The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

Nope. I dont wish to be a guest anywhere.

Just be a decent human being and speak like a gentleman.

If this is what you are looking for as evidence I will give you. Just say it. Have some character.

Have a good day. Bye Bye.

 

[McBell]

Most modern scholars are not God, or truth meters.

Which one do you claim to be?

 

[nPeace]

Thanks


Not sure what you mean with people raised in the same household are at war, can you elaborate on that?

I meant siblings, who sometimes fight and kill one another,

Because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with having to learn anything, it might simply come down to it not being meant to be. The idea of there being anything wrong with that is wrong as I seen it. The only issue with it, comes when their are children involved as they are often suffering due to parents separating. In such case trying to make things work is definitely a good idea.

What exactly do you mean by "not being meant to be"? Explain please.

But besides that, nothing ought to be wrong in simply not getting along with each other or having out grown each other whatever ones reason might be.

Please explain what you mean by "having out grown each other", and how that happens.

Paul is not a Gospel writer, I was referring to the other gospels not mentioning it. Which I find strange, as one would assume that it would be quite important whether Jesus thought the law should be removed or not.

Jesus taught his followers, both while on earth, and from heaven.
They didn't get things right away, but eventually they got it.
Jesus said this... “I still have many things to say to you, but you are not able to bear them now. However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. (John 16:12, 13)

There were things Jesus said, based on Moses' writings, and the prophets, and Psalms.
Some of these things would be revealed, or made clearer, later. So what was not made explicitly clear during Jesus' ministry, was made clear to the Christian congregation later, through the letters of the apostles. Acts 15
This can be seen, not only from Paul's letters, but from the Revelation of John.

Jesus did not give these instructions in vain...
“Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me; for John, indeed, baptized with water, but you will be baptized with holy spirit not many days after this.”
“It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:4-8)

Jesus did not come to earth, and start a ministry, select followers, teach them, only to leave earth, and his work come to an end. It was a work that he would direct, to the end of the world. (Matthew 28:19, 20)
Any work that is ongoing, will have advancements. The workers also advance in knowledge, and understanding.
We observe this in life. No one starts with all knowledge about something. They acquire it as they advance.
I say all that, to say, don't expect to find all you expect to find in one part of the complete package.

However, Jesus did teach that something better than the Law was in the making, and if they had discerned it, they would have gotten it, but they needed help.

Spoiler: Jesus on the Law

(Matthew 22:40) On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.”
(Luke 16:16) “The Law and the Prophets were until John. From then on, the Kingdom of God is being declared as good news, and every sort of person is pressing forward toward it.
(Luke 24:44) He then said to them: “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.”
(Luke 24:44-48) 44 He then said to them: “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened up their minds fully to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures, 46 and he said to them, “This is what is written: that the Christ would suffer and rise from among the dead on the third day, 47 and on the basis of his name, repentance for forgiveness of sins would be preached in all the nations—starting out from Jerusalem. 48 You are to be witnesses of these things.
(John 1:17) Because the Law was given through Moses, the undeserved kindness and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ.
(John 1:45) Philip found Nathanael and said to him: “We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote: Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth.”

What Im saying is that those and what God consider to be wrongdoings are in a lot of cases immoral and wrong. It doesn't matter if he is supreme ruler and decide all the laws. The difference is that you see them as being righteous and good, whereas I do not.

Okay. So therefore, when you say you don't understand how others don't see God as the monster you see him as, please remember, you are judging him on your own standards of right and wrong, and if you really believe there is no objective morality, or set standard of good and bad, then you should not expect that others should see things the way you do.
It should not surprise you that others view morally good, in a different light.

 

[nPeace]

That is why Jesus is no better than God when it comes to making moral decisions. Its not a matter of who they are, but what they are capable of. Claiming that they are supreme being of pure good, one would expect them to be able to do a lot better in this department than they are.
Besides that, what exactly was sacrificed? Jesus rose from the dead and went straight to God, if its just for a few days, when one live for eternity. He didn't loose anything and knew he wouldn't, that is not to sacrifice anything. If one believe in the trinity, the sacrifice makes even less sense. I really don't see why people are so impressed with this, it really isn't at all

Remember. In your opinion... no better than, is subjective to you.
The other side, are saying, they are by far, way better than you.

So this is basically just traditions and rituals, which varies people believe to be true and that can affect their world. From a historical point of view, I can see it being interesting in how it have affected our societies etc. From a personal point of view, I would put it in the same category as that of believing in ghosts, astrology, healing stones etc. If people believe in those things that is fine with me, but without evidence for evil spirits and how stars could affect our lives and so on, I really don't care a lot for it. People believe in all sorts of things, if we are to take all of it serious, if they can't supply evidence, then we couldn't do much else than trying to sort through non sense.

Your opinion has been acknowledged.

Im not saying that there is anything especially wrong with using the historical method. Its about how one interpret what is found through it, this is what people discuss, trying to find out what best explains something.

I agree. Similar to historical science - trying to piece together the past.

But you told me, when I mentioned scholars that I was wrong, yet you mention them and then its correct? that's a bit confusing, but nevermind.

I did? Not that I recall. Could you show me that also... if it's not too much trouble.

No, but if you jump off a cliff unto some rock with the intend of killing yourself, but every time you do, land softly and unharmed. You would know that something is preventing you from killing yourself in such way. Therefore you are not able to execute your free will.

What situation are you applying this analogy to?

Its about what is to come to pass, and for that to happen certain events need to play out in a certain way. For instance if it is prophecies that Jesus will die on the cross, clearly he is not going to die from getting clubbed in the head. So anyone with the intention of doing so, will not be able to, so it will interfere with their free will.
If it have already been decided that no one, will ever get the idea of clubbing Jesus, then that is interfering with free will as well.

Clearly, you yet don't understand.
That's not near anything I said.
I'll try one more time. After this, I'm sorry.
Free will is not dependent on success or failure. It is your free will to strike at me with a sword in order to cut my head off. It is not your free will to to succeed.
You watch movies, I assume. Why doesn't the star die?
So the villains come armed to the teeth. They shoot up the house, the star, is supposed to be in, but something... something just happens to save him. Yes. This is written in a script, but it plays out what happens in real life.

A person has a hidden dagger, intent on stabbing the governor, but something... something happens, that saves the governor. What happens is not fate. It is not written in a script.
The person exercised free will. Yes or No?
Why are you trying to decide that free will be what you want it to be, rather than what it is?

One more...
Two rock climbers... What do you call those mountain climbers that climb, almost vertical rock faces, without rope, or hooks? Two set out to climb to the top of a 2000 foot cliff.
One fell to his death (failure). The other made it to the top (success).
A. The one that fell, did not exercise free will.
B. The one that made it exercised free will, but the other did not.
C. Both exercised free will. (Free will does not depend on the outcome of one's decisions - the ability to act at one's own discretion)

King Solomon said...
(Ecclesiastes 9:11, 12) 11 I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence (unexpected events) befall them all. 12 For man also does not know his time. Just like fishes that are being taken in an evil net, and like birds that are being taken in a trap, so the sons of men themselves are being ensnared at a calamitous time, when it falls upon them suddenly.

These are what we call, coincidences.
An unforeseen occurrence, is just that... to us humans.
However, if God sees the occurrence, it is not unforeseen... to him.
Even though God has seen it, does that mean it will not happen? No. It will still happen, but now, God can say it will happen, or he can write it in a book, or tell someone to declare it, either by written, or spoken word. That is what prophecy is.
Notice that God does not change the event. He just says it, as he sees it.

Think of it this way. Imagine if you could zip into the future, and zip back.
You are not altering anyone's actions, or freedom to choose. You are only seeing it. You can then say what you see, and you will know it before it happens.
If you wanted to prevent something, you then have the will to intervene... if you want, and can.

I tried to explain as simple as possible Nimos. Sorry, if you still don't get it. If you didn't, I suggest maybe you don't want to, but I don't know for sure. For all I know, you could have a head like some people... hard.
That would mean, I can't blame you, or be hard on you.
However, if it's not that...
My advice would be...Don't fight so hard. You won't win, because you can't beat reality, no matter how determined you are to prove you can.

I don't think we will get any closer to settling this, I don't know how you are reaching your conclusion, that so many scholars and that all evidence points to John being an eyewitness, when practically anywhere you look, it is said that he weren't or it is highly unlikely.

I presented all the reasons why there are scholars who stand by the conclusion that John is the writer.
The evidence is strong on John's side.
We can just agree to disagree.

 

[Muffled]

The problem remains that the claim of the 'discerning person' recognizing what one 'claims as truth' results in many diverse conflicting claims of 'discernment.' Many if not most out of touch with the simple reality of the factual nature of our physical existence.

Of course there are always those self deceived people who can look at a rock and call it an apple but once they bite it they find out how wrong they were. For me the description by Jesus in John 3 of the spirit helped me understand how a person can be dead and then alive again. Logically speaking the body can't do that once it is dead.

 

[Muffled]

Sorry, what you are experiencing is confirmation bias. By that poor standard all religious beliefs are true.

So you say I am biased because I see a rock as a rock and you see it as an apple but my bias is confirmed when you bite it and break your teeth.

 

[Muffled]

No, seeing UFOs today would not be considered nuts, but they remain unknown, except for the fact that they are well documented by recent observations by military aircraft.

Most of the ancient writings of ancient cultures did not consider them as 'fiction' nor 'myth' when written, but nonetheless the stories of dragons, Medusa, and the Biblical flood are indeed mythological fiction.

I do not consider the myths fiction and the Bible is not mythical but God inspired.

I believe today's critics look at first hand reports and consider them either fictional or delusional.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say I am biased because I see a rock as a rock and you see it as an apple but my bias is confirmed when you bite it and break your teeth.

No, you do not "see a rock as a rock". You see something from a distance and decide it is a rock, but do not investigate. Confirmation bias is choosing the possible answer one wants to see rather than taking a deeper look. Your analogy fails because you have very few examples of people breaking their teeth and you ignore the people enjoying an apple.

 

[Audie]

I do not consider the myths fiction and the Bible is not mythical but God inspired.

I believe today's critics look at first hand reports and consider them either fictional or delusional.

You do know there are many first hand accounts of
mermaids, alien abduction, Bigfoot etc.
Fiction? Delusion? There are lots of possibilities.
Fundys usually go for binary thinking, black n white,
good n evil, true or false, lies or delusion.

The world ain’t that simple!

In today’’s world some people have learned that its
a credulous naïf to just believe sailors yarns.

It helps if the story makes sense, involves no magic
or cryptozoology etc. If it does, though, we like to
see more than an old story in a book riddled with
obvious fiction.

It is not the fault of “critics” that what you
consider to be so I’s just too outlandish and
unevidenced for others to be convinced.

Sorry ah, you gotta do better than say “I believe”
and blame others when they don’t buy fairy tales.

 

[Muffled]

No, you do not "see a rock as a rock". You see something from a distance and decide it is a rock, but do not investigate. Confirmation bias is choosing the possible answer one wants to see rather than taking a deeper look. Your analogy fails because you have very few examples of people breaking their teeth and you ignore the people enjoying an apple.

I believe you can whistle Dixie all day long but it won't make what you want to be the facts the true facts. I have the true facts and you do not. I do not practice confirmation bias. I see things as they are.

 

[Muffled]

You do know there are many first hand accounts of
mermaids, alien abduction, Bigfoot etc.
Fiction? Delusion? There are lots of possibilities.
Fundys usually go for binary thinking, black n white,
good n evil, true or false, lies or delusion.

The world ain’t that simple!

In today’’s world some people have learned that its
a credulous naïf to just believe sailors yarns.

It helps if the story makes sense, involves no magic
or cryptozoology etc. If it does, though, we like to
see more than an old story in a book riddled with
obvious fiction.

It is not the fault of “critics” that what you
consider to be so I’s just too outlandish and
unevidenced for others to be convinced.

Sorry ah, you gotta do better than say “I believe”
and blame others when they don’t buy fairy tales.

I believe your reasoning is that it does not fit in with what you want to believe so it can't be true. That is as bad as those who say something is true because they want it to be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you can whistle Dixie all day long but it won't make what you want to be the facts the true facts. I have the true facts and you do not. I do not practice confirmation bias. I see things as they are.

If you had the "true facts" you could support your claims. An inability to do so confirms my claim. What evidence do you have for your claims and beliefs? That is not an unreasonable question.

 

[Audie]

I believe your reasoning is that it does not fit in with what you want to believe so it can't be true. That is as bad as those who say something is true because they want it to be true.

You believe a lot of stupid things. Here we see
you believing I am so stupid, and, that you in
some way are actually responding to what I
said.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course there are always those self deceived people who can look at a rock and call it an apple but once they bite it they find out how wrong they were. For me the description by Jesus in John 3 of the spirit helped me understand how a person can be dead and then alive again. Logically speaking the body can't do that once it is dead.

Nonetheless . . .

The problem remains that the claim of the 'discerning person' recognizing what one 'claims as truth' results in many diverse conflicting claims of 'discernment.' Many if not most out of touch with the simple reality of the factual nature of our physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not consider the myths fiction and the Bible is not mythical but God inspired.

I believe today's critics look at first hand reports and consider them either fictional or delusional.

There are no first hand accounts in the Bible by the evidence except possible some of Paul's letters, which testimonials of belief and not first hand accounts of the life of Jesus.

 

[Nimos]

What exactly do you mean by "not being meant to be"? Explain please.

Please explain what you mean by "having out grown each other", and how that happens.

People may behave in ways that is not acceptable for the other part, like a one person being very aggressive and hitting the other, maybe they turn out to have to different goals in life etc. Cheating with another and so on, like all the normal reason why people might go apart.

Okay. So therefore, when you say you don't understand how others don't see God as the monster you see him as, please remember, you are judging him on your own standards of right and wrong, and if you really believe there is no objective morality, or set standard of good and bad, then you should not expect that others should see things the way you do.
It should not surprise you that others view morally good, in a different light.

I do expect others to have different moral standards than me, but at the same time I also expect people to be able to justify their reasons for such standards.

If we take the example of homosexuality as that one is easy to use as an example.

"When God say that two men that are together as a man and woman, should be killed and its their own fault. That I find that to morally wrong."

Not purely because of them having to be killed for it, but because from a logical point of view. What these people choose to do, being together, is not harming anyone. Its ought to be their choice and theirs alone. Having others judging their decision, again when it doesn't hurt anyone else, ought to be of no one else concern.

Secondly if God created humans in his image, then showing hate towards people with certain sexsualities makes no sense. If he find homosexsuality such a huge problem, then get rid of it, I mean he is God after all. But no rather than doing that, they ought to be killed for it, if they were to ever express their love for each other.

If God made this possible in order to "test" people, then why the hell did he make it so animals could also do it, it makes no sense.

So having explained how I derived at my moral standard in this particular example. I would expect those that disagree, to be able to do the same and explain why God is correct when saying that they ought to be killed and that it is their own fault?

Im not looking for answers, like God is all mighty and all knowing, but logical reasons for how this is morally justifiable from a human perspective. So if you think God is correct here, can you please explain, why?

Remember. In your opinion... no better than, is subjective to you.
The other side, are saying, they are by far, way better than you.

As just mentioned above, I happily state and have already giving you several examples earlier with explanations to why I think what I do, when it comes to morality in these cases. Yet I do not see any explanations to why im wrong? You merely state what I have already explained to you. That yes I believe that it is subjective. Which should encourage the possibility of a discussion in regards to these. Compared to them being objective as their ought to not be any discussions at all regarding them, which their strangely is when one looks around the world, as morals seems to change dramatically from place to place and culture to culture. .

I did? Not that I recall. Could you show me that also... if it's not too much trouble.

"So who do you think are the scholars that disagree, and have different opinions... PaulTheApostle97 on youtube, or some random person that have an opinion?"
I would assume a mixture of scholars and random people.

What situation are you applying this analogy to?

In regards to free will.

If one is able to do something that by all natural laws should be possible. Like jumping off a cliff or simply choosing to take a walk, is somehow by some unexplained reason prevented from doing this, then I would say that interfere with our free will.

Free will is not dependent on success or failure. It is your free will to strike at me with a sword in order to cut my head off. It is not your free will to to succeed.

I completely agree, but there are situations where there is only one option. Like if a huge bomb is strapped on your chest and blown, you will not survive. And even if the bomb doesn't go off the first time, we keep strapping a new one on you. If this bomb refuse to go off, no matter how many times we try. I think one could conclude that something is interfering with it being possible due to some unexplained reason. That you are simply not to be allowed to die that way.

So the villains come armed to the teeth. They shoot up the house, the star, is supposed to be in, but something... something just happens to save him. Yes. This is written in a script, but it plays out what happens in real life.

Yes, because in certain situations you will have a chance to survive. But there are situations that are physical impossible to survive given our biology. Like the bomb example above or someone jumping into hot molten lava.

If it is prophesied that one is to not die that way, such actions would not be possible and therefore interfere with free will. Even if the example might be unrealistic, examples like these would have to be true in all thinkable cases for prophecies and free will to work together.

A person has a hidden dagger, intent on stabbing the governor, but something... something happens, that saves the governor. What happens is not fate. It is not written in a script.
The person exercised free will. Yes or No?
Why are you trying to decide that free will be what you want it to be, rather than what it is?

Because as I said above, certain situations does not allow for other outcomes. You are purely looking at situations where it could go either way.

But when talking about prophecies, a person, would either not be able to find themself in such situations or others being prevented from executing certain actions to this person or anyone else in their lineage that could interfere with them.

Notice that God does not change the event. He just says it, as he sees it.

But then free will makes no sense, if it is already decide. You would not be able to distinguish between something being free will and something that is not.

You are not altering anyone's actions, or freedom to choose. You are only seeing it. You can then say what you see, and you will know it before it happens.

But if one could travel into the future like in movies then clearly than would be evidence that free will does not exists. If there were infinite paralle futures one could travel to, then clearly that would suggest that free will does exist.

 

[nPeace]

People may behave in ways that is not acceptable for the other part, like a one person being very aggressive and hitting the other, maybe they turn out to have to different goals in life etc. Cheating with another and so on, like all the normal reason why people might go apart.

So basically, you seem to be saying, to outgrow someone, is to disagree with, or choose a way of life different to the other person.
Do you consider that a natural unguided process, or a guided process - choice?

I do expect others to have different moral standards than me, but at the same time I also expect people to be able to justify their reasons for such standards.

If we take the example of homosexuality as that one is easy to use as an example.

"When God say that two men that are together as a man and woman, should be killed and its their own fault. That I find that to morally wrong."

Not purely because of them having to be killed for it, but because from a logical point of view. What these people choose to do, being together, is not harming anyone. Its ought to be their choice and theirs alone. Having others judging their decision, again when it doesn't hurt anyone else, ought to be of no one else concern.

Secondly if God created humans in his image, then showing hate towards people with certain sexsualities makes no sense. If he find homosexsuality such a huge problem, then get rid of it, I mean he is God after all. But no rather than doing that, they ought to be killed for it, if they were to ever express their love for each other.

If God made this possible in order to "test" people, then why the hell did he make it so animals could also do it, it makes no sense.

So having explained how I derived at my moral standard in this particular example. I would expect those that disagree, to be able to do the same and explain why God is correct when saying that they ought to be killed and that it is their own fault?

Im not looking for answers, like God is all mighty and all knowing, but logical reasons for how this is morally justifiable from a human perspective. So if you think God is correct here, can you please explain, why?

Glad to know you are looking for answers Nimos, it would help if you also did understand the answers given. It's one thing to hear the answer. It's another, to give it thoughtful consideration.

I used an example before. I'll try it again, from another angle.
You are a queen. You rule over a kingdom... On second thought, I think that might only narrow your worldview.

Picture a king, who rules as a sovereign. To make it easier think of a form of government, like autocracy, or totalitarian, or dictatorship... but not exactly so. Jehovah is supreme - there is no equal... according to scripture.
Now consider the king's rules. Say he makes this one... "HOMOSXUALITY IS A SIN AGAINST THE KING. PUNISHABLE BY DEATH."
Based on what you ask?
Based on the fact that the king says it is wrong, an abomination - harmful to man, woman, and child, and the earth. The king says so.

Enter you, in this picture. You, and others like yourself, who decide your own morals, disagree with the king's morals. "Uh. King. We feel that your laws are wrong, and needs adjusting."
Really? Reminds me of Ezekiel 18:25.
Yeah? Just break them and see what happens.
Remember, this is not a king that is weak, or obligated to listen to whiners, complaining about how it's a violation of human rights, to execute someone - by firing squad, the guillotine, the electric chair... or drop from helicopter 500 feet onto rocks between a cliff and the sea. Those that survive, are free to go.
Seriously though, this is a king that enforces the law, he dictates... based on his standards of right and wrong.
He also has a fair justice system - no bribes, and a perfect lie detector.

Earlier you said, "If one believe in God, its very likely that he would be considered the creator of objective morals/morality I guess, since he is the creator of everything."
This is exactly the case... without the guessing.

Therefore, from that perspective, it is not reasonable to call this hate... unless of course, you mean hatred of what is bad, because that is how it is with this king (according to scripture). He does hate what is bad, and removes it from his domain. So anyone who wants to promote, and practice what is unclean, must go... no question.

Earlier, I tried explaining to you, that God chose the nation of Israel, and ruled over them. He set laws for them. That's clear in scripture.
So he not only dictated those laws, he enforced them.
Also, as king of the whole earth, he chose to give his people land to dwell on, and he cleared out the abominations, from the land they were to dwell in. (He also remove those deserving of death, based on his judgement)
The only problem, lay with the people themselves. Because of the Israelite nation's disobedience, Jehovah did not completely rid the land of their enemies, and so they had problems.

Hopefully, you are familiar with these scriptures, so I don't have to quote all of them. (Deuteronomy 10:14-21)
I hope this is clear enough for you.

As just mentioned above, I happily state and have already giving you several examples earlier with explanations to why I think what I do, when it comes to morality in these cases. Yet I do not see any explanations to why im wrong? You merely state what I have already explained to you. That yes I believe that it is subjective. Which should encourage the possibility of a discussion in regards to these. Compared to them being objective as their ought to not be any discussions at all regarding them, which their strangely is when one looks around the world, as morals seems to change dramatically from place to place and culture to culture. .

Like you, and millions of others, people decide for themselves, what is morally right or wrong. So yes, that is why there are people crying out for justice, and not feeling like they are getting any... because their standard of right is not in agreement with the authorities' standard of right.
I believe that will be corrected very soon, as God promised. (Psalm 9:7-10 ; Isaiah 9:6, 7)

"So who do you think are the scholars that disagree, and have different opinions... PaulTheApostle97 on youtube, or some random person that have an opinion?"
I would assume a mixture of scholars and random people.

There is nothing here that relates to, to quote you, "But you told me, when I mentioned scholars that I was wrong, yet you mention them and then its correct?".
What did I say you were wrong about? a mixture of scholars and random people
That's one sentence. I did not split the sentence, but took it just the way you said it.
Do you want to restate it, by removing random people?

 

[nPeace]

In regards to free will.

If one is able to do something that by all natural laws should be possible. Like jumping off a cliff or simply choosing to take a walk, is somehow by some unexplained reason prevented from doing this, then I would say that interfere with our free will.

What do you mean by "somehow by some unexplained reason"? Can you give an example?
Do you mean a sudden earthquake occurs; a swarm of FBI agents suddenly swoop into the neighborhood, and order residents to stay put; a sudden downpour of rain... etc... etc.. ?
Please tell me. Do you think free will means unlimited?

I completely agree, but there are situations where there is only one option. Like if a huge bomb is strapped on your chest and blown, you will not survive. And even if the bomb doesn't go off the first time, we keep strapping a new one on you. If this bomb refuse to go off, no matter how many times we try. I think one could conclude that something is interfering with it being possible due to some unexplained reason. That you are simply not to be allowed to die that way.

How about the bomb setters are just goofy, and repeatedly make the same mistake. Have you been watching Tom and Jerry?
Seriously though, the fact that someone stops you from doing something, does not mean you do not have free will.
The truth of the matter is, you don't have ultimate power, or authority to do whatever you want. That is different.
A man that thinks he should go up, rather than down, when he jumps off a cliff without a jet pack, is just being ridiculously arrogant, isn't he? ...and asking for gravity to cease to exist... because he wants to be unlimited. Similarly, a person who thinks that they should be able to do anything they want, is equally being unreasonable... and ridiculously arrogant, as well.
If God stops a person from carrying out an act he doesn't want taking place, he has demonstrated that he alone is all powerful, while the person has limits, and is really not as big as he thinks.
That person should learn something - free will does not mean ultimate, or unlimited. He should humble himself, just as gravity makes him humble.

Are we not humbled by majestic waves, crocodiles, category three, four and five hurricanes.
If I am wrong, prove it. The next time a hurricane threatens, go stand on your roof top. Go swim in the Cahills Crossing, and outback rivers in Australia. Or run into the sea after a tsunami warning.
Don't. We want you to be safe.

The point is, you apparently are conflating free will with unlimited freedom. They are not the same.
Maybe we should step back and consider the meaning of free will.
Using google...
Free will - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Now if you are using this definition, and applying this phrase - the power of acting without the constraint of necessity, then let me ask... Does the fact that you have to (a necessity) eat, drink, dedicate, urinate, and sleep, mean that you do not have free will?

If your answer is yes, then we do not have free will, according to your understand of it.
Free will, as I understand it, is this - the ability to act at one's own discretion.
This is the Biblical definition. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20).
Original Word: רָצוֹן ratson
No scripture promotes the idea of one being free to defy "laws of nature" - which includes the supreme, almighty creator and lawgiver of the universe.
So anything outside of this, does not relate to scripture, or Christian teaching.

I hope that's clearer.

Yes, because in certain situations you will have a chance to survive. But there are situations that are physical impossible to survive given our biology. Like the bomb example above or someone jumping into hot molten lava.

With the bomb not exploding, there might be a natural explanation, but yes... the hot lava, for sure, would suggest there is more than a natural explanation, but I am sure the scientists will argue, there must be a natural explanation.
Maybe ... and they are off to find one.
Can't be supernatural. No sirree.

Let's suppose you did see someone fall into hot lava, and they emerged without a mark, would you rub your eyes, and turn to the person next to you, and ask, "Did you see that?"
What if they all did, what natural explanation would you suggest? I have a hunch that would not change your mind about the supernatural.

If it is prophesied that one is to not die that way, such actions would not be possible and therefore interfere with free will. Even if the example might be unrealistic, examples like these would have to be true in all thinkable cases for prophecies and free will to work together.

No. It does not interfere with free will. You agreed that the outcome does not determine free will.
I don't understand why you agree and yet don't agree.
Also, I'm not sure you grasped the explanation about prophecy.
Nonetheless, if God intervened to protect the life of someone, as he did, it does not have anything to do with free will. See the explanation above.

Because as I said above, certain situations does not allow for other outcomes. You are purely looking at situations where it could go either way.

But when talking about prophecies, a person, would either not be able to find themself in such situations or others being prevented from executing certain actions to this person or anyone else in their lineage that could interfere with them.


But then free will makes no sense, if it is already decide. You would not be able to distinguish between something being free will and something that is not.

You evidently don't understand. It was not already decided. Where did you read that?

But if one could travel into the future like in movies then clearly than would be evidence that free will does not exists. If there were infinite paralle futures one could travel to, then clearly that would suggest that free will does exist.

You can't.
They aren't.

 

[nPeace]

How we know what's myth from what isn't.

The Genesis account proves to be, not a book of myths, but a real historical account.
Genesis is the only source known to humans that provides a logical, coherent history of things back to the beginning. Without its factual history of the first man and woman, we would be left with the fanciful stories or allegorical explanations of man’s beginning that are found in the creation accounts of pagan nations. A comparison of the book of Genesis with the pagan creation accounts clearly demonstrates the superiority of the Bible account.

Spoiler: Myth

Thus, the principal Babylonian myth says that the god Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, killed the goddess Tiamat, then took her corpse and “split her like a shellfish into two parts: Half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky.” So the earth and its sky came into existence. As to the creation of human life, this myth states that the gods caught the god Kingu and they “imposed on him his guilt and severed his blood (vessels). Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by James Pritchard, 1974, pp. 67, 68) Egyptian creation myths likewise involve the activities of several gods, but they disagree as to which city’s god (that of Memphis or that of Thebes) was the one who conceived the creation. One Egyptian myth relates that the sun-god Ra created mankind from his tears. Greek myths parallel those of the Babylonians. Ancient Chinese records are mostly calendars and chronological calculations or records of merely local or temporary interest.

Not one of such ancient sources furnishes us with the history, genealogy, and chronology that the book of Genesis provides. The writings of the ancient nations in general show uncertainty and confusion as to who their national founders were. The definiteness and detail with which Israel’s early history is presented is strikingly different. In reality we should not expect it to be otherwise, in view of God’s purpose toward his people. The Bible tells us that the nation of Israel was directly governed by God and that he dealt with their forefathers, especially Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then he used Moses in a very special way, through him giving Israel the Law that established them as a nation. Israel’s history is in recorded form not only for Israel’s benefit but also for the benefit of all who will learn of the ways and dealings of the true God and serve him.

In answering those who would reject many portions of Genesis as fables or folklore, Wilhelm Möller says: “I do not think that it can be made plausible, that in any race fables and myths came in the course of time more and more to be accepted as actual facts, so that perchance we should now be willing to accept as historical truths the stories of the Nibelungenlied or Red Riding Hood. But this, according to the critics, must have been the case in Israel.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. II, p. 1209) He goes on to point out that the prophets accepted the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as correct (Isaiah 1:9; Amos 4:11) and that they accepted Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph as real persons. (Isaiah 29:22; Micah 7:20) Not only this, but in the Christian Greek Scriptures, Abraham is mentioned in many places, even by Jesus Christ at Matthew 22:32, in connection with the argument about the resurrection. If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had not really lived, Jesus would have used another illustration. - Mat thew 22:31-33.

Value of the Book. Genesis tells us how the universe came into being. In a matter-of-fact way it describes the wonders of creation, without making these overshadow the main purpose of the book. It is thus unlike the pagan creation stories that make these marvels the main thing and go to absurdities and obvious untruths to stress them. Genesis tells about the work of creation, and it shows God’s purpose in creating man, the relationship of man to God, and the relationship of man to the animals. It gives us the reason for death and trouble experienced by mankind and the hope of deliverance. It points out that all humans descended from the one man Adam, who sinned and lost life for his posterity; it thereby enables us to understand how the ransom sacrifice of one man, Jesus Christ, could atone for the sins of mankind. Genesis enables us to see how the issue of the rightfulness of God’s sovereignty was raised by the symbolic serpent, Satan the Devil. It gives the sure hope of destruction of Satan and of relief for mankind. It recounts the origin of Babylon and thus of all false religion in the post-Flood earth, thereby aiding in the identification of Babylon the Great in the book of Revelation. - See BABYLON THE GREAT.

Jesus said that if anyone serves God, that one must worship Him with spirit and truth. (John 4:24) The Genesis account sets forth the truth of man’s beginnings and of God’s dealings with him. Since everything recorded in Genesis is true and not mythical, we are able to know the truth about man’s history. We can see that up to the time of the Flood men certainly knew the truth of the Biblical account about Eden, for the garden was there and cherubs were there with the flaming sword at its gate. (Genesis 3:24) But those who wanted to go the way of their own desires ignored the facts that were before them. Noah, however, served God according to the way that man was originally created to serve him, according to true history.

Although, following the Flood, Nimrod set up rebellion against God at the Tower of Babel, the patriarchs through the line of Shem continued to hold to the true way of life. When it was God’s time to organize Israel into a nation and give them the Law, it did not come to them like something completely unknown, a revolutionary change in their way of life. No, for in the patriarchal society they had done many of the things that are found in the Law. As M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia (1881, Vol. III, p. 782), declares: “This theocracy cannot have entered into history without preparatory events. The facts which led to the introduction of the theocracy are contained in the accounts of Genesis.”

This, in turn, prepared the way for the Messiah and the introduction of Christianity. When Jesus Christ arrived, those who had been living according to the Law to the best of their ability were soon able to identify him. He did not appear suddenly and announce himself to be a great savior and leader without any background or historical credentials. The background that had been furnished right from Genesis on down enabled the honesthearted ones to recognize and follow him. Therefore a strong organization of Jewish Christians could be established as a nucleus, prepared to bring a convincing gospel message to the nations. The forefathers of the pagan nations had led them away from the truth. They were “alienated from the state of Israel and strangers to the covenants of the promise, and . . . had no hope and were without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:12) Therefore, they had to learn the principles of God from the beginning before they could become Christians.

Genesis, then, provides a valuable basis for understanding all the other books of the Bible and is essential to Christianity. It sets the theme for the Bible, namely, the vindication of Jehovah’s sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his Kingdom under the promised Seed. In addition to the very first and basic prophecy at Genesis 3:15, Genesis has within it numerous other prophecies, a great many of which have been fulfilled since its composition.

Regarding ancient creation myths in general, it has been stated: “No myth has yet been found which explicitly refers to the creation of the universe, and those concerned with the organization of the universe and its cultural processes, the creation of man and the establishment of civilization are marked by polytheism and the struggles of deities for supremacy in marked contrast to the Heb. monotheism of Genesis. 1-2.” - New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas, 1985, p. 247.

The Bible is a collection of historical documents from various time periods, and the copies are corroborated by other documents, yet persons say they cannot believe them, because they are no external sources supporting them. This even though, time and again, outside sources are found.
However, when Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Roman, writings are found, we don't hear anyone making the argument that we cannot believe these, because no external sources were found. Why?

 

[nPeace]

The author of this article, makes this claim...
Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre
In Ezekiel 26:1-21, God states that Nebuchadnezzar would conquer, sack, and completely destroy the city of Tyrus (Tyre) and that Tyre's land would never be built upon again:

I don't read anywhere in scripture where it says "Tyre's land would never be built upon again:"
Where is that written?

The city was destroyed, as was prophesied, by Nebuchadnezzar.
It was hurled into the sea, as prophesied.
It thus was uninhabited - made desolated... as prophesied.

The claim is a strawman.