Judeo-Christian Bible--Proof, Divinely Inspired

Jehovah is an invented name by the 13th century Masorites. The Tetragrammaton [4-letter word] is the one ineffable name of the Creator God /Elohim. Although the Bible is an inspired writings, many religious organizations err in delivering God's messages to mankind, resulting to many doubters like Richard Dawkins, who is now a coward in debating an evangelist from the Philippines. You can read more about anti-atheistic write-ups in controversyextraordinary blogspot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is special in being a one of God's chosen people ?
Why should Abraham's God be true and others false ?
What are the powers of Abraham's God and can Abraham's God defeat other Gods ?
How do you calculate his strength ?
Why would Abraham's God allow infidels to live ? who doesn't worship him ?
Why he allows brutality and other social evils ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sarkus:
You are stalling. Nothing that you wrote at Post 58 resembles a definition from a dictionary. I gave you a simple request in my previous reply: I asked you to identify a dictionary, along with the weblink to the dictionary, where the word "unsupported" is defined, according to your opinion at Post 53, as:

"An unsupported claim is one which at the time it is made has no foundation in reason or fact."​

Until you present a dictionary that indicates such, I am afraid I will have to dismiss your above definition and that wall of text you presented at Post 58 as tripe.

Alter2Ego

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aqueous Id: You should write the publishers of the Encyclopedia Britannica and explain their error to them. Be sure to copy-paste the entire paragraph you posted above as your argument against their inclusion of Isaiah's biography in their encyclopedia. Let us all know how that works out for you; okay?
Alter2Ego

 

I will write them to complain that the section title provokes fallacious ideation in Primitivists.

Meanwhile you should send them your competent evidence of the historicity of Isaiah, to correct the deficit in the essay they published by the good professor. And then be sure to plan for a trip to receive your Nobel prize.

In the mean time be sure to let us know how that search for historical evidence is working out for you.

 

No, the Elohim are the pantheon of gods from the Ugaritic Creation Myth, first adapted by the proto Jewish people before they invented Yahweh, probably the monotheistic tradition carried by oral tradition into Canaan by a traveller from a place called Yah.

Yahweh is a particular god who, like the earlier creatrix Aruru, fashions the first human from clay, then breathes life into it. His qualities grew as the myth evolved over many centuries.

No it is an anthology of disparate religious folklore, recalling stories handed down by oral tradition. There is nothing inspired about that. And it's no different than the amount of inspiration in any other myth.

But worst of all are the organizations of single minds which cannot handle the wealth of information that accompanies a reasonable education, or who choose deliberate ignorance over facts and evidence given in school, and verifiable through research, simply because they are promoting their own sanctimonious social agenda, usu. only out of intolerance.

Humankind, humans, you mean. Presumably you meant to include females.

Of course, misogyny is a long standing tradition among believers.

He is simply an atheist. A noble choice given the alternative: denial.

Dawkins has established himself as a scholar. But these debates are so moronic. They begin with the premise "Assume that history and the sciences are false. Further assume that myth, legend and fable are historical narratives delivered by a metaphysical mastermind who designed, built and operates the universe, and repeals the laws of nature as needed, for the express purpose of correcting an error in his design of the foreskin, and the incompatibility of the human gut to certain foods, such and meat taken with milk. The Affirmative will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that God therefore exists..."

It wouldn't be cowardice that turns down such a debate, just common sense.

 

Dywyddyr:
You presented nothing of significance at Post 5. Rather, you presented Daniel 4:10-11 from which you cherry-picked a few words, while you failed to quote almost everything else from those two verses that contradict what you claim the verses are saying. Along with Daniel 4:10-11, you included Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5, and then proceeded to tell the forum your opinion of what all three (3) sets of scriptures are saying: According to you, all of the aforementioned sets of verses are talking about a flat earth.

But then again, considering you actually believe the Bible is talking about literal pillars in heaven (Job 26:11) and literal pillars holding up earth (Job 9:6), I can well understand why you would think Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, and Luke 4:5 are talking about a flat earth. The reality is that you do not understand what you are reading.


Alter2Ego

 

Wow. Seriously? I'm not sure I've come across anyone as willing as you to display their ignorance of the English language in such grandiose manner. And while I find it humourous that some people are willing to put on such a display, I also find it quite a depressing indictment of the education system that it can produce such as you.

I can feel my IQ lowering just conversing with you, so welcome to ignore.

 

Sarkus:

TRANSLATION: You know perfectly well that you will never find any dictionary that defines the word unsupported as something for which there presently is no evidence but for which the evidence will turn up the future.

No wonder you are now putting on the outraged act. A convenient ploy, which enables you to save face as you take your leave.


Alter2Ego

 

I'm still working out how to put people on ignore in this new forum... so just time to reply to your stupidity again...
I don't define unsupported as something "for which there presently is no evidence but for which the evidence will turn up the future." That is your strawman.
I merely define an "unsupported claim" as a claim which, at the time of being made, is unsupported. It speaks nothing for the support available to the claim at a later date.
You, on the other hand, see an unsupported claim as one which has been proven false.
Hey ho.

Edit: Aha - I have found the ignore function. I am finally saved from your stupidity.

 

QUOTE="Alter2Ego, post: 3257933, member: 280219"]Never mind that according to the synonyms from Merriam-Webster Thesaurus, an unsupported claim is "baseless, foundationless, invalid, nonvalid, unfounded, unreasonable, unsubstantiated, unsupported, unwarranted"--all of which indicates an unsupported claim can never turn out to be correct.[/QUOTE]

It's entirely possible for a claim to be baseless and unsubstantiated, but nevertheless turn out to be correct. That isn't even all that unusual.

An unsupported claim is a claim that lacks satisfactory justification at the time it is made. Common examples include guesses and speculation.

I might claim that an alien form of life will someday be discovered on Saturn's moon Titan. That's an unsupported claim, since I don't have any good reason for saying it.

The fact that I make this unsupported claim now doesn't magically mean that it's impossible that life will ever be discovered on Titan in the future. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. What I say has no bearing on that.

And if by chance life is someday discovered on Titan, that doesn't mean that I must have had good reasons for making my claim today. I don't. If it turns out that I'm right, it will only have been a lucky guess.

 

It's entirely possible for a claim to be baseless and unsubstantiated, but nevertheless turn out to be correct. That isn't even all that unusual.

An unsupported claim is a claim that lacks satisfactory justification at the time it is made. Common examples include guesses and speculation.

I might claim that an alien form of life will someday be discovered on Saturn's moon Titan. That's an unsupported claim, since I don't have any good reason for saying it.

The fact that I make this unsupported claim now doesn't magically mean that it's impossible that life will ever be discovered on Titan in the future. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. What I say has no bearing on that.

And if by chance life is someday discovered on Titan, that doesn't mean that I must have had good reasons for making my claim today. I don't. If it turns out that I'm right, it will only have been a lucky guess.[/QUOTE]
Yazata:
I have already been through that routine with Dywyddyr and Sarkus, both of whom took off running when they realized they could not find any credible dictionary to support their opinion that "unsupported" refers to things that are later supported.

Since you have decided to pick up where they left off--meaning you are simply giving me wash, rinse, and repeat--suppose you present the forum with the definition of "baseless" and "unsubstantiated" from a credible dictionary where it indicates: "It's entirely possible for a claim to be baseless and unsubstantiated, but nevertheless turn out to be correct." AND "An unsupported claim is a claim that lacks satisfactory justification at the time it is made."


Alter2Ego

 

A-I, I've Never heard of AruRu, care to elaborate further?

 

It depends on whom you are talking to. Jewish people of Moses' time understood Elohim differently. They knew there are no pantheon of gods, but during the time of King David, there was introduced in Psalms a congregation of gods. Of course there were established societies before Moses' exodus to a promised land, but some scholars cannot accept the existence of spiritual beings, therefore they concluded that Moses just copied creation myths of early settled peoples surrounding him and his people. There were fallen angels exposed in the Bible but in any of Ugaritic creation myths, are they any mention of angels? Yahweh is also an invented name. I said, Tetragrammaton, ineffable.

No, the God of the Bible does not need any of his qualities grow. He gives life;he takes it away; merciful and just. Unlike some human beings like the aborticidal Richard Dawkins who is an advocate of human abortion. You read for yourself http://www.controversyextraordinary.com/2014/12/the-confused-aborticidal-richard.html .

What anthology do you mean? The 66 books of the Holy Bible? No wonder atheists are divided in their standpoints because they evaluate Biblical truths as disparate religious folklore. The Holy Bible is inspired writings when if the congregation holding it and if any man reading its contents understood the messages found in it. Of course for you, it seems irrelevant to "honor your mother and father" especially if you happen to be a "human being" with a Down syndrome. Although in other myths/folktales, this commandment might appear, it is because it runs in the intellect of human beings, hardwired in human conscience.

Intolerance? Of course, the universe was a product of a single mind and out of intolerance. If chaos is tolerated this earth cannot survive even before the birth of chimpanzees. Your existence is also a product of a single mind dictator; you can't choose to displace your nostrils. If the Supreme Geneticist tolerate the free flow of humankind's existence, he would have displaced the beautiful faces of those who doesn't acknowledge his existence, the ingrates.

Moronic because you haven't scrutinized the authenticity of like "Creator-Human Conversation like that of the Biblical Job" Or have you tried?

It is still cowardice. If really Dawkins stands as the global representative of today's atheists, he will not write "God Delusion" because he doesn't understand the god/s of unknown tribes during the time of Noah. Besides, he has not a slightest idea of what a Biblical spirit or mind is. All he has is this phrase as quoted "we can all be wrong." So, for me, he is absolutely wrong in cleaving to nonsense. And for you, you just have appreciated the details handed down to Canaanites by the fallen angels whose supreme purpose is to confuse the most gullible like you..

 

You know this. I know this. Dywyddyr knows this. Most people know this.
But I have a feeling that trying to get A2E to understand will be as difficult as trying to knock down a concrete wall with your head, and just as painful.
In the end I find it is better to just let the stupid get on with being stupid, and try to ignore them as much as possible, as long as their stupidity does not permeate the forum as a whole.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Geez, it's fairly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of English.

Unsupported - not having evidence showing that something is true.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/unsupported

 

Think I'll beat the rush and put you on ignore now.

 

If you want to try doing philosophy, you need to produce philosophical arguments, not dictionary definitions.

Especially when what you've quoted doesn't even support your rather peculiar assertion.

Here's something that you took from a legal dictionary:

........................................

unsupported
adjective based on conjecture, groundless, not authenticated, not established, not substantiated, suppositional, supposititious, unabetted, unaided, unassisted, unattested, unauthenticated, uncertified, uncollaborated, unconfirmed, uncorroborated, undemonstrated, unfounded, unproved, unseconded, unsubstantiated, unsustained, untenable, unvalidated, unverified, without basis, without foundation

Associated concepts: unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence

See also: baseless, helpless, ill-founded, inconclusive, powerless, solitary, unauthorized, unconfirmed, uncorroborated, unfounded
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unsupported

........................................

Your assertion seems to be that unsupported statements must necessarily be false.

Unfortunately, that conclusion doesn't follow from the material posted. It seems to be a non-sequitur, something that you've gratuitously tossed in there.

Suppose that A testifies in a trial that B was at the scene of a crime. But when questioned about how he knows that, it turns out that A is just speculating and was in no position to know who was really there. It turns out that A's testimony was without basis and without foundation. It was groundless conjecture.

You seem to want to argue that if A makes an unsupported statement about B being at the scene, it can't possibly be true that B was there. That's a rather peculiar position to hold and it's going to need a lot more argument than you've given it.

 

Yazata:
You are repeating the same things you previously told me at Post 71. Dywyddyr and Sarkus already beat you to it. They made the same nonsensical argument that "unsupported" refers to things that can later be supported.

Sarkus took off running when I asked him twice to produce a dictionary that agrees with his definition. Similarly, I asked you to quote a dictionary that agrees with your definition of the word "unsupported." Since you clearly cannot find any dictionaries that agree with your claim that "unsupported" refers to things that are later supported, you have now resorted to the same tactic that Sarkus tried before he decided to hit the road: namely, you are now giving me mantra--repeating your previous lame argument.

BTW: In case you have not noticed, the topic of this thread is about proof that the Judeo-Christian Bible is the inspired word of Almighty God Jehovah. I will neither read nor respond to anything else you post along this line of argument.

Alter2Ego

 

One of the most famous examples of an unsupported "claim" that later turned out to be true was Swift's "description" of Phobos and Deimos. He may have got some "facts" wrong - distance and orbital period - but he had zero support at the time for stating that Mars had two moons (150 years earlier than their discovery).
However you are wasting your time with the troll. Nothing is going to make her/ him/ it see rationality.