Blind Faith?

[ELF1024]

So, I'm hearing that you agree with me that all of mormonism is based on blind faith in Joseph Smith?

Not in Joseph Smith, but in the same God that you have blind faith in, for your testimony of the Bible.

[Vance]

Hughes,

Please list one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history.

I expect that any piece of historic or archeological evidence you produce will suggest one thing: the bible was a book written around the dates, and places, historians have suggested it was.

As for evidence supporting the supernatural claims of Christianity (such as the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, the flood, the plagues of moses, the garden of eden, etc) you will be able to produce exactly nothing.

There you go.

Raining on his Bible worshiping parade.

[Hughes]

Since you can't prove that the apostasy didn't accually occur, it's blind faith to reject it. Sorry. No amount of study or prayer will change that fact. Only showing a continuous line of authorized servants would.

No one can prove something didn't occur. Silly.

So, three times you've criticized what you think I believe, and each time implying that you indeed have blind faith in everything Joseph Smith said and taught? True?

[ELF1024]

No one can prove something didn't occur. Silly.

I'm pretty sure I can prove that I didn't have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky...

[Gervin]

Please list one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history.

How is Hezekiah's Tunnel nothing more than piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah's_Tunnel

[Vance]

No one can prove something didn't occur. Silly.

So why are you so adamant that the events described in the Book of Mormon didn't occur?

Silly!

So you have blind faith that they didn't occur.

Just like you have blind faith in the miraculous events described in the Bible.

Just like you have blind faith in inerrancy.

People like you, living in blind faith houses, shouldn't through rocks.

[Hughes]

Clearly you've never heard of Nahom.

Is this your strongest argument for archeological evidence?

"existence of the name "NHM" in a time and place consistent with Nephi's account of the place Nahom."

If so you still got nothing substantial. 51% compared to 1% is nothing substantial.

Since we're doing apples to apples comparisons, we need to discard the 500, since we don't have first-hand statements from any of them. We don't even know who they were; all we have is a hand-wave from Paul. Thus, they are of no value for evidentiary purposes.

We have first hand eye-witness accounts of all the writers of the NT. The fact that there are many more is all that is mentioned.

How many people actually saw the gold plates? How many could verify what was written on them?

Blind faith in Joseph Smith continues to emerge.

We're not agreeing with you, because we're not gullible enough to agree with an anonymous accuser arrogantly presuming to tell us(!) what our(!) faith is based upon.

Especially when said accuser remains so arrogantly, presumptuously and dogmatically wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

Prove me wrong then. What is your religion/church based on?

[Hughes]

So why are you so adamant that the events described in the Book of Mormon didn't occur?

Silly!

So you have blind faith that they didn't occur.

Just like you have blind faith in the miraculous events described in the Bible.

Just like you have blind faith in inerrancy.

People like you, living in blind faith houses, shouldn't through rocks.

Notice. I'm not adamant that the events described didn't occur.

There's just no way to verify them. It's all based on blind faith in Joseph Smith. Prove me wrong if you think I'm wrong.

[SilverKnight]

How is Hezekiah's Tunnel nothing more than piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezekiah's_Tunnel

So an aqueduct was dug in Jerusalem around 700BC, and it made it into the text of the bible.

Compelling. I should convert to Christianity now.

Incidentally, Kansas recorded a particularly violent tornado season right around the time The Wizard of Oz was written.

[SilverKnight]

Prove me wrong then. What is your religion/church based on?

Obviously not undisputed historic facts, like yours is.

I noticed you have not taken my challenge issued a few posts above.

[Gervin]

So an aqueduct was dug in Jerusalem around 700BC, and it made it into the text of the bible.

Compelling. I should convert to Christianity now.

Incidentally, Kansas recorded a particularly violent tornado season right around the time The Wizard of Oz was written.

You asked for "one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history." If the evidence I provided proves your assertion that the Bible is nothing more "than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history" it's upon you to show how this is so.

Or, you could simply make a snide comment about Christianity and metion the Wizard of Oz, confirming the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

[ELF1024]

You asked for "one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history." If the evidence I provided proves your assertion that the Bible is nothing more "than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history" it's upon you to show how this is so.

Or, you could simply make a snide comment about Christianity and metion the Wizard of Oz, confirming the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

The existance of a tunnel proves nothing other than the tunnel exists. It doesn't prove anything else. It still shows the Bible to be a historical fiction at best.

[Gervin]

The existance of a tunnel proves nothing other than the tunnel exists. It doesn't prove anything else. It still shows the Bible to be a historical fiction at best.

Is the inscription found in the tunnel historical fiction, the reference verses in the Bible historical fiction, or do you consider both historical fiction?

Edit:

Was the tunnel naturally formed or made by humans?

[ELF1024]

Is the inscription found in the tunnel historical fiction, the reference verses in the Bible historical fiction, or do you consider both historical fiction?

Edit:

Was the tunnel naturally formed or made by humans

The existance of the verses doesn't prove anything other than the book(s) they were quoted from existed at the time the tunnel was created. (Since the Bible wasn't the Bible until approx 400 AD)

What's the relevance as to how it was created?

[SilverKnight]

You asked for "one piece of evidence from the bible that demonstrates it is anything more than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history."

I certainly did.

If the evidence I provided proves your assertion that the Bible is nothing more "than a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history" it's upon you to show how this is so.

It certainly does prove that - making your mentioning it rather hilarious. Thank you for providing an actual piece of evidence for my assertion.

Unfortunately for you, this bit of archeological evidences demonstrates precisely what I said about the bible - that it is a piece of regional folklore that contains cultural pseudo-history. Pseudo-history takes fragments of actual historic events, and mingles them with regional myth, folklore and politics: exactly what the bible does with this aqueduct.

And this proves absolutely nothing other than the authors of the bible were marginally familiar with current events and the immediate geography in which they lived - just what you'd expect for someone writing " a piece of Near-Eastern regional folklore and cultural pseudo-history."

Or, you could simply make a snide comment about Christianity and metion the Wizard of Oz, confirming the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Why? Because it demonstrates how astoundingly stupid it is to suggest a piece of fiction is somehow validated as truth because it contains place names and references to historic events?

Did you know Vlad Dracul was an actual Romanian count living in the Carpathian mountains?

Gosh, I better hang garlic from my lintel now.

[Gervin]

The existance of the verses doesn't prove anything other than the book(s) they were quoted from existed at the time the tunnel was created. (Since the Bible wasn't the Bible until approx 400 AD)

What's the relevance as to how it was created?

I didn't ask what the verses prove or don't prove. I asked, "Is the inscription found in the tunnel historical fiction, the reference verses in the Bible historical fiction, or do you consider both historical fiction?"

[Gervin]

Unfortunately for you, this bit of archeological evidences demonstrates precisely what I said about the bible - that it is a piece of regional folklore that contains cultural pseudo-history. Pseudo-history takes fragments of actual historic events, and mingles them with regional myth, folklore and politics: exactly what the bible does with this aqueduct.

Sorry, you don't get a free pass by simply re-asserting your claim. Demonstrate how this is so.

[ELF1024]

I didn't ask what the verses prove or don't prove. I asked, "Is the inscription found in the tunnel historical fiction, the reference verses in the Bible historical fiction, or do you consider both historical fiction?"

My "opinion" is irrevelant, it is only what you can prove that matters.

[Gervin]

My "opinion" is irrevelant, it is only what you can prove that matters.

You said that the existence of Hezikiah's Tunnel "shows the Bible to be a historical fiction." Obviously, an inanimate object doesn't do this so, where lies the historical fiction: in the inscription, the verses, or both? And how does it do this?

[Vance]

Notice. I'm not adamant that the events described didn't occur.

There's just no way to verify them.

Neither is there any way to verify the miraculous events claimed in the Bible. You are operating on BLIND FAITH!!! You are operating on blind faith in the men (who are unknown) involved in transmission from the original texts to what we have today.

How does your blind faith make you feel?

It's all based on blind faith in Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith didn't operate in a vacuum. He wasn't the only one involved. So no, our faith isn't any more blind than yours.

[ELF1024]

You said that the existence of Hezikiah's Tunnel "shows the Bible to be a historical fiction." Obviously, an inanimate object doesn't do this so, where lies the historical fiction: in the inscription, the verses, or both? And how does it do this?

Actually, what I said was...

The existance of a tunnel proves nothing other than the tunnel exists. It doesn't prove anything else. It still shows the Bible to be a historical fiction at best.

It doesn't prove anything other than the tunnel exists.

How you think it proves anything more than that?

[Hughes]

The point, is that anything you can use to say that "it's by blind faith alone" for the Book of Mormon equally applies to the Bible. So the reality of it is that you're just a pot, calling the kettle black.

The fact that you seem to think that you can somehow prove that your "invisible best friend" is somehow better than our "invisible best friend" show your unique prospective on reality.

Comparing the two books, even an atheist would acknowledge that the Bible has 51% of the names and places verified. Compared with 1% for the Book of Mormon.

So based on that comparison alone, they aren't equal.

Then compare the sources of each.

Many authors and copies for the bible and one, Joseph Smith's claims to have translated it correctly, while withholding the original so it can't be checked.

What else would you call it except blind faith in the claims of Joseph Smith? I am honestly surprised at your reluctance here.

[ELF1024]

Comparing the two books, even an atheist would acknowledge that the Bible has 51% of the names and places verified. Compared with 1% for the Book of Mormon.

So based on that comparison alone, they aren't equal.

You can keep beating that 51% strawman, but it's still a failing grade in school.

As I've pointed out, places and names do not make it anything more than historical fiction.

[Hughes]

Promoting the truth is an attack on the Bible?

Nah, it is just an attack on the false notions some have about it.

I can say that only one example is equal to the situation of Joseph Smith. That's the story of Abraham.

Here's a guy who was called, and he could offer no proof of this call and no proof that he was hearing from God. Yet, from him came the Judeo/Christian faith.

What you are doing now, is when I say something about the book of mormon, you point to the bible and attempt to equivocate, instead of providing an adequate response or refutation. You haven't proven that I have false notions about the Bible, and the point is, even if you did, the argument that the Book of mormon has to be taken all on blind faith still stands.

[SilverKnight]

Sorry, you don't get a free pass by simply re-asserting your claim. Demonstrate how this is so.

Okay, please pay attention:

A tunnel was dug in Jerusalem sometime around 700BC.

Some hebrew author became aware of this - not terribly unusual that a massive construction job would be noticed by a local author.

He mentions this event in his manuscript.

Some time later this manuscript is subsumed into the larger compendium of text that will one day become the Hebrew Bible.

The kernel of actual history now takes its place among others, along with regional myths, folklore and legends.

Ultimately creating a work of historic fiction.