Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   what would it take to convert you to the other side
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 24 of 139 (581153)
09-14-2010 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
09-13-2010 11:03 PM


quote:
1. There are former theists here who have converted to athiesm, contrary to the video.
The vide doesn't say that theists NEVER convert. It just says that no theist he has met can explain what evidence it would take to get him to convert.
quote:
2. Your video athiests would require specific dates for fulfillment of prophecy. Why? What's wrong with specific events or specific evidence verifying fulfillment; evidence, that is, like things naturally impossible, such as techy stuff na'er thought possible becoming reality and a nation of people scattered globally to return to their native nation after dispersion of nineteen centuries, etc?
It's not true that they insist on specific dates. As for the other thing there is a basic difference between you and the average atheist. The average atheist is not impressed by lies. I know that you find lies convincing evidence - you've told us often enough. We don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 09-13-2010 11:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 38 of 139 (581202)
09-14-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Buzsaw
09-14-2010 8:58 AM


quote:
A prophet need not specify dates in mellinnial prophecy to be specific, especially when fulfillment entails eras such as the Industrial (and techy) Revolution rather than specific dates.
Ah yes, let's look at one of Buz's "specific" prophecies. He says that Nahum 2:3-4 is about auto wrecks Here are the verses as the NASB renders them:
3 The shields of his mighty men are colored red,
The warriors are dressed in scarlet,
The chariots are enveloped in flashing steel
When he is prepared to march,
And the cypress spears are brandished.
4 The chariots race madly in the streets,
They rush wildly in the squares,
Their appearance is like torches,
They dash to and fro like lightning flashes.
The observant will already have noticed an obvious detail that doesn't fit. Cypress spears. Maybe you are saying to yourself that maybe this refers to an ancient army attacking by night ?
If you look at the context you will find that this is rather more likely. Nahum is addressed to the ancient city of Nineveh.
1:1 The [a]oracle of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.
and 2:8 confirms that these verses are talking about the fall of Nineveh.
2:8 Though Nineveh was like a pool of water throughout her days,
Now they are fleeing;
"Stop, stop,"
But no one turns back.
So in fact Nahum was too specific for Buz. The way he dealt with 2:8 is particularly instructive. The translation he normally uses has the word "but" rather than "though". So Buz invents his own meaning for the word "but" where it is no longer a conjunction, but instead marks a complete change of subject ! Then he decrees all translations that use the word "but" to be correct and all others wrong, despite the fact that he doesn't understand the Hebrew at all.
Obviously everyone who accepts Buz as the supreme authority over the English language and over the Bible finds this argument perfectly convincing. And those with a more realistic view of things come to rather different conclusions.
In short the "specifics" generally come from Buz, not from the prophecy...
(for more look at the thread starting with Message 217)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2010 8:58 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 53 of 139 (582204)
09-20-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by nwr
09-20-2010 10:24 AM


Re: Simple really...
As near as I can figure out the idea is that IF you already believe that God controls everything directly then empiricism only leads you to the conclusions that God wants you to and therefore it becomes worthless.
What Iano is missing is the fact that that because the "problem" only afflicts people who already believe in God (and in a particular view of God at that) then it does nothing to discredit empiricism a a way of leading people to belief in God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nwr, posted 09-20-2010 10:24 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024