You Can't Quote Scripture

because...

Scripture is meaningless until you can establish its authority. In order to do so you must pass five checkpoints.

1. Prove god.
2. Prove YOUR god.
3. Prove your god inspired scripture.
4. Prove the scripture hasn't changed.
5. Prove your interpretation of scripture is correct.

Until you can accomplish all of that there is no more point quoting The Bible than quoting Huckleberry Finn.

That is kind'a hypocritical is it not? When "YOU" and many quote the unproven "theory" of evolution and claim that is produced by "empirical" evidence. Which is definitely not so. No one can produce one piece of "empirical" evidence that supports "macro-evolution", which is totally and inherently different from "micro-evolution".

since when have i ever quoted evolution? I only defend evolution when religious zealots attack the credability of accepted scientific theory...never have i used evolution and quoted it to prove anything!

because...

Scripture is meaningless until you can establish its authority. In order to do so you must pass five checkpoints.

1. Prove god.
2. Prove YOUR god.
3. Prove your god inspired scripture.
4. Prove the scripture hasn't changed.
5. Prove your interpretation of scripture is correct.

Until you can accomplish all of that there is no more point quoting The Bible than quoting Huckleberry Finn.

This is one of the most absurd and ridiculous statements I have ever heard on this fourm. If you really believe that, then you should not quote any historical works until you can prove all those authors really existed, and what ever source you quote about those author, you will have to prove that those authors existed to. And you will have to prove that all those authors were the ones who really inspired their writings. And you will have to prove that all their books have not changed. And you will have to prove that all your interprtations of their publications are valid.
So until you can accomplish all of that, there is no more point in quoting any historical writings, and that includes Darwin. And until you can accomplish all of that, quoting anything about Darwins Evolution is about the same as quoting Huckleberry Finn.
The fact is, the Bible has been around for a long time, and even if we did not know who authored it, we do know that todays Bible has been validated by many older discovered manuscripts. The problem you are having with the Bible is many of the prophecies are coming to pass, and you can't deal with that truth, nor do you have an explanation for that happening. So this was your lame attempt to try and distance yourself from those prophecies. So I guess you just close your eyes and cover your ears and just repeat to yourself, 'they don't exist, they don't exist, they don't exist.' I am happy to report, they do exist, and only one who would lie to himself, would try to deny them.

You are the one who is wrong Mr.Campbell. What FATAL_FREEDOM requires for proof is very valid. It holds for both, The Bible and The Theory of Evolution. Both need to be subjected to the rigor of objective scientific query.

Neither the Bible nor The Theory of Evolution can escape from this burden of proof.

And Thus neither can be "PROVEN".......only believed, or not, we call that concept as having, "FAITH".

Empirical proof found in the scriptures to confirm the WORD as true, would be the "eye" witness accounts of such. Performed in public and given a "public" account as being true. For one to claim that these miracles did not happen one would have to disprove the actual eye witness accounts as being false with provided evidence of such.

Consider the Gospel of John's account of a "recorded miracle".
John Chapter 9 devotes itself to one single event, the healing of the blind man by the Lord. Just break down the chapter into 3 divisions; the various and numerous people that were "eyewitness" to the event, the miracle, and the blind man and the Lord.

The witnesses of the event......There are several mentioned groups of people outside the two principals of the contextual message of "proof of miracles", Jesus and the blind man. Jesus, disciples are only mentioned because of their mistaken belief (vss. 1-2), that this man's illness was due to some personal sin of himself or his parents, Jesus' corrected that misconception. There is a brief allusion to the blind man's parents (vss 18-23). The parents are presented as lacking conviction and very fearful. There were the Pharisees, Jesus' greatest enemies at that time. They also labored under a false doctrine (vs.34). The Pharisees were sinfully accusing and stubborn (vss. 16,24-7, 40). They rejected all evidence regarding the miracle (vss. 16,18, 20).

The actual healing of the blind man. Jesus' miracles shared a commonality--they were undeniably miraculous in nature and effect, the miracle is concisely stated in verses 6 and 7. The man was "blind from birth" (vs. 1, 8,9,19,20). The simple facts were; he was born blind, Jesus healed him, and now he had complete vision. Miracles had a purpose as stated in scripture (John 20:30-31; Mark 16:20). John 20:31, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." Mark 16:20, "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with SINGS FOLLOWINGS, Amen.

The blind man and the Lord. The healed man had no doubt regarding his healing and the source (vss. 11,30). He(the blind man) stood his ground with the Pharisees (vss. 26-33). The man bravely defended Jesus and allowed his healing to result also in his spiritual healing (vss. 33, 37, 38). Jesus received worship- indicative of his Sonship and deity (vs. 38). The Lord exposed false doctrine and caused division (vss. 3,16). Therefore, truly, Jesus is a prophet of God, and divine (vss. 17, 33, 38). John chapter 9 gives us both eye witness account of a miracle plus it gives insight into the love and nature of Jesus.

A Biblical miracle is defined as such. The Greek word used is "Dunamis" and translated miracle. It is defined as "Inherent ability...used of works of supernatural origin and character, such as could not be produced by natural agents and means" ( W. E. Wine, the study of Greek translations). A Biblical miracle involved the "suspension" or relaxing of physical, natural laws and the enacting of supernatural forces. True miracles were contrary to, outside of, and above nature. A miracle is physically and naturally impossible. Yet some, claim that the natural laws of this universe as "empirical" evidence that miracles cannot occur.....an impossible task. "Empirical" proof would be the claiming of a miracle and someone actually proving that it was not a miracle, in real time. To claim that miracles did not happen in the past based on current natural laws of physics is not "empirical" evidence, but only hypothesis or theorized conjecture, based on "natural" evidence. RD

I respectfully disagree with your extended thesis.

If it cannot be proven today, then the investigation and pursuit of truth needs to continue. The search continues.

If the faith cop out was taken by scientists, well, modern medicine would not be there to save your faithful backside.

Regards

You see, you misrepresent the conclusion of 'science actual'. To "DISPROVE" a miracle science would have to prove that said "event/miracle" indeed was not a miracle due to the fact that it can "PROVE" that which has happened very well indeed works within the Laws of Natural Science and thus can be "explained", and said proof would then disprove that a miraculous event has occurred. Not the converse, if the event in question can not be proven to work within the "natural" realms of science.....then the miracle would indeed be validated by SCIENCE. Thus, one can not "empirically" disprove the miracles contained and written of in the Holy Bible, for there is no "proof" actual, only conjecture based on the exposure of modern day frauds, which the Holy Scriptures themselves tell us to question and prove, to see if they actually work outside that which is natural or that the message that they claim with signs and wonders is nothing but "FALSE DOCTRINE". Show me a modern day miracle and I will prove to you, a "FRAUD", OR SCIENCE WILL PROVE TO YOU THE "SECOND COMING OF THE CHRIST" RD

You are the one who is wrong Mr.Campbell. What FATAL_FREEDOM requires for proof is very valid. It holds for both, The Bible and The Theory of Evolution. Both need to be subjected to the rigor of objective scientific query.

Neither the Bible nor The Theory of Evolution can escape from this burden of proof.

Okay. Perform a miracle and we'll go from there.

Thus, one can not "empirically" disprove the miracles contained and written of in the Holy Bible, for there is no "proof" actual,

THERE IS NO PROOF.

Straight from you, buddy. You have no proof. That makes your claims invalid. I could say that the Earth has a nougat center, and nobody could "empirically" disprove that, for there is no "proof".

So I guess, since according to you there is no proof of Evolution, that you cannot "empirically" disprove it.

So... I'm still waiting for you to prove that the Bible is the way things are.

The proof actual must come from the ones making the accusation that the miracles are invalid, not from the the one that claims to work outside that which is natural, as explained. No one can prove a negative, period, that being that the miracles indeed work outside that which is natural. All science can do is work within in its own stated bounds, that which is natural. Therefore, science would have to prove that which claimed to work outside the natural laws of nature and science, did not, by proving that all which was produced was indeed performed from the natural limits of known science. It cannot, unless there were modern miracles produced claiming to be from God, if they were from God, science could not explain such, but using the scientific method, science very well could explain that which claims to be miraculous, and which is not. So, "empirically" prove that the miracles spoken of in the Scriptures where not unnatural, if you can, please proceed. It is not my point to prove, sense "I" already believe it, and do not care what "you" believe, therefore it would be up to you to disprove my position of truth through faith and make a laughing stock out of me, as I said, proceed to disprove such, "EMPIRICALLY". As far as modern miracles being produced, No claims from Me has been made. I do not claim to be a "prophet" endowed with supernatural abilities to confirm the word which God as given me to teach, and prove via signs and wonders, you my friend are barking up the wrong tree, for I believe the words of the Bible, not the tradition of man. RD

And the same rules do not apply with Biblical concepts? If not, why not?

As "I" and many others have said, no one objects to "actual science" and its KNOWLEDGE OF PROOF AND TRUTH, just pseudoscience and its unproven theories being presented and taught as the only explanation of creation.

Ask someone to present "empirical" evidence on the "theory" of "intelligent design" and it will be forthcoming,

however to ask someone to prove their faith, is, as you very well know, an impossibility. The only alternative is for "science" to disprove the writings of scriptures, which they can not, as only theory and speculation is all that is offered in retort. As science cannot disprove the many and various "miracles" of the Bible via the Scientific Method

due to the fact that the scriptures themselves profess to having worked outside the realms of that knowledge.

(You can not claim that the miracles did not happen due to the evidence offered only in Science as Faith proves that God works above the Laws of Science, If anyone has faith that God created the universe with only a spoken word, how can Science disprove the faith of miracles?)

Disprove a Biblical fact such as the Age of the earth, the creation of man, etc., in other words what is written and should be able to be disproved with "empirical" evidence, if you can.

One more edit on my stance as stated concerning miracles. The scriptures say, that "Miracles" have ceased, that is what the scriptures actually say, anyone claiming any different are not comprehending the writings of Paul in 1Cor. chapter 13. To say because there are no "modern" miracles, does not empirically prove that they have not occurred in the past.

The proof actual must come from the ones making the accusation that the miracles are invalid, not from the the one that claims to work outside that which is natural, as explained.

You are so right, and I can tell you the Bible is light years ahead of Evolution. Yet the problem is when there is evidence that is extra Biblical, and even if it comes to us from Roman records, I find that non believers in the Bible will not believe that evidence if it agrees with the Bible. Yet these same people, will look at bone fragments, and an artistic picture of what someone thinks those bone fragments should look like, and believe 100% that this is a proof for Evolution. Another words, the Bible and extra Biblical writings from Roman historians cannot be believed, but an artistic drawing that comes from someones imgination can. The proofs of the Bible are many, just based on the last 10 years of discoveries. Hands down, the Christian belief is being verified by facts, and you are reading about this all the time. Just yesterday a wall found in Jerusalem is believed to be the one that was spoken of in the Old Testament. It was found while repairs were being made to an old tower.

Artistic pictures and bone fragments? Such as the bone fragments from Brigham Young and the artistic pictures of dinos and mammoths fighting?

Links showing the bible being proven. Again, you also have this strange ability to prove the existence of your Designer.

The figurines of Acambaro are far more reliable, and they even show which dinosaurs had spines, even before our scientits knew that.

That's what I'm talking about. And we can see that evidenced matched up to reconstruction of found dinosaur remains.

Even the number of times they have been carbon dated shows them to be at least 1200 years or older, so they are not fakes.

Your transional pictures cannot be matched up to anything. And that is because Evoultion does not have any evidence, just blind faith.

And some of the Bible events are supported by Roman records, there is nothing strange about that because even if the Romans did not like Christians, their records still support the truth of the Bible.