by Chap 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Chap,
Why would someone write "Jesus, let him who rests here arise." if there wasn't a person whos name is Jesus that rose from the dead?
You seem to have serious misconceptions about what constitutes 'proof'. I sure hope you are never assigned to jury duty.
rem
Remember when threads like this would go on, and on, and on? Are the fundies outnumbered with facts against them and they give up.....or has this board lost something?
Gumby
How could archaelogical evidence PROVE babied werent murdered?.......dig up the graves of all the dead at that time and see if there was a bunch of babies buried there? How on earth could archaeology prove something didn't happen? What you just said was ridiculous!
Archaeological evidence has never been able to prove that an event documented in the (protestant) Bible did not happen. When there have been disagreements between secular history and biblical history, conclusive archaeological evidence has come down on the side of the Bible every single time. If an archaeological dig brings out a decree that says something to the affect of "all babies under 6 months shall be killed" at the time of Christ's birth, that will prove that Matthew was wrong and a liar because he said "two years." The writers of scripture have always taken great care to make sure what they have written was true and archaeology has proven this.
rem, the casket writings are just added evidence. When we put all the evidence together, we have proof.
Chap said:
: When there have been disagreements between secular history and biblical history, conclusive archaeological evidence has come down on the side of the Bible every single time.
This is utter nonsense. Your statement assumes that every such disagreement has already been resolved. And not only resolved, but resolved in favor of the Bible. Since there are still plenty of unresolved disagreements between biblical and secular history, your claim is trivially refuted.
Many disagreements have been resolved in favor of the biblical account, but that does not mean that the many remaining problems will be so resolved.
Much worse than unresolved difficulties is the fact is that a number of extremely basic but extraordinary biblical archaeological claims have already been resolved in favor of secular archaeology. Here are a few:
The Flood account: The Bible (according to Fundamentalists) teaches that a global Flood occurred some 4,500 years ago. There is no physical evidence whatsoever of such a flood. There is a mountain of proof against such a flood.
The origin of language groups: The Bible (according to Fundamentalists) teaches that mankind split up into various language (and therefore cultural) groups not more than about 4,500 years ago. Yet the Egyptian pyramids were built around that time by a culture that had been flourishing for well over a thousand years before that. How do we know that it had been flourishing for such a long time? Because the ancient Egyptian calendar contains a systematic error that causes it to rotate with respect to the true start of the year such that the calendrical beginning comes around about every 1,500 years or so. We have enough archaeological evidence to prove that the calendar has gone around more than three times since its beginning. A calendar like the Egyptian must have had at least a thousand years of observation before it could have been put into place. Do the math.
The creation account of man: The Bible claims that Adam and Eve were the first humans and were created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago according to various Fundamentalists. Paleontology proves that mankind (of the Homo sapiens variety) has existed for more than 100,000 years, and that other species of recognizable humans have been around for the better part of a million years, and that earlier species such as Homo erectus (now Homo ergaster) have been around for twice that long.
The creation account generally: The Bible sets forth the creation of various plant and animal types in a specific order. This order is not observed in the paleontological record.
In the face of such fundamental disproofs of biblical inspiration, things like the question of the resurrection of Jesus are trivial. This resurrection has only one undisputed witness -- the Bible itself. Blithely accepting such extraordinary claims without truly extraordinary evidence is as stupid as accepting the historicity of Greek mythological accounts of centaurs, unicorns and cyclops's.
AlanF
Chap,
In introducing Jesus statement that he would die and be raised on the third day, you have engaged in fallacious reasoning known as the "Red Herring," to wit:
Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Whether or not Jesus made the prophecy has absolutely nothing to do with what commands he left for his followers. I have already stated those commands. Your observation is irrelevant; try sticking to the topic.
Edited to Add - According to archeology, Jehovah had a wife. There were many statues of her and text in appreciation of her many wholesome qualities. There was an hour long program on it the other night on the Learning Channel. Now what have you to say about the infallibility of archeology?
francois
Alan F....... you beat me to it.... I was going to say the EXACT same thing!!!!!!!
I'll just say ditto, and good work!!!!!
Brad
I see where my quote can be taken the wrong way; let me clarify.
When there have been disagreements between secular history and biblical history, when there has been conclusive archaeological evidence, it has come down on the side of the Bible every single time.
Francois, I changed the topic to refute the argument that discussing proof of the resurrection is moot. I'm sorry but I didn't see any other way to refute the argument. I guess I should have just accepted your point thereby ending the thread.
AlanF,
How can you doubt the Word of God and especially its interpretation by His earthly representative, the Faithful and Discreet Slave?
Many serious scientists find now that science cannot contradict the bible, because the bible comes from The One Who Created It All.
It has been proven that a day was actually one thousand years, and that the Creation took exactly 6,000 years to be finished.
God created the light on the first day (first one thousand years). You may say that that is impossible because he created the sources of light such as the sun, the stars, and the moon on the fourth day (fourth 1,000 years of creation). You are wrong. Our Governing body changes the new light constantly, so we are even quicker than God.
How could God create the sun, the moon, and the stars on the fourth day, if there were no days to mark the days and therefore there could not be a third day if there was no time before the third day? Easy: God can do everything. He put those sources of light in a firm surface (firmament) on the second day but did not light them up until the fourth day so that we could see. He does not need light. Only we do. That is why our GB gives us new light. It is an illusion that there are stars older than 14,000,000 years. God created them only 9,000 years ago. The moon is also a source of light. They fake its opaqueness in Hollywood.
He kept the plants on darkness for a thousand years, but they did not need light anyway because there were no insects to pollinate them so that they could reproduce, but he took care of that in the fifth millennium when he created from the water the flying animals such as bats, eagles, butterflies, and others. He also created the swimming animals such as the porpoises, penguins, and crabs from the water.
On the sixth day he created the land animals such as the horses, ostriches, and spiders from the ground. He crowned his creation with man and woman.
Actually maybe the bible clarifies all of these on the second chapter where it shows that the human male was created on the second day of creation, four thousand years before the female because the bible tells us that there were no plants because there was no man to take care of them, so after all the animals were created to show a possible mate (The ingrate Adam rejected all animals from a microscopic amoeba to a gigantic dinosaur), and God created a female, not from ground or water, but from his rib. 4.000 year old Adam was happy to have a brand new squeeze to play with, but his DNA was missing something and he even completed it with an X Chromosome by adding something to his Y chromosome.
The ingrate Eve seduced 4,000 year old Adam and made him listen to her causing God to start modifying his creation as in the case of the snakes which have lost their voices and eat dust.
This are the true facts. No serious scientist can dispute them.
Who are you going to believe, God or some unproven Theory?
You will be sent to hell/destroyed at Armageddon if you doubt your loving god!
gumby said:The Jesus story is a copied myth as anyone who cares to examine his life and what he did with already existing beliefs of godmen before him. Fundies never seem to ...want to go there and find out.
Remember when threads like this would go on, and on, and on? Are the fundies outnumbered with facts against them and they give up.....or has this board lost something?Gumby
Gumby, I have gone there and have found out that these copied myth theories are based on liberal speculation and not on facts.
Alan F said:The Flood account: The Bible (according to Fundamentalists) teaches that a global Flood occurred some 4,500 years ago. There is no physical evidence whatsoever of such a flood. There is a mountain of proof against such a flood.
The origin of language groups: The Bible (according to Fundamentalists) teaches that mankind split up into various language (and therefore cultural) groups not more than about 4,500 years ago. Yet the Egyptian pyramids were built around that time by a culture that had been flourishing for well over a thousand years before that. How do we know that it had been flourishing for such a long time? Because the ancient Egyptian calendar contains a systematic error that causes it to rotate with respect to the true start of the year such that the calendrical beginning comes around about every 1,500 years or so. We have enough archaeological evidence to prove that the calendar has gone around more than three times since its beginning. A calendar like the Egyptian must have had at least a thousand years of observation before it could have been put into place. Do the math.
Alan, proposed dates for the flood range from 4,500 to 7,500 years ago. Also Egypt is listed in the Bible as being one of the earliest post-flood civilizations. Hense standard Egyptian chronology (even if correct)does not overturn the Biblical flood.
The creation account of man: The Bible claims that Adam and Eve were the first humans and were created some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago according to various Fundamentalists.
Yes they do, and the 10,000 year date would overturn your Egyptian Chronology arguments. Also there is evidence that all living people decended recently from one man and one woman.
Paleontology proves that mankind (of the Homo sapiens variety) has existed for more than 100,000 years, and that other species of recognizable humans have been around for the better part of a million years, and that earlier species such as Homo erectus (now Homo ergaster) have been around for twice that long.
Paleontology is full of evolutionary assumptions, and the dating methods are also.
The creation account generally: The Bible sets forth the creation of various plant and animal types in a specific order. This order is not observed in the paleontological record.
Most creationists hold that the fossil record was laid down by the flood not during creation, hense the order in the fossil record need not conform to the creation sequence in the Bible. Don't you know what creationists actually believe about these things?
