The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

The Big Bang was a theory made up with speculation of how the world would be made taking into account physics. There is no ultimate proof for it.

Except of course all the observational evidence, which of course doesn't matter, because the hubble space telescope, the Keck, the SALT, the MMT, the Landon Clay, the SOAR, the UKIRT, the Keck II, the CHARA, the Hiltner, the WIRO, the Vainu, the Bappu, the ESO-MPI and the UH are all just there mostly for the laugh.

Then there's of course the fact that an apple falling, mercury's perihelion of mercury and the Big Bang are all outcomes of this equation:

For some reason though, the equation is to be trusted in the first two cases but not the latter, even though the latter has observational evidence gathered at the hubble space telescope, the Keck, the SALT, the MMT, the Landon Clay, the SOAR, the UKIRT, the Keck II, the CHARA, the Hiltner, the WIRO, the Vainu, the Bappu, the ESO-MPI and the UH.

There must be something strange up with that equation if it gives the correct results for the first two cases, but incorrect for the final case, with it's final case predictions matching observations.

Perhaps somebody could explain what this anamoly with it is as I'm sure the people at the the hubble space telescope, the Keck, the SALT, the MMT, the Landon Clay, the SOAR, the UKIRT, the Keck II, the CHARA, the Hiltner, the WIRO, the Vainu, the Bappu, the ESO-MPI and the UH would love to know how it accidently matches what they see.

philologos

Son Goku wrote:

Then there's of course the fact that an apple falling, mercury's perihelion of mercury and the Big Bang are all outcomes of this equation:

How are people supposed to understand an equation like that? Thats why the Bible and Christianity mean a whole lot more to me than that (apart from the spiritual element of course, it seems to make a lot more sense that whatever that is).
An apple falls because one can see it falling... That is all I need to know. I know God exists and created this world, and to be brutally honest with you, it is all I need to know. Regardless of what you guys think, that suits me. Of course you are just going to go "oh he's a creationist wacko" I really couldn't give a damn though.

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

How are people supposed to understand an equation like that?
Thats why the Bible and Christianity mean a whole lot more to me than that (apart from the spiritual element of course, it seems to make a lot more sense that whatever that is). An apple falls because one can see it falling... That is all I need to know.

I don't understand how the chemicals in medication work, it'd be a lot simpler to trust animism. Besides what you're saying still doesn't make sense, the equation is meant to describe gravity not the meaning of life, so there's no competition between it and Chrisitanity, unless you now consider gravity as anti-christian.
It's like me showing you the plans for a blender and you saying "Yeah, but this doesn't cast any doubt on Deuteronomy, blenders work that's all I need to know. Blenders are so complicated I don't feel anything for them"

Jakkass wrote:

I know God exists and created this world, and to be brutally honest with you, it is all I need to know. Regardless of what you guys think, that suits me. Of course you are just going to go "oh he's a creationist wacko" I really couldn't give a damn though.

Yes, but the fact that you don't desire anymore knowledge doesn't translate into an arguement against the Big Bang. Most of your posts centre around you saying how we're "bashing" you or how creationism is easier and more personal. That'd be fine except you then proceed to say the Big Bang is bad science.
If it suits you, fine, that's great. However quit making stuff up like it has no evidence and scientists are on big salaries, why should I trust them? Nobody minds that you don't accept it, it is your accusations that it's bad science with no proof that is objectionable. It's an area of science, well-supported like any other, that you just don't happen to accept.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

How are people supposed to understand an equation like that?

I believe the usual method is study.

Jakkass wrote:

Thats why the Bible and Christianity mean a whole lot more to me than that (apart from the spiritual element of course, it seems to make a lot more sense that whatever that is).

An apple falls because one can see it falling... That is all I need to know. I know God exists and created this world, and to be brutally honest with you, it is all I need to know. Regardless of what you guys think, that suits me. Of course you are just going to go "oh he's a creationist wacko" I really couldn't give a damn though.

Certainly it makes it difficult to take your objections to scientific theories very seriously. It's as if you rejected Plato's philosophy on the basis that you couldn't read Greek...

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

My point was really, how can one rely on an equation that they can't understand to prove that the Big Bang took place. If there was an equation to disprove God, I still wouldn't believe that God didn't exist.

Scofflaw wrote:

Certainly it makes it difficult to take your objections to scientific theories very seriously. It's as if you rejected Plato's philosophy on the basis that you couldn't read Greek...

Luckily for us Plato's Republic is translated into English, as is the Bible

Son Goku

Jakkass wrote:

My point was really, how can one rely on an equation that they can't understand to prove that the Big Bang took place. If there was an equation to disprove God, I still wouldn't believe that God didn't exist.

You don't need to understand it, you need to understand that what it predicts is what we see. The equation doesn't prove the Big Bang, it says the Big Bang happened and that as a consequence we should see the following stuff. The point is that we see that stuff when we look through telescopes.

So your claim that the Big Bang has no evidence is incorrect. You don't have to accept the evidence, but the fact remains that it has a lot.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

My point was really, how can one rely on an equation that they can't understand to prove that the Big Bang took place. If there was an equation to disprove God, I still wouldn't believe that God didn't exist.

Luckily for us Plato's Republic is translated into English, as is the Bible

Mm. My point there is that while you don't understand Plato's Greek, you are willing to accept its translation into English by those who do - and indeed the same for the Bible. However, you reject the translation into English of such equations, which is what yields the 'narrative' of the Big Bang. Why the double standard?

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

Mm. My point there is that while you don't understand Plato's Greek, you are willing to accept its translation into English by those who do - and indeed the same for the Bible. However, you reject the translation into English of such equations, which is what yields the 'narrative' of the Big Bang. Why the double standard?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes but at least we know the sources are the Hebrew and Greek texts. Whereas we as the general public can never be entirely certain of where all these equations pop out of?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

So the Jews don't take the patriarchs of their faith seriously? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph? Neither did the 12 tribes of Israel? Since Jacob's sons aren't to be taken seriously?

They don't take their creation myths literally. Most religions don't take their creation myths literally.

I know a Viking but he doesn't believe the world is made out of the body of a ice giant.

Jakkass wrote:

Personally I think its rediculous that you can say that I hate Science because I don't believe in Evolution or the Big Bang?

I didn't say you hate science Jakkass. I honestly don't think you understand enough about science to have such strong feelings towards it. Because you don't understand it you believe you can pick and choose what should work and what shouldn't work, based on religious teachings.

You have the luxury to do this because other people don't do this (they are the scientists), and as such you can believe what ever you like and still avail of all the benefits of the science you denounce. Probably without even realising it (your PlayStation really should work is scientific understanding of electromagnetic force, that lead on to general relativity that lead on to the big bang, is wrong).

But if everyone though like you do then we would have a major problem because science and technology would come to a stand still.

Jakkass wrote:

The Big Bang was a theory made up with speculation of how the world would be made taking into account physics.

That kinda proves my above point.

The big bang wasn't "made up."

It was a conclusion from the mathematical model of theories such as General Relativity and observation of the expansion of the universe. Initially no one accepted it, until the evidence for it and the scientific models of it became much more compelling. Which is the way most science works. At first no one accepted evolution either.

No one started out saying "You know it would be neat if the universe had expanded from a single point"

Jakkass wrote:

There is no ultimate proof for it.

There is no "ultimate proof" for anything in science. That is kinda the point.

Jakkass wrote:

However we can witness pretty much the majority of science for ourselves.

You can witness all the theories behind the big bang yourself. Everything from the movement of stars, to a falling apple, to Global Positioning Satellites, to background radiation is support for the theories that make up the Big Bang.

As I said scientists aren't just making this stuff up.

J C

Jakkass
On another point has prophecy been discussed much in this thread?

It hasn’t been discussed at all – YET!!!!

………..we may perhaps get around to prophecy somewhere about posting 10,000!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
If I'm wrong you still get your PlayStation, your antibiotics, your hospital scanners, your telephone system, your sewage treatment centres etc, even if you personally think the scientific theories behind these working systems are an a front to God and choose to ignore them. You are in a position to be able to do this and still reap the benefits because an awful lot of people don't think the way you do about religion and science. Lucky for you don't you think?

Stop whinging Wicknight……

…….and pull yourself together!!!!:D

BTW what possible link could there be between an unfounded belief in the spontaneous generation of life from muck – and the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc??????

………and speaking of hospital scanners – did you know that the MRI scanner was invented by a Creation Scientist????

Dr Raymond Damadian’s invention of the MRI Scanner has earned him several top awards, including the United States’ National Medal of Technology, the Lincoln-Edison Medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers.

…and you can read all about Dr Damadian’s work here – including the fact that conventional physicists claimed that the MRI “would never work”:-

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i3/science.asp

……and for those of you who still insist on asking the question ‘Can Creationists be good scientists and inventors?’ - here is an answer:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0405lead.asp


Wicknight
I'm happy that the majority of people ignore your beliefs, and have done for most of the last 2000 years, because if they didn't as I said we would all be living in caves right now.

FACT, Christianity is the faith with by far the greatest number of current adherents. The Roman Catholic Church alone, numbers over 1 billion members worldwide and the other Christian Confessions number at least another 1.5 billion people!!!!

FACT, the countries that have led in scientific progress and innovation for the past 500 years have nearly all been predominantly populated by Christians.

FACT, all of the ‘fathers of modern science’ were Christians and they ALSO were mostly Creationists!!!!
- so ‘Modern Science’ might NEVER have developed without Christian Creationists 'kick starting' the process!!!!:cool:


Wicknight
None of those papers have anything to do with establishing a theory or model of Intelligent Design

ID is but one (relatively small area) of Creation Science endeavour………
…….and YOU did ask for “peer reviewed scientific papers outlining any of the theories you are talking about”!!!!!

……I gave you a sample of current Creation Science papers …….and you’re still nit-picking!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
Mutation is the fundamental process at the heart of evolution and you don't even understand what it is.

IF mutation REALLY IS the “fundamental process at the heart of evolution” – then why are Evolutionists so (wisely) reluctant to expose themselves to mutagenic chemicals and radiation??

Evolutionists KNOW that mutations DESTROY genetic information – and they therefore sensibly avoid increasing their own mutagenic potential and genetic destruction – yet they tell everybody that will listen to them that Man was produced from muck via mutagenesis -(which they KNOW to be a highly DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS !!!!!

Such silly ‘double-think’ is only matched by your baseless suggestion that I don’t understand Mutation – when I have probably forgotten more about the subject than many people have ever learned!!!!:D


Wicknight
Science produces these things. Christians can do science, anyone can do science. But you cannot do science in the way Creationists want people to, ignoring or fudging any scientific theory or scientific model that produces a conclusion that doesn't fit with a literal reading of the Bible.

If you did science that way we would not have any modern science.

Everybody from Louis Pasteur to the Wright Brothers to Dr Raymond Damadian PROVES that you are WRONG – and Creationists are therefore at least as capable of ‘doing good science’ as Evolutionists!!!!!!


Giblet
I'm sure there are 1000's who have been inspired by Star Trek just the same.

I'm sure that many Christians enjoy Star Trek for the obvious FICTION that it is.

Come to think of it, many Creationists also enjoy reading the great works of Evolutionary Fiction that are churned out by Evolutionists every year as well!!!!!.:eek:

J C

Son Goku wrote:

Then there's of course the fact that an apple falling, mercury's perihelion of mercury and the Big Bang are all outcomes of this equation:

For some reason though, the equation is to be trusted in the first two cases but not the latter..........

Sir Karl Popper who was an eminent Philosopher of Science said :-
”we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics."
(Scientific Reduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science Ayala, F. and Dobzhansky, T., eds., Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, University of California Press, Berkeley, p. 270).

The ‘impenetrable barrier at the origin of physics’ to which Sir Karl Popper refers, means that your equation cannot describe the origins of the Universe, whether in a Big Bang or in an act of Divine Creation.

The Big Bang has been invalidated by other methods repeatedly – but as Prof. Richard Lewontin has noted Materialists defend counter intuitive Materialistic ideas like the Big Bang IN SPITE OF all of the evidence to the contrary, because their commitment to materialism is ABSOLUTE:-

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdities of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

How do you know that Galileo adn Aquinas were not Bible literalists?

Galileo because he came up with evidence that the literal understanding of the Bible that the Sun moves and the Earth doesn't isn't correct, and Aquinas because he said it was dumb (I might be paraphrasing a bit)

BrianCalgary wrote:

And there aren't any scientists out there who fudge models and theories to suit their desired outcome?

I'm sure there are but they don't get very far. It is called "repeatability" An scientists anywhere should be able to set up your experiment or test and arrive at the same outcome. If they can't then no one takes your conclusions seriously.

BrianCalgary wrote:

And which conclusions are not compatible with the Bible?

Any of the ones that deal with electromagnetic radiation (including light), gravity or heat. Which is pretty much all of them.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Many scientists of the 17th century were Christians.

That doesn't really matter. Many of them weren't. If God was a factor then surely only the Christian ones would produce anything of worth, and even more paradoxically, if any of the Christian scientists that produced theories incompatable with a literal Bible were being inspired by God does this not over rule the Bible?

BrianCalgary wrote:

But God has created us with the ability to explore and discover and the desire to do so.

And we have discovered (a discovery inspired by God seemingly) that the history in the Bible is not literal.

BrianCalgary wrote:

What a load of garbage wicknight. You are implying that all christianity has ever produced is art wrok and has never inspired any scientific discovery?

Groan ... you always know you are on to something when you suddenly find the goal posts have been shifted to another side of the field...

Where did this talk of "inspired" come from? Since when are we walking about being inspired by religion.

I don't give a rat's monkeys what or who inspires anyone to do anything scientific, so long as it is scientific. I have no doubt that Christians can be scientists, anyone can be a scientists. Where they get their inspiration to work as a scientists is a private matter for them. Einstein was inspired by a walk in the Alps to come up with E=Mc2.

But we were never talking being inspired by Christianity, or any other religion (you have to admit that Christianity doesn't inspire people anymore than any other religion out there, all of which must be wrong and empty and the work of Satan if Christianity is correct)

We are talking about take the Biblical descriptions of creation as literal truth and this being reflected in the science. Ignoring or throwing out science because it doesn't fit with the Bible.

No one has ever created a working model of anything in the universe based on a literal interpretation of the Bible that can actually do anything.

There have been working models that simply don't touch on any of the subjects in the Bible, and there are working models that flat out contradict what is in the Bible. There are no working models that are based on what is in the Bible.

No one has ever been able to create anything scientific based on a literal reading of the Bible. What does that tell us? It tells us that what is described in the Bible does not fit into a working model of the universe.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

How are people supposed to understand an equation like that?

You don't have to understand it. People a lot smarter than all of us here (except maybe Son) already understand it. And these people make your GPS systems and your PlayStations, so you don't have to worry.

What is probably not a good idea to do is to say that they are wrong to use their tried and tested theories and models when they are making you your GPS systems and your PlayStations because you think these theories and models shouldn't work, particularly when you don't even understand the thing you are claiming doesn't happen and shouldn't work.

Jakkass wrote:

Whereas we as the general public can never be entirely certain of where all these equations pop out of?

What are you talking about??

Of course you can. All the scientific papers that all this is based on have been available to the public since they were first publish.

Any of the theories and models mentioned here are available to anyone who wants them. I doubt most of them are still covered by any form of copyright so they are probably freely available.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Stop whinging Wicknight……

…….and pull yourself together!!!!:D

Go and look up what a mutation is JC, then get back to me :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Yes but at least we know the sources are the Hebrew and Greek texts. Whereas we as the general public can never be entirely certain of where all these equations pop out of?

Hmm...you know, now I think about it, that's almost the exact opposite of the reality. We know where these physical equations come from, and anyone who wishes to can study the physics and see the derivation for themselves. Tens of thousands of physics students study them every year, all round the world.

For the origins of the Bible, on the other hand, we only have a couple of scraps of information. We don't actually know who the author, or frequently authors, of the various books are, and we have virtually no corroboration of the various origin hypotheses. The earliest versions of the various books we have (dated by the same methods literalists decry) are frequently fragmentary and frequently in conflict with each other. Even the process by which the canon was assembled is hazy.

Further to that, we have only the word of men that Genesis is intended literally, and that it is important as an article of faith. No-one in the Bible thought to actually say "by the way, Genesis is literally and exactly true, as written" (possibly because they didn't think it was important enough). So one is either told that literal reading of Genesis is vital by other men, or one decides it for oneself - either way, it is a human interpretation, and entirely subjective - as witness the vast number of Christians who don't find it important either.

So, er, no, you're pretty much completely wrong.

regretfully,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

J C wrote:

…and you can read all about Dr Damadian’s work here – including the fact that conventional physicists claimed that the MRI “would never work”:-

Hmm, Dr Damadian. That wouldn't be the same Dr. Damadian who falsly claimed to have made MRI and was not awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize for it. I love how the first guy you manage to get, who might have done something, is a guy who is controversial for his claims. You just couldn't have a regular old scientist.

The answer in Genesis page seems to paint him as an all-American hero. Example:
Dr Raymond V. Damadian would probably be too humble to accept the title ‘super-scientist’
Dr Damadian points out that this apparent injustice was even more economically damaging to the US than to himself.

And my favourite:
In reality, he says, it is just ‘a symptom of a more widespread disease afflicting our society’.
He's right, it is so typical of us "evil"utionists to want to put down MRI. If there's one thing we can't stand it's MRI.

As for the, "theoretical physicists said I was wrong", I find that highly dubious. The other(real) inventors of MRI never encountered such claims.

Big claims for a guy who has never actually been shown to be the inventor of the machine.

means that your equation

My equation? Surely someone versed in all the sciences would call it by its true name and of course by that I mean its full correct name.

The Big Bang has been invalidated by other methods repeatedly

Explain Type II supernovea for me then.

Wicknight wrote:

scientific understanding of electromagnetic force, that lead on to general relativity

This is actually a good point. If General Relativity is wrong, then electromagnetism is wrong since it leads to General Relativity. So to be consistent you'd have to say Maxwell's Electromagnetism is incorrect and for a bunch of guys sitting at a computer that would be quite a claim.

Scofflaw

JC wrote:

Such silly ‘double-think’ is only matched by your baseless suggestion that I don’t understand Mutation – when I have probably forgotten more about the subject than many people have ever learned!!!!

You are too modest! Too too modest! Why, I would say that you must have forgotten more about the subject than anyone has ever learned about anything.

Indeed, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if you had had to make stuff up specifically in order to forget it, just to reach the dizzying nadir of knowledge you now occupy....even at that, it must surely be beyond the powers of one man, no matter how forgetful....surely teams of people, whole websites even, must have been employed especially to make stuff up just so that you could forget it!

In any case, it's a rare privilege to meet someone capable of making such a claim. It brings a smile to me auld face.

very cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Lets kick start the discussion on prophecy? Since we have the prophets of the Old Testament like Samuel, Joshua, Moses (the greatest prophet), Nathan, Gideon, etc, etc. Do you think it's possible that prophetic figures could exist today? I'm one of the mind that they could, God told us Himself that there was a time for everything (Ecclesiastes 3 : 1 -8). It'd be good maybe to discuss who we would see as prophetic figures if any?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Lets kick start the discussion on prophecy? Since we have the prophets of the Old Testament like Samuel, Joshua, Moses (the greatest prophet), Nathan, Gideon, etc, etc. Do you think it's possible that prophetic figures could exist today? I'm one of the mind that they could, God told us Himself that there was a time for everything (Ecclesiastes 3 : 1 -8). It'd be good maybe to discuss who we would see as prophetic figures if any?

Its pretty simple to be a prophet. All you have to do is claim on Friday that you predicted on Monday something that happened on Wednesday. If you are clever about it you make sure that no one can show you didn't predict it on Monday

Or you just need to be very non-specific and claim you talk in dreams. For example say something like "4 horses will descend from the sky bringing with them death and suffering" ... bingo bango you have everything from 9/11 to an election in Germany

Prophecy is an art form. The Greeks understood this.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Its pretty simple to be a prophet. All you have to do is claim on Friday that you predicted on Monday something that happened on Wednesday. If you are clever about it you make sure that no one can show you didn't predict it on Monday

Or you just need to be very non-specific and claim you talk in dreams. For example say something like "4 horses will descend from the sky bringing with them death and suffering" ... bingo bango you have everything from 9/11 to an election in Germany

Or you can be very specific, and say things like "at 10.42 on Saturday 4th March there will be a partial eclipse, reaching 76% of the solar disk". Or "we predict that drilling here will tap into oil at a depth of 13,000 foot, with minimum recoverable reserves of 1.3 million barrels". Or "if more than 4000 people are on this bridge at any one time, or there is otherwise a load of more than 500,000lb, it will collapse". Or...etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Or you can be very specific, and say things like "at 10.42 on Saturday 4th March there will be a partial eclipse, reaching 76% of the solar disk". Or "we predict that drilling here will tap into oil at a depth of 13,000 foot, with minimum recoverable reserves of 1.3 million barrels". Or "if more than 4000 people are on this bridge at any one time, or there is otherwise a load of more than 500,000lb, it will collapse". Or...etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nonsense, there is no system or method that allows humans to predict things like that ....

stevejazzx

son goku wrote:

This is actually a good point. If General Relativity is wrong, then electromagnetism is wrong since it leads to General Relativity. So to be consistent you'd have to say Maxwell's Electromagnetism is incorrect and for a bunch of guys sitting at a computer that would be quite a claim.

Lovely...Checkmate.

robindch

Pray silence for the prophet!

I have made myself blind consulting the runes and my hands are raw from casting dice. I stand knee deep in the entrails of chickens and have ruined my back studying the movements of stars. I have worn out my elbow and wrist dealing cards and have a permanent squint from pondering the layout of tea-leaves. I have lung cancer from smoking the pipe of many visions and terminal cirrhosis from drinking the wine of prophesy. One nostril is knackered from inbreathing white happy-powder and the other I use to inhale laughing gas. And after all of that, my powers as a great and mighty prophet have grown and I hereby make the following prophesy:

I foretell that Jakkass won't be happy with Scofflaw's or Wicknight's answers and that JC's next posting will be bizarre.

There's also something about a man and the end of the world (maybe), but I can't remember it. You'll have to give me more wine and weed if you want to know the rest of it.

There now, that wasn't too difficult, was it?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Its pretty simple to be a prophet. All you have to do is claim on Friday that you predicted on Monday something that happened on Wednesday. If you are clever about it you make sure that no one can show you didn't predict it on Monday

Or you just need to be very non-specific and claim you talk in dreams. For example say something like "4 horses will descend from the sky bringing with them death and suffering" ... bingo bango you have everything from 9/11 to an election in Germany

Prophecy is an art form. The Greeks understood this.

A prophet is a deeply religious person, anyone can prophesise something, but a prophet recieves messages from God Himself. Like Isaiah, etc. Therefore one would have to believe in God to be a prophet. Prophets also challenged the way in which people lived their lives, they were often brushed off but some took their message into account. Prophets don't only prophesise events they pass messages from God to the people.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

A prophet is a deeply religious person, anyone can prophesise something, but a prophet recieves messages from God Himself. Like Isaiah, etc. Therefore one would have to believe in God to be a prophet. Prophets also challenged the way in which people lived their lives, they were often brushed off but some took their message into account. Prophets don't only prophesise events they pass messages from God to the people.

Well considering every religion had successful prophets and since not every god can be real, that would suggest otherwise

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Well considering every religion had successful prophets and since not every god can be real, that would suggest otherwise

Indeed not every God can be real. Of course I'm going to say that the God of Israel (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the real God. Of course you can only find that out yourself by discovering Him. Since this is the Christianity forum, we are discussing prophets from a Christian / Jewish perspective? Generally in Christianity and Judaism, prophets were to warn people about the way they were behaving, and how they should regard eachother. As such prophets generally did challenge society (in the Jewish and Christian interpretation of prophet). Prophets were individuals who were spoken to by God Himself and relayed this to His people. Many chose to ignore them. Prophets were seen as wise, only because they had been spoken to by God, not because they were able to prophesise things by themselves (which as you said can be easy for humans themselves at times), what made prophets special was that they spoke to God and found out what He felt about the way people were acting.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Indeed not every God can be real. Of course I'm going to say that the God of Israel (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the real God. Of course you can only find that out yourself by discovering Him. Since this is the Christianity forum, we are discussing prophets from a Christian / Jewish perspective? Generally in Christianity and Judaism, prophets were to warn people about the way they were behaving, and how they should regard eachother. As such prophets generally did challenge society (in the Jewish and Christian interpretation of prophet). Prophets were individuals who were spoken to by God Himself and relayed this to His people. Many chose to ignore them. Prophets were seen as wise, only because they had been spoken to by God, not because they were able to prophesise things by themselves (which as you said can be easy for humans themselves at times), what made prophets special was that they spoke to God and found out what He felt about the way people were acting.

Hmm. That sense of prophecy isn't within the remit of the thread, really. The thread is essentially: "the Bible" - in the sense of historical accuracy and inerrancy; "prophecy" - in the sense of predictions historically validated; and "creationism" - the claim that the Genesis account can be objectively verified and represents the true history of life and earth.

So, we can debate whether the 'prophets' actually spoke to God, but if I want to find out what the various prophets said about the actions of Israel, I will reread the Bible myself, thanks.

Obviously, that's just my opinion, though!

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Sure you can debate whether it is accurate or innaccurate surely. I'm not entirely certain of how we should focus on it. You are free to discuss what you like I put a question mark in there "we are discussing prophets from a Christian / Jewish perspective?", as I wasn't entirely sure of where we are coming from.
Prophecy is a very different thing in different religion. Islam is probably the closest to Christianity, but there are only 3 prophets in Islam whereas there are much much more in Christianity and Judaism.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Sure you can debate whether it is accurate or innaccurate surely. I'm not entirely certain of how we should focus on it. You are free to discuss what you like I put a question mark in there "we are discussing prophets from a Christian / Jewish perspective?", as I wasn't entirely sure of where we are coming from.
Prophecy is a very different thing in different religion. Islam is probably the closest to Christianity, but there are only 3 prophets in Islam whereas there are much much more in Christianity and Judaism.

More a case of "where do they fit in with the main topic of debate?" How do they bolster Christianity's, and the Bible's, veracity?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Prophets were seen as wise, only because they had been spoken to by God, not because they were able to prophesise things by themselves (which as you said can be easy for humans themselves at times), what made prophets special was that they spoke to God and found out what He felt about the way people were acting.

No but you are kinda missing the point. Lots of people claim to speak with God (a lot of people on this forum claim to speak with God). If we listened to everyone who thinks they speak to a god no religion would get anywhere.

Prophets, of all religions, use the ability of predicting the future as evidence that they really do speak to God, or that when they speak to God it is of more importance.

The problem with that is that they can't all be speaking to gods and goddesses. Even from a religious point of view most of them are making it up.

So how do you pick which ones are and which ones aren't?