T1B

If you want to discuss the Bible, you really ought to start a thread about it.

Left Seater wrote:What physical evidence is there that supports the Bible?

For starters...

The Letters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

We have no proof of those letters. Further you are trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible. Seriously?

The Bible is not one book.

Left Seater wrote:We have no proof of those letters.

Oh really?
Okay, then deny the letters are real.
That's easy and that's your call to make.

https://faithfulphilosophy.wordpress.co ... e-gospels/

Again, where is physical proof? Yes other writings lend credence that these people lived and wrote same for Jesus.

But where is the physical evidence of the subjects of the writing? Where is the ark, where is the tower, where is Jesus’ burial tomb. Where is the same evidence that you require for a globe earth?

So far your “proof” of the Bible is far lacking what we have for a globe model.

Left Seater wrote:Again, where is physical proof? Yes other writings lend credence that these people lived and wrote same for Jesus.

I never made the claim that there is physical proof of the letters.

I said Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are physical evidence that supports the Bible.

In fact, there is a lot of evidence for the authenticity of the letters -- see the link I posted.
There is so much evidence for the authenticity of those letters that in my estimation, when someone denies it they are either completely ignorant or in complete denial.

We don't have the original letters.
If you want to dismiss the validity of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John on that basis, so be it.
It's your call.


Why are you tripping out about this?

Tripping out about Noah's Ark, the Tower of Babel, etc.
lol
When did I ever say there was physical proof for these things?

Softball Bat wrote:

Left Seater wrote:What physical evidence is there that supports the Bible?

For starters...

The Letters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Post by Softball Bat » Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:15 am

Left Seater wrote:
Again, where is physical proof? Yes other writings lend credence that these people lived and wrote same for Jesus.

Post by Softball Bat » Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:15 am I never made the claim that there is physical proof of the letters.

I said Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are physical evidence that supports the Bible.

You are a liar..flat out liar who is a tedious troll. Fuck off now.

Do you always have trouble reading, Derron?

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

We have no physical proof of Mark's Gospel.
We don't have the original.

What we do have is physical evidence that Mark did indeed write his Gospel.
We happen to have an awful lot of that evidence.


Next time you decide that you should chime in, don't.
Far less embarrassing for you.

Softball Bat wrote: When did I ever say there was physical proof for these things?

Now we are getting somewhere. So there is no physical proof of the Bible stories. There is evidence that leads towards supporting these stories, letters, books, etc. But you apply faith and believe the stories in the Bible to be true and the word of God.

Meanwhile you ignore evidence of a globe model and demand 100% indisputable proof of a globe.


So for probably the 20th time, why do you apply Faith to the Bible despite lack of physical proof and refuse in the event of a globe earth?

Lefty, the Bible is a different animal.


John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.




Romans 1:20

Refusal to answer the question and quoting the Bible in reference to questions about proof of the Bible? Par for the course for you I guess.

Bottom line, you are applying a double standard and don’t really care to learn despite your claims.

See this is why you are the GOAT of trolls.

More fake bullshit.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blue-origi ... 018-04-29/

The ruse is getting so bad, they do this shit almost weekly to maintain the facade.

That fucker bounced right off the Firmament, which we now know is about 350,000 feet elevation.

Left Seater wrote:Refusal to answer the question and quoting the Bible in reference to questions about proof of the Bible? Par for the course for you I guess.

Bottom line, you are applying a double standard and don’t really care to learn despite your claims.

See this is why you are the GOAT of trolls.

When did I say I was going to prove the Bible?
This is a bizarre scenario you set up due to your desperation and inability to prove your dumb globe.

God's Word stands on its own.
None of it is in error.

It is already known that you don't believe it.

Dinsdale wrote:More fake bullshit.

Right.

1. Did this prove your globe? LMAO!

2. There is no way to put this delicately. Only a gullible fool watches this ridiculous show and buys into it as reality.

Do better.

Hey, I was just noting that Jeff Bezos is now in on the conspiracy (spent a ton of dough to join the club, too).

Jeff Bezos net worth - 132.8 billion.

He'll be okay.

Softball Bat wrote: God's Word stands on its own.

Which codification specifically?




You can dance around that question as you've typically done previously. I'll accept that as a form of answer.

God's Word = Jesus Christ

God's Word = the Bible I have on my desk

Softball Bat wrote:God's Word = Jesus Christ

God's Word = the Bible I have on my desk

Proof ??

Read only m0de is your best bet, Derron.

Trust me.




<3

Softball Bat wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Refusal to answer the question and quoting the Bible in reference to questions about proof of the Bible? Par for the course for you I guess.

Bottom line, you are applying a double standard and don’t really care to learn despite your claims.

See this is why you are the GOAT of trolls.

When did I say I was going to prove the Bible?
This is a bizarre scenario you set up due to your desperation and inability to prove your dumb globe.

God's Word stands on its own.
None of it is in error.

It is already known that you don't believe it.

Wrong. I have said multiple times that I consider myself a Christian.

We are where we are in this because you refuse to answer simple direct questions. But troll on troll, troll on.

Left Seater wrote:Wrong. I have said multiple times that I consider myself a Christian.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49007

Left Seater wrote:I consider myself to be a Christian. I believe their is some sort of higher power, but who knows if Christians, Jews, Islams, etc have it correct.

Who knows who has it right??

And you're a Christian?
lol



Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a
whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And
the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

The people at Antioch knew and confessed that Jesus is the promised Christ.
That is why they were Christians.

That is what Christian is today, also.

If that's you, yes, you are one.

If you're in here saying, "Well, maybe the Jews have it right. Maybe Islam does..." then you've got a pretty big issue to work out.


Get your story straight.

Softball Bat wrote:God's Word = Jesus Christ

God's Word = the Bible I have on my desk

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: Which codification specifically?

Do you need help with a dictionary? There are many available on-line.

Softball Bat wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Wrong. I have said multiple times that I consider myself a Christian.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49007

Left Seater wrote:I consider myself to be a Christian. I believe their is some sort of higher power, but who knows if Christians, Jews, Islams, etc have it correct.

Who knows who has it right??

And you're a Christian?
lol



Acts 11:26
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a
whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And
the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

The people at Antioch knew and confessed that Jesus is the promised Christ.
That is why they were Christians.

That is what Christian is today, also.

If that's you, yes, you are one.

If you're in here saying, "Well, maybe the Jews have it right. Maybe Islam does..." then you've got a pretty big issue to work out.


Get your story straight.

And still no answer to a question. Troll on troll.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:God's Word = Jesus Christ

God's Word = the Bible I have on my desk

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: Which codification specifically?

Do you need help with a dictionary? There are many available on-line.

You want to know if the NIV and the KJV are both God's Word?
They are.

I could take either of them to a person who has never heard the gospel, show them the Word, and lead them to Christ.

Jesus Christ is the Word.

Left Seater wrote:So for probably the 20th time, why do you apply Faith to the Bible despite lack of physical proof and refuse in the event of a globe earth?

1. Your question is stupid, irrelevant, and full of fallacious assumptions.

2. Despite that, was has been answered at least two different ways. You don't like the answers. That's your problem.

Papa Willie wrote:Prove you've ever ridden in a car, 'Tardt.

The desperation and outright zaniness is off the charts.




Here is the proper question...

poptart wrote:Almost everything that can be filmed... is filmed.

Why wouldn't they (NASA) film a rocket going all the way to space?

They never thought of it?
Didn't think it would kool or interesting?
Just didn't give a damn?


Seriously, what's your theory on that?

Why do you think they have never filmed a rocket going from earth to space?

Provide your theory.

Softball Bat wrote:

Left Seater wrote:So for probably the 20th time, why do you apply Faith to the Bible despite lack of physical proof and refuse in the event of a globe earth?

1. Your question is stupid, irrelevant, and full of fallacious assumptions.

2. Despite that, was has been answered at least two different ways. You don't like the answers. That's your problem.

Link to your answers? Quoting the Bible isn’t an answer by the way.

There are no assumptions in my question. You can call it stupid and irrelevant all you want, mostly because you don’t want to answer. You have said you have faith in the Bible. You have also said there is no physical proof to support the Bible. Yet in other things you have/apply zero faith despite there being ample physical evidence, similar to the Bible.

Simple question, why the double or different standard?

shutyomouth wrote:I'm simply mirroring what you're doing. See how fucking stupid you look?

No.

I am asking a realistic question.


I find no rational explanation for NASA never filming a rocket going from land to space.
Not to mention other things NASA has never filmed -- which they would have LONG ago, if they could.

They can't film a rocket going from land to space because a rocket can not go from land to space.
That is my conclusion.

Sorry to have to be the square peg.

You'll probably get over it.

Left Seater wrote:You have also said there is no physical proof to support the Bible.

Physical evidence for the truth of the Bible is overwhelming.

Beyond that, there is matter and there is spirit.

It is my determination (and the determination of millions of others) that there is a spiritual world.

Yes, because we have experienced it.


Give it a shot.

poptart wrote:John 3:3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the
children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.




Romans 1:20

Got it you don’t want to answer. The double standard just is.

This is one of the main reasons debate and discussion with you is nearly impossible.

But my offer still stands if Norwegians flights are approved.

You keep saying this, and it becomes more nonsensical each time it is repeated.

You base this comment on some hypothetical map of the earth -----> which I have never given endorsement to.

You pull some imaginary thing out of thin air, attribute it to me, and then say, "See, your model makes no sense."

LOL


What model?

When did I ever show you my model of the earth?

Never.

Admiral Richard E. Byrd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Byrd



A very well put together video.
15:43 long.
Give it a watch if you don't have ADHD -- and/or you are interested in the earth.





Mountains?

Papa Willie wrote:If the earth was flat, 'tardt, Antarctica's climate would be just like everybody's climate. In fact, the entire planet would have the same climate.

The globe side needs smarter people arguing their position.

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:If the earth was flat, 'tardt, Antarctica's climate would be just like everybody's climate. In fact, the entire planet would have the same climate.

The globe side needs smarter people arguing their position.

Don't worry, Goobs. There's no chance that you would have ever thought about this.

You're right. Because I'm smart and you're a moron. Your climate argument is idiotic.

Understand what? Your misguided drivel? You said if the world was flat, it would all have the same climate. That's not really logical.

Elevation! What do I win?

Nothing.

It's as m0ronic as barking "GRAVITY!!"

Wait...what?

Elevation has nothing to do with climate? Ever been to Denver? The top of a very large mountain, like Everest?

Oh yes.

GRAVITY!!!!!!!

It exists. As does space. As do satellites. As does weightlessness. As do globular shaped planets and moons and stars.

And all of that gibbering is supposed to move someone to what conclusion?

I conclude that you are making no sense.
As usual.

Did you or Lefty watch the video?