The chosen people

[xniNja]

[ QUOTE ]
The "probability" of each case is the same, namely zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I find the above statement most correct, I think it may be significant to point out that the "pro-Jesus guns" as some poster so eloquently put it, immediately attack the hypothetical question based on group B's foundation... Note that neither group A nor B nor C has been defined as any particular group.

That's right, they attack the foundation of a hypothetical, non-existant, similar to their own group, on its basis. Now, what is this basis, you ask?

Tagx007 will have you believe archaelogy and prophecies "proved" the Bible true beyond other texts. That's just too absurd and irrelevant for me to grant any further discussion, (I'm sure you can find pages of threads elsewhere) so let's look at sdm's argument: "Lack of detail" or "information" about the other group is his main concern. Let me now remind you that we are talking about three hypothetical groups in which no details were given about any of the religions. Yet, amazingly, he associates the first religion with Judeo-Christianity and therefore, defends it, because the second group (given the exact same information as the first) does not have the same "detail" or "information."

In conclusion, there is no "lack of detail" or "information" about the many other major religions besides Judaism and Christianity, you just haven't read it. Most of us, on the other boat, have, in fact, read the Bible and most other religious texts as well.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
so let's look at sdm's argument: "Lack of detail" or "information" about the other group is his main concern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me now remind you that we are talking about three hypothetical groups in which no details were given about any of the religions.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we are dealing with two known groups (Group A and Group C - both claimed "The Chosen People" by Religion A and Religion B)

We assume there is a 3rd group that invented Religion B as it would be illogical for Group A to create another religion which implies any group and religion other than Group C & Religion B, is not God's "Chosen People" and if true, thus any religion other than Religion B is incorrect. (Hence, Religion A their own religion they created)

Ofcourse that doesn't mean it's impossible for a portion of Group A, (perhaps disgruntled and unbelieving) chose to create Religion B, but we don't know, it's all speculation.

If one had to choose between the competing theories of:

- Group B created Religion B.
- Group A created Religion B.

I personally think it's more logical to go with the "Group B" (remember this is a fictional group added by myself that is not mentioned by the OP) theory.

[ QUOTE ]

Yet, amazingly, he associates the first religion with Judeo-Christianity and therefore, defends it,

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me where I say Religion A is Judeo-Christianity?

I have never said this, nor have I defended Religion A. (bar the "adding of additional info" incident which was later clarifed and conceded as confusing by the OP)

The reason why I would never say Religion A is Judeo-Christianity is because "Judeo-Christianity" isn't a religion - Judaism and Christianity seperately though are.

[ QUOTE ]

because the second group (given the exact same information as the first) does not have the same "detail" or "information."

[/ QUOTE ]

Group C does not have as much information as Group A, and I'm amazed I have to explain this!

What we know

Group A

- Created a religion.
- Believe they are "The Chosen People"
- Spiritual. (assumed - as in they 'believe' created religion)

Group C

- Didn't create Religion B, unspecified whether they believe it or follow another religion, and if another religion, unspecified whether they created that. (we'll assume they are human)
- Unspecified how they percieve themselves as individuals and as a collective in relation to the world and life.
- Unspecified whether they are spiritual or not.

What we know about both groups is small, but we know marginally more about Group A and how we would imagine they we conduct their lives, wheras Group C we know nothing.

[ QUOTE ]

In conclusion, there is no "lack of detail" or "information" about the many other major religions besides Judaism and Christianity, you just haven't read it. Most of us, on the other boat, have, in fact, read the Bible and most other religious texts as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know who this paragraph is intended for nor where you get the whole "there is no "lack of detail" or "information" about the many other major religions besides Judaism and Christianity" spiel from, as I can't remember anybody saying there was an information defecit in religions outside Judaism and Christianity. (and I certainly didn't say it)

Cheers,
SDM

[txag007]

"Tagx007 will have you believe archaelogy and prophecies "proved" the Bible true beyond other texts. That's just too absurd and irrelevant for me to grant any further discussion"

It's not irrelevant in the least. If what I said is true, that no archaelogical find has ever contradicted a Biblical account and that some archaelogical evidence has confirmed Biblical accounts, it weighs heavily toward the Bible being true. That should, in turn, increase the probability that Religion A (as the OP put it) is true. My point in saying all that that was that all things are not equal among religions, which is in direct contrast to the premise of the original post.

Furthermore, dismissing a claim as absurd without even considering its truthfulness is a dangerous mistake. Sure, it sounds absurd on the surface. What if its true? What does that say about Christianity?

[txag007]

"On the chosen people issue, I see no evidence in your link that the Jews are God's chosen people. What specifically is there in the link that leads you to that conclusion?

On the prophecy issue, with all due respect, I have made dozens of similar prophecies that have come true."


How much do you know about Joshua and the Battle of Jericho? The link provided is exactly what I said it was; that is, evidence that certain Biblical accounts are true.

You've made dozens of similar prophecies that have come true? You've predicted that rise and fall of nations hundreds of years before they happen? Did you even read the post to which I linked?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
If what I said is true, that no archaelogical find has ever contradicted a Biblical account and that some archaelogical evidence has confirmed Biblical accounts, it weighs heavily toward the Bible being true.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is, of course, overwhelming scientific evidence that at least significant parts of the Bible are false, such that the Earth is only tens of thousands of years old, or that there was a global flood, etc. Many (if not most) believers simply "interpret" away those inconsistencies, but if you do that, it makes no sense to appeal to physical evidence in the first place.

All mythologies probably have some basis in fact. If you claim the truth of a particular revelation can be validated by rigorous analysis of the evidence, then you must apply that consistently. Otherwise, you are simply accepting the truth on faith, and interpreting the evidence only so far as it supports your faith.

I'm not arguing there is necessarily anything wrong with that (whether faith is a valid method of acquiring knowledge is another topic), but the honest theist will admit this.

[andyfox]

I have no doubt that certain biblical accounts are true, or at least based on truth. The link about Jericho indicated that perhaps an earthquake was involved. That's different than proving that the Jews are God's chosen people.

I did indeed read your linked post. The generalities abound:

"And a mighty king will arise, and he will rule with great authority and do as he pleases."

"Then the king of the South will grow strong, along with one of his princes who will gain ascendancy over him and obtain dominion; his domain will be a great dominion indeed."

"many will rise up against the king of the South"

"When I make you a desolate city, like cities no longer inhabited, and when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of long ago. I will make you dwell in the earth below, as in ancient ruins, with those who go down to the pit, and you will not return or take your place in the land of the living. I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD."

"The people of Israel will be like wanderers in other nations"

[txag007]

Context. Context. Context.

The prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled in very specific ways, so much so that it cannot be said that they were just lucky guesses. And if they were lucky guesses, it was thousands of lucky guesses that were made.

You said you've made dozens of similar prophecies that have come true. Let's hear them.

[txag007]

"There is, of course, overwhelming scientific evidence that at least significant parts of the Bible are false, such that the Earth is only tens of thousands of years old, or that there was a global flood, etc. Many (if not most) believers simply "interpret" away those inconsistencies, but if you do that, it makes no sense to appeal to physical evidence in the first place."

You are wrong about this. Overwhelming, you say? Let's look at your examples:

1. The Bible never claims that the Earth is tens of thousands of years old. If you are referring to "young earth creationism", this is a theory that is clearly not Biblical and a view that most Christians do not hold.

2. The Bible does not teach that the Genesis flood was global. In fact, Psalms 104 clearly teaches that the flood was not global. If by "interpret away" you mean going back to the original Hebrew so that we may have a better understanding of the meaning of certain Scriptures, then yes, this is what we do. The same would be done by any intelligent investigator of any other piece of literature or historical document. Why should we treat the Bible differently?

Speaking specifically of our "interpretation" of Genesis, the words that are translated into English as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are "kol" (which means all) and "erets" (which means earth). Look elsewhere in Genesis to see how these same words are used and you will find that they describe the flow of a river around the whole (kol) land (erets). Thus, we interpret "kol erets" to be a local description. This means, if we stay consistent to the original Hebrew, that the writer of Genesis was referring to a flood that covered a local area not the entire earth.

Did you say overwhelming?

[David Sklansky]

". The Bible never claims that the Earth is tens of thousands of years old. If you are referring to "young earth creationism", this is a theory that is clearly not Biblical and a view that most Christians do not hold.

2. The Bible does not teach that the Genesis flood was global. In fact, Psalms 104 clearly teaches that the flood was not global."

So what denomination are you?

[txag007]

"So what denomination are you?"

Baptist