Good reason

[nobspeople]

In a different thread (listed below), when discussing, in part, if the bible is true, TRANSPONDER said " It is a well known argument that asserting what is in the Bible is true because it is in the Bible is a fallacy. A Lawyer would know that a witness statement is not going to be accepted as true just because he or she has said it. Nor of course rejected without good reason."

The above bolded section caused me to think (not claiming this is TRANSPNDER's assertion): is there good reason to think the bible isn't true?

For discussion: Is there good reason (define what is 'good reason' to you) to think the bible is or is not true*?

*TRUE here being used as 'legitimate, real word of God which was written by men, inspired by God' - this would assume everything written in it is true and agreed upon by God - in other words, nothing written is personal opinion of the writer.



Reference viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38540&start=10

[1213]

Because it hasn't. Certainly, Egypt has had its' ups and down but never has it been laid waste and desolate for seventy years. Or not that I know of. Thus I'd say it is for the believer to present evidence that this happened when the historical evidence suggests that it didn't.

I think this the unfinished constructions are evidence for that Egypt was desolated.

The temple was strangely never finished... ...Why they never finished such an important temple remains an enigma.
https://curiosmos.com/unfinished-myster ... ts-temple/

https://egyptunitedtours.com/unfinished-obelisk-egypt/

It is not in ruins. It was up and running not long after Alexander's attack and Jesus and Paul went there and it exists today. Sure there are some ruins to be selectively photographed and presented as though that was all there is, but Rome has Ruins, too. London has Roman ruins, but they are still Rome and London. And 'sur' is Tyre and always was.

Sorry, because I can see the ruins, I think Bible is correct. Tyre was not rebuilt. It is not rebuilt, if people build a new city next to it and call it with the same name.

Yes. The meaning of 'kingdom of God' was changed ..

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to believe that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Because it hasn't. Certainly, Egypt has had its' ups and down but never has it been laid waste and desolate for seventy years. Or not that I know of. Thus I'd say it is for the believer to present evidence that this happened when the historical evidence suggests that it didn't.

I think this the unfinished constructions are evidence for that Egypt was desolated.

The temple was strangely never finished... ...Why they never finished such an important temple remains an enigma.
https://curiosmos.com/unfinished-myster ... ts-temple/

https://egyptunitedtours.com/unfinished-obelisk-egypt/

It is not in ruins. It was up and running not long after Alexander's attack and Jesus and Paul went there and it exists today. Sure there are some ruins to be selectively photographed and presented as though that was all there is, but Rome has Ruins, too. London has Roman ruins, but they are still Rome and London. And 'sur' is Tyre and always was.

Sorry, because I can see the ruins, I think Bible is correct. Tyre was not rebuilt. It is not rebuilt, if people build a new city next to it and call it with the same name.

Yes. The meaning of 'kingdom of God' was changed ..

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to believe that.

There could be a lot of reasons why that obelisk was left unfinished. Money ran out, Obelisks went out of fashion, there was an interregnum where Pharaohs if there even was one, did not have power of funds to pay for such projects. That is not the same as Egypt being laid waste for 70 years. Though I suppose metaphorical or symbolic language might fit the various times of decline. Even if so, the Bible can be talking of past events as retrospective prophecy.

As to Tyre, I suggest that you look at a map showing the archaeology. The bits and pieces that are not buried under the rebuilt city - not next to it - are in a clear area near the sea and there is a necropolis which I presume was located outside of the city anyway. Tyre was rebuilt. It was rebuilt and now covers both the Island a mainland site, forget about being built 'near'. The prophecy is debunked.

The Kingdom of God has to have changed because originally it meant the restoration of the rule of God through a Jewish king and the Temple. It was a purely Jewish idea and Luke seems to understand this in what Cleophas says on the road to Emmaeus 'we hoped he was the one to redeem Israel'. This nicely points up the feeling of disappointment that must have followed the failure of what they expected to be a successful messianic restoration. Luke also adds a point about the Kingdom of God expected to be restored by a second coming - in the lifetimes of at least some of the followers - not having happened and so he suggests that it did, but nobody noticed because it was in the individual believer.

Ok, so you won't see any reason to believe that either. It is rather an interpretation, I admit. But it is pretty well known that what kingdom of God meant to the Jews is not what it means to Christians. So it has changed, whether you like it or not.