|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 31, 2018 12:18:01 GMT
It's supposed to be a f-you to skeptics who question the existence of such and such person, event, location in bible and archeological discoveries proven them wrong. Then it back-fired spectacularly. You have yet to grasp that it barely qualifies as evidence that there was an Isiah that wrote Isiah; and even if it did then, one, it wouldn't mean much since we know someone wrote it, and, two, it wouldn't have anything to do with the veracity of what they wrote. So this scores nothing for The Bible and impacts the skepticism of various Biblical claims not one iota. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 12:25:46 GMT
Then it back-fired spectacularly. You have yet to grasp that it barely qualifies as evidence that there was an Isiah that wrote Isiah; and even if it did then, one, it wouldn't mean much since we know someone wrote it, and, two, it wouldn't have anything to do with the veracity of what they wrote. So this scores nothing for The Bible and impacts the skepticism of various Biblical claims not one iota. LOL Excellent rebuttal! Anyway, I take it back, you're right on the mark when you said: It's telling how Vegas, the one poster to respond so far who hasn't let his emotions get in the way, also happens to be the only non-believer who can fully comprehend what's being said. and Vegas said: To assume that it is THE Isiah's seal?... A leap of dumb faith. Yep, he fully comprehended what you said and responded with exactly what I said in first post. I was even much nicer in how I phrased it than how Vegas phrased it, yet I'm the "raging atheist?" LOL right back at ya!
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 31, 2018 14:07:23 GMT
How is it stupid? A 2,700 year old artifact believed be the signature of the prophet Isaiah was very recently discovered by an Israeli(Jewish) archaeologist and her team in Jerusalem and subsequently reported by Jewish, Christian, Conservative and liberal news outlets. What exactly is stupid about it? There is zero evidence of it being the alleged prophet Isaiah, beyond the regulation 'believed' to be. Those 'sources' are making it 'fake news'. www.livescience.com/61836-ancient-seal-prophet-isaiah.html
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 31, 2018 14:12:42 GMT
Like Goz said, there is zero evidence that this refers to the Isaiah from the Bible, and your own source, which you are too dim to understand, says as much.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 14:55:18 GMT
Here's the relevant part: The probability the seal belonged the Isiah who wrote The Bible is 1 in however-the-hell-many-Isaiahs-were-alive-2700-years-ago-in-that-area. A conservative estimate might be 10, which would give the seal a 10% chance of being that of the Biblical Isaiah. 10% is barely strong enough proof to get a good buzz with... unless you've already drunk the spiked kool-aid, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 31, 2018 15:05:50 GMT
Like Goz said, there is zero evidence that this refers to the Isaiah from the Bible, and your own source, which you are too dim to understand, says as much. Are you thick? Do you even know the meaning of evidence? The seal is 1) dated to the exact time period the prophet Isaiah is supposed to have lived. 2) It was found yards away from another seal belonging to King Hezekiah, a close associate of Isaiah according to the biblical narrative 3) The damaged seal is a missing letter away from reading "Belonging to Isaiah the prophet". 4) Even without the missing letter the word "Nvy" could mean prophet as there are examples in the bible where the title prophet is spelt "Nvy". How does this not constitute evidence? Yeah it may not be compelling enough for a closed-minded atheist doofus like you. But it's still evidence.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2018 15:13:07 GMT
tpfkar Now... To all the idiots on the other side complaining about the above's leap of dumb faith.. If the words before the signature was "I made it all up"... You'd be assuming that it was really him and that it proved that The Bible was made up... and STFU, you know you would. At little window into the thinking that gets you to so frequently post so much simpleton pap. STFU, you know you would
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 31, 2018 15:39:54 GMT
Are you thick? Do you even know the meaning of evidence? You're the dope with zero comprehension of evidence--so bad that you don't even understand your own source. Your own source repeatedly says, over and over, that they have no evidence that this was referring to the Biblical Isaiah. Your own source says, over and over, that further facts would have to be uncovered to justify believing that it is referring to the Biblical Isaiah. But no, you ignore the sober, reasonable, fair minded and balanced approach your source uses and just project what you want to believe instead. Pathetic, but normal for you types.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 1:57:53 GMT
Then care to explain what "score another one for the bible" and "Well it certainly doesn't do the bible's credibility any harm" are supposed to mean?Sure... He is making the claim that it proves that The Bible author exists... not ever saying that it proves that what The Bible says is true (which most people seem to imply). And how is proving a Bible author existed scoring one for The Bible? I’m pretty sure everyone believes The Bible had authors. A book that wrote itself would actually be MORE miraculous! Then why did he write it 'as THOUGH' it did? Ummmmmmmm..... ...because he didn't. He says so in one of his next posts:
Why do people on this board never just read what others actually write?
I think you need to ponder the difference between “the entirety of” and “anything.” Even his denial suggests he thought it had something to do with proving something in The Bible right.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 1, 2018 2:06:29 GMT
I think you need to ponder the difference between “the entirety of” and “anything.” Even his denial suggests he thought it had something to do with proving something in The Bible right.Yeah... That the author of The Book Of Isiah is actually a real person named Isiah... and has been proven to exist.. like The Bible says that he did. I don't believe that he was really going any deeper than that. Edit: I feel that I have repeated this same sentiment way too many times...
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 2:27:36 GMT
I think you need to ponder the difference between “the entirety of” and “anything.” Even his denial suggests he thought it had something to do with proving something in The Bible right.Yeah... That the author of The Book Of Isiah is actually a real person named Isiah... and has been proven to exist.. like The Bible says that he did. I don't believe that he was really going any deeper than that. Edit: I feel that I have repeated this same sentiment way too many times... I still don't see how it's "scoring one for The Bible" to prove an author existed. The only time I've ever remembered authorship being an issue was with The Gospels and some doubting that they were eye-witness accounts. AFAIK, that also reflects current scholarship. I've never seen it as all that relevant when it came to the veracity of the stories.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 1, 2018 2:47:54 GMT
Yeah... That the author of The Book Of Isiah is actually a real person named Isiah... and has been proven to exist.. like The Bible says that he did. I don't believe that he was really going any deeper than that. Edit: I feel that I have repeated this same sentiment way too many times... I still don't see how it's "scoring one for The Bible" to prove an author existed. The only time I've ever remembered authorship being an issue was with The Gospels and some doubting that they were eye-witness accounts. AFAIK, that also reflects current scholarship. I've never seen it as all that relevant when it came to the veracity of the stories. When the author is a part of the story that people are questioning as even happening.... when some people deny the existence of said author... His (presumed) proof of his existence could be viewed as a "score". I mean seriously.. You don't think that somebody finding a 4,500 year old boat oar with the name "Gilgamesh" engraved on it might be viewed as lending some credence to the story... not proving whether it happened exactly like the poem or not?... and that some people who have faith in the story might see this evidence as some form of a "win" even tho it doesn't really prove the story being true? I know... Gilgamesh is just the character... not the author. It just seems that you are way too adamant about putting words into this guy's mouth and critical of a point that he's not trying to make.... at least, in print.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 2:59:58 GMT
I still don't see how it's "scoring one for The Bible" to prove an author existed. The only time I've ever remembered authorship being an issue was with The Gospels and some doubting that they were eye-witness accounts. AFAIK, that also reflects current scholarship. I've never seen it as all that relevant when it came to the veracity of the stories. When the author is a part of the story of the actual story that people questioning as even happening.... when some people deny the existence of said author... His (presumed) proof of his existence could be viewed as a "score". I mean seriously.. You don't think that somebody finding a 4,500 year old boat oar with the name "Gilgamesh" engraved on it might be viewed as lending some credence to the story... not proving whether it happened exactly like the poem or not?... and that some people who have faith in the story might see this evidence as some form of a "win" even tho it doesn't really prove the story being true? I know... Gilgamesh is just the character... not the author. Authors being parts of the stories they wrote was pretty common in ancient literature. I already mentioned Chaucer who made himself a character in The Canterbury Tales. So I guess it's just not that big of a deal from my perspective. While I know the authorship of many ancient texts are in doubt, and it's nice to find evidence about who wrote them, I wouldn't ever consider it "scoring one" for the books in general. It's more like... score one for the nerd archaeologists and scholars of ancient literature. Call me when one of them discover the Holy Grail... or a giant bolder that chases them through a cavern. RE your edit, I just read his "score one for The Bible" differently than you did. Since I didn't see how discovering Isaiah might've written Isaiah was a "win" in and of itself. He could've easily squashed that misunderstanding by clarifying what he meant immediately, but instead his next post on the subject ("Well it certainly doesn't do the bible's credibility any harm.") seemed to reinforce that he thought it was more than just about the authorship.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 4:52:08 GMT
tpfkar and that some people who have faith in the story might see this evidence as some form of a "win" even tho it doesn't really prove the story being true? Sure, this is the crux. Pure desire (and lack of ability) leads invested people to fielding all kinds grossly erroneous inferences. See sig. Does a banana have a brain and organs too? Yet it shares roughly the same % of DNA to us as a Fruit Fly. The evidence discredits itself.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 2, 2018 13:11:18 GMT
When the author is a part of the story that people are questioning as even happening.... when some people deny the existence of said author... His (presumed) proof of his existence could be viewed as a "score". No it doesn't. First: Nobody denies the existence of the author of the book of Isaiah. Especially not atheists. As Eva Yojimbo already pointed out, a book without an author would be more noteworthy. Second: The author being part of the story does mean nothing about the story happening. Have you ever heard of Karl May? He lived in the late 19th and early 20th century, and wrote adventure novels. These novels are still very popular in Germany. Karl May wrote the stories as if they had happened to him, and were accounts of real events. The main character even has his name (also he usually goes by a nickname). Now, if in 2000 years, someone found an original manuscript of a Karl May story: Would this be a score for his stories? Would this lend credence to the veracity of his novels? Answer: No it wouldn't. I mean seriously.. You don't think that somebody finding a 4,500 year old boat oar with the name "Gilgamesh" engraved on it might be viewed as lending some credence to the story... not proving whether it happened exactly like the poem or not?... and that some people who have faith in the story might see this evidence as some form of a "win" even tho it doesn't really prove the story being true? That's the point. In fact, it's ridiculous to suggest that an artefact with a name could be evidence or some form of "win". Plenty of artefacts have been found in Greece and Italy, which refer to Greek or Roman deities. Does this mean any of these deities existed? No. Does this mean that at some time, people worshipped these deities? Yes. It just seems that you are way too adamant about putting words into this guy's mouth and critical of a point that he's not trying to make.... at least, in print. No need to put words in the OPs mouth, when his foot is already in it. Quotes from the OP. No paraphrase, no misquoting.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 2, 2018 15:08:42 GMT
It just seems that you are way too adamant about putting words into this guy's mouth and critical of a point that he's not trying to make.... at least, in print. No need to put words in the OPs mouth, when his foot is already in it. Quotes from the OP. No paraphrase, no misquoting. He also says this: Which exactly what you were accusing him of.... Nobody is suggesting that the book wrote itself.... You can't be that stupid to believe that is what is being argued. It's the actual existence of Isiah that is usually questioned. Irrelevant, as nobody ever denies that those deities were ever worshipped. And you still don't understand that he's not arguing about how London existing proves that Harry Potter is real. Try to think of it like this.... or at the very least... try to think.For years, there was no evidence for the city of Troy... People doubted the historicity of Homer's poems. When they finally found proof of the existence of Troy.. it was a "win".... It doesn't really prove the all of the facts of the story... but... IT IS STILL SOMETHNG MORE THAN PREVIOUSLY EXISTED. That kinda counts as a "win" to most sane people.
Real Answer: Yes it would.Especially if people denied the existence of Karl May 2,000 years from now... or even if people denied the existence of the events that he said to have transpired in his stories (even if it doesn't actually prove that they happened exactly as he describes)... IT IS STILL MORE EVIDENCE THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED... IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SCORE BY ANY STANDARD.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 2, 2018 16:31:40 GMT
tpfkar I knew this thread was gonna trigger the fuck out of the atheists. It's telling how Vegas, the one poster to respond so far who hasn't let his emotions get in the way, also happens to be the only non-believer who can fully comprehend what's being said. Still it's always fun to bring out the insecurities of raging atheists like Goz, Eva and Lowstacks. Ah, that ironic use of "triggered" by the spittling barkers. And good you have the "non"-believing JW on your side! Maybe you'll get the "non"-believing Irish pedo that says "I believe the irreligious have a moral responsibility not to criticize religion" to "help" your rabid boneheadeness next. Does a banana have a brain and organs too? Yet it shares roughly the same % of DNA to us as a Fruit Fly. The evidence discredits itself.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 2, 2018 17:01:56 GMT
No need to put words in the OPs mouth, when his foot is already in it. Quotes from the OP. No paraphrase, no misquoting. He also says this: Which exactly what you were accusing him of... No I wasn't. It's the actual existence of Isiah that is usually questioned. No it wasn't. For years, there was no evidence for the city of Troy... People doubted the historicity of Homer's poems. When they finally found proof of the existence of Troy.. it was a "win".... It doesn't really prove the all of the facts of the story... but... IT IS STILL SOMETHNG MORE THAN PREVIOUSLY EXISTED. That kinda counts as a "win" to most sane people. No it doesn't. Real Answer: Yes it would. Especially if people denied the existence of Karl May 2,000 years from now... or even if people denied the existence of the events that he said to have transpired in his stories (even if it doesn't actually prove that they happened exactly as he describes)... IT IS STILL MORE EVIDENCE THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED... IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SCORE BY ANY STANDARD. No it wouldn't. Given the "quality" of your arguments, I believe that explaining my replies to your replies would be futile. I'm doing it anyway for one example, the Troy one. Fact: A city located where the antique city of Troy was supposedly located was found. It was possibly also established that this city was destroyed in a war. Like hundreds of other cities were. Now, does this prove anything about the accounts of Homer, about the story of Menelaos, Helena and Paris? About Odysseus, Circe and Calypso? No it doesn't. In fact, these accounts by Homer are probably as historical or factual as horror movies "based on a true story", where a person went on a killing spree in a house. The killing spree might have been real; but the horror movie plot about ghosts possessing the killer (assuming it's this type of horror movie) is entirely made up. And since we are talking about the Bible: If someone found remnants of a city located where the Biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrha were located (or if someone claimed that these remnants were already found), and if it was further established that these cities were destroyed by a volcano eruption: Would you say this is a "win" or "score" for the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrha? I wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 2, 2018 17:14:14 GMT
He also says this: Which exactly what you were accusing him of... No I wasn't. Yes you were. Your first reply in this thread: You're too stupid to even try to talk to. Edit:Okay... I'll play: True. But... If were are in a discussion 2,000 years from now and we are debating whether or not the town of Amityville ever existed... and somebody finds a 2,000 year old movie poster that says "Based on a true story"... One might consider that as a piece of evidence.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 2, 2018 17:22:23 GMT
Yes you were. Your first reply in this thread: You know that the Bible has several authors, right?
|
|