Oh, who was that?
Prove it.
Do you mean when should we believe that claims of things that happened in the past are true?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Myth Or History?
- Thread starter PearlSeeker
- Start date
Oh, who was that?
Prove it.
Do you mean when should we believe that claims of things that happened in the past are true?
No, I meant, "When is historical reality - historical reality".
As far as "who"?
"Unlike some of the other books of the Bible, the books of 1st and 2nd Kings do not name its author. Accounts such as Kings and Chronicles cover many centuries of history and are typically thought to have been recorded during the lifetime of each of the kings. Jewish tradition credits Jeremiah as the primary writer and editor, but we cannot be definitive about this."
Who wrote the book of Kings, and what was its purpose? - Bible Christian Resources - Audio, Video, Bible Studies, Christian Mobile Applications
I tend to believe the first suggested authors.
How do you prove that Shakespeare wrote his works?
I understand why you hold your view which you have the right to believe.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
How many times have I asked your for your reasons for believing what you do?
And how many times have I pointed out that you haven't answered the question.
All I can conclude at this point is that your belief is unjustified, because you haven't justified it.
Irrelevant speculation.
Irrelevant speculation.
Again I ask, how many times have I asked you how you detect an undetectable God(s)? Countless by now.
That's how humans detect things. So how are you detecting anything, without the use of your senses?
We don't know that given that we haven't compared our brains with each other.I have already told you .. it is psychological.
It isn't that my brain matter is any different from yours.
Why are you giving me quotes about now neurosurgeons do surgery?
I'm sorry to tell you, but neurosurgeons have to take courses in psychology and have to know something about the psychological as well as the physical make-up of the brain, because they are intertwined.
I didn't suggest that psychologists perform surgery They can help detect the presence of a brain tumour though. What I was pointing out was that psychologists need to know how the brain works in tandem with the body. How do I know this? Because I took those necessary courses in neuropsychopharmacology.
I just pointed out that the mentally disordered brain can produce physical symptoms in our bodies. You've got it backwards.
Not that either. Try sticking with things I'm actually saying.
It sounds to me like you're admitting that your god beliefs are unfounded. Is that the case?[/QUOTE]
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
Naturally, I would say not.
I have spent my whole life believing in God, and as of yet, I have no reason to doubt His existence.
Lack of empirical evidence is not a valid reason for me to disbelieve .. I am satisfied that the accounts in the Bible and Qur'an are not of fraudulent nature.
You ask me why they do not agree with each other entirely.
Simple .. because the Bible is comprised of many texts of various age and author .. they are not completely accurate.
The core of belief, is belief in One God who created and maintains the universe.
..and then comes .. what has God revealed to us?
Answer: Divine law
Question: Who says what that is?
Ask the scholars .. study scripture .. make your own mind up.
If you can't get your head around a non-physical entity called God being responsible for existence .. anything else is superfluous.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
This just tells me what you believe, but it doesn't tell me why.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
You will have to ask God .. He made me.
I have told you why .. but you seem to have trouble with comprehension.
Shall I try again.
I see that the Bible and Qur'an exist. I do not think they are based on delusion or fraud.
They confirm my intuition, that this universe does not exist by pure chance, and that existence is more meaningful than enjoyment and wealth .. followed by "lights out".
Is it that I want it to be true?
No. A conviction of faith requires sacrifice.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I don't believe in God and have not yet seen or heard any evidence that convinces me of its existence.You will have to ask God .. He made me.
This thread certainly didn't do it.
You believe because the Bible and the Qu'ran exist, you don't think they're delusional or fraudulent (why?), and even though they contradict each other about the nature of god and his desires, and a slew of other things? Doesn't make sense to me but at least you answered, I guess.
Why do you think existence is more meaningful if some god exists?
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
Most people believe in "reality".
I am no exception.
Reality includes a history of events, that include every leaf that has fallen.
The future is also part of reality .. we say "it has not yet happened", but tomorrow it becomes history.
One can think that what has passed is "gone", and cannot be ascertained, yet Einstein has shown us that it may not be quite like we think. The passing of time is merely "a perception".
Without God, history remains "dead", whilst while we are alive, it clearly isn't .. we have much to learn from history.
..but how many of us pay attention?
..many of us are too busy looking for "meat"
Civilisations rise and fall.
We see that rememberance of God raises us from our lower selves, and advance in education and knowledge have flowed from such civilisation.
It gives mankind a higher purpose .. and God is aware of our weaknesses, and knows that we cannot sustain success forever more..
..not in this worldly life .. generation follows generation .. and we begin to take things for granted.
Last edited:
Sorry, I disagree with you still, humans have very poor imagination. And this is why I believe things that people have called gods probably existed. However, it does not necessary mean they all were somehow supernatural.
Alien is just a magnified insect.
Comets look like snakes in the sky and they can also look like they are shooting fire from their "mouth".
You're begging the question.
Okay so you don't actually know who wrote any of it.
Books of Kings - Wikipedia
Google Scholar
Why do you believe what Jeremiah may or may not have written? Is it possible he got some things wrong? Or must it be that every detail of the stories is correct?
Well for one, by having multiple independent contemporary accounts that all confirm he wrote what we believe he did, eg by publishers. We can also compare works to each other: vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc. I'm quite sure a Google search could reasonably educate you, have you tried? Are you going to claim that the evidence for the authorship or reliability of Kings is as good as the evidence that Shakespeare actually wrote the works for Shakespeare?
I somehow doubt that. Why do I hold my view?
Last edited:
Yet a good question
OK... so here you have a "possibility" labelled as "true" as was noted by the quote I gave.
Thus, my position that they were written during each Kingdom (as was so many of the customs of Kings and Pharaoh's et al) is a better possibility.
Additionally, for Jeremiah's book, it was written, "Jeremiah 30:2 Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book." - I don't find where God said, "Write the books of 1st and 2nd Kings.
So your question is quite irrelevant.
"Shakespeare's biography, particularly his humble origins and obscure life, seemed incompatible with his poetic eminence and his reputation for genius,[6][7] arousing suspicion that Shakespeare might not have written the works attributed to him.[8] The controversy has since spawned a vast body of literature,[9] and more than 80 authorship candidates have been proposed,[10] the most popular being Sir Francis Bacon; Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford; Christopher Marlowe; and William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby.[11]"
Shakespeare_authorship_question
It is interesting how you hold different weights of "proof" for different books that were written.
Thought the reasons may be many, your "non-theistic" belief system is certainly a factor.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
..in the same wiki page..
Although the idea has attracted much public interest, all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe theory, and for the most part acknowledge it only to rebut or disparage the claims.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Mark Hamill is a real person and the tv shows and movies were real but the vents depicted in Star Wars are fictional.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is not the case. Men are fallible but God is not in providing His word.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Mmm .. along with the writers of the NT .. and those that decided on the canon.
That is an awful lot of infallible men
..oh .. and then there is you, of course..
I believe that to be false.
I believe that Muhammad is a Messenger of God, and I believe that Jesus is LIKEWISE infallible.
You want to pretend that it is all the same .. all falsehood.
Well, you would, wouldn't you..
If by saying likewise, you imply that Mohammed is infallible then you would be wrong. Mohammed was not God in the flesh.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Of course, you've just expressed your personal opinion based on your religious beliefs, as has @muhammad_isa.
muhammad_isa
Well-Known Member
Maybe, but I wouldn't disagree with him.
Muhammad, peace be with him, is not God in the flesh.
It is an illogical concept, in any case.
How can an omnipotent, omniscient God be "in the flesh"?
One needs to suggest that God "emptied Himself" before He "became Jesus" .. which means that Jesus was "empty"?
It is more philosophy, than anything else. A way to try to explain why God has His authority being replaced by Jesus.
..rather than making religion one THROUGH Jesus, they want a religion ABOUT Jesus.
Almighty God knows why we say what we say .. He is aware of all.
Except no one serious believes it. It was just a claim from a fundamentalist website.
So you only believe things that are written verbatim in the Bible? The Bible doesn't even say what you're claiming about the authorship of Kings.
LOL please read the articles you cite.
The scholarly consensus is that Shakespeare wrote the things generally ascribed to him. "CITATION
[17] Dobson 2001, p. 31; Greenblatt 2005: "The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the 'authorship controversy' be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of current arguments that 'intelligent design' be taught alongside evolution. In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a serious assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by passionately held fantasies whose adherents demand equal time."
It is interesting how you hold different weights of "proof" for different books that were written.
I don't, but good try.
Moreover, if Shakespeare didn't write any of the works ascribed to him - okay. Now what? It changes nothing about my worldview. What happens to yours if you acknowledge that Kings wasn't written contemporaneous with the events is describes. Or that the book might contains errors? You didn't answer. We'll see if you do next time. I was a theist for many years. And many theists don't believe what you're claiming about this prophecy or Kings. So no, you're wrong about me. Wanna try again?
Which is the same position that people have about the Bible... except people don't have equal weights for judgment.
Nice try but no substance.
So you only believe things that are written verbatim in the Bible? The Bible doesn't even say what you're claiming about the authorship of Kings.
reliable enough IMO
"The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls allowed scholars to see how much the biblical text had changed in over 1000 years of transmission. They discovered that very little had changed and that the Hebrew Bible had been transmitted with incredible accuracy over a millennium."
the-three-oldest-biblical-texts
LOL please read the articles you cite.
"CITATION
[17] Dobson 2001, p. 31; Greenblatt 2005: "The idea that William Shakespeare's authorship of his plays and poems is a matter of conjecture and the idea that the 'authorship controversy' be taught in the classroom are the exact equivalent of current arguments that 'intelligent design' be taught alongside evolution. In both cases an overwhelming scholarly consensus, based on a serious assessment of hard evidence, is challenged by passionately held fantasies whose adherents demand equal time."
Just making the point (which you obviously missed) that there are other viewpoints that disagree. Just because you subscribe to a fundamentalist viewpoint of Shakespeare authorship doesn't mean you are right.... OOPS! Wait a minute... isn't that your point about my position?
I don't, but good try.
Please see above.
No.. I think you helped make my point in that you ceased believing so you have a biased viewpoint. (Which I wholeheartedly support your right to view it as such). Buy your viewpoint doesn't have much weight. IMV