(February 27, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I'm not a big fan of Huggy, but I'd say he carried his point. If you want him to attend to some contradicting fact, you need do better than constantly bleat about him not watching your video. I'd say he documented de Waal's position quite well.

Fine. *grumble* Hey, I've got to start practicing logical fallacies somewhere don't I?! [emoji14]

(February 27, 2016 at 5:37 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(February 26, 2016 at 5:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Personally I believe all of the OT are just parables, not historic facts.

So every time the nt used 'biblical prophesy' to prove Jesus'supposed divinity, they were simply talking about fairy stories?

Seeing as you just stated the bible has no basis in fact* what actually separates you from atheists?

*That's a problem more modern outlook christians have, when they call the ot, and even parts of the nt allegory. The whole story depends on every part of it being taken as literally true, there are too many parts which depend on literalist readings of prior parts for any other possible reading to be feasible, and to still hold belief.

Well even if the OT is taken as entirely symbolic, if there were legitimate prophecies in there which came true, it's still prophetic as it's written hundreds of years beforehand.

The problem, of course, is that the OT prophecies fulfilled in the OT were written after the fact, and the OT prophecies fulfilled in the NT were complete lies. For example there is the "virgin birth," a fulfillment of Isaiah 7. Yet if you read Isaiah 7 it is about a king being shown a sign that his city would not be sacked, so I don't see how a dude being born 500 years later is a sign to this king of anything. Other NT claims of fulfilled prophecy are also lies.