with its list of books) is not even in the New Testament. Like with the whole Bible, it is just a name given to a certain related corpus of writings that speaks about the story and implications of the advent of Jesus Christ. There are twenty-seven books in the New Testament.

If one were to look at this with a historian’s eye, to say we cannot use the Bible to prove or evidence the Bible is about the most misguided thing one could possibly say. What does that mean? Are you saying that we cannot use the testimony that the book of Matthew gives to evidence Mark? Or that one cannot attempt to piece together Galatians with the Book of Acts? Of course you can. In fact, you must. These twenty-seven documents, all written around the same time, all telling similar stories, must be used to prove or evidence each other. If not, the historian is not being a historian, but something entirely different.

2. One must assume the inspiration of the Bible to say the Bible can’t prove the Bible

You see, if a person says, “You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible,” he probably doesn’t realize he is borrowing a bit from the Christian worldview in order to even make such an assertion. What is being borrowed? The idea of the basic unity of Scripture or the single-authorship of the Bible. The only way to say the Bible can’t prove the Bible is to presume the inspiration of Scripture. Otherwise, there is no reason to link the canon of Scripture together in such a way. For the non-Christian especially, the Bible should be seen as sixty-six ancient documents, all of which stand or fall on their own. In order to make them stand or fall together, one must assume a single authorship of some sort. At that point, the argument becomes self-defeating, as the very statement (“You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible”) proves the Bible!

3. Most events of ancient history have no more than one contemporary witness (if that many)

The twenty-seven ancient documents called the New Testament are unparalleled in ancient history as far as their testimony. The contemporary multiple attestations for the story of Jesus (eyewitness or not) are without equal. Look to the sources we have for other ancient historical events and people, and you will find that they have nowhere near the amount of documented writings discussing the central claims.

Yet when it comes to the claims about Christ, we are talking about twenty-seven documents in the New Testament alone! And all of these come within sixty to seventy years after the events. And if you expand the data beyond just Scripture and allow extrabiblical sources to be considered, then we are talking about dozens and dozens more from early church fathers (whose testimonies cannot be ignored simply because they believed; what if we did that with the seemingly miraculous landing on the moon? “All those who do not believe it happened, step up to the evidence table!” Uh, no.) and from ancient historians such as Tacitus and Josephus.

In the end, the story of Christ has plenty of independent documentation, all of must prove or evidence the rest. So in this sense, we must use the Bible to prove the Bible or else we are not being historians, but religious zealots, fighting to keep hold of our unbelief through stupid statements.

 

[blastercombo]

Ok, when did God hand write the bible? When was it proof read by God?


Who eyewitnesseses and wrote the book of genesis during the conception of time and space?



I can gather thousands of books claiming aliens have visited earth, Bigfoot lives, and ghosts exist. All backed by "scientists" and experts in their own right. NONE OF THAT means anything.


You're using the conveinance route


1. You've never touched upon how the stories of the bible are derived by the SAME stories written in older documents. The people in the bible somehow lived decades before the time of the bible to see all that?

2. Not all events in the bible contain eyewitnesses or even COULD of.


3. Their is documentation for plenty of other religions complete with structures built and stories told yet for some reason those don't count.


4. Your claims are just that, claims. Let's ask the real questions, where is the proof of God? You want to prove jesus and the gang lived, fine, but where is the proof of God and the super natural events that took place?

5. There's absolutely an I ssue with using the source to prove its own validity. Just because you believe in it doesn't make it escape this fundemental fallacy. Greek mythology proves itself correct using your logic. As does Scientology, Hinduism, ect..

Name one creation made by the all powerful and PERFECT creator of all that is perfect? Matter of fact, take a step back and think of what it means to even be absolute perfection. Such an entity couldn't even truly exist. THATS the illusion. Utopia, heaven, perfection, all things that by definition cannot exist.

 

[Quincy McCall]

Ok. So there is no issue in using the Bible to prove the Bible.

View media item 1462018

 

[boris]

I think that DarkSka's point was that using the Bible to prove that the Bible was supernaturally inspired is illogical. 

 

[darthska]

Yes.

"Coke is the best. Says so right in their handbook."

=

"The bible describes God. We can trust the description to be accurate because God says that the Bible is his word. He said so... in the Bible."

 

[sea manup]

i can confirm that the bible says that the bible is telling the truth 

 

[Comparison Ford]

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Ok, when did God hand write the bible? When was it proof read by God?

He didn't hand write the Bibe. He breathed it out and inspired it. The doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture essentially teaches that God “superintended” the human authors of the Bible so that their individual styles were preserved but the end result was precisely what God wanted. He's God, so there is no need to proofread. Famous writers through history have used amanuenses, or secretaries, to produce their literature. The poet John Milton was blind by the age of 44. His entire Paradise Lost was dictated to friends and relatives,anyone who would write for him and that’s how the entire epic was recorded (a total of 10,550 lines of poetry). Even though Milton himself did not put pen to paper, no one questions that "Paradise Lost" is his work. We understand the function of an amanuensis. While God did not “dictate” His Word to the human authors, the principle is similar. God, the Ultimate Author of the Bible, used human agents as His “amanuenses,” and the result was the divinely inspired Word of God.




Who eyewitnesseses and wrote the book of genesis during the conception of time and space?

Jesus was there and we know he doesn't lie. He confirms the account of the creation.




I can gather thousands of books claiming aliens have visited earth, Bigfoot lives, and ghosts exist. All backed by "scientists" and experts in their own right. NONE OF THAT means anything.

Apples to oranges.




You're using the conveinance route

What is that? You just don't like my answers because the refute what you think the Bible says by showing you what it actually says.


1. You've never touched upon how the stories of the bible are derived by the SAME stories written in older documents. The people in the bible somehow lived decades before the time of the bible to see all that?

I believe that the passages from the Bible are original and are not derived from older documents, but I am willing to look at your evidence. Show me an example or two.




2. Not all events in the bible contain eyewitnesses or even COULD of.

Which events? Why is that?




3. Their is documentation for plenty of other religions complete with structures built and stories told yet for some reason those don't count.

Why do you believe that? Not sure where this is coming from. Explain.




4. Your claims are just that, claims. Let's ask the real questions, where is the proof of God? You want to prove jesus and the gang lived, fine, but where is the proof of God and the super natural events that took place?

His creation, His Word and the God-Man Jesus Christ.



5. There's absolutely an I ssue with using the source to prove its own validity. Just because you believe in it doesn't make it escape this fundemental fallacy. Greek mythology proves itself correct using your logic. As does Scientology, Hinduism, ect..

Apples to oranges. You didn't address my response of how one can use the Bible to prove the Bible. Now you're trying to change the subject to other religions.




Name one creation made by the all powerful and PERFECT creator of all that is perfect? Matter of fact, take a step back and think of what it means to even be absolute perfection. Such an entity couldn't even truly exist. THATS the illusion. Utopia, heaven, perfection, all things that by definition cannot exist.

Why is that?

 

[girlthatsblanco]

Yes.

"Coke is the best. Says so right in their handbook."

=

"The bible describes God. We can trust the description to be accurate because God says that the Bible is his word. He said so... in the Bible."

Poor analogy and all you have done is repeat your initial claim of you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. I showed you that you can. The response you provided doesn't even address any of the information I provided.

 

[darthska]

And you can use the Coke employee handbook as valid claim for Coke's reign in the drink world.

It's supposed to make a difference that the Bible a collection of volumes?

Ok...

The bible is a collection of volumes that describe God. We can trust the description to be accurate because God says that the Bible is his word. He said so... in the collection of volumes that is the Bible.

Same concept.

 

[blastercombo]

. Jesus was there and we know he doesn't lie. He confirms the account of the creation.

Ok, I can't do this anymore......

I mean where is the proof of this? Who was the eyewitness before people were even created?

 

[deleted]

What about the prophecies that god was wrong about?

 

[DCAllAfrican]

For you, apparently not.

For me, using the Bible to prove the Bible presents as much of an issue as using Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer to prove the existence of red-nosed reindeer.

But I'm logical like that.

 

[darthska]

. Jesus was there and we know he doesn't lie. He confirms the account of the creation.

Ok, I can't do this anymore......

I mean where is the proof of this?

In the collection of volumes contained in the Bible.

Who was the eyewitness before people were even created?

God.

Says so in the collection of volumes comprising the Bible...

... as told/inspired by God.

And the reason we know it was God inspired is because it says so...

...in the Bible.

 

[girlthatsblanco]

And you can use the Coke employee handbook as valid claim for Coke's reign in the drink world.

It's supposed to make a difference that the Bible a collection of volumes?

Ok...

The bible is a collection of volumes that describe God. We can trust the description to be accurate because God says that the Bible is his word. He said so... in the collection of volumes that is the Bible.

Same concept.

Ok, no one is claiming the Cokes's employee hand book didn't come from the powers that be at Coke. We know it came from Coke because it says it came from Coke.

But let's use your logic. If we know it came from Coke because it says it came from Coke, then we can say the same thing about the Bible. So in essence I guess that actually is a good analogy. The Bible did come from God!

 

[deleted]

This post has been brought to you by Coca Cola.

I am now Coca Cola.

 

[darthska]

Exactly.

We know the Coke handbook came from the Coke powers that be, and we take every word in there accordingly.

"Coke is the best. Says so in our book, written and ordained by our supervisors."

And we all understand it that way.

That part, you seem to finally understand.

The next next part, you're hung up on.

- "Coke is the best. Says so in our book, written and ordained by our supervisors."
- "Wait, I want to meet these supervisors. Where are they?"
- "According to the handbook, they're everywhere. You can meet them by simply swearing allegiance to Coke, and speaking to them."
- "How do you know this?"
- "Says so in the handbook."
- "So it says in the handbook that you can meet the supervisors by swearing allegiance to Coke, and the authority of the supervisors is explained in the handbook... and the authority of the handbook is granted by the supervisors that are explained in the handbook."