• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mysterious radio bursts come from outside our galaxy

davidtaylorjr said:
Ah, your mistake is that you assume that is the reasoning. It's not. The Bible has yet to be proven false, not one time. And, witnesses who were there recorded and documented the information.

Josephus also claims its validity.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, much of the Bible contians historically accurate information depending on the book you read, like Maccabees or the travels of Paul for example. However taken as a whole it cannot be considered historically accurate in all cases.

Also to present something as true one must prove it truth, not demand that others prove it false. Why have you not followed Islam or Buddhism which have also not been proven false?

Let me ask you, straight up, is there anyway for the Bible to be proven false and if not why?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Ah, your mistake is that you assume that is the reasoning. It's not. The Bible has yet to be proven false, not one time. And, witnesses who were there recorded and documented the information.

Josephus also claims its validity.
Click to expand...

Lies.

Leviticus 11:6 King James Version (KJV) said:
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
Click to expand...

Hey, genius, hares and rabbits aren't ruminants.
 
Wiseone said:
Don't get me wrong, much of the Bible contians historically accurate information depending on the book you read, like Maccabees or the travels of Paul for example. However taken as a whole it cannot be considered historically accurate in all cases.

Also to present something as true one must prove it truth, not demand that others prove it false. Why have you not followed Islam or Buddhism which have also not been proven false?

Let me ask you, straight up, is there anyway for the Bible to be proven false and if not why?
Click to expand...

First of all Maccabees is not Bible. Second, sure if the Bible was wrong it could be proven false, but there has been no evidence to that regard.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Actually the Bible is a history book, would you like to point out how it is not?
Click to expand...

Way to shift the burden of proof and fail to provide examples. How about the fact that the great flood is not supported by geology? Or the age of the earth, or... I could go on all day.

What the hell makes you think its historical?

davidtaylorjr said:
First of all Maccabees is not Bible. Second, sure if the Bible was wrong it could be proven false, but there has been no evidence to that regard.
Click to expand...

First of all, before I go into a full list of contradictions and outright fails in the bible, are you a literalist? Or are you going to have an excuse for every fail?

zgoldsmith23 said:
Hey, genius, hares and rabbits aren't ruminants.
Click to expand...

Nor do insects have 4 legs as Leviticus 10:20-3 states.
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Way to shift the burden of proof and fail to provide examples. How about the fact that the great flood is not supported by geology? Or the age of the earth, or... I could go on all day.

What the hell makes you think its historical?



First of all, before I go into a full list of contradictions and outright fails in the bible, are you a literalist? Or are you going to have an excuse for every fail?
Click to expand...

Geology does in fact support the flood. And the age of the earth is simple, it was created with age.
 
Luke, Chapter 3:

23. When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,
24. the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25. the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai,
26. the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27. the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri,
28. the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29. the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi,
30. the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31. the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David,
32. the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon,
33. the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,
34. the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35. the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,
36. the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37. the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38. the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

That's the entire lineage from Adam to Jesus in a single breath. There are 2 glaring problems with this:

1. There is an extra Cainan between Shelah and Arphaxad. The lineage accounts in Chronicles go directly from Shelah to Arphaxad. Luke made a mistake here.
2. If Jesus lived 2000 years ago, and you add up all the specific numbers from Genesis (Noah was 500 years old when he had Shem), then Adam was created about 6000 years ago. But we've pulled ice cores from the Antarctic bedrock that has 750,000 rings, each ring corresponding to one year. Either the Bible is wrong, or God dishonestly made the Earth appear older than it really is.

Not that I'm going to win this argument or anything, lol!
 
Last edited:
davidtaylorjr said:
First of all Maccabees is not Bible. Second, sure if the Bible was wrong it could be proven false, but there has been no evidence to that regard.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the Bible has never been proven false therefore its true but since it is true, again because it's never been proven false, it cannot be proven false because its true?

What?

Also my Bible includes Maccabees
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Geology does in fact support the flood.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. At best, geologists have found sediment evidence of a huge (100+ mile radius) flood in the Mesopotamia region (where Noah was believed to have lived). There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the entire Earth having been covered by water.

davidtaylorjr said:
And the age of the earth is simple, it was created with age.
Click to expand...
To believe that, you have to assume God is dishonest. I don't believe He is.
 
Lachean said:
Way to shift the burden of proof and fail to provide examples. How about the fact that the great flood is not supported by geology? Or the age of the earth, or... I could go on all day.

What the hell makes you think its historical?
Click to expand...

This is the same guy who posted this when asked for scientific evidence


davidtaylorjr said:
Way to not use the original. Good job.
Click to expand...

Well I can't translated Aramaic and I doubt you can either so we'll use the modern translation(s).
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
This is the same guy who posted this when asked for scientific evidence

​



Well I can't translated Aramaic and I doubt you can either so we'll use the modern translation(s).
Click to expand...

I actually do regularly work with the original languages thanks. And KJV would hardly be considered a modern translation.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I actually do regularly work with the original languages thanks. And KJV would hardly be considered a modern translation.
Click to expand...

Semantics. Doesn't matter if you work with other "original" (how are you even defining original) languages. I am mildly fluent in Latin, that does not make me an Aramaic scholar. And, yes, a primordial collection of stories being translated in 1611 could be considered modern. You tell me the translation and I'll probably agree to it.

Anyway, back to the "truth" in the Bible. How about the NIV?

Genesis 1: 25 - 27 said:
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Click to expand...

Only to be followed by:

Genesis 2: 18-19 said:
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Click to expand...

So, chapter 1: God makes animals, then man.
Chapter 2: God makes man, then animals. You know - because **** logic.
 
Anyone that really understands the Bible and it's purpose, would know that it has nothing to do with this thread. The Bible neither explains all things, nor ever made the claim to.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Semantics. Doesn't matter if you work with other "original" (how are you even defining original) languages. I am mildly fluent in Latin, that does not make me an Aramaic scholar. And, yes, a primordial collection of stories being translated in 1611 could be considered modern. You tell me the translation and I'll probably agree to it.

Anyway, back to the "truth" in the Bible. How about the NIV?



Only to be followed by:



So, chapter 1: God makes animals, then man.
Chapter 2: God makes man, then animals. You know - because **** logic.
Click to expand...

And you also need to take into account the historical context of which the text was written. Chewing the cud was different then than it is now, you agree to this yes?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
And you also need to take into account the historical context of which the text was written. Chewing the cud was different then than it is now, you agree to this yes?
Click to expand...

Evidence for this claim? You wouldn't be ignoring the points in Genesis, would you?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Evidence for this claim? You wouldn't be ignoring the points in Genesis, would you?
Click to expand...
Nor would he be ignoring the blatant mistake that was made in Luke chapter 3, would he?

Actually, it's pretty incredible some of the "explanations" I've seen for this extra Cainan mentioned in Luke. Some even go so far as to assert that it has some hidden meaning that we're supposed to figure out. It boggles the mind. I guess it's like they say, you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't use reason to arrive at in the first place.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
What did I ignore?
Click to expand...

The creation in genesis. In one chapter, man is created after the animals; in the next chapter (THE. VERY. NEXT. CHAPTER.) god creates man and then the animals.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
The creation in genesis. In one chapter, man is created after the animals; in the next chapter (THE. VERY. NEXT. CHAPTER.) god creates man and then the animals.
Click to expand...

Really.... Not sure where you get that.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Nor would he be ignoring the blatant mistake that was made in Luke chapter 3, would he?

Actually, it's pretty incredible some of the "explanations" I've seen for this extra Cainan mentioned in Luke. Some even go so far as to assert that it has some hidden meaning that we're supposed to figure out. It boggles the mind. I guess it's like they say, you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't use reason to arrive at in the first place.
Click to expand...
---------------

Truer words were never spoken.
I've wasted enough time following or trying to follow David's logic.
See you around BD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom