Maybe a better way to put it is with the comments that he doesnt disprove of directly he indirectly disproves of them in another comment that he tries to directly disprove of. and when I say indirectly i mean non-legitamentally.(however you spell it)
@MystryBox im gonna pray for you man. you have a vail over your eyes that you yourself cannont see. Your vail doesnt allow you to see the truth about Christ.
As a final comment note that there could be actual genuine prophecies in ancient writings and yet still the most likely explanation is *selection* not the supernatural. We have thousands of years of time for prophecies correct just by lucky or skilled conjecture to have been selected and gathered together in writings that were passed down in history why missed prophecy was rejected. "Prophecy" is simply very poor evidence unless it's repeatable. A god would know that.
I think if you're honest with yourself you would have to admit you would not accept these sorts of claims when they come from other religions or groups. In fact you likely already do reject similar claims (probably even using the same logic I do) as there are similar claims made by other groups and ancient writings that I doubt you accept on their face. This is the sad state of evidence for religion, and not just your religion. To me it's obvious why the evidence is so poor.
@MystryBox No. Those claims aren't supported by historical documents, which is what happens in the Bible. I would simply state that either most of their predictions didn't come true, having contradicted the historical record, or that they are prophesies that can not be supported by historical data and therefore can not be accepted as evidence to support their conclusion. I base my claim on history. You are basing your claim on logic that flies in the face of history. Facts always trump.
@MystryBox THIS is not a reply to mysttryBox, I just wanted him to see this. I like how you go into detail rather than mystrybox. Athiests like to pick and choose(manipulative strategy to bend truth)what to disprove and what not to disprove.For example thegreatapologist go ahead and check out my comments on the video you replyed to. He picked and choosed from my comments and ignored the ones that he had no explanation for with his athiest mentality.
I agree with you in theory, but the dating of both the new and old testaments is very well established, as well as the date of many of those events. At some point, you would be bending the data to fit your idea of what's likely instead of just accepting the dating method as valid.
@thegreatapologist if you research the skeptical views of these things you'll find the supposed "well established" dates are nothing of the sort. Such discussion is very detailed and I'm not really interested. It's enough for me that there are simple explanations for such claims.
Such supernatural "evidence" is obviously the work of men... a god would be able to come up with something better. I should do a video on that issue. Why are there no LASTING miracles we can all observe?
@MystryBox I know that they are more variable in terms of date, but some things, we know within certain time frames. The Bible is very ancient in terms of ancient documents, and then we have events that happen later that fulfill the prophesies.
And that's a terrible argument. Scientific theorems are not made when there is 100% supporting data, but when there's some data to work with. In this case, if there is some evidence for God, that's enough to formulate a theory. You don't need 100%.
@thegreatapologist this isn't scientific theory, this is evaluation of highly unlikely claims. In evaluating such claims the most likely explanation should be accepted. In these cases the most likely explanation is the claims were written after the fact. It's the same with any historical writing. If such claims are to be believed they need better evidence. If a god really existed doing miracles so we would know he existed, there would be better evidence. You have a very low view of god.
@MystryBox Religion isn't scientific theory? Its an explanation devised for phenomena in the world, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be. Once again, by taking your idea of "after the fact" writing, we would have to throw all dating completely out the window. And just because God doesn't present himself on a silver platter or send mail to you doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. It just means that he hasn't revealed himself in trumpet fanfare to the whole modern world.
@thegreatapologist you clearly haven't a clue what science is. Science requires evidence, repeatability, falsifiability, etc. Revealed religions are unsupported claims of men (prophets) that have no evidence, are not repeatable, and are purposefully unfalsifiable. Some would argue faith and science are practically opposites, so pardon me if I find your comparison of religion to science laughable.
Of course there are some actual real prophecies that are made an fulfilled. But these I see as the determination of man and his faith rather than as the supernatural. These are well known prophecies that people actively work toward achieving specifically in order that they may be fulfilled (e.g. the reestablishing of Israel, or rebuilding of some temple at some site, or whatever).
@MystryBox Well, a few are like that, but many are completed unrelated. Like the one I presented in my vid. The city and the conquerors were prominent figures in their day, and the city was destroyed exactly in the way described by the bible. Both were third parties.
For apparent prophecies that were actually known to be written before an event the prophecy is usually either not a prophecy but some text read with hindsight and claimed to be a prophecy, or the prophecy is vague and applicable to many things in hindsight. The book of Revelation and the Nostradamus "prophecies" are good examples of the issue with vague "prophecies..." i.e. every few years there's yet another current event said to fulfill one or the other verses.
My video primarily deals with the prophecies associated with Jesus. Other types of biblical prophecies like the ones you describe are similarly explained again by examining what is most likely... For a supposed prophecy dealing with an actual event the more likely explanation is the prophecy was written after the event. Such prophecies can be quite specific. (cont)
@MystryBox for an example we can likely both agree on take the Book of Mormon. The BOM contains a prophecy thought to predict the discovery of America by Columbus as well as the "translation" of the BOM itself by Joseph Smith. Obviously this was Joseph Smith himself writing prophecies well after the supposed events had happened and simply claiming the writings were from before. History is littered with similar examples both in the bible and in other texts.
Maybe a better way to put it is with the comments that he doesnt disprove of directly he indirectly disproves of them in another comment that he tries to directly disprove of. and when I say indirectly i mean non-legitamentally.(however you spell it)
Ridikai 6 months ago
@Ridikai Wait, what? Could you clarify your comment a little?
thegreatapologist 6 months ago
Pretty lad!
steeeeevve 11 months ago
Im gonna have to agree with you. You nailed.
@MystryBox im gonna pray for you man. you have a vail over your eyes that you yourself cannont see. Your vail doesnt allow you to see the truth about Christ.
2 Corinthians 3:16
But whenever a person turns [in repentance] to the Lord, the veil is stripped off and taken away.
krazycrossover 1 year ago
As a final comment note that there could be actual genuine prophecies in ancient writings and yet still the most likely explanation is *selection* not the supernatural. We have thousands of years of time for prophecies correct just by lucky or skilled conjecture to have been selected and gathered together in writings that were passed down in history why missed prophecy was rejected. "Prophecy" is simply very poor evidence unless it's repeatable. A god would know that.
MystryBox 1 year ago
I think if you're honest with yourself you would have to admit you would not accept these sorts of claims when they come from other religions or groups. In fact you likely already do reject similar claims (probably even using the same logic I do) as there are similar claims made by other groups and ancient writings that I doubt you accept on their face. This is the sad state of evidence for religion, and not just your religion. To me it's obvious why the evidence is so poor.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox No. Those claims aren't supported by historical documents, which is what happens in the Bible. I would simply state that either most of their predictions didn't come true, having contradicted the historical record, or that they are prophesies that can not be supported by historical data and therefore can not be accepted as evidence to support their conclusion. I base my claim on history. You are basing your claim on logic that flies in the face of history. Facts always trump.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@MystryBox THIS is not a reply to mysttryBox, I just wanted him to see this. I like how you go into detail rather than mystrybox. Athiests like to pick and choose(manipulative strategy to bend truth)what to disprove and what not to disprove.For example thegreatapologist go ahead and check out my comments on the video you replyed to. He picked and choosed from my comments and ignored the ones that he had no explanation for with his athiest mentality.
Ridikai 6 months ago
@Ridikai if you view the early comments on this video you'll see me responding in detail to his points.
MystryBox 6 months ago
I agree with you in theory, but the dating of both the new and old testaments is very well established, as well as the date of many of those events. At some point, you would be bending the data to fit your idea of what's likely instead of just accepting the dating method as valid.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist if you research the skeptical views of these things you'll find the supposed "well established" dates are nothing of the sort. Such discussion is very detailed and I'm not really interested. It's enough for me that there are simple explanations for such claims.
Such supernatural "evidence" is obviously the work of men... a god would be able to come up with something better. I should do a video on that issue. Why are there no LASTING miracles we can all observe?
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox I know that they are more variable in terms of date, but some things, we know within certain time frames. The Bible is very ancient in terms of ancient documents, and then we have events that happen later that fulfill the prophesies.
And that's a terrible argument. Scientific theorems are not made when there is 100% supporting data, but when there's some data to work with. In this case, if there is some evidence for God, that's enough to formulate a theory. You don't need 100%.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist this isn't scientific theory, this is evaluation of highly unlikely claims. In evaluating such claims the most likely explanation should be accepted. In these cases the most likely explanation is the claims were written after the fact. It's the same with any historical writing. If such claims are to be believed they need better evidence. If a god really existed doing miracles so we would know he existed, there would be better evidence. You have a very low view of god.
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Religion isn't scientific theory? Its an explanation devised for phenomena in the world, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be. Once again, by taking your idea of "after the fact" writing, we would have to throw all dating completely out the window. And just because God doesn't present himself on a silver platter or send mail to you doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. It just means that he hasn't revealed himself in trumpet fanfare to the whole modern world.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
@thegreatapologist you clearly haven't a clue what science is. Science requires evidence, repeatability, falsifiability, etc. Revealed religions are unsupported claims of men (prophets) that have no evidence, are not repeatable, and are purposefully unfalsifiable. Some would argue faith and science are practically opposites, so pardon me if I find your comparison of religion to science laughable.
MystryBox 1 year ago
Of course there are some actual real prophecies that are made an fulfilled. But these I see as the determination of man and his faith rather than as the supernatural. These are well known prophecies that people actively work toward achieving specifically in order that they may be fulfilled (e.g. the reestablishing of Israel, or rebuilding of some temple at some site, or whatever).
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox Well, a few are like that, but many are completed unrelated. Like the one I presented in my vid. The city and the conquerors were prominent figures in their day, and the city was destroyed exactly in the way described by the bible. Both were third parties.
thegreatapologist 1 year ago
For apparent prophecies that were actually known to be written before an event the prophecy is usually either not a prophecy but some text read with hindsight and claimed to be a prophecy, or the prophecy is vague and applicable to many things in hindsight. The book of Revelation and the Nostradamus "prophecies" are good examples of the issue with vague "prophecies..." i.e. every few years there's yet another current event said to fulfill one or the other verses.
MystryBox 1 year ago
My video primarily deals with the prophecies associated with Jesus. Other types of biblical prophecies like the ones you describe are similarly explained again by examining what is most likely... For a supposed prophecy dealing with an actual event the more likely explanation is the prophecy was written after the event. Such prophecies can be quite specific. (cont)
MystryBox 1 year ago
@MystryBox for an example we can likely both agree on take the Book of Mormon. The BOM contains a prophecy thought to predict the discovery of America by Columbus as well as the "translation" of the BOM itself by Joseph Smith. Obviously this was Joseph Smith himself writing prophecies well after the supposed events had happened and simply claiming the writings were from before. History is littered with similar examples both in the bible and in other texts.
MystryBox 1 year ago