What makes the bible true

[racrguy]

Oxymorons make very poor arguments, O.P.

To wit, again from Merriam-Webster.com
lazy suggests a disinclination to work

Except it's not an argument, it's an observation. Yet you continue to demonstrate your inability to use the dictionary correctly...


You cherry pick a definition to suit your needs, ignoring all other definitions of the word.

— at work
1
: engaged in working : busy; especially : engaged in one's regular occupation
2
: having effect : operating, functioning

Note the bolded part, your laziness is having an effect. And at this point, doubly so.

[The King]

hey king... i gotta question... if it was possible to prove scientifically with fact... would you be open minded enough to accept that you beliefs maybe wrong...?

Of course, because I already had to be open minded to discover that my beliefs (regarding Christianity) were the Truth.

Science can not disprove my beliefs however, because my beliefs are not founded upon the condition of mankind's acceptance or denial.

[The King]

Laziness at work.

Oxymorons make very poor arguments, O.P.

To wit, again from Merriam-Webster.com
lazy suggests a disinclination to work

[forbes]

hey king... i gotta question... if it was possible to prove scientifically with fact... would you be open minded enough to accept that you beliefs maybe wrong...?

[racrguy]

Cliff notes please.....

(except for your first response above....that's a joke I have pulled before (always successfully BTW) on the unsuspecting)

Laziness at work.

Cliffs Notes:
He's right, you're wrong.
*insert valid supporting evidence here*
Profit.

[The King]

Cliff notes please.....

(except for your first response above....that's a joke I have pulled before (always successfully BTW) on the unsuspecting)

[Maddhattter]

I can't see this post because I am on racrguy's ignore list

This would be the first time I’ve seen the forums block a post this way. So, someone just needs to repost racrguy’s posts for you? It can be done. We have the technology.
Wait, you can read post #489 with no problems? You’re still on his ignore list. Why would the forums be configured to block one of his posts when you’re on his ignore list, but not all?

This verse says nothing about seeing God in the so-called "ocular" sense, LOL. Read below since you have obviously missed or deliberately ignored a considerable number of posts.

No argument here.

As I have illustrated several times, the problem Maddhatter has most recently experienced here is that he claimed the image of God (refer to Genesis 1:26) meant in the visible sense, and when that was completely refuted he then desperately made the bogus claim that people were recorded in the Bible as having seen God, again in the visible sense.

As I illustrated, with applicable chapters and verses as you requested, the bible does claim that people have seen god. The bible was very clear. As it states quite plainly that Word = God; Word was made flesh, dwelt among us, and was beheld. Nowhere does it detract from this. Only your unsupported statement, “Jesus was God represented as a man, not God's visage”, brings any questions. The bible states quite plainly, in no uncertain terms, that Word = God and Word = Jesus. So, if God = Word = Jesus, then God = Jesus.

That compounded his blunder of wading into the Bible to make a point while knowing virtually nothing about it's message. Upon my challenge to produce Biblical references, he failed and will continue to fail since there are no such references recorded in the Bible.

Except I did produce said examples. Your only arguments against my evidence were “Nuh-uh” and Exodus 33:20.

Neither are good arguments. As my assertion was supported with evidence and your Nuh-uh was not, there is no reason to even consider it a retort.

Oh, almost forgot Exodus 33:20. As none of the people who are claimed as seeing the bible are alive, or can even be proven to be historical figures, there is no contradiction with the Exodus verse.

God is a spiritual being, and can thus have no physical image that can be duplicated in His children.

Your unsupported assertion.

Jesus was God represented as a man, not God's visage.

Not according to your book, as explained again above.

The burning bush and clouds on Mount Sinai from which God spake to Moses,

No argument here.

and the visions of the prophets, were manifestations of God and not His visible image. Quite clear and unambiguous actually.....

So, visions are not visible? This is a laughable claim, and unsupported I might add.

noun /ˈviZHən/ 
visions, plural
1. The faculty or state of being able to see
 - she had defective vision

2. The ability to think about or plan the future with imagination or wisdom
 - the organization had lost its vision and direction

3. A mental image of what the future will or could be like
 - a vision of retirement

4. The images seen on a television screen

5. An experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition
 - the idea came to him in a vision

6. A vivid mental image, esp. a fanciful one of the future
 - he had visions of becoming the Elton John of his time

7. A person or sight of unusual beauty

You’ve provided no support for most of your assertions. I have. I have more verses where characters like Abram, Jacob, Isaac, and more have seen god, I just don’t need them. You have also ignored the fact that the bible states that Moses, as I illustrated in my previous post, was spake to by god face to face. Without a face to see, or a visible image, there could be no face to face spaking going on. There are no verses that state that when Moses was spaked to, face to face, that it was not the visual image of god. It does not state that is was an aspect, or anything other than god. So, your argument has nothing to stand on, given that Moses is dead.

Gotta interject your other post here, as it’s directly relevant to the above paragraph…

face–to–face adv or adj
Definition of FACE-TO-FACE
1: within each other's sight or presence
2: in or into direct contact or confrontation

Yay for a misrepresentation of the uses of dictionaries. I originally had a completely different response to this lined up. I’d spend all that time pointing out how you disregard a definition that doesn’t agree with you, but tout one when you think it does. I just had this funny feeling something wasn’t right. So, I did just a little bit of fact checking. Sure enough, you have demonstrated an inability to properly use a dictionary, or you’re using one with the attempt to mislead. You properly cited the definitions, but you claimed an applicable definition without the contextual information contained in the dictionary that you cite.

face–to–face
adv or adj
Definition of FACE-TO-FACE
1: within each other's sight or presence <met and talkedface–to–face> <a face–to–face consultation>
2: in or into direct contact or confrontation <came face–to–face with the problem>

This is the definition, as stated on http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/face-to-face.

The differences are important. You see, the contextual reference in the second definition removes it from the running, as it is in reference to an idea. This leaves only definition one as a valid option. Especially since you wouldn’t “spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend” and have that carry the same definition as if confronting an idea. That is why the examples are given, to give you a contextual reference. You encounter another entity face-to-face using the first definition.

Once again, given that God is a spirit being, there is no conflict with the Biible iusing the term "face to face", definitions for which I have graciously copied/pasted for your benefit from Merriam Webster.com, in reference to individuals personal communications with God.

Your own source disagrees with you, when the dictionary is properly applied to define words.

Pose arguments against the Bible if that's your thing, but don't expect to be effective in using it to support those arguments against those of us who actually know what it says.

Given the lack of supporting evidence you have brought, it would be more applicably phrased as “Pose arguments against the Bible if that's your thing, but don't expect me to be effective in using it to support my arguments because it’s demonstrable that I only know that it says what I believe it says.”

I’ve yet to have to “interpret” the bible. The bible supports my claim in simple English and black and white. All you have brought to the table are your claims, which you’ve failed to support, and your “interpretations”. I’ve never read into what the bible says. If god is omniscient, then there is no reason to believe that the bible does not mean exactly what it says. I’ve never made the assumption that I know what god meant to say better than he did.

As was the case above, you obsession with slavery has nothing to do with your lack of understanding of what the OT is about. Suggest you first focus on simple tasks in order to back up your claims.

What the “OT” is about and what morals it espouses are intertwined. I’ve never seen anything that can have a positive message when the morals that it touts are horrid. Besides, the whole “the old testament tells the story on how god prepared the world for the coming of Jesus” falls apart when the god’s omnipotence comes into play, not to mention the “need” for Jesus was contrived by god in the first place. He could have done all those things without the support of slavery, murder, etc as it is supposed to be all powerful.

[The King]

Go go fuck yourself.

LOL lol

emo comes out

[CWO]

Not in this thread, or is reality something you choose to ignore when convenient (very likely).

LOL at hypocrite, the most common word of choice for those who have failed in every way to present themselves as relevant to theological topics.

That's why I, and anyone else so inclined, must read the Bible for themselves and thus have no need for outside "interpretation" as you put it.

Again you are mistaken, punkin'. An image, as defined by likeness, need not be ocular. Consult your favorite online or print dictionary to educate yourself on this matter, 'hatter. Some translations of the Bible do indeed use the word likeness in Genesis 1:26, but that is of no consequence since either image or likeness can be used with the same meaning.

Relevance is subjective, kitten, and the problem therein for you is that what is relevant to you is by no means universal.

Are we now into writing rhymes, bag boy????

Seldom have we seen such an intelligent post, LOL.




My intent was only to get you stirred up.....obviously it worked.

Not as well as it did with little Alex, though.....it only took him three posts to get to the babbling stage (i.e., post #384), quoted as follows:

Context is indeed key, petunia, and in the context of Genesis 1:26, image and likeness are not defining visual appearance.

Support your statement above by listing names of people claiming to have seen God, in a visual likeness, from the Bible. Include references to Book, Chapter, and Verse. Image and likeness are not visual in the Biblical context, a concept you may eventually grasp after you perform the above requested task, buttercup.

Claims about seeing God in hundreds of years since???




I would hope they would be able to cover more details than you would. Your knowledge of what the Old Testament is about seems to be almost nil.

Here is your reality.... in this thread. I guess that makes me some kind of a fucking prophet.





Some other name calling faves of mine, not in THIS thread of course (but all in a single thread), which means it isn't reality and/or didn't happen.

Mustanggay
Clockfuck
vaderfag




Go go fuck yourself. Hypocrite.

[The King]

How else would you interpret "face to face?"

face–to–face adv or adj
Definition of FACE-TO-FACE
1: within each other's sight or presence
2: in or into direct contact or confrontation

Once again, given that God is a spirit being, there is no conflict with the Biible iusing the term "face to face", definitions for which I have graciously copied/pasted for your benefit from Merriam Webster.com, in reference to individuals personal communications with God.

[racrguy]

Fix't

It's not an issue here of understanding the Bible or not, so much as it is of some posters trying to argue that the Bible says something it clearly does not.

How else would you interpret "face to face?"

[The King]

Pretty good "cop-out" if you ask me.

"I am God, those that have seen me are dead."

While you're saying that only people that are willing to understand the subject at hand get it. You might as well say "It's a Jersey thing."

Fix't

It's not an issue here of understanding the Bible or not, so much as it is of some posters trying to argue that the Bible says something it clearly does not.

[jdgregory84]

Exodus 33:20 (KJV)
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

Straightforward when someone knows something of the subject matter they're posting about. There are other references from Exodus, but this one suffices.


On the other had, still waiting on Maddhatter to back up his claim quoted below, with some of his own words bolded so he doesn't overlook them yet again, LOL:



*****crickets*****

Pretty good "cop-out" if you ask me.

"I am God, those that have seen me are dead."

While you're saying that only people that understand the subject at hand get it. You might as well say "It's a Jersey thing."

[The King]

.....

I can't see this post because I am on racrguy's ignore list

By faith Enoch “was translated that he should not see death … for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” Hebrews 11:5. In the midst of a world by its iniquity doomed to destruction, Enoch lived a life of such close communion with God that he was not permitted to fall under the power of death.

so there is a guy who saw god and lived

This verse says nothing about seeing God in the so-called "ocular" sense, LOL. Read below since you have obviously missed or deliberately ignored a considerable number of posts.

As I have illustrated several times, the problem Maddhatter has most recently experienced here is that he claimed the image of God (refer to Genesis 1:26) meant in the visible sense, and when that was completely refuted he then desperately made the bogus claim that people were recorded in the Bible as having seen God, again in the visible sense. That compounded his blunder of wading into the Bible to make a point while knowing virtually nothing about it's message. Upon my challenge to produce Biblical references, he failed and will continue to fail since there are no such references recorded in the Bible. God is a spiritual being, and can thus have no physical image that can be duplicated in His children. Jesus was God represented as a man, not God's visage. The burning bush and clouds on Mount Sinai from which God spake to Moses, and the visions of the prophets, were manifestations of God and not His visible image. Quite clear and unambiguous actually.....

Pose arguments against the Bible if that's your thing, but don't expect to be effective in using it to support those arguments against those of us who actually know what it says.

[davbrucas]

This thread is just a dick measuring contest at this point. You fools should just take pics and swap them and put it to rest.

Does God have a cock? Is he really omnipresent?