The Bible

Originally posted by yerssot
no, you're just being ignorant about the post.

Have I asked you about your ideas of the universe? NO
Have I asked you if you knew Descartes? NO

What did I ask?

THIS:

all about the subject of God's grieve and the fall of men.

I was answering Omega. A truncated answer isn't as good as a full answer, so don't expect miracles.

Psalm 139:7-10 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [1] you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.

Since I'm talking about the Christian God, and these people talked to the Christian God, this is proof.

Men rose again. Two billion to be exact. It isn't written, it's Christian theological thinking. God made us for relationships, and so would play it through for relationships.

He can help. He is intelligent. Is it likely that he's going to utterly fail, after freewill has gotten a good conduit?

Theological thinking again. God wants relationships, and dislikes the ones he loves being evil. He also dislikes killing them. It's one on one with him, not to all humanity, but you (plural) and me. They didn't redeem, they died.

you forgot the point were it's said you can't use the bible in this since the bible is the book at discussion here ...

Originally posted by yerssot
you forgot the point were it's said you can't use the bible in this since the bible is the book at discussion here ...

But God is written about in the Bible. What would be a reliable alternative source for you?

O o wait! How could God be undetectable, unless he was omnipresent? He could be 11d. If God exists, he has to be omnipresent or we could detect him (and we can’t).

Originally posted by Ytaker
How could God be undetectable, unless he was omnipresent?

He could be non-existent.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He could be non-existent.

Yes, he could. But if he did exist, he would be omnipresent. Call it a hypothetical situation if you would prefer. We can iron out the details of his existence later.

Originally posted by Ytaker
But God is written about in the Bible. What would be a reliable alternative source for you?

preferably of the time the garden of eden was written since it's about adam and eve

Originally posted by yerssot
another source that answers the questions I asked you that isn't the bible

preferably of the time the garden of eden was written since it's about adam and eve

How about the Antiquities? I assume you'll accept one based on word of mouth, as they couldn't write that far back.

what about one that isn't consumed with a one sided view?

Originally posted by yerssot
what about one that isn't consumed with a one sided view?

so in other words, the only things you can come up with for sources are biased... if this was a scientific research, Ytaker, the bible and all those books would have been thrown out instantly and passed as "fun reading"

Originally posted by yerssot
so in other words, the only things you can come up with for sources are biased... if this was a scientific research, Ytaker, the bible and all those books would have been thrown out instantly and passed as "fun reading"

No, they are biased, but readable. History is like that. Always. Maybe scientists would, but they don't know much about historic process. The Bible is used as a source, and has been proven right quite often in places that people thought it was wrong by archeology. Try Historians. They wouldn't throw it out as "fun reading".

no, it IS biased and should only be read for fun.
the bible is NOT used as a source and has NOT been proven right 'quite often' where or when they say.

it is not because there was a flood in azia at one point that there was one big flood that covered the entire earth.
YOU believe it's so because you judge by what people would say ignorance.

and allow me to explain this before you jump to conclusions or rip this out of context:
If you drive around with someone and all of a sudden you see a bright light flying over, you will say "see! a UFO! it exists!"
while your driver would try and investigate it more and not blindly accept it

Originally posted by yerssot
no, it IS biased and should only be read for fun.
the bible is NOT used as a source and has NOT been proven right 'quite often' where or when they say.

it is not because there was a flood in azia at one point that there was one big flood that covered the entire earth.
YOU believe it's so because you judge by what people would say ignorance.

and allow me to explain this before you jump to conclusions or rip this out of context:
If you drive around with someone and all of a sudden you see a bright light flying over, you will say "see! a UFO! it exists!"
while your driver would try and investigate it more and not blindly accept it

Your capital letters make your argument so much more powerful and eloquent. Brilliant usage of the word "azia" instead of asia as well to show that you're using a computer with Catz and Dogz on. Nothing to do with rage at all.

Anyway, proof
There's...
1. Lysanias the Tetrach in A.D. 27 (Luke 3:1)
2. The term Politarchs ( Acts 17:6)
3. The pool of Bethesda (John 5 1-15)
4. The pool of Siloam (John 9:7)
5. Jacob's well (John 4:12)
6. Herod and Quirinius ruling at the same time (A coin was found as proof)
7. The existence of Nazereth (a parchment in AD 70 showed a priest moving there, from the Jerusalem temple that was destroyed)

All of these were thought to be wrong. If you want further details, ask me.

One detail many a millennia ago. Possibly an exaggeration from before the Jewish religion was effectively started (with Abraham) That doesn't change the rest of it. Maybe just everybody in Asia was evil.

If you see a blinding light, feel yourself being probed, see Earth in a seemingly "out of body experience” (and also see scans of the mineral worth of various places that looks like it's from a computer) and find out that many people have also experienced such, it's worth investigation.

you reach a quite pathetic low level in "discussing" if you go nitpicking on someones language... azia - asia, it doesn't take a professor to get what I meant.
I'm sorry, but English is NOT my mother-tongue nor is it an official language in my country. I do the effort to make myself understandable and don't expect cheers for it in return. What I do expect is people not going on a hissyfit when I miss-spell a word.

Further, I use capital letters to stress a certain thing. It is easier to use, then to go through this effort. It also gravely annoys people if you use this method, demonstrated here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but the discussion was about the Old Testament, not about Jezus or the existence of pools/cities. It is not difficult at all to include some geographical locations in your story, it's what stories do all the time.
An easy example; you know the story "Marieken Van Niemeghen"? Got entire cities described... does that make it was true? No, the author makes sure that way that people can imagine it all better.
It is no proof at all.

---
yes, then I would say you gotta investigate what drugs they take in combination with other stimulating meds.

Originally posted by Ytaker
We can iron out the details of his existence later.

Arguing the characteristics of a phenomena that does not exist commits the logic fallacy of subverted support and moreover, is a pointless exercise.

but they don't know much about historic process. The Bible is used as a source, and has been proven right quite often in places that people thought it was wrong by archeology. Try Historians. They wouldn't throw it out as "fun reading".

Ytaker to Yerssot> “Your capital letters make your argument so much more powerful and eloquent.”
Oh… Ohhhh! Do you know what that logic fallacy is called? When you start to attack the poster and not the argument YOU ARE LOOSING!

And I find no answers to my questions here. You can’t find a reliable source outside the Bible to support your claims.

Think about it.

Oh… Ohhhh! Do you know what that logic fallacy is called? When you start to attack the poster and not the argument YOU ARE LOOSING!

clap 💃 go Ytaker!!