Classic failed science predictions and a faulty cosmological model exposed

[dad]

yes we have a theory that the laws of physics emerged once the universe cooled down for the forces to separate.
No evidence for any other changes possible.

Reasons for and name of that 'theory'?

Ok, no decay, we can use that. If there were no decay then we would see 2x as many elements in rock layers corresponding to that "law change" era.

Absurd. We would have had a starting ratio when this nature and decay started. That means we would not expect that the ratios came to exist by decay alone.

What's happening here is you are afraid to give specifics on your idea about "nature change"

No one knows the specific nature of heaven, or of the world in the future when His kingdom comes. Same with the far past. Why would you think anyone would have specs of the unknown nature that science does not even know exists, let alone anything about it? The issue is whether we know this present nature existed and always will exist. No. we do not.

until proven otherwise thereis no reason to think a magic ring changed any laws

until proven otherwise there is no reason to think a magic ring made all laws the same in the past.

huh...

"The oldest calendar still in use is the Jewish calendar, which has been in popular use since the 9th century BC. It is based on biblical calculations that place the creation at 3761 BC."

What about it? That calendar is based on God and creation, so we can respect it to some degree.

 

[joelr]

I deny the BB, doom of the universe, origin of the moon, and first lifeform and all other so called science stories without evidence.

This is dishonest. You deny the evidence for these things because they don't support magic books.

They either believe or not.

Right, mostly not.

Speculation based on diddly squat and a biased imagination.

yes, scholars have a bias towards truth. Weird huh?

Believers know all Scripture was given by inspiration of God, and that doubting this is of man and demons.

all you've been doing is stating your opinion and beliefs. I know you know about that other thing (evidence) because you seem to ask others for it often. Huh, guess you ran clean out.

They are correct that there is an afterlife. So called science is the philosophy that is ignorant of all things spiritual and eternal. It ignores eternity and posits an animalistic meaningless short life that reflects the barking mad demented and demeaning view from the dark side that it represents.

No it ignores myths and stories about eternity. This sums it up right here. You can't bear the facts of life and have a magic belief system. That's great, too bad you have no evidence.

We might add that the entire bible and harmonious flow of events and prophesy fulfillment are too great to be coincidental! The issue is the reason for the amazing accord..

Right they are not coincidence, the other 3 gospels copied Mark. Wow, did you demonstrate a solution to the synoptic problem! No, you just call scholarship names and give unsupported beliefs.
Even at that the flow sucks. Are you not aware of the multiple endings problem in Mark?

"This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus."

Give one biblical prophecy that isn't a vague reference to something common or was written specifically to fulfill a prophecy.

 

[joelr]

Reasons for and name of that 'theory'?

quantum mechanics, standard model - 4 forces, unified at super high energies, once universe cools down teh forces break off separate and it's been that way ever since.

Absurd. We would have had a starting ratio when this nature and decay started. That means we would not expect that the ratios came to exist by decay alone.

No, if radioactive decay stopped then elements that had a 1/2 life of 1000 years would be far more abundant in the non-decay era. There would be a layer where elements were far more abundant for no reason.

Also even suggesting decay could stop is absurd. How would you even know that decay would even be effected by your "different laws" senario? It's all complete speculative crank?

No one knows the specific nature of heaven, or of the world in the future when His kingdom comes. Same with the far past. Why would you think anyone would have specs of the unknown nature that science does not even know exists, let alone anything about it? The issue is whether we know this present nature existed and always will exist. No. we do not.

Well there is NO evidence that the laws of physics have changed since the early universe. We can see it. Regardless of your magic fish crank. Science moves forward with what evidence it has. I already told you if you really are so against science and think everyone should be a science denier creationist then start with your actions. Get off your science machine. But you didn't. So you believe in science. Your words are beliefs and empty rants. Which is fine, but I don't really have any comments on either.

until proven otherwise there is no reason to think a magic ring made all laws the same in the past.

Exactly! There is NO EVIDENCE A MAGIC RING MADE ANYTHING. Or a magic Yahweh.

What about it? That calendar is based on God and creation, so we can respect it to some degree.

What about it?
You said:
"Calendars do not give ancient dates. You have one way."
"One way" means radio dating.
So looks like we have a calendar after all!!

 

[dad]

This is dishonest. You deny the evidence for these things because they don't support magic books.

I deny there IS evidence for these thing sand point out they are belief based, as your failure to supply any evidence illustrates.

yes, scholars have a bias towards truth. Weird huh?

If they were smart they would be liars. As it stands they do not seem to know truth from lie. Yet you hold them on a pedestal. Funny that.

No it ignores myths and stories about eternity.

Add that to the list of things they ignore and are ignorant about.

Right they are not coincidence, the other 3 gospels copied Mark. Wow, did you demonstrate a solution to the synoptic problem!

It is a belief problem.

"This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things.

If we do not know who wrote the final bit, how can you claim it was not Mark? We can look at the spirit of the text and see if it fits the bible or not.

Give one biblical prophecy that isn't a vague reference to something common or was written specifically to fulfill a prophecy.

Name one that was?

 

[dad]

quantum mechanics, standard model - 4 forces, unified at super high energies, once universe cools down teh forces break off separate and it's been that way ever since.

Once something you cannot prove and have no evidence for happens, presto. Forces magically appear as they are for no apparent reason.That might sit well in your religion.

No, if radioactive decay stopped then elements that had a 1/2 life of 1000 years would be far more abundant in the non-decay era.

Stopped?? If there was none how would it have stopped? Prove there was some then we can talk.

Also even suggesting decay could stop is absurd.

Then why make it up? Prove there was decay? I thought decay was a feature of this present nature?

Well there is NO evidence that the laws of physics have changed since the early universe.

There was no early universe, that is fantasy based on nothing. There was earth created and then stars.

Exactly! There is NO EVIDENCE A MAGIC RING MADE ANYTHING. Or a magic Yahweh.

There is no evidence science can deal with. There is tons of evidence that the bible is real. That means that the bits we cannot prove can also be believed.

What about it?
You said:
"Calendars do not give ancient dates. You have one way."
"One way" means radio dating.
So looks like we have a calendar after all!!

We have a date you cited that Hebrews believed. That is not science. You offer all sorts of dates yet cannot support any.

 

[joelr]

I deny there IS evidence for these thing sand point out they are belief based, as your failure to supply any evidence illustrates.

More dishonesty. That's a lot of not-honesty. You can deny there is evidence for round earth as well, doesn't mean there isn't any. In fact to prove it I'll remind you - when I give any evidence you pull out the fishbowl crank which literally has zero evidence. Again all you seem to want to do is go in an endless circle.
1) deny there is evidence for big bang
2) get reminded of evidence
3) use fishbowl crank
4) repeat

If they were smart they would be liars. As it stands they do not seem to know truth from lie. Yet you hold them on a pedestal. Funny that.

Says the person who believes in sorcery.
I'm positive you hold every single scholar who doesn't contradict your myths on a pedestal as well. Funny that.

Add that to the list of things they ignore and are ignorant about.

Wrong again, there are scholars in myth as well.

It is a belief problem.

Right so you can't explain it and the evidence stands.

If we do not know who wrote the final bit, how can you claim it was not Mark? We can look at the spirit of the text and see if it fits the bible or not.

It doesn't matter who wrote it? This was in response to your claim of how the - "harmonious flow of events" were so amazing and you don't seem to realize Christian scholars have been puzzling over the strangely edited ending of Mark is. That isn't harmonious flow.

Name one that was?

Every prophecy. A prophecy of a coming messiah. The NT was written to be a fiction that fulfills the prophecy.
And every prophecy that hasn't come true you hide behind this "oh yeah, hasn't happened yet" I gave a list of about 200.

 

[joelr]

Once something you cannot prove and have no evidence for happens, presto. Forces magically appear as they are for no apparent reason.That might sit well in your religion.

Looks like the forces were united in the early big bang. No one knows how the forces came about. Doesn't mean myths are real.

Stopped?? If there was none how would it have stopped? Prove there was some then we can talk.

Then why make it up? Prove there was decay? I thought decay was a feature of this present nature?

There was no early universe, that is fantasy based on nothing. There was earth created and then stars.

Nope, I told you I'm done with the fishbowl. There is no evidence. Or maybe you are keeping it secret.

There is no evidence science can deal with. There is tons of evidence that the bible is real. That means that the bits we cannot prove can also be believed.

Wow, how many threads has it been and you haven't presented any of that evidence yet? All I've seen is evidence that it's exactly as mythic as any other story and one long failure by you to debunk any of that. So I think we are done there.

We have a date you cited that Hebrews believed. That is not science. You offer all sorts of dates yet cannot support any.

No you asked about an early calendar and I gave you one.
The dates are fine, this is another topic you failed to provide evidence against. I get it, you don't like science when it contradicts the mythic tales. Ok.
Being unfalsifiable doesn't make it at all correct. I could read some Egyptian text that suggests Inanna created reality as is in 500BC but made it to look like the universe was really old. Don't care.

 

[dad]

More dishonesty. That's a lot of not-honesty. You can deny there is evidence for round earth as well

The shape of the earth has nothing to do with your floundering claims that time is the same in all the universe. Try to debate honestly.

I'm positive you hold every single scholar who doesn't contradict your myths on a pedestal as well.

Not really. Every tub has to stand on it's own legs.

It doesn't matter who wrote it? This was in response to your claim of how the - "harmonious flow of events" were so amazing and you don't seem to realize Christian scholars have been puzzling over the strangely edited ending of Mark is. That isn't harmonious flow.

The early church and Christians had no problem with who wrote stuff. Your attempts at revisionism are about as valuable as gossip.

Every prophecy. A prophecy of a coming messiah. The NT was written to be a fiction that fulfills the prophecy.

Delusional.

And every prophecy that hasn't come true you hide behind this "oh yeah, hasn't happened yet" I gave a list of about 200.

Have you problems determining what has not happened yet? Work on that.

 

[dad]

Looks like the forces were united in the early big bang. No one knows how the forces came about.

Admittedly clueless then. OK.

Nope, I told you I'm done with the fishbowl. There is no evidence. Or maybe you are keeping it secret.

Since the fishbowl refers to the solar system and area, calling for evidence it exists is foolishness.

No you asked about an early calendar and I gave you one.

You offered a belief based calendar based on creation and Adam. That is all fine. That obviously has nothing to do with old ages dates. Again, try to be honest.

The dates are fine, this is another topic you failed to provide evidence against.

Unless evidence exists for it, no ones needs anything.

 

[joelr]

The shape of the earth has nothing to do with your floundering claims that time is the same in all the universe. Try to debate honestly.

It does because your weird ideas - "fishbowl" and "different laws" have exactly as zero evidence.

Not really. Every tub has to stand on it's own legs.

I'm not even talking individual scholars, I'm talking more ENTIRE FIELDS being in consensus and only by endless sourcing, peer-review and pure evidence.

The early church and Christians had no problem with who wrote stuff.

The endings have been an issue since the church adopted a canon. Clearly someone didn't like something because it was edited and not done neatly.

The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference

Your attempts at revisionism are about as valuable as gossip.

You make this so easy?
Here is the Christian archeologist society speaking on it:

The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference

"
The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1 The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.

Even though this longer ending became the preferred one, there are two other endings, one short and the second an expansion of the longer ending, that also show up in various manuscripts:"

Delusional.

Hand waving isn't saying anything. It's obviously a possibility that it was written to fulfill the prophecy, so cannot be shown to be 100% prophetic.
Plus the world savior messiah was already a big part of the Persian religion while they invaded Israel for 300 years. Gee, wonder where they got the idea?

Have you problems determining what has not happened yet? Work on that.

No it's funny, if a prophecy did not happen then you go "oh it hasn't happened yet"..

 

[joelr]

Admittedly clueless then. OK.

Yes no one knows what came before. Science is pretty clueless on that. They have some models based on observation. It's better to just admit you don't know then insert ridiculous stories and characters to answer questions about reality. Especially bronze age myths.
Why would it be bad to be clueless?

Since the fishbowl refers to the solar system and area, calling for evidence it exists is foolishness.

Nope, do not care about fishbowl crank or what you call fishbowl. I wanted to see your evidence. Nothing. Done.

Unless evidence exists for it, no ones needs anything.

There is no dispute with any dates on any civilization. Again, you just pose unfalsifiable ideas with zero evidence. I could make one up - Bilbo used the magic ring to create everything yesterday. He made it to look like we were already here and that the universe is old and so on. And made our minds think that and created false memories.
Then every time you raise a point or give evidence I go "magic ring". But, no thanks.

 

[dad]

It does because your weird ideas - "fishbowl" and "different laws" have exactly as zero evidence.

Some people conflate issues worlds apart. You conflate issues universes apart. The different nature in the past on earth is a different issue than the supposed homogeneity of time in the universe.

I'm not even talking individual scholars, I'm talking more ENTIRE FIELDS being in consensus and only by endless sourcing, peer-review and pure evidence.

You all use the same dating, and that is belief based. Besides the wrong dates used, the so called scholars you cited on history basically used selective and biased gossip and pipe dreams and doubts based on nothing.

The endings have been an issue since the church adopted a canon. Clearly someone didn't like something because it was edited and not done neatly.

Give me one reason to toss it out?

Here is the Christian archeologist society speaking on it:

The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference

"
The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark

Well, maybe there are earlier ones that will be found someday that did include it? Maybe some more bits of Marks' writings previously not known were found and included later? Etc. Who knows? What I would ask is can you prove it is not inspired by God?

The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan,

Hey maybe Mark had a stroke and got a slightly different style? Who knows? Maybe he just didn't finish his gospel but what he had was so good people wanted to include it, and later he finished it up? Etc. Who knows. Who really cares? Is it evil? Is it opposed to the rest of the bible and God? What is the problem. I suspect some religious folks might really be wanting to get rid of something in the lat bit that doesn't sit well with their own pet doctrines.

and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.

No that is not clear. Maybe he covered some of the same stuff.

Even though this longer ending became the preferred one, there are two other endings, one short and the second an expansion of the longer ending, that also show up in various manuscripts:"

This has...what to do with your failed science predictions?

Hand waving isn't saying anything. It's obviously a possibility that it was written to fulfill the prophecy, so cannot be shown to be 100% prophetic.

Jesus showed all the stuff before Him was real and that is where the prophesies were about Him.
Jesus also promised to send His Spirit from heaven to help people remember it all just right later.

Plus the world savior messiah was already a big part of the Persian religion while they invaded Israel for 300 years. Gee, wonder where they got the idea?

Some heathen used a few of the same words as God. Whoopee do.

No it's funny, if a prophecy did not happen then you go "oh it hasn't happened yet"..

We do not see the oceans turn to blood yet. It is not rocket science to know that is in the future.

 

[dad]

Yes no one knows what came before. Science is pretty clueless on that. They have some models based on observation.

They model based on fishbowl observations and observations of things in this present nature in the world.

There is no dispute with any dates on any civilization.

So you admit they all swallow the same kool aid. OK. No one has the guts or brains to even question the belief.

Again, you just pose unfalsifiable ideas

Your claim time is the same in the far universe is unfalsifiable. So is your claim of a same nature in the past on earth.

 

[joelr]

Some people conflate issues worlds apart. You conflate issues universes apart. The different nature in the past on earth is a different issue than the supposed homogeneity of time in the universe.

Don't care. Neither have evidence. Equally crank.

You all use the same dating, and that is belief based. Besides the wrong dates used, the so called scholars you cited on history basically used selective and biased gossip and pipe dreams and doubts based on nothing.

The dating thing is done. There is no problem with dating except your beliefs.
With this statement I wasn't meaning dates at all. Historicity scholars use all source material. Concerning the NT it would be the Greek version. Using short catch phrases to debunk scholarship is like showing up at a quantum mechanics debate and saying "all your theories in modern physics are pipe dreams.....that's it, bye".

The video lecture I posted Carrier used only NT scripture to explain the mythic devices then compared stories directly to OT stories and demonstrated they were just copies. Same with the synoptic problem, they are talking about the Greek version. It's obvious by now, you have no response except to throw out a name, ad-hom, say it's "nothing" and move on.
So, hand wave at evidence you cannot use crank on and use crank on anything else. Ok, got it.

Give me one reason to toss it out?

I don't care what you do with it. This was showing how it does not have "harmonious flow".

Well, maybe there are earlier ones that will be found someday that did include it? Maybe some more bits of Marks' writings previously not known were found and included later? Etc. Who knows?

Uh, scholars who study it their entire lives would be the ones to ask. It was edited for a reason. If you care to learn about your own scripture then look into it. Or not.

What I would ask is can you prove it is not inspired by God?

When something is unfalsifiable that means nothing.
I can't prove it wasn't inspired by Santa Clause.
I mean if God wanted to appear like the exact mythology that was already spreading around the region then he accomplished that.

Hey maybe Mark had a stroke and got a slightly different style? Who knows? Maybe he just didn't finish his gospel but what he had was so good people wanted to include it, and later he finished it up? Etc. Who knows. Who really cares? Is it evil? Is it opposed to the rest of the bible and God? What is the problem. I suspect some religious folks might really be wanting to get rid of something in the lat bit that doesn't sit well with their own pet doctrines.

No that is not clear. Maybe he covered some of the same stuff.
This has...what to do with your failed science predictions?

Wow. Seriously, wow. You can't remember what this response came from? Really?
Hint #1 - "harmonious"
Hint #2 - "flow"
Hint #3 - obvious lack of

Jesus showed all the stuff before Him was real and that is where the prophesies were about Him.

Uh, right but you cannot show that the NT wasn't written to create the messiah who was predicted in the OT. So it is not a proven prophecy. In fact this is extremely likely what the NT is. An updated OT where the prophecy/messiah actually happens. They even use transformations of OT stories.
Which I sourced and you had nothing to say about.

Some heathen used a few of the same words as God. Whoopee do.

A few words?
"Historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[7] Christianity,"
also "a future saviour of the world " described in Yasht 19.88-96, where it is stated that he will achieve the Frashokereti, that he will make the world perfect and immortal, and evil and Druj will disappear.
Also the modern idea of Satan as in opposition to God and influencing people.


world savior shows up, gets followers into afterlife, defeats devil

And before that in Islam the dead laid in their grave and Satan worked with Yahweh.

We do not see the oceans turn to blood yet. It is not rocket science to know that is in the future.

Judges
God promised many times that he would drive out all the inhabitants of the lands they encountered. But he failed to keep that promise 1:19, 1:21-27, 3:1-5

God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But he was unable to keep his promise. deuteronomy 7:1, 7:23-24, 31:3
Psalms
The land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt." Judah never invaded Egypt and was never a military threat to Egypt. 19:17
This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18

These verses predict that the Egyptians will worship the Lord (Yahweh) with sacrifices and offerings. But Judaism has never been an important religion in Egypt. 19:18-21

These verses predict that there will be an alliance between Egypt, Israel, and Assyria. But there has never been any such alliance, and it's unlikely that it ever will since Assyria no longer exists. 19:23-24

 

[joelr]

They model based on fishbowl observations and observations of things in this present nature in the world.

you have shown fishbowl is invalid and has no evidence.

So you admit they all swallow the same kool aid. OK. No one has the guts or brains to even question the belief.

We already did this. I asked you to explain any issues with radiometric dating, you don't have anything except "different laws" crank to which you cannot support except with wishes and fantasy. I do not care about your beliefs. I'm done there. Do you think you can remember that by the time you make a post?

Your claim time is the same in the far universe is unfalsifiable. So is your claim of a same nature in the past on earth.

No, we have evidence. You think your "fishbowl" crank works to nullify this. You have no evidence, it's clearly a magic fantasy and I do not care about your personal beliefs.
We can see the past so it is falseifiable. Just because someone jumps up and down and shouts "no, the light coming into the solar system is an illusion by Bilbo and the magic ring!!!" I do not care. I will ask them for evidence. When they have none it's time to move on to better things.

 

[dad]

]

The dating thing is done.

It is belief based dating you cannot discuss or defend. You are done.

With this statement I wasn't meaning dates at all. Historicity scholars use all source material. Concerning the NT it would be the Greek version.

It is not the Greek but what they read into it that is an issue.

When something is unfalsifiable that means nothing.

The same state past upon which your dates are based is unfalsifiable.

Uh, right but you cannot show that the NT wasn't written to create the messiah who was predicted in the OT.

Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophesies. No one else could ever fit.

A few words?
"Historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death,

Having some heathen somewhat familiar with some basic concepts of a need to be saved does not take away from God sending a Savior.

heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[7] Christianity,"

Big deal, some heathen had some clue about the after life. Etc.

And before that in Islam the dead laid in their grave and Satan worked with Yahweh.

Islam was centuries after the fact, so does not matter here.

The land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt." Judah never invaded Egypt and was never a military threat to Egypt. 19:17

Jesus will rule the world from Jerusalem. It makes one wonder if thes 'scholars' can tie their shoes.

This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18

When we see 'in that day' it is a telling phrase that indicates future.

"The expression, "`In that day' is a pointer, here, as elsewhere, to the `Day of the Lord.' In this section of the chapter, Isaiah forsees the conversion of the Gentiles."

Isaiah - Chapter 19 - Coffman's Commentary of the New Testament on StudyLight.org

 

[dad]

[QUOTE="joelr, post: 6747193, member: 54426".
We can see the past so it is falseifiable.[/QUOTE] You see whatever you see here in the present. You believe that what we see here represents dates. Religion.

 

[joelr]

It is belief based dating you cannot discuss or defend. You are done.

More dishonesty. You already admitted there was evidence, playing dumb doesn't help.
You just have this crank reason why it's invalid - "different laws". You cannot demonstrate dating methods to be faulty. You have been done since we started.

The same state past upon which your dates are based is unfalsifiable.

That's cute, you learned a word from me.

Same state isn't unfalsifiable because it's a fiction you created to help support a myth about a god who created reality 5000 years ago. Before 1979 was all Pepsi actually Root Beer? Geez, I have no proof. All photos were from different laws of nature maybe? People's memory could have been switched by magic? I mean why would I just think Pepsi was always Pepsi?

I do not care. You have failed to show evidence. One does not need evidence to show why something did not change?

Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophesies. No one else could ever fit.

Exactly, thank you. The story is fiction and was written so Jesus was the person who the prophecies were about. That is the whole point. The fact that he fulfills OT prophecies is excellent evidence the story was created to update the myths from the OT.
You are still just stating beliefs but they are at least making my point for me.
Jesus is from a myth and has exactly zero mentions outside the fiction.

Having some heathen somewhat familiar with some basic concepts of a need to be saved does not take away from God sending a Savior.

None of the concepts were part of Jewish myths until after the Persian invasion.
Mystery religion gods were sending sin forgiving resurrecting saviors already. We visited this but you could only name call and make generalizations about a scholar. Even though all historians know this.

Big deal, some heathen had some clue about the after life. Etc.

Right which Yahweh forgot to mention any of it until after the Persians live with them for 300 years.
Good work keeping Persian myths alive.

Jesus will rule the world from Jerusalem. It makes one wonder if thes 'scholars' can tie their shoes.

I don't think the writer of sab is a scholar. But he list 230 failed prophecies.

Bible: Prophecy and Misquotes

"The expression, "`In that day' is a pointer, here, as elsewhere, to the `Day of the Lord.' In this section of the chapter, Isaiah forsees the conversion of the Gentiles."

Isaiah - Chapter 19 - Coffman's Commentary of the New Testament on StudyLight.org

Right, thank you! Like I said, either the prophecy was written after the fact like the NT stories or failed OT prophecies end up being "oh that hasn't happened yet". Exactly what I said. HA!
Even if it will happen (it won't) the point was to your statement about all the prophecies that became history.
You just admitted these did not.

 

[joelr]

You see whatever you see here in the present. You believe that what we see here represents dates. Religion.

First, to call it "religion" as if it's a bad word is insanely hypocritical for a religious person to do.
No matter how hard you try it will always be reasonable to believe the laws of physics have been the same during the age of the Earth and the radiometric dating, several methods all used to confirm each other, is reliable.
You don't deny it, you are simply saying it's an illusion but you have failed to provide any evidence or proof of any kind. How you think repeating this belief over and over is helping you? I said this from the first post, "I know you are but what am I", that's all you got.

 

[dad]

More dishonesty. You already admitted there was evidence, playing dumb doesn't help.

Belief in a same nature in the past does not work. Be honest. You just have this crank reason why it's valid - a blind faith that nature was the same in the past.. You cannot demonstrate dating methods to be valid.

Same state isn't unfalsifiable because it's a fiction you created to help support a myth about a god who created reality 5000 years ago.

You are really still clueless that science dies use the present as the key to the past? They do assume the same forces and laws existed and use that in all models.

Exactly, thank you. The story is fiction and was written so Jesus was the person who the prophecies were about.

Hundreds of specific prophesies prove He was the One.

That is the whole point. The fact that he fulfills OT prophecies is excellent evidence the story was created to update the myths from the OT.

Great, so why don't you do it too?

None of the concepts were part of Jewish myths until after the Persian invasion.

False. You just have no written records, except from the Persian copycats.

Mystery religion gods were sending sin forgiving resurrecting saviors already.

The many people nation groups that rejected God had similar stories passed down.

Right which Yahweh forgot to mention any of it until after the Persians live with them for 300 years.

We knew our history long before the Persians were a gleam in their parent's eyes.

I don't think the writer of sab is a scholar. But he list 230 failed prophecies.

Willingly ignorant moron might be the operative words for a doubt compiler who truly doesn't know what he is talking about.

Right, thank you! Like I said, either the prophecy was written after the fact like the NT stories or failed OT prophecies end up being "oh that hasn't happened yet". Exactly what I said. HA!

This is not the thread to teach prophesy 101. Prophets in the OT generally had prophesies fulfilled locally in their time so that people would know the things they spoke about in the future also would come true. Most already have and are now history also. Of course many are yet to be fulfilled. (though of these many have already been partially fulfilled, so we have a taste already)

Even if it will happen (it won't) the point was to your statement about all the prophecies that became history.
You just admitted these did not.

Most have been already fulfilled. So most have.