OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible

DavidG · #1 March 6th, 2003, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.

Ture but some have.

I would think that if someone makes the bold claim the bible predicts the future then they should be the ones to provide some evidence. Otherwise I could make all kinds of wild statements and then defend them with "well you can't prove me wrong..."?

Ragnarok · #2 March 6th, 2003, 01:07 AM

Fyron, also going back to this...

Quote:

quote:
Fyron, the only reason I kept coming back to offer counter arguments was because you were putting words in my mouth, or computer in this case.

No I did not. Again, you are wrong. bwhahahah.

Actually you did. Thus you are wrong.

You said towards the end of the Last thread that as a Christian I only accept only the New testiment as true. That is totally not the case. 2nd Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is inspired of God and benificial." Therefore, I take the whole Bible seriously.

I will work on those dates sometime whenever I have the free time.

[ March 05, 2003, 23:08: Message edited by: Ragnarok ]

Alpha Kodiak · #3 March 6th, 2003, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:
Originally posted by Alpha Kodiak:
I have not tried to make any statements about particular predictions, in fact I have not posted to this thread before. I am merely pointing out that you continually insist that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact, yet you show no evidence of that.

Ture but some have. I would think that if someone makes the bold claim the bible predicts the future then they should be the ones to provide some evidence. Otherwise I could make all kinds of wild statements and then defend them with "well you can't prove me wrong..."?

I only (and reluctantly) started posting to this thread because of the fact that Fyron insisted on arguing without proof that the Bible's predictions were always written after the fact. I accept his right to believe that, but I have a problem with his insistance that there is no possibility that another point of view could be correct. You are welcome to make any wild statements you want. I will only refute them if I have evidence to the contrary.

Puke · #4 March 6th, 2003, 01:19 AM

Fyron's a good guy. opinionated, argumentative, and so full of himself that he had to start a thread about his own frickin reputation.. but a good guy.

Ratings are stupid. most of what i say is stupid, so i continually ask people to rate me at a 1, so that newbies wont make the mistake of taking me seriously.

and thats most peoples problem. they take themselves to seriously. nothing you say or do is that significant, that you should lose any sleep over it. nothing someone says to you is that important. peoples beliefs are not that important. agree to disagree. agrue your point, but dont think everyone else should feel the same way.

diversity is the spice of life. lighten up.

TerranC · #5 March 6th, 2003, 01:33 AM

It would seem that Fyron has become Atheism's first preacher.

How can you turn a religionless belief into a religion?

Ruatha · #6 March 6th, 2003, 01:36 AM

Puke > You are hereby the first one I ever has rated, you got a five from me

jimbob · #7 March 6th, 2003, 01:54 AM

Fyron: As to whether or not a person is willing to accept the claim that the writers of scripture were predicting (or more accurately from a Judeo-Christian-Islamic perspective were given knowledge of) the future:

Many ask that proof be provided to show that the predictions were written down prior to the unfolding of events, and may insist that this is the only way of validating that the prediction event occurred. Unfortunately this demand of proof is (IMHO, in the humble opinion of western legal process, in the humble opinion of scientific method) to be borne not by the author, but rather the critics of the author must bear the burden of proof. That is to say, unless you have a good/solid reason to claim the author was fraudulent, you just can't call him a liar! (i.e. if the scripture in question was written three decades ago as proven by carbon dating, but claims to profess an event that happened 1000 years ago, then you can claim that the scripture is fraudulent - or is a copy of an earlier document).

Then, to impose that a document meets todays' standards of veracity is unfair and somewhat modernist/arrogant. The reality is that most ancient documents were not immediately transcribed, but were often (in most cases?) carried by oral tradition for centuries with incredible accuracy. Have you read the Odessy? Iliad? These were regularily recited verbatim and in their entirety from memory by Greek performers, sans mistakes, due to i) good memories that didn't use print as a crutch, ii) poetic mechanisms and meters that were self correcting, and iii) a public knowledge of the material that would correct any luckless bard who was unfortunate enough to mess up on the story during a public performance. Written copies of these plays were created, but the written word was not the repository of knowledge - peoples brains and corrective devices were!!!

just my couple of cents

[ March 05, 2003, 23:55: Message edited by: jimbob ]