What distinguishes a fantasy book from the bible?

[Minimalist]

Seems to me that you are asking for a bit much there, not all claims are verified scientifically, particularly those that are said to be miraculous and by nature defy scientific observations.

That because you are a nutty YEC moron, Waldork. Why worry about some fucking burning bush when history and archaeology has shown that there was no exodus at all. Leave it to the moron class to fixate on bullshit when the entire fabric of the story is at best mythological and at worst blatant propaganda from a thousand years later.

Do you believe in King Arthur because no one can show that Excalibur was not real?

[ElDinero]

Haha, the juxtaposition between me and Minimalist's ways of making the same point is pretty funny.

[Paul the Human]

I believe the accounts in the Bible because it is God's revealed nature and God does not lie.

I believe that I can fly and that all I have to do in order to fly is throw myself at the ground and miss. I know this is true, because I believe the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is the Galaxy's revealed nature, and the Galaxy does not lie.

[Minimalist]

Haha, the juxtaposition between me and Minimalist's ways of making the same point is pretty funny.

When near 7,500 posts have you, suffer fools gladly you will not, young Jedi!

[Statler Waldorf]

Seems you answered your own question, didn't you. When something would defy scientific observations, science has weighed in on that something. Guess science has already tested the veracity of your burning bush after all, hasn't it.
Next

No it doesn't. All it means is that if it really did happen it would be a miracle, which is exactly what scripture describes it as. Next.

[The Grand Nudger]

Seems you answered your own question, didn't you. When something would defy scientific observations, science has weighed in on that something. Guess science has already tested the veracity of your burning bush after all, hasn't it.
Next

No it doesn't. All it means is that if it really did happen it would be a miracle, which is exactly what scripture describes it as. Next.

"IF" being the assumption you need. I need none. Also, don't use "if" because it makes you look like a pansy liberal christian.

[ElDinero]

Haha, the juxtaposition between me and Minimalist's ways of making the same point is pretty funny.

When near 7,500 posts have you, suffer fools gladly you will not, young Jedi!

Haha. Just because I've only recently started arguing here, doesn't mean I haven't had the arguments before elsewhere. I just like to play good cop, I like the discussion.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

With great difficulty, even at the time. Now, almost impossible. However, to claim that it DID happen still requires evidence. If that means we have to leave that particular example, then we do. The fact that it hasn't once happened since the time that reliable records have been kept (and didn't happen in a place at that time where records were already kept, such as China) is very suspicious though. I'm happy to say that I cannot outright disprove that a bush caught fire and spoke once, but since it contradicts everything we know about what things do (humans) and do not (everything else) talk, as well as the conditions required for things to catch fire, I don't feel like I need to speak further on it.

However, with reference to something like a huge flood said to have taken place circa 6000 years ago, there would be enormous amounts of evidence for something like that. And any claim to evidence that has been made has been refuted, and unlike the burning bush, we can indeed disprove it utterly, by looking at layers of sediment, carbon dating of materials, argon-potassium dating, distribution of animals and so on.

You're a nice guy SW, and I'm enjoying this conversation, but your last bit there worries me and is going to take this thread off topic if we continue. Always ask 'why?'. Why do you believe the accounts are God's revealed nature? Why do you believe he does not lie? So many things from the Bible have been proven inaccurate already, he's either lying or, at best, being misrepresented.

---

I just feel like you are treating the burning bush as if scripture says it was a natural occurrence, it never says this. It's a miraculous event, which tells me that the authors of scripture were well aware that bushes do not naturally talk and do not catch fire like described in Exodus. It is most likely for this reason that God decided to use the burning bush, it would definitely catch my attention if it happened to me. :-)

Well I do not want to sway off topic either, but it is an interesting conversation, so if you'd like to continue it in another thread or over P.M. I am up for it.

---

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='160899' dateline='1312325906']
"IF" being the assumption you need. I need none. Also, don't use "if" because it makes you look like a pansy liberal christian.

Unfortunately, I think that you make sense only to yourself at times.

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't project your own willful ignorance upon the crowd.

[Statler Waldorf]

Don't project your own willful ignorance upon the crowd.

Could you please put me back on your "ignore" list? You are nothing but a troll and a waste of time.