Can a valid, supportable reason be offered for deconversion

So how does one know if the writer is inspired or not? That is the problem. Without some some kind of evidence, then none of it is inspired or it all is since there is no way of knowing if what the storyteller is an actual occurrence or something he dreamed up.Edited by bluescat48, : sp

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Let's have a quick look at your latest reply... "Real" is not an antonym for "rational, believable or acceptable".
What you have done is not understood my post and therefore had to guess what to put in your reply.
(I also think you were trying to 'look clever' but since you aren't: you don't.) After all these years Jesus is still only one man, who makes up a percentage so small he's barely worth mentioning. Correct?
If you don't agree with with this faulty logic, then I would suggest that you stop using it. Appeal to the masses is a fallacious argument.
But I don't expect you to understand that.
I do expect you to never mention the above comment again. Many times I have asked you this, but you either fail to understand the question or fail to answer it.Why is your English so awful?
What happened to you at school?
What went wrong with your education?

well, it's a good thing that the author of isaiah didn't. isaiah did, according to the author. but the author himself did not.i'll rephrase, and repeat this point again. isaiah did not write the book of isaiah. someone else did. the same way that jesus did not write matthew. students record the words of the teacher.similarly, matthew does not claim inspiration either. perhaps other authors claim it for him, but he, himself, did not. no. it doesn't. it is as simple as comparing two texts. unreliable, lying, imaginative, or whatever else, the stuff that isaiah talked about happened 700 years before christ was born. but it doesn't matter how unreliable that source is -- it only matters how well the other source represents it.i could be quoting a pack of creationist lies from AiG. if i quotemine them, it's still dishonest. it's a simple matter of comparing two sources, not the accuracy of the primary source. i suggest you look up "logic" sometime. so, you might want to re-read what you're replying to.

quote:

---

why if the text quotes someone as saying they're inspired is inspiration still an assumption? simple. two reasons:

1. it assumes the accuracy of the that person being quoted, which remains to be demonstrated by comparing it against factual claims, and
2. it assumes that the accuracy of the text in reporting what that person said

we've been over this. i know you don't understand it, and i know that you won't understand it anytime soon. but your logic is circular. you assume your conclusion. the text is inspired because it says so. and we know what it says is true because it's inspired. keep chasing your tail.

---

---

אָרַח

My pleasure. Now I'm going to give you some advice, on how to do better in this Matthew / Isaiah thing. You appear to be championing the idea of "dual fulfillment". That is, although Isaiah was talking about a child to be born at that time, and knew it, he was also talking about another child, to be born at a later date, who would be a much bigger deal -- though he may not have known about that part. "Mysterious ways" and all that. Yeah?If so, then you could greatly improve your plausibility if you could find at least one other instance where dual fulfillment of prophecy takes place; but this one should be entirely in the Old Testament. Assuming this is the sort of thing god likes to do, there should actually be a lot more of it in the hundreds of years covered in the 39 books than there are all of a sudden in the two generations covered by the 27. Yeah?But just one would be a good start. Somewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, a prophecy that gets fulfilled twice, without having to use additional texts in other languages. That's all it would take to be at least plausible. It ought to be easy, if the doctrine of dual fulfillment is even remotely true.

Correct. If however we are simply looking at what is "written in the text" as Arch suggests then we will see that it contains inspiration and intervention, actually one will easily see that God is in charge of it all, if it is taken in its contextIm not saying inspiration can be proved, Im saying if we go by his simple rules then it is very possible God not only inspired Isa, as he intimates, but Matthew as well and that the passages can have a fuller meaning across time, since God is actually in charge of itGods statement to Abraham, "Through thy seed shall ALL the natiions of the earth be blessed"I am also saying that there is no need to conclude matthew misrepresents Isa, because God has inspired thier words, ATLEAST ACCORDING TO THE TEXT and in simple reading of the text.No need for deconversion, because like Arch, they miss the purpose and meaning of scripture, even though it is staring them right in the face.They are his rules not mine. I was simply trying to adhere to his rulesSince the scriptures and specifically Isa are more than repleat with inspiration and claims from God, why not include them if all we are doing is looking at the text????????????Dawn Bertot

Well that is the silliest thing Ive ever heard. How can you misrepresent an unreliable source? How would you know you were misrepresenting it in the first place, if you dont know what the authors meanings or intentions were to begin withHow would you be misrepresenting it if you dont know what the facts are to be in the first place?By picking one of your several interpretations of who or what the child represents, would I be misrepresenting Isa if I accidently chose the wrong explanation for who or what the child represents. How would I know i was choosing the wrong explanation, if there are three to choose from and we dont know what the correct one is exacally?it doesnt matter how reliable the source is??????????Heres an idea, maybe inspiration that is mentioned in the text could help me since you clearly cant Not according to a simple reading of the text. Isa or WHOEVER says Isa saw a vision and God revealed it to them.Arch is the book of Isa from God or man?If some parts are from God and some are not, tell me which is and which is notDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

It is so interesting and cool that you asked this question, almost if you were prompted to do soNow you are starting to SEE the forest for because of the trees.Every prophecy Old or New has a dual prophecy, without regard to time or language.It has its physical application, then it has its truest meaning in God himself, as, God the Lord, God the deliever, etc, etc, etcthis is why when we get to the New Testament in Jesus christ, the theme and the dual meaning has not changed, its still about God, this time in the form of Jesus ChristBut still just GodIf the Son in Isa represented a present physical son, then so be it. but the overall intent of the prophecy had a dual meaning in its fulfillment in God as the punisher and deliverer, even at that timeThis is why it has the same application in Jesus Christ and is how inspiration wanted it to be used.It was and is still about GodHere are two physical examples.remember when Joshua was getting ready to do battle and he saw a man standing on the hill with his sword outstrechedhe says are you for us or agin usThe man says, the Captain of the army of the Lord goes before youJoshua knew immediately who it was and fell prostrateThe Lords intent was to let him know that God was in charge, this is not about you Joshua or Israelremember when God had Joshua reduce his troops to 300 men against thousandsit was to let him know God was in charge. This about meJoshua, not youProphecy, illustration and life in the Old testment were all the sameIt was always about God in its truest meaning, prophecy or otherwiseacross time, written page, language, it has never changed. GodDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

If I said "The sky is green" and you then told someone else "DrJones said the sky was purple", you would be misrepresenting me, even though what I said was not true.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

How do I know you said that in the first place. thats the nature of unreliable, correct?Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No. Not correct.What went wrong with your education, Dawn?{abe}
Message 511
I consider you to have met my very low expectations.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

What does that matter? Even if you heard fifth hand that I said "the sky is green" you'd still be misrepresenting what I allegedly said if you then in turn claimed "DrJones said the sky was purple".

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Hi dwise1I will take this post and start a thread where we can discuss it properly.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi dwise1, Any debate should be conducted honestly with evidence presented by the affirmer and then refutation by the opposition.I been here over 3 years and have seen no such debate.All I have seen is a bunch of posters preaching their message.I tried in one thread but with over 400 posts no one presented any refutation to the OP. In fact no one even tried.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

and the quran, and the book of mormon, and david koresh, and marshall applewhite. and anybody who claims inspiration. this is clearly not my position; you are misrepresenting me.my position is that we must pay attention to what is actually written, and not that we must actually believe it. they two do not go hand in hand, as i keep trying to explain to you. i do not know why you cannot grasp this concept. the accuracy of the source is irrelevant to concerns about how someone represents it. that includes me, my points do not have to be correct for your misrepresentation of them to be incorrect. at this point, i am forced to believe that you are doing this on purpose; that you are intentionally intellectually dishonest. please cite me the chapter and verse in matthew in which the author of that text claims that god told him specifically what to write. because faithfully representing what a text says and assuming the accuracy thereof are two entirely different matters.

---

אָרַח

Dr. Jones just said the sky was orange. faithfully representing a source has nothing to do with the facts that source is discussing. only on whether what you write matches what they wrote. engage the brain, dawn. think about it a bit. only if you stated that this is, for certain, who isaiah meant. and especially so if that option is categorically eliminated by the text. lets try this again. is isaiah told in first person, or third person?

---

אָרַח