Pah
Uber all member
Mister Emu said:We are all biased.
well, "Duh"!!! Me too, I'm sorry to say.
-pah-
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mister Emu said:We are all biased.
well, "Duh"!!! Me too, I'm sorry to say.
Mister Emu said:I was refering to Mr. Spinkles, whose comments I took as him believing he was not biased.
Mister Emu said:We are all biased.
This is nothing but argumentum ad hominem. Furthermore, can you show me evidence of gMark fabricating stories and/or borrow things from other legends?Mr_Spinkles said:How is it biased to doubt the prophesying powers/miracle accounts of authors who contradict each other/themselves and appear to fabricate stories and borrow things from other legends, ...
Two points: (1) the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, and (2) not all biases are created equal.Mr_Spinkles said:..., and when scientifically no one has ever been shown to have miraculous/prophesying power?
Perhaps you were driven by your bias to jump to an unwarranted conclusion.Mr_Spinkles said:As for a reference where you might find "the Synoptics prophesying the exact date of the destruction of the Temple", I assumed there was such a reference when you said: But I must have misunderstood you. :embarassed:
The fact of the matter is that no athiest who presents a contridiction of the bible and then a believer corrects the passage or "brings it to light" it will absolutely mean zilch to the athiest.
true blood said:The fact of the matter is that no athiest who presents a contridiction of the bible and then a believer corrects the passage or "brings it to light" it will absolutely mean zilch to the athiest. He'll just move on to the next contridiction one after another, totally devoid of spiritual understanding yet spending energy to oppose something he or she claims not to exist.
What is the difference between "brings it to light" and 'offers baseless rationalizations'? What criteria would you suggest the atheist use to evaluate these explanations?true blood said:The fact of the matter is that no athiest who presents a contridiction of the bible and then a believer corrects the passage or "brings it to light" it will absolutely mean zilch to the athiest.
linwood said:Not true, there are a couple of threads here where I`ve accepted Christian interpretation of text I previously couldn`t harmonize.
Doesn`t anyone want to have a go at the one I posted in this thread?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=31034#post31034
I considered this carefully, and I'm not so sure. If I attacked you personally, then I would agree that's ad hominem....but the Bible and its authors themselves are the very subject of this debate--they are not opponents with whom I am debating. Do you really think it's fallacy to examine the credibility of the authors who wrote something, when the historicity of that very something is the topic of the debate?Deut. 32.8 said:This is nothing but argumentum ad hominem.
Here is some evidence that suggests Mark fabricated and/or borrowed things from previous legends, from: http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htmFurthermore, can you show me evidence of gMark fabricating stories and/or borrow things from other legends?
In 2 Kings 4:27-37 a distraught parent of an only child comes to Elisha just as in Mark 5:22-24 (which continues in verses 35-43) a distraught parent of an only child comes to Jesus,pleading for help.
In both stories someone tries to discourage the parent from bothering Elisha and Jesus.
In both stories it is unclear to some people in the story whether the child is dead ,dying or asleep.
In both stories the child is in a house some distance away.
In both stories a second source comes from the house and confirms that the child is dead.
In both stories Jesus and Elisha continue anyway to the house.
In both stories the parent precedes Elisha or Jesus
In both stories Elisha and Jesus seek a high degree of privacy by turning people out of the house before their miracle .
The story in Mark is such an obvious rewrite of the story in Kings that if I remind you that Jairus in Mark 5 falls at Jesus's feet, you can guess what the parent in 2 Kings 4 did.
The name Jairus has 2 meanings. 1 is 'he enlightens'. The other is 'he awakens'. Is not 'he awakens' a remarkably apt name for someone in a resurrection story, where Jesus says that the child is not dead but sleeping?
As confirmation that Mark used 2 Kings 4 for his stories of the feeding of a crowd, and the raising of a dead child, Mark 5:42 says that after the miracle, the parents were 'amazed with great amazement' (exestesan ekstasei megale), while 2 Kings 4:13 we have 'amazed with all amazement' (exestesas... pasan ten ekstasin tauten) - a very similar phrase.
Refine this to "absence of evidence is not necessarily proof of absence" and we'll be in agreement.Deut said:Two points: (1) the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence,
I think I see what you're saying here...but correct me if I'm wrong: the assumption that the Bible is not inerrant and some of it may not be accurate is a bias, but it is not as strong a bias as one in which everything in the Bible is assumed to be historically accurate word for word. That makes sense.Deut said:(2) not all biases are created equal.
Maybe it was my bias that I can understand what your bombastic strings of words mean half the time.Perhaps you were driven by your bias to jump to an unwarranted conclusion.
true blood said:... If the bible contains God inspired words, then indeed one must actually follow the instructions given in it to understand and rightly divide the word of truth, because God made it that way. If you do not follow the directions on how to read this magical tome there is no way at all possible (if indeed it is magical) you will comprehend it because it would contain God inspired words of wisdom and understanding unsearchable yet unatainable to those who fail to read it the way he instructed it to be read. Therefore it does not matter how academic or if you have some type of degree in theology or anything of the sort IF one does not follow the instructions to rightly divide the word of truth. It is impossible.
.. If the bible contains God inspired words, then indeed one must actually follow the instructions given in it to understand and rightly divide the word of truth, because God made it that way. If you do not follow the directions on how to read this magical tome there is no way at all possible (if indeed it is magical) you will comprehend it because it would contain God inspired words of wisdom and understanding unsearchable yet unatainable to those who fail to read it the way he instructed it to be read. Therefore it does not matter how academic or if you have some type of degree in theology or anything of the sort IF one does not follow the instructions to rightly divide the word of truth. It is impossible.
Solve the Judas puzzle.
Luke is writing Acts. He was not only a doctor, but an excellent researcher. The records of transactions in the Temple would list the field as one "Judas bought" because the priests would have refused the blood money and therefore considered the money still to be Judas'. Nevertheless, something had to be done with it.
It was this field where Judas went to hang himself. And that is what he did. However, it was Passover -- a double Sabbath. That means the body hung there in the sun for at least a couple of days. When we read in Acts that he fell headlong, causing his insides to burst out -- who on earth would understand this happening in the fall of a living being? NO ONE, who falls from any height, has the result of his intestines BURSTING out. That happens when the body is swollen with decomposition and then falls.
If one pays attention to the implications of what the Scriptures are saying then it is quite clear that Judas had been dead for a couple of days, probably in the sun, when he was either cut down (no one would have done that on the Sabbath) or the rope or tree branch gave way, causing the fall which burst open his rotting belly.
Luke had the records. Matthew had the eyewitness. Put together it becomes reasonably clear about what happened to Judas.
Would you accept it, or would you call it "Bible Gymnastics".
The records of transactions in the Temple would list the field as one "Judas bought" because the priests would have refused the blood money and therefore considered the money still to be Judas'. Nevertheless, something had to be done with it.
That means the body hung there in the sun for at least a couple of days. When we read in Acts that he fell headlong, causing his insides to burst out -- who on earth would understand this happening in the fall of a living being? NO ONE, who falls from any height, has the result of his intestines BURSTING out. That happens when the body is swollen with decomposition and then falls.
If one pays attention to the implications of what the Scriptures are saying then it is quite clear that Judas had been dead for a couple of days,