Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 6:58 PM
31 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, PaulK, WookieeB (4 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,343 Year: 15,379/19,786 Month: 2,102/3,058 Week: 476/404 Day: 80/63 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 226 of 255 (722785)
03-25-2014 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by NoNukes
03-24-2014 10:35 PM


Re: putting a date on prophecies
But arguing that the text was actually written after the predicted events is a perfectly good tactic if you can back it up with evidence and logic.

Yes. Sure can.

It's the oldest complete scroll of the copy of the Book of Isiah to have been found, it dates to 100 to 150 BC.

All the information found everywehre. Even on Wiki.

The logical conclusion is that nobody knows exactly when the original books were written; we don't exactly know who wrote them; we don't know whether the copies (oldest dated to 100 to 150 BC) are accurate or not.

No circular logic involved at all.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2014 10:35 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 5:59 AM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 228 of 255 (722795)
03-25-2014 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Faith
03-25-2014 5:59 AM


Re: putting a date on prophecies
Using the book to verify the same book is known as circular reasoning.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 5:59 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 6:50 AM Pressie has responded
 Message 236 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 2:53 PM Pressie has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 230 of 255 (722800)
03-25-2014 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Faith
03-25-2014 6:50 AM


Re: putting a date on prophecies
Faith writes:

That's a fallacy in itself, wish I knew a name for it.

Nope. No fallacy involved. Just that nobody knows exactly when the Book of Isiah was written by those different authors. No originals involved.

Faith writes:

It's quite possible that a true history could be written reporting on a prophecy AND its fulfillment over time and by calling it circular reasoning you'd accomplish nothing but ensuring that you personally would never know that it was true.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Everything is possible. Probable, not.

Any reliable evidence that the original Jewish, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox Bible Books of Isaiah were written before the propecy came true, yet?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 6:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 03-25-2014 7:25 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 250 of 255 (723128)
03-27-2014 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by lokiare
03-25-2014 2:53 PM


Re: putting a date on prophecies
lokaire writes:

Using that same logic using fossils to date geological layers and using geological layers to date fossils is circular reasoning.

First riduculously stupid creationist blunder. That's the opposite of what geologists do.

As someone else once wrote on this forum (I can't remember who it was).

And every time I read it, I wonder if you guys ever think about what you're saying. Can you really imagine a geologist standing up at a geological conference and saying: "I know this rock is ten million years old because the fossils in it are ten million years old. And I know that the fossils in it are ten million years old because I know that the rock is ten million years old" --- and no-one makes an objection?

Clearly the creationist fantasy of what geologists do cannot be an actual description of what they do; and it isn't.

You created a straw man argument. You think that we all are ignorant or uinformed about geology. News to you, we have a few geologists on this forum.

You insulting those tens of thousands of practicing geologists from all over the world is not doing you any favours.

Will ignore the rest of your post.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by lokiare, posted 03-25-2014 2:53 PM lokiare has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2014 8:24 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019