What is absolute truth? Define it in your terms!

[Madeline]

What is absolute truth? and how would you define it according to your beliefs. To me absolute truth is revealed to me in the book called the bible. It is the standard on how we should live and what our purpose is here on earth.

Love,
Madeline

[McCulloch]

In other words, the Bible is true, because the Bible says that it is true.

No because Trial and Error! I put the bible to the test personally and applied its teachings. I not only opened my mind, but I opened my heart. Gods SPIRIT testifies that the bible is true. Do you have God's Spirit?

You have personally tested the truth of every claim made in the Bible? Wow.
The Bible opened your heart (whatever that means) therefore it is true.
God's Spirit (something we only know about from reading the Bible), testifies that the bible is true. What a surprise!

Look at 2 Timothy 3:16. The Bible states there that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

What scripture would the writer to Timothy be referring to? The compilation of books, letters and other miscellaneous writings that were not formally collected and cataloged for a few centuries after he wrote?

But regardless of the answer. It is not surprising that the holy book of any particular religion claims to be inspired of God. It proves nothing.

Look at Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

No argument from me there. If there is a God, then that God's word would be authoritative. Now show me where the evidence is that the Bible is God's word.

Here Jesus Christ is speaking about the Bible, as an examination of the verses before and after 4:4 demonstrates.

Really? Since none of the New Testament was written at the time that he spoke, how could he be referring to the Christian Bible? However, since I do not believe that Jesus was God or from God, his testimony on this issue even if reported accurately and interpreted correctly, would not prove your point.

Look at what He said in Matthew 5:17-18
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Yet Christians claim not to be bound by the Law.

The Bible clearly claims that its own words are inspired.

Agreed. So what?

Peter gives us a powerful statement about the inspiration of the Bible in 2 Peter 1:16-21

More of the same. A biblical writer claiming to be inspired. Not proof.

[...] How highly Peter viewed the Scriptures! Every word, phrase, line, chapter, and book is God speaking.

No argument from me. The writer of the books attributed to Peter highly values the scripture. It would be somewhat surprising if he did not.

It means exactly what it says, and it has one correct interpretation, the one that God meant when He inspired it.

This is, in fact, evidence against the inspiration of the scripture. God is a very poor communicator because there are a lot of well meaning scholars who cannot agree on what it means.

Think about it. God gave us the Bible so that we can learn about Him; do you think He would make it so that nobody could understand what He said, or people could have thousands of conflicting "interpretations" of it that were all "true," even though they all totally contradicted each other? We don't say "that's just your interpretation of the law" to a police officer when he pulls us over for running a red light or speeding—we know it will not work. God says that we can't say that with His Word either. Finally, in 2 Peter 1:21, we find out how God used man to write the Bible. The words of the Bible did not come "in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The human writers of Scripture were not writing whatever they wanted, but the Holy Spirit controlled them so that their very words were God's.

And this is why 22 = 42.

First of all, we have internal evidence for the inspiration of the Bible. The Bible is self-attesting—it claims to be the very Word of God, and all who read it know that it is so—however, those that do not wish to submit to the God of the Bible suppress that knowledge.

Not again!

In John chapter 7, the enemies of Jesus Christ sent officers to arrest Him, but they did not do as they were commanded. They were then asked "Why have ye not brought him?" (John 7:45). John 7:46 says, "The officers answered, Never man spake like this man." The people who heard Jesus preach, according to Matthew 7:28-29, "were astonished at his doctrine: 29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."

The biography of the dead leader of a new religion written by the founders of that religion makes the claim that their founder was wise and and his words astonishing. Yawn.

The Bible is the Word of God, and all who read it know it to be so deep within.

Look up the word subjective. Actually your statement is false. I have read the Bible and I do not know it to be the Word of God.

Hebrews 4:12 states that the Word of God is "quick [which means living], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

A case can be made that the Word of God as referred to by the Hebrew writer does not mean the Bible but to the incarnate Word of God by which the universe was created.

The fundamental issue is moral; are we willing to submit to God and the Bible?

Many are willing to submit themselves to God (Allah) but not to the Bible. Other than the Bible writers own claims, you have provided nothing to convince any objective rational person to believe that one flows from the other.

The Bible simply is the Word of God—and when God speaks, man knows He has spoken. If you read the Bible with an open heart and mind you must admit that this is true.

Because you say so.

The Bible also has powerful external evidences. It contains many scientific facts. For example, many hundreds of years before science could confirm it, the Bible stated:

The world is round. Isaiah 40:22, " It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."

The word that Isaiah used is correctly translated circle. Hebrew does have a word to describe sphere or ball shaped, but God chose not to inspire Isaiah to use it.

The earth hangs in space. Job 26:7, "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

Yes, gravitational force is nothing. I love biblical physics.

The ocean has currents. Psalm 8:8 refers to the "the path of the seas," and Isaiah 43:16 to "a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters."

Bible writers knew that there were ocean paths. Whahoo!

The importance of blood for life. Leviticus 17:11 states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood."

Let's see. Any good abattoir could tell you that.

Air has weight. Job 28:25, "To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure."

Only if it is moving?

No new matter is being created, as the First Law of Thermodynamics affirms. After His work of creation, Genesis 2:2 states that "God ended his work which he had made."

Except on a quantum level.

The universe is running down, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics affirms. Psalm 102:25-27 state, "Of old thou hast laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

It is a bit of a stretch to get the Second Law of Thermodynamics from this quote. At best, you can claim that this quote does not contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If this is not enough evidence to prove that the Bible is God's inspired word, then nothing is.

It is not even close to enough evidence. There is barely anything you wrote which would even qualify as evidence. I guess then that I have to agree with you that there is not enough evidence to reach that conclusion.

[McCulloch]

All the prayers which has failed to comes to pass were not his will, this is a a realization found in scriptures. [...] But the prayers that were answered were aligned with the scriptures, all of them were answered.

Your claim that all prayers are answered is non-falsifiable. If you pray something and it does not come to pass you conclude that it must then be against God's will. You then search the scripture to justify that conclusion.

You pray for sex. Sex and procreation are God's will. [insert appropriate biblical references]. God does not deliver to you an appropriate partner, willing to get married. The prayer was not answered. But wait. It was not God's will for you to get married yet. Because, if it were, then he would have answered the prayer. But it was not God's will due to anything found in the scripture. It was determined to be not God's will because, it did not happen.

[Madeline]

To jwu:

There are ample reasons as to why many interpret Ezekiels Prophecy a failure. But upon close scrutiny you will find that it simply isn'y so.

Several possible solutions dissolve this alleged problem. First, it could be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel’s prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre, the location of which has most likely been lost permanently and is buried under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This solution has merit for several reasons. In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.

From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst.... There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea (1907, emp. added.).

From this twelfth-century A.D. text, then, we learn that by that period of time the city known as ancient Tyre lay completely buried beneath the sea and a new city, most likely on some part of the island, had been erected. George Davis, in his book Fulfilled Prophecies that Prove the Bible, included a picture of Syrian fishermen under which the following caption appeared: “Syrian fishermen hauling in their nets on the probable site of ancient Tyre, which perished as predicted by the prophet” (1931, p. 11). In his monumental work on the city of Tyre, Katzenstein mentioned several ancient sources that discussed the position of “Old Tyre.” He wrote: “Later this town was dismantled by Alexander the Great in his famous siege of Tyre and disappeared totally with the change of the coastline brought about by the dike and the alluvial deposits that changed Tyre into a peninsula” (1973, p. 15, emp. added).

It very likely is the case that the specific site of ancient Tyre has been buried by sand and water over the course of the last 2,500 years and is lost to modern knowledge. That the prophet was speaking about the mainland city in reference to many aspects of his prophecy has much to commend it. It was to that mainland city that King Nebuchadnezzar directed most of his attention and destructive measures described in Ezekiel 26:8-11. Furthermore, it was the mainland city that Alexander destroyed completely and cast into the sea to build his causeway to the island city. In addition, Benjamin Tudela’s quote corresponds precisely to the statement that the prophet made in the latter part of chapter 26: “For thus says the Lord God: ‘When I make you a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you’” (26:19, emp. added). In addition, Katzenstein noted that the scholar H.L. Ginsberg has suggested that the name “Great Tyre” was given to the mainland city, while the island city was designated as “Little Tyre” (p. 20). He further noted 2 Samuel 24:7, which mentions “the stronghold of Tyre,” and commented that this “may refer to “Old Tyre,” or the mainland city (p. 20).

Besides the idea that the bulk of the prophecy dealt with the mainland city, other possible solutions exist that would sufficiently meet the criteria that Tyre would “never be rebuilt” and would “be no more forever.” While it is true that a city does currently exist on the island, that city is not a “rebuilt” Tyre and has no real connection to the city condemned by Ezekiel other than its location. If the history of Tyre is traced more completely, it becomes evident that even the island city of Tyre suffered complete destruction. Fleming noted that in approximately A.D. 193. “Tyre was plundered and burned after a fearful slaughter of her citizens” (1966, p. 73). Around the year 1085, the Egyptians “succeeded in reducing Tyre, which for many years had been practically independent” (p. 85). Again, in about 1098, the Vizier of Egypt “entered the city and massacred a large number of people” (p. 88). In addition, the city was besieged in A.D. 1111 (p. 90), and again in April of 1124 (p. 95). Around the year 1155, the Egyptians entered Tyre, “made a raid with fire and sword...and carried off many prisoners and much plunder” (p. 101).

In addition to the military campaigns against the city, at least two major earthquakes pummeled the city, one of which “ruined the wall surrounding the city” (p. 115). And ultimately, in A.D. 1291, the Sultan Halil massacred the inhabitants of Tyre and subjected the city to utter ruin. “Houses, factories, temples, everything in the city was consigned to the sword, flame and ruin” (p. 122). After this major defeat in 1291, Fleming cites several travel logs in which visitors to the city mention that citizens of the area in 1697 were “only a few poor wretches...subsisting chiefly upon fishing” (p. 124). In 1837, another earthquake pounded the remains of the city so that the streets were filled with debris from fallen houses to such a degree that they were impassable (p. 128).

Taking these events into consideration, it is obvious that many nations continued to come against the island city, that it was destroyed on numerous occasions, and that it became a place for fishing, fulfilling Ezekiel’s prediction about the spreading of nets. Furthermore, it is evident that the multiple periods of destruction and rebuilding of the city have long since buried the Phoenician city that came under the condemnation of Ezekiel. The Columbia Encyclopedia, under its entry for Tyre, noted: “The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town” (“Tyre,” 2006, emp. added).

Concerning Tyre’s present condition, other sources have noted that “continuous settlement has restricted excavation to the Byzantine and Roman levels and information about the Phoenician town comes only from documentary sources” (“Ancient Tyre...,” n.d., emp. added). Another report confirmed, “Uncovered remains are from the post-Phoenician Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab and Byzantine times.... Any traces of the Phoenician city were either destroyed long ago or remain buried under today’s city” (“Ancient Phoenicia,” n.d., emp. added). Thus, the only connection that the present town maintains with the ancient one in Ezekiel’s day is location, and the present buildings, streets, and other features are not “rebuilt” versions of the original city. If Ezekiel’s prophecy extended to the island city as well as the mainland city, it can be maintained legitimately that the ruins lying underneath the city have not been “rebuilt.”

TYRE

Love,
Madeline

[Madeline]

Your claim that all prayers are answered is non-falsifiable. If you pray something and it does not come to pass you conclude that it must then be against God's will. You then search the scripture to justify that conclusion.

You pray for sex. Sex and procreation are God's will. [insert appropriate biblical references]. God does not deliver to you an appropriate partner, willing to get married. The prayer was not answered. But wait. It was not God's will for you to get married yet. Because, if it were, then he would have answered the prayer. But it was not God's will due to anything found in the scripture. It was determined to be not God's will because, it did not happen.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no! You got it all wrong. Sex and procreation is God's will but having sex before marriage isn't. God knew full well that I wanted to have sex just because, not that I wanted to get married. Since he knew that I was out to fornicate only and not for marriage, he didn't answer it. This clearly makes sense according to the scriptures.

Love,
Madeline

[Madeline]

You have personally tested the truth of every claim made in the Bible? Wow.
The Bible opened your heart (whatever that means) therefore it is true.
God's Spirit (something we only know about from reading the Bible), testifies that the bible is true. What a surprise!

I didn't say that I have tested everything in the bible. The bible tells us how God can reveal himself to man, and that is through his spirit. His spirit indwells us when we express saving faith. His spirit then reveals to us his existence, it is an experience that only believers can describe.

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. [1 John 5:9,10]

What scripture would the writer to Timothy be referring to? The compilation of books, letters and other miscellaneous writings that were not formally collected and cataloged for a few centuries after he wrote?

But regardless of the answer. It is not surprising that the holy book of any particular religion claims to be inspired of God. It proves nothing.

The writer is referring to all scripture which is God inspired. I believe that the books that were not canonized weren't for the reason that it was not God-Breathed. Such as the apocrypha.

Yet Christians claim not to be bound by the Law.

Jesus is simply saying that he came to fulfill the law, i.e., give the true meaning behind it. The spiritual meanings. Adultery of the mind, and the fulfillment of that law is adultery of the heart (which I plead guilty all too often LOL!!!!).

Really? Since none of the New Testament was written at the time that he spoke, how could he be referring to the Christian Bible? However, since I do not believe that Jesus was God or from God, his testimony on this issue even if reported accurately and interpreted correctly, would not prove your point.

Well I believe that Jesus is God and he in his prescience knew this. Well, I will try and answer the rest of your responses when I have time. Phew! There's a lot, but I will get to it.

Love,
Madeline

[QED]

Oh, no, no, no, no, no! You got it all wrong. Sex and procreation is God's will but having sex before marriage isn't. God knew full well that I wanted to have sex just because, not that I wanted to get married. Since he knew that I was out to fornicate only and not for marriage, he didn't answer it. This clearly makes sense according to the scriptures.

It's really quite impressive what a few hundred millions of years of evolution can do, but I'll swear that once you realize the inevitability of "the power behind the urge" it kind of takes the edge off the whole deal

But aren't we supposed to be debating the nature of absolute truth here? How can we know for instance that it's not the Devil urging us to be naughty in and outside of wedlock? The proposal results in the same outcome as the evolutionary alternative (all the animals with low sex drives got trampled underfoot by those rushing to mate with each other ). Two competing explanations each suggesting themselves as the absolute truth -- but are they testable in any way? Maybe this is a way to determine the truth.

[Madeline]

It's really quite impressive what a few hundred millions of years of evolution can do, but I'll swear that once you realize the inevitability of "the power behind the urge" it kind of takes the edge off the whole deal

But aren't we supposed to be debating the nature of absolute truth here? How can we know for instance that it's not the Devil urging us to be naughty in and outside of wedlock? The proposal results in the same outcome as the evolutionary alternative (all the animals with low sex drives got trampled underfoot by those rushing to mate with each other ). Two competing explanations each suggesting themselves as the absolute truth -- but are they testable in any way? Maybe this is a way to determine the truth.

Well, I don't believe in evolution. I mean, if we evolved from apes then why are apes still around? Plus there is too many gaps between these missing links! Well I'm not sure if the devil is urging me to be naughty in and outside of wedlock because the bible says that we can be tempted by our own lusts.

James 1:14 - But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

So we can either be tempted by the devil or our own lusts. Either way it is outside the will of God to engage in sex before marriage. I simply want to have sex!

Love,
Madeline

[Cathar1950]

I missed this thread.
Homer wrote about the Troy they found Troy therefore Zeus is God and exists.
I will have to go read the reast of the posts.

[jwu]

Several possible solutions dissolve this alleged problem. First, it could be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel’s prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre, the location of which has most likely been lost permanently and is buried under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This solution has merit for several reasons. In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.

Nope...it deals with Tyre in general. redefining words isn't going to change that. Moreover, we know from the Bible itself that people still visited that place in the first century, Jesus himself being among the visitors of "Tyre". That's already the end of the story, unless you suggest that "Tyre" means different things in different parts of the Bible.

Besides the idea that the bulk of the prophecy dealt with the mainland city, other possible solutions exist that would sufficiently meet the criteria that Tyre would “never be rebuilt” and would “be no more forever.” While it is true that a city does currently exist on the island, that city is not a “rebuilt” Tyre and has no real connection to the city condemned by Ezekiel other than its location. If the history of Tyre is traced more completely, it becomes evident that even the island city of Tyre suffered complete destruction. Fleming noted that in approximately A.D. 193. “Tyre was plundered and burned after a fearful slaughter of her citizens” (1966, p. 73). Around the year 1085, the Egyptians “succeeded in reducing Tyre, which for many years had been practically independent” (p. 85). Again, in about 1098, the Vizier of Egypt “entered the city and massacred a large number of people” (p. 88). In addition, the city was besieged in A.D. 1111 (p. 90), and again in April of 1124 (p. 95). Around the year 1155, the Egyptians entered Tyre, “made a raid with fire and sword...and carried off many prisoners and much plunder” (p. 101).

So at all these times the city Tyre still existed. They are shooting their own leg with that argumentation.

If Ezekiel’s prophecy extended to the island city as well as the mainland city, it can be maintained legitimately that the ruins lying underneath the city have not been “rebuilt.”

More backpedaling. One does not have to rebuild the specific ruins to rebuild a destroyed city.


And there are plenty more failed prophecies...

[Madeline]

Ezekiel 26:14 - And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

Shalt be built in the Hebrew is [banah] and means to repair. To build the city from scratch obviously does not mean to repair it. You repair something which has been ruined, not completely decimated. Jesus may have visited Tyre, however there is nothing in Ezekiel which says that its complete destruction was fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar in 585-572 B.C, or by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C. It can easily refer an unfulfilled prophecy of a yet future date.

Love,
Madeline