Quote:If someone tells you that he has experienced God's presence in his life, you have no grounds to say that he hasn't.

If someone tells you that he has experienced Thor's presence in his life, you have no grounds to say that he hasn't.

If someone tells you he's had -no- experience of -any- gods presence in his life, you have no grounds to say that he -has-.  

All equally legit, right?

(June 18, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

Quote:If someone tells you that he has experienced God's presence in his life, you have no grounds to say that he hasn't.

If someone tells you that he has experienced Thor's presence in his life, you have no grounds to say that he hasn't.

If someone tells you he's had -no- experience of -any- gods presence in his life, you have no grounds to say that he -has-.  

All equally legit, right?

I have grounds to not believe him, but I can't positively say that he's not telling the truth. I would take a look at the person who is making the claim and whether or not anyone else is making the same or similar claims.

LOL, so you mean you -do- think that you have those grounds....I see. Grounds aplenty, acres and acres of grounds, no less. Good for you. Let's be square with each other and ourselves....you're tired of having people call you a liar, and not being able to demonstrate that you aren't...huh? You don't actually believe the comment you made, and you wouldn't let it stand - even for a day-..because here you are, with your modifications.

I don't believe you, I -can- positively say that you aren't telling the truth, and I don't have to consider how many similar lies have been told to come to that conclusion.

(June 18, 2015 at 6:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, so you mean you -do- think that you have those grounds....I see.  Grounds aplenty, acres and acres of grounds, no less.  Good for you.  Let's be square with each other and ourselves....you're tired of having people call you a liar, and not being able to demonstrate that you aren't...huh?  You don't actually believe the comment you made, and you wouldn't let it stand - even for a day-..because here you are, with your modifications.

I don't believe you, I -can- positively say that you aren't telling the truth, and I don't have to consider how many similar lies have been told to come to that conclusion.

If you're referring to my original comment, I didn't make any modifications to it. I actually re-enforced it by saying I couldn't know whether or not that person's experience is real, though I can make a decision not to believe him. What can you say I'm positively not telling the truth about - my original comment or my belief in God? To me being positive is having no doubt.

(June 18, 2015 at 5:45 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 1:57 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: How do you know anything about god? How do you know the bible is the word of god?

You don't know what any person has experienced from God, but only what you have experienced. If someone tells you that he has experienced God's presence in his life, you have no grounds to say that he hasn't.

Um. Yes. Yes I do. Extraordinary claim. No evidence. You can make shit up all day like that.

Quote: Since God is supernatural, he doesn't have to rely on natural processes to communicate with us.

What does that word mean? Supernatural?

Everything that exists is a part of the natural world is natural. If god exists, he is natural.

Quote: I would think that the huge number of solid people who have believed in God and claimed to experience him in their lives should lead you to at least be open to the possibility.

Bold accusation. What makes you think I'm not? I just don't find 'god talked to me' convincing.

The Yorkshire Ripper heard the voice of Jesus telling him to kill women. You have no grounds to say he didn't.

(June 18, 2015 at 12:52 pm)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: No, here's what I'd prefer, you telling me why there are so many versions of god's word.

Not versions, translations. Again, the bible was not originally written in English, so there are different ways to translate certain texts. This is true anytime a book is translated from one language to another. This is especially true when the orginal language is considered to be a dead language.

In the end that is why we have resources like the concordance/lexicon I linked you to. Because the vast majority of bibles are also linked to a set standard of codeces. (ancient greek/Hebrew texts) and one can then go back and look up the orginal words the various bibles are translated from.

Quote:Is it because of this type of dishonesty which you have demonstrated over and over again on this forum? There's something you don't like in this version of the bible, so you have to run to another version, and say this is the version I go by.

:Roflol: What you call dishonesty I call scholarship. Again, only a fool looks at a given translation and assumes whatever version you read is the final word on the subject.

The fist thing I do when one of you posts a scripture fragment to support whatever you are saying, is I look it up in your given translation and put that passage back into it's context. If context still seems to support your reading then I look the passage up in the Greek/Hebrew and closely examine the words or phrases you are hinging your point on. IF it supports what you say then I look for other verses to also support your take. if not I take a closer look at a couple different translations to try and better frame the passage so you can understand it better.

In this case the word the NIV (your translation) translates into the phrase "every word of God is flawless' In your case the context you left on the page was enough for a non biased person to see that the proverb speaks to the words of God (literally the direct words) and not to the word/bible of God. Biblical study would have shown you to the writer of this proverb the word of God would be the oral tradition of the prophets (The literal words of God) and the writtings of the torah. But, again not wanting to beat you to death with the history of Judaism I looked for greater clarity in the passage by using a couple of other translations that would help you see what your translation was actually saying without the bias spin you put on this particular passage.
Your subsequent rant shows me that it worked.

Quote:Then, when someone else quotes something from the ESV, you run right back to the NIV to quote from there. There's something wrong there, you wouldn't get it, but everyone else on here, that's not a christian, would.

Look again sport. What I posted from the ESV and ERV bibles does not change what the passage says. It simply frames it away from your personal reading of those passages, and puts the correct emphasis back onto not only what the 'words' of God are, but how they are perceived.

And, if you want to look at the Hebrew, I can show you clearly that the word the NIV translates into 'flawless' (צָרַף tsaraph)
is actual a word use to describe the whole gold refinement process. Since we do not have a single word in the English that can describe this whole process in a literal translation one tries to best approximate it's English counterpart. Those who wrote the NIV went with flawless because that is the net result of the whole refinement process, and the ESV and ERV went with word pure because as with flawless it describes the net result but it can also help describe or lend it self to the refinement process as well.

Eitherway, that particular passage in no way supports your reading of it.

(June 18, 2015 at 1:00 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 12:16 pm)Drich Wrote: But, again your approaching a set of turn by turn instructions, as if it were a matter of debate. One can not talk their way through a set of instructions to verify them unless they have already been where the instructions lead.

The 'proof' of the bible lies in the finding of God, not in stacking it against the terms we (this generation) came up with to describe the simple processes God describes in the bible.

Right, so it only makes sense if you already believe in the Christian God. Got it.

You do not have to believe in God to find Him. just honestly approach Him as the bible says. This is that 'mustard seed' of faith that Jesus talks about. With this tiniest bit of (honest) faith, God with move mountains of doubt.

(June 18, 2015 at 1:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: Atheists have superpowers!

They can read the words on the frickin page.

appearently not as well as they think they can.

(June 18, 2015 at 1:57 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 11:37 am)Drich Wrote: How do I know what?

How do you know anything about god? How do you know the bible is the word of god?

Again the verification of a set of instructions is found in the following of said instructions and coming up with what those instructions said you will find.

I followed the path the bible outlines to find God. I found Him. therefore the instructions/The Bible is accurate. If the bible is proven to be accurate then what is says about God is also accurate.

(June 18, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 1:57 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: How do you know anything about god? How do you know the bible is the word of god?

You already know the answer, Neimenovic: the internal witness of the Holy Spirit.  If renaming confirmation bias is good enough for a scumbag like WLC, it's certainly good enough for Drich.

What makes you think the Holy Spirit only works internally? Have you not read any of my posts before?