Chin eh ah, aiyo, chyo see lang la . . . . . . .
Originally posted by Servant:
Even if the historical and archaeological evidence says otherwise? Sorry, I thought we are supposed to be scientific :)And speaking of science, the evidence affirms the authencity of the Bible as a whole. I'm not sure there are credible scientists or historians who say, "Yes, this document is authentic, but hey, this part sounds a little crazy, so let's exclude it." And by the way, the crazy or 'magic stuff' as you put it, is your own arbitary standard.
I'm sorry, but science and historical research doesn't quite work this way.
Servant
How exactly does your kind of "science" prove the bible as a whole? You mean science proves that man can walk on water, and that donkeys can talk?
Originally posted by BroInChrist:The miracles and other supernatural events that occurred took place in real history. Jesus' miracles and resurrection took place in human history. How do you go about affirming only the historical parts but not the miracles which you derogatory label as "magic"? ow
BIC
You mean the supernatural stuff that took place in the bible took place in history, like ho the supernatural stuff of Zeus and Jade Emperor took place in history?
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
You mean the supernatural stuff that took place in the bible took place in history, like ho the supernatural stuff of Zeus and Jade Emperor took place in history?
nono... u wrong liao TCMC. Zeus and Jade emperor not from the bible... so even if their supernatural stuffs might be true, it did not happen in history because only supernatural stuffs in the bible can take place or have taken place before in history, even though it is not proven.
Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:
nono... u wrong liao TCMC. Zeus and Jade emperor not from the bible... so even if their supernatural stuffs might be true, it did not happen in history because only supernatural stuffs in the bible can take place or have taken place before in history, even though it is not proven.
imdes
Yea i get what you mean.
I mean, there are many people who LIVED the earth, walked the earth in history and MADE many supernatural claims.
Well, yes they did live, but were their supernatural claims factual?
Thats all I am asking BIC and Servant to look at.
But to them, the bible's supernatural claims are real because the bible is special
Originally posted by Tcmc:imdes
Yea i get what you mean.
I mean, there are many people who LIVED the earth, walked the earth in history and MADE many supernatural claims.
Well, yes they did live, but were their supernatural claims factual?
Thats all I am asking BIC and Servant to look at.
But to them, the bible's supernatural claims are real because the bible is special
bible is special to christians as much as quran is special to muslims, scriptures is special to buddhist. They all have their own supernatural claims. How could it be that only the bible which is "special" can have its own supernatural claims been true whether others aren't. Its the same as how can their god be the only true god but others arent.
Originally posted by Tcmc:BIC
You mean the supernatural stuff that took place in the bible took place in history, like ho the supernatural stuff of Zeus and Jade Emperor took place in history?
Which begs the question, why should my belief that the supernatural events in the Bible took place be placed on the same level as Zeus or the Jade Emperor?
Originally posted by Tcmc:imdes
Yea i get what you mean.
I mean, there are many people who LIVED the earth, walked the earth in history and MADE many supernatural claims.
Well, yes they did live, but were their supernatural claims factual?
Thats all I am asking BIC and Servant to look at.
But to them, the bible's supernatural claims are real because the bible is special
Well, either the supernatural events happened or they did not. I believe they did, you don't. But it is a caricature/strawman of my belief to say that the Bible events are real because the Bible is special. I made no such argument.
Originally posted by Tcmc:Servant
How exactly does your kind of "science" prove the bible as a whole? You mean science proves that man can walk on water, and that donkeys can talk?
Originally posted by Servant:
Sorry, it's not 'my kind of science', but that of credible academic historians and researchers mentioned in the article, both past and present. So unless you want to challenge any aspect of the evidence in the article, there really is no point in you going on and on about 'supernatural stuff'.
Servant,
You mean you are so bad in reading our comments?
Most nonchristians do agree with the proven historical and archaeological parts of the bible.
What we find dubious and unconvincing are the supernatural stuff, like those found in Greek religion and Theistic Taoism. E.g Jade Emperor forming humans from clay, story of Ne Zha and the supernatural account of Kwan Yin and Zeus, Hades and Poseidon.
Yes some of these "mythological" figures MIGHT have walked the earth as real people, thats why people record it down and mention them. But are their supernatural claims real?
Originally posted by Tcmc:Servant,
You mean you are so bad in reading our comments?
Most nonchristians do agree with the proven historical and archaeological parts of the bible.
What we find dubious and unconvincing are the supernatural stuff, like those found in Greek religion and Theistic Taoism. E.g Jade Emperor forming humans from clay, story of Ne Zha and the supernatural account of Kwan Yin and Zeus, Hades and Poseidon.
Yes some of these "mythological" figures MIGHT have walked the earth as real people, thats why people record it down and mention them. But are their supernatural claims real?
To repeat what I said on 17 May 2012 (let's try underlining the bold words, maybe that will make a difference):
Even if the historical and archaeological evidence says otherwise? Sorry, I thought we are supposed to be scientific :)
And speaking of science, the evidence affirms the authencity of the Bible as a whole. I'm not sure there are credible scientists or historians who say, "Yes, this document is authentic, but hey, this part sounds a little crazy, so let's exclude it." And by the way, the crazy or 'magic stuff' as you put it, is your own arbitary standard.
I'm sorry, but science and historical research doesn't quite work this way.
You can either choose to make progress in this discussion, or waste everyone's time. Your choice.
Come to think of it, now I'm wondering - did you even read the article?
Originally posted by Libraryfasting:Modern Christians should stop changing their bibles every month and keep using King James Bible only.I know some churches have this bible changing clubs.
Whatever versions the bible still has many loopholes la.
Nothing great about it.
wow, so quiet here this morning. All christians have gone to church, worship the egoistic God.
"hallelujah"! hahahahahahahhaha
Originally posted by Servant:To repeat what I said on 17 May 2012 (let's try underlining the bold words, maybe that will make a difference):
Even if the historical and archaeological evidence says otherwise? Sorry, I thought we are supposed to be scientific :)
And speaking of science, the evidence affirms the authencity of the Bible as a whole. I'm not sure there are credible scientists or historians who say, "Yes, this document is authentic, but hey, this part sounds a little crazy, so let's exclude it." And by the way, the crazy or 'magic stuff' as you put it, is your own arbitary standard.
I'm sorry, but science and historical research doesn't quite work this way.
You can either choose to make progress in this discussion, or waste everyone's time. Your choice.
Come to think of it, now I'm wondering - did you even read the article?
Servant
Exactly which scientists affirm the bible as a whole? Creationist scientists or christian scientists? SourcE?
Originally posted by Tcmc:Servant
Exactly which scientists affirm the bible as a whole? Creationist scientists or christian scientists? SourcE?
Sounds like you haven't read the article at all.
It's not about the scientists' religions or personal philosophies, it's about the physical and written evidence that point to the fact that the events mentioned in the Bible did happen in human history.
I even posted an extract of the article for easy reading, I'm sure you can do the rest.
Originally posted by Servant:Sounds like you haven't read the article at all.
It's not about the scientists' religions or personal philosophies, it's about the physical and written evidence that point to the fact that the events mentioned in the Bible did happen in human history.
I even posted an extract of the article for easy reading, I'm sure you can do the rest.
Servant
HAHAHAHA. Yes and I am asking you WHICH scientist say that a man living in a fish did happen and a donkey actually spoke in human language in human history?
Can you quote the name or the sentence cos yes I admit I am quite lazy to read your article!
I only have this question and not interested in a whole article. I just want you to tell me the name of the scientist(s).
Originally posted by Tcmc:Servant
HAHAHAHA. Yes and I am asking you WHICH scientist say that a man living in a fish did happen and a donkey actually spoke in human language in human history?
Can you quote the name or the sentence cos yes I admit I am quite lazy to read your article!
I only have this question and not interested in a whole article. I just want you to tell me the name of the scientist(s).
I just want to know which scientist dares to validate man in a fish as scientific fact, or talking donkey and talking snake.
Originally posted by Tcmc:I just want to know which scientist dares to validate man in a fish as scientific fact, or talking donkey and talking snake.
Yo dude, what about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_bird ?
Originally posted by Tcmc:I just want to know which scientist dares to validate man in a fish as scientific fact, or talking donkey and talking snake.
Now I know why you choose to completely miss the point about the Bible. You claim to be sincere in wanting to understand the Bible, and yet you deliberately avoid the article that explains the other side of it, backed with historical and archeological evidence.
So pointless.
Originally posted by Servant:Now I know why you choose to completely miss the point about the Bible. You claim to be sincere in wanting to understand the Bible, and yet you deliberately avoid the article that explains the other side of it, backed with historical and archeological evidence.
So pointless.
Which is why I said earlier that Tcmc is anything but sincere. She is merely patronising everyone who claims to be religious here. Her agenda is to unabashedly bash Christianity so as to justify her unjustifiable rejection of Christianity.
Originally posted by Tcmc:I just want to know which scientist dares to validate man in a fish as scientific fact, or talking donkey and talking snake.
a xtian might
go ask them
Originally posted by laurence82:a xtian might
go ask them
ok, sorry, dun ask a xtian, they are birds with small brain capacity, as pointed out by BIC