for mcway and loco

[loco]

But the root point is that an "all knowing" god would know.   We aren't talking about other people knowing.  who would know that?  Why are you even bringing that up?  How is that related to the discussion about an "all knowing" god?   anyone who thinks they know is probably a good candidate for a cult leader.

You asked why try, if God already knows all who are his?  Because we don't know. That's why.

What i wrote is what i think the skeptics are saying.  verifying Location in scrupture does not make all the other stuff true.

Okay, but that's not what skeptics here and elsewhere have said.  They've said that the Bible can't be taken seriously because there is no town of Nazareth, no king David, no Hittites, no Belshazzar, etc., only to be proved wrong by new Archaeological discoveries.

[OzmO]

You asked why try, if God already knows all who are his?  Because we don't know. That's why.

I said why try becuase if you are already chosen, fate, God's fate, will intercede at some point in your life regardless of whether you try or not.

Okay, but that's not what skeptics here and elsewhere have said.  They've said that the Bible can't be taken seriously because there is no town of Nazareth, no king David, no Hittites, no Belshazzar, etc., only to be proved wrong by new Archaeological discoveries.

no Hittites?  No king David?

The problem is Archeology will always be incomplete.  Do we even know king David's name was King David?   Is there any surviving record of his existence?  We will never know.  However, it's very likely he did exists becuase as you pointed, many other things, locations and people have been verified by outside sources.  So it seem like a poor argument to me.

Now, that leaves some of the details in question...but that's another discussion   

[loco]

I said why try becuase if you are already chosen, fate, God's fate, will intercede at some point in your life regardless of whether you try or not.

no Hittites?  No king David?

That's what they used to say...until:

The Hittite civilization
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm

The Old Testament mentions the ancient Hittite civilization more than 50 times, either by their Hebrew name "Chitti" or by their designation as the sons and daughters Heth. However, prior to their rediscovery in the 19th century, there appeared to be no evidence for their existence outside of the Bible. Skeptics cited the missing evidence as evidence that the Bible actually fabricated their existence. This called the reliability of the biblical account into question. Basically the skeptics said, "We can't find any evidence for the Hittite civilization outside of the Bible. This demonstrates that the Bible cannot be trusted as an historical source."

Then, in the 19th and 20th centuries archaeologists hit the jackpot, not only identifying extrabiblical references to the Hittite civilization, but by actually finding and excavating the ancient Hittite capital city of Hattusa (modern day Boğazköy in northern Turkey). The rediscovery of this ancient civilization vindicated the Biblical record.

Evidence for the Hittites was bolstered in Egypt with the discovery of a treaty between Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite Empire. Originally written on silver tablets in Heliopolis and Hattusus, a huge copy was found on a wall of the great Karnak Temple. After years of fighting between the Hittites and the Egyptians, Ramses II and the Hittite king settled on a treaty whereby the territory of Syria and Canaan would be divided between them.

King David
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm

The House of David Inscription (also known as the "Tel Dan Inscription") was discovered in 1994 during excavations at the ancient city of Dan. It is considered by many to be the first reference to the "House of David" discovered outside the biblical text.

The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David's reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a "king of Israel" (probably Joram) and a king of the "House of David" (probably Ahaziah).
The House of David Inscription (Tel Dan Inscription) currently resides in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

The problem is Archeology will always be incomplete.  Do we even know king David's name was King David?   Is there any surviving record of his existence?  We will never know.  However, it's very likely he did exists becuase as you pointed, many other things, locations and people have been verified by outside sources.  So it seem like a poor argument to me.

Now, that leaves some of the details in question...but that's another discussion   

I agree.  Arguing that a lack of archaeological discoveries that support certain things in the Bible is proof that the Bible should not be taken seriously seems like a poor argument to me too.  That is what MCWAY and I have tried to point out. 

I know that is not your argument.  Your argument is that archaeological discoveries that support places and people mentioned in the Bible do not prove the miracles in the Bible ever happened.  That is true to an extent.  They do prove that either prophecies by Daniel, Jesus and others in the Bible are true, or mere coincidence.  One example is the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as foretold by Jesus 40 years earlier.  Not only was it destroyed, but it was completely leveled and not a stone was left upon another stone just as Jesus had foretold.

[Necrosis]

Knowing the future doesn't mean that God wants to control every part of it.  He gives us choices to sin or not to sin, to do good or not to do good.  Yes, God knows what we will choose, but He does not choose for us.

whats the difference in the end?

he created murderers knowing they would murder, he created satan knowing he would create hell, he created man knowing he would sin.

[Deicide]

That's what they used to say...until:

The Hittite civilization
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm
King David
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm


I agree.  Arguing that a lack of archaeological discoveries that support certain things in the Bible is proof that the Bible should not be taken seriously seems like a poor argument to me too.  That is what MCWAY and I have tried to point out. 

I know that is not your argument.  Your argument is that archaeological discoveries that support places and people mentioned in the Bible do not prove the miracles in the Bible ever happened.  That is true to an extent.  They do prove that either prophecies by Daniel, Jesus and others in the Bible are true, or mere coincidence.  One example is the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as foretold by Jesus 40 years earlier.  Not only was it destroyed, but it was completely leveled and not a stone was left upon another stone just as Jesus had foretold.

Hogwash.

It proves that Mark was written after the temple was destroyed (Occam's Razor), not that some 'prophecy'. What makes more sense? Someone writes a story about the Temple being destroyed after it happened? Or a magical godman in a loincloth whom contemporaries seem to have unviersally ignored and did not write about, 'predicted' it?    Most non-fundy scholars also date Mark to 70 CE at the earliest because it mentions the destruction of the temple.

[MCWAY]

That's what they used to say...until:

The Hittite civilization
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/hittite-faq.htm
King David
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/the-house-of-david-inscription-faq.htm


I agree.  Arguing that a lack of archaeological discoveries that support certain things in the Bible is proof that the Bible should not be taken seriously seems like a poor argument to me too.  That is what MCWAY and I have tried to point out. 

I know that is not your argument.  Your argument is that archaeological discoveries that support places and people mentioned in the Bible do not prove the miracles in the Bible ever happened.  That is true to an extent.  They do prove that either prophecies by Daniel, Jesus and others in the Bible are true, or mere coincidence.  One example is the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD as foretold by Jesus 40 years earlier.  Not only was it destroyed, but it was completely leveled and not a stone was left upon another stone just as Jesus had foretold.

To top it all off, while the Gospels have Jesus making the prediction about the Temple and the fate of Jerusalem, none of the Gospels confirm that such a prediction came to pass, which is one thing that support that they were written 1st century A.D., shortly after Jesus' lifetime, as opposed to 200 A.D. or later, as some skeptics have claimed.

Hogwash.

It proves that Mark was written after the temple was destroyed (Occam's Razor), not that some 'prophecy'. What makes more sense? Someone writes a story about the Temple being destroyed after it happened? Or a magical godman in a loincloth whom contemporaries seem to have unviersally ignored and did not write about, 'predicted' it?   Most non-fundy scholars also date Mark to 70 CE at the earliest because it mentions the destruction of the temple.

Yet, Mark doesn't state that Jesus' prophecy about the Temple came to pass (neither does Matthew).

[Necrosis]

To top it all off, while the Gospels have Jesus making the prediction about the Temple and the fate of Jerusalem, none of the Gospels confirm that such a prediction came to pass, which is one thing that support that they were written 1st century A.D., shortly after Jesus' lifetime, as opposed to 200 A.D. or later, as some skeptics have claimed.

Yet, Mark doesn't state that Jesus' prophecy about the Temple came to pass (neither does Matthew).

are you going to respond to my above statement?

[MCWAY]

are you going to respond to my above statement?

The response is the same as the last time you brought it up: He created man with FREE WILL, which includes the ability to disobey Him (and to suffer the consequence of such).

[Necrosis]

The response is the same as the last time you brought it up: He created man with FREE WILL, which includes the ability to disobey Him (and to suffer the consequence of such).

so he knew what he would do but created him anyway only to condem him?

[Deicide]

To top it all off, while the Gospels have Jesus making the prediction about the Temple and the fate of Jerusalem, none of the Gospels confirm that such a prediction came to pass, which is one thing that support that they were written 1st century A.D., shortly after Jesus' lifetime, as opposed to 200 A.D. or later, as some skeptics have claimed.

Yet, Mark doesn't state that Jesus' prophecy about the Temple came to pass (neither does Matthew).

No, but Mark mentions the destruction of the Temple. He mentions it Mr. Thumper.

BTW, I loved you feeble attempt to use Christian propaganda about the supposed census by Augustus.

Why does it even matter MCWAY? It's faith? Who cares if there is a contradiction in dates in Matthew and Luke? It's all about faith, not fact.

Nor did you ever answer Ishtar's post on the validity of the Vedas and other scriptures. Tsk, tsk.

[MCWAY]

No, but Mark mentions the destruction of the Temple. He mentions it Mr. Thumper.

Of course, he mentions it. He quotes Jesus as predicting that the Temple WOULD BE (as in future tense) destroyed. That is no indication that such was written after the fact.

BTW, I loved you feeble attempt to use Christian propaganda about the supposed census by Augustus.

And I loved your feeble attempt to use atheist propaganda to try and discredit Luke. BTW, that census isn't supposed. It's documented in Res Gestae.

Why does it even matter MCWAY? It's faith? Who cares if there is a contradiction in dates in Matthew and Luke? It's all about faith, not fact.

Nor did you ever answer Ishtar's post on the validity of the Vedas and other scriptures. Tsk, tsk.

Ishtar asked me why I believe the Bible is the word of God, which I answered. Furthermore, unless she's has a recent post that I missed, I don't recall her mentioning any prophecies (or things of that nature) made in the Vedas that have been historically documented as coming to pass.