Can Psalms predict the future?

[Chosen]

I'm not sure where I heard that Psalms could predict the future, but I did some reading and found it interresting. The way it works is the verse # equels the year. Example: Psalms 93 would be 1993. Now Psalms 93 speaks floods and in my part of the world during 1993 it rained in biblical amounts. Anyway that's another story. Psalms 101 - 106 :eek: Read it, it sounds just like the past five years. Could it be ? :confused:

Thanks

[Soc.Dem.]

Oh, please! There has been floods as long as the Earth has existed!

[Atticus]

I'm not sure where I heard that Psalms could predict the future, but I did some reading and found it interresting. The way it works is the verse # equels the year. Example: Psalms 93 would be 1993. Now Psalms 93 speaks floods and in my part of the world during 1993 it rained in biblical amounts. Anyway that's another story. Psalms 101 - 106 :eek: Read it, it sounds just like the past five years. Could it be ? :confused:

ThanksFirst, welcome to the board! But I have a few questions:

Why would it be specific to this century? Do you think the same things happen every hundredth year since BC? I'll bet many psalms sound like the present day because in many ways the human condition doesn't change.

[Soc.Dem.]

The Psalms of David are poetry, not prophecy....

[Chosen]

The Psalms of David are poetry, not prophecy....


I agree, but did you read them. Is it not close? :eek: I'm not really a bible thumping person, but found this odd.

Thanks

[Dangerrmouse]

If you are right, next year that psychopath will really be messing us up, creating storms, terrifying us, then expecting praise and gratitude for "saving" us from things he did to us in the first place.....

[Chosen]

If you are right, next year that psychopath will really be messing us up, creating storms, terrifying us, then expecting praise and gratitude for "saving" us from things he did to us in the first place.....


Does this Psychopath sound like anyone you may have heard of? :D

Thanks

[julierep]

The Psalms of David are poetry, not prophecy....

Actually, Psalms does have some prophecy in it. The life, death, and resurection of Christ is one.

[Soc.Dem.]

Actually, Psalms does have some prophecy in it. The life, death, and resurection of Christ is one.

Not according to the Jews, to whom the Psalms were given.

[Dangerrmouse]

Does this Psychopath sound like anyone you may have heard of? :D

Thanks

I missed capitalising Psychopath, well spotted.

[heel31ok]

The Psalms of David are poetry, not prophecy....
what about the psalms not of David?

[julierep]

Not according to the Jews, to whom the Psalms were given.

Notice, I didnt mention the name Jesus. They knew that there would be a Messiah. That is who was prothesized. Problem is, they didnt want to believe it was Jesus.

[sub_zer0]

Notice, I didnt mention the name Jesus. They knew that there would be a Messiah. That is who was prothesized. Problem is, they didnt want to believe it was Jesus.

Indeed.

[burntgorilla]

I read Psalm 106 and I didn't see anything particularly amazing. Psalm 101 doesn't seem to predict too much either.

[Dangerrmouse]

Notice, I didnt mention the name Jesus. They knew that there would be a Messiah. That is who was prothesized. Problem is, they didnt want to believe it was Jesus.

He didn't meet their prophesied criteria, despite after the fact CV retouching by his cult followers.

[julierep]

He didn't meet their prophesied criteria, despite after the fact CV retouching by his cult followers.

He most certainly did. And actually, Isaiah 53 is much more specific, and it was handed to the Jews. My point still stands, the Jews refused to accept Him, even though they had prothesized about Him many years before.

[brainpan]

Let me try my hand at this phophecy stuff. I'll just lay out a few predictions ala the Bible.

1. There will be extremes in weather.
2. There will be wars.
3. There will be disease and famine.
4. People will say I am not a true "profit," and will not believe in my god, which is Thor. Among those who mock my god, fail to believe in my god, or who are ignorant of my god, many of them will have bad things happen to them.

Prepare to be wow'ed and amazed. I promise you all these things will come to pass! In fact, get back to me next week and I'll provide proof for all my "profit-sees."

[towski]

Actually, this is really creepy. Check out this year's psalm, psalm 6...

1 O LORD, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.

2 Have mercy upon me, O LORD; for I am weak: O LORD, heal me; for my bones are vexed.

Someone will be healed this year, and someone will be weak. Check.

3 My soul is also sore vexed: but thou, O LORD, how long?

4 Return, O LORD, deliver my soul: oh save me for thy mercies’ sake.

5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

6 I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears.

Someone is going to be depressed and unhappy this year, and cry about it. Check.

7 Mine eye is consumed because of grief; it waxeth old because of all mine enemies.

8 Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the LORD hath heard the voice of my weeping.

9 The LORD hath heard my supplication; the LORD will receive my prayer.

10 Let all mine enemies be ashamed and sore vexed: let them return and be ashamed suddenly.

Somebody is going to be mean to somebody this year, make them cry, and then feel bad about it. Check and double check.

See? Prophecy fulfilled.

[brainpan]

See? Prophecy fulfilled.Holy Cow! That is spooky! :eek:

[julierep]

Holy Cow! That is spooky! :eek:

Did you read Isaiah 53 or did you just skip over that part?

[Dangerrmouse]

What does "prothesized" mean? Something to do with prosthetics?

[julierep]

What does "prothesized" mean? Something to do with prosthetics?

You know what I mean. Anyway, did you read Isaiah 53? How close to the life and cruxifiction of Jesus does it come? If you know the exacts of what happened at the time of His beatings and cruxifiction at the cross, that is.

[Dangerrmouse]

Was his crucifixion prophesied, or not? Was the cross cruciform in shape?

Rashi, an 11th century Rabbi, states that the prophet is talking about Israel suffering for the Gentiles. Most Rabbis today agree that this is the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53.

[julierep]

Was his crucifixion prophesied, or not? Was the cross cruciform in shape?

Rashi, an 11th century Rabbi, states that the prophet is talking about Israel suffering for the Gentiles. Most Rabbis today agree that this is the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53.

Oh yes. The reason why Rabbi's agree with what you have said is because they denied the Messiah. Why would they say this is the prophecy of Jesus? It is more than obvious that this passage is about the crucifixion of Jesus. It is exactly what happened at the cross.

[Dangerrmouse]

Have you read Daniel who is a more widely accepted authority on the messiah than Isaiah?

[julierep]

Their prophecy, their messiah, They are still waiting, despite the Christians' hijack of the concept to provide a messiah for the Gentiles..

Their prophecy, their mistake. They will continue to wait and wait and wait. DO you think it is unreasonable to believe that they could have mistaken their own prophecy many years later? Just because a jew wrote it, remember at the time the Messiah hadnt come yet, doesnt mean they couldnt possibly have clearly missed the prophecy they had right in front of them? Remember, many of the Jews did believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Again, have you read Isaiah 53?

[Dangerrmouse]

Their prophecy, their messiah, They are still waiting, despite the Christians' hijack of the concept to provide a messiah for the Gentiles..

[steveksux]

Psalms DO predict the future. Just like Indian rain dances make it rain. Sooner or later rain comes anyway, if you're dancing, you're the one that made it rain!

And sooner or later in some century the correct event happens in the year corresponding to the verse its in.

Randy

[julierep]

Their prophecy, their messiah, They are still waiting, despite the Christians' hijack of the concept to provide a messiah for the Gentiles..

I guess you deny the obvious like the Jews did. Or is it possible you just havent read it? I will go with the second to be fair. To read it is to know that it was the Messiah they were talking about, not the Isreal suffering for the Gentiles.

[julierep]

Have you read Daniel who is a more widely accepted authority on the messiah than Isaiah?

Daniel is a great book to read about the Messiah. Every thing points to Jesus Christ. But my question is how is Daniel more widely accepted on this matter? Where in the world did you get that information? And specifically, what passages in Daniel lead you to believe this way?

[Dangerrmouse]

If an "expert" like yourself cannot tell.........

[julierep]

If an "expert" like yourself cannot tell.........

I am no way an expert, however, you have given nothing to discredit what I have said.

[Dangerrmouse]

If the future is predictable, then "free will" is an illusion.

[julierep]

If the future is predictable, then "free will" is an illusion.

The future events are predictable to God. He does not, however, make decisions for you and I on our daily life styles. You chose these things. You should realize that just because He already knows what will happen doesnt mean He laid it out for you. It just means He already knew your decisions. Is that really that hard of a concept to grasp? Just like you already know the out come of life, it is inevidable, however, you have not quite made the decisions of tommorrow.

[sub_zer0]

If the future is predictable, then "free will" is an illusion.

No, the future as viewed by God and predicted by Him takes into consdieration all possible ways you might choose and the actualy way you will choose. So not only does He give you choice but He lets you make the decision!

[Dangerrmouse]

Then the prophetic quality of the psalms is coincidental, otherwise any one individual who made a different choice in 700 years, blew the "prophecy"?

[julierep]

Then the prophetic quality of the psalms is coincidental, otherwise any one individual who made a different choice in 700 years, blew the "prophecy"?

You didnt even read what I said. God knew what would happen, however he didnt make the choice for Him. He gave Jesus free will to do as He pleased, yet he already knew what choice He would make. Its like looking at time backwards. Seeing something that has already happened. God has the ability to do this. Why is it so hard to grasp the concept? Something so easy to understand, yet so difficult for one to grasp.

[Dangerrmouse]

You didnt even read what I said. God knew what would happen, however he didnt make the choice for Him. He gave Jesus free will to do as He pleased, yet he already knew what choice He would make. Its like looking at time backwards. Seeing something that has already happened. God has the ability to do this. Why is it so hard to grasp the concept? Something so easy to understand, yet so difficult for one to grasp.

You are suggesting that God-as-Jesus spent 30 years on earth roleplaying a part, conforming to what a prophet predicted would happen 700 years before. Not only that, but all the people alive at the time "happened" to choose to do everything precisely right so the prophecy would unfold?

[julierep]

You are suggesting that God-as-Jesus spent 30 years on earth roleplaying a part, conforming to what a prophet predicted would happen 700 years before. Not only that, but all the people alive at the time "happened" to choose to do everything precisely right so the prophecy would unfold?

Lets not forget that what was written was told to the prophet by God. Remember to use the information I gave you on God being able to look back at time because it is apparant you didnt do this while replying.

[sub_zer0]

Lets not forget that what was written was told to the prophet by God. Remember to use the information I gave you on God being able to look back at time because it is apparant you didnt do this while replying.

Very important point to not overlook.

[Dangerrmouse]

I stand corrected. So God told the prophet(s), who passed on the prophecy, which was correctly transcribed and translated over 700 years. Then God-as-Jesus, Knowing as only He can Know beforehand, precisely what would take place, and how everyone would respond, acted out the roleplay that he had predestined for himself 700 years before, as I said.?

[julierep]

I stand corrected. So God told the prophet(s), who passed on the prophecy, which was correctly transcribed and translated over 700 years. Then God-as-Jesus, Knowing as only He can Know beforehand, precisely what would take place, and how everyone would respond, acted out the roleplay that he had predestined for himself 700 years before, as I said.?

Your helping me out here. You realize that God would be the only One who could do this, right? Can I ask you how you come to the conclusion that if God did exactly as you say that it is not prophecy?

And perhaps your still not following the "back through time" concept I continually lay out for you?

[Dangerrmouse]

[QUOTE=julierep]Your helping me out here. You realize that God would be the only One who could do this, right? Can I ask you how you come to the conclusion that if God did exactly as you say that it is not prophecy?QUOTE]

I am trying to understand your rationale for believing this to be so.

[julierep]

[QUOTE=julierep]Your helping me out here. You realize that God would be the only One who could do this, right? Can I ask you how you come to the conclusion that if God did exactly as you say that it is not prophecy?QUOTE]

I am trying to understand your rationale for believing this to be so.

My rationale for believing the prophecy? Have you read what I asked you too yet?

[Dangerrmouse]

You are obviously not understanding my replies, and answering, like a politician, questions not asked. Never mind.

[burntgorilla]

I always found it a bit odd that Jesus said he did something as the prophets said he would. Like riding in on a donkey. If everyone knew what was prophecised, then surely he could just do it, without being the Son of God?

[steveksux]

I always found it a bit odd that Jesus said he did something as the prophets said he would. Like riding in on a donkey. If everyone knew what was prophecised, then surely he could just do it, without being the Son of God?That's true, and if you've ever seen the documentary "Life of Brian", Brian actually rode in on a donkey and WAS mistaken for Jesus.

Randy

[JoeR]

the documentary "Life of Brian"

:lol:

I have a vewy good fwiend in Wome named "Biggus Dickus."

[julierep]

I always found it a bit odd that Jesus said he did something as the prophets said he would. Like riding in on a donkey. If everyone knew what was prophecised, then surely he could just do it, without being the Son of God?

Well, that would be nice and all, but how do you explain the unbelievers doing exactly as was written?

[burntgorilla]

What are you referring to, exactly? The whole palm leaves business?

I would assume that they thought Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy, and so they would act as they would to someone fulfilling the prophecy. After all, Jesus had no control over the unbelievers, so it's a rather moot point.

[brainpan]

Well, that would be nice and all, but how do you explain the unbelievers doing exactly as was written?Suddenly, after deluding yourself into thinking the evidence supports your faith, you're all about discussing evidence. That's quite an about-face from happily ignoring the total lack of evidence for God's very existence. :o

[brainpan]

That's true, and if you've ever seen the documentary "Life of Brian", Brian actually rode in on a donkey and WAS mistaken for Jesus.

RandyEven Better. Jesus was not the only Jewish messiah to appear, just the most lasting and popular one (among non-Jews, of course).

[Mickey Shane]

The Life of Brian was hilarious.

No, psalms cannot predict the future.

[neo of the mind]

Suddenly, after deluding yourself into thinking the evidence supports your faith, you're all about discussing evidence. That's quite an about-face from happily ignoring the total lack of evidence for God's very existence. :o

of course ignore the total lack of evidence for God's very non-existence. :o

[Dangerrmouse]

You can't prove a negative case. Let's agree that the evidence for a God is less than the evidence for "Bigfoot"

[neo of the mind]

You can't prove a negative case. Let's agree that the evidence for a God is less than the evidence for "Bigfoot"

Nor can you prove a negative case. Let's agree that the evidence for Bigfoot is less than the evidence for you.

[Mickey Shane]

Do you think that Bigfoot is posting under Dangerrmouse's login name?
Scandulous!

[neo of the mind]

Do you think that Bigfoot is posting under Dangerrmouse's login name?
Scandulous!

No, Bigfoot is too busy looking up how to spell "Scandalous" in the dictionary.

But of course I can't prove or disprove it.

[brainpan]

of course ignore the total lack of evidence for God's very non-existence. :oGood thing you used the embarrassed emoticon! Appeals to ignorance are just dumb. Childish, really.

For the sake of argument and a little fun, let's just throw logic out the window and assume your logical fallacy represents valid reasoning. You are now forced to accept all negative propositions as fact. All gods, myths, and fairytales are true and exist. No longer can you call yourself a Christian, because a Christian is, by definition, a monotheist. Golly gee shucks, Billy Bob! :sorry:

[neo of the mind]

Good thing you used the embarrassed emoticon! Appeals to ignorance are just dumb. Childish, really.

For the sake of argument and a little fun, let's just throw logic out the window and assume your logical fallacy represents valid reasoning. You are now forced to accept all negative propositions as fact. All gods, myths, and fairytales are true and exist. No longer can you call yourself a Christian, because a Christian is, by definition, a monotheist. Golly gee shucks, Billy Bob! :sorry:

I wasn't appealing to your ignorance but your flailing offhand attempt to call somebody dumb and childish does show that your ignorance has left you with no other alternative.

Sorry, I am not forced to go along with your illogical thinking, you can continue in that direction with somebody else.

[brainpan]

I wasn't appealing to your ignorance but your flailing offhand attempt to call somebody dumb and childish does show that your ignorance has left you with no other alternative.You committed an Appeal to Ignorance logical fallacy--argumentum ad ignorantiam-- when you argued that a proposition is true only because it has not been proven false. It is both dumb and childish to appeal to such an absurd line of "reasoning."
Sorry, I am not forced to go along with your illogical thinking, you can continue in that direction with somebody else.I am abiding by established rules of logic, none of which are my personal invention.

I can understand what motivates your desperate attempt to lie your way out of the corner you just painted yourself into, but the facts are just too obvious to deny. If you honestly believe that an appeal to ignorance is a valid form of reasoning, then you must believe in all negative propositions, including the existence of every god and myth of which you're aware.

[neo of the mind]

You committed an Appeal to Ignorance logical fallacy--argumentum ad ignorantiam-- when you argued that a proposition is true only because it has not been proven false. It is both dumb and childish to appeal to such an absurd line of "reasoning."
I am abiding by established rules of logic, none of which are my personal invention.

I can understand what motivates your desperate attempt to lie your way out of the corner you just painted yourself into, but the facts are just too obvious to deny. If you honestly believe that an appeal to ignorance is a valid form of reasoning, then you must believe in all negative propositions, including the existence of every god and myth of which you're aware.

"when you argued that a proposition is true only because it has not been proven false."

- all I did was point out that the "opposition party", does the exact same thing. You can consider that dumb and childish if you want but to me it just shows you really have no valid argument left other than insulting people. By the way, which you have continued by calling me a liar. Which is just one more thing to add to the pile of things you can't prove.

Again, I am under no obligation to limit my argument or thinking based under your illogical guidelines. You can move around in the box you created if you want to.

[brainpan]

all I did was point out that the "opposition party", does the exact same thing.Your statement that: "...the 'opposition party,' does the exact same thing," makes my case. Ignoring a lack of evidence is NOT the exact same thing as ignoring a negative proposition.

I am under no obligation to limit my argument or thinking based under your illogical guidelines.You can argue against what you call my "illogical guidelines," or logic, but it wont engender respect. But feel free to take the initiative. Explain your apparent belief that argumentum ad ignorantiam represents valid reasoning.

[neo of the mind]

Your statement that: "...the 'opposition party,' does the exact same thing," makes my case. Ignoring a lack of evidence is NOT the exact same thing as ignoring a negative proposition.

You can argue against what you call my "illogical guidelines," or logic, but it wont engender respect. But feel free to take the initiative. Explain your apparent belief that argumentum ad ignorantiam represents valid reasoning.


No, your wrong and no I don't have to do what you want, which is argue from the illogical parameters that you have set up for yourself. Like I said, try that on another person.

[Dangerrmouse]

These parameters are part of the formal disciplines of debate. Read this and get back to us...

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

[neo of the mind]

Exposition:
An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.


Thanks for the link. So, when an Atheist makes the statement, "There is no evidence that there is a God", then they are committing Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. This of course is a statement used universally by all Atheists every other post, an exaggeration, but not so much when considering all the different "forms" the argument takes.

Read your own link and get back to me.

[julierep]

Good thing you used the embarrassed emoticon! Appeals to ignorance are just dumb. Childish, really.



Well aint that some ****, coming from the very person who used it just a few posts earlier. FOOT IN MOUTH anybody? You do this quite often, dont you??

[julierep]

What are you referring to, exactly? The whole palm leaves business?

I would assume that they thought Jesus was fulfilling the prophecy, and so they would act as they would to someone fulfilling the prophecy. After all, Jesus had no control over the unbelievers, so it's a rather moot point.

No, Im not talking about the palm leaves business. You know, it really would help your cases if you guys actually read the bible.

[julierep]

Suddenly, after deluding yourself into thinking the evidence supports your faith, you're all about discussing evidence. That's quite an about-face from happily ignoring the total lack of evidence for God's very existence. :o
:lol:
Honey, there is no deluding here. Youve really worn yourself out here with that comeback. And by the way, Ive got all the evidence I need to know that God exists. Im sorry that your missing out on that. It really is great knowledge and really could help your terrible attitude. It must stink to always be so negative all of the time. Yep, Ill take my God over whatever it is you are lacking any day of the week.

[brainpan]

Well aint that some ****, coming from the very person who used it just a few posts earlier.It wasn't Neo's use of the emoticon I mocked, but his logical blunder.
Ive got all the evidence I need to know that God exists.Your statement is meaningless because you want the definition of "evidence" to indicate different things depending upon the observer.

In your personal experience, faith, circular reasoning, and appeals to ignorance qualify as evidence. But, when you challenge unbelievers, you clearly appeal to something entirely different; valid empirical evidence. Whether you actually possess it is another matter entirely, of course.

So feel free to inform us you "got all the evidence" you need to "know that God exists." But I'll remind the audience what it really means: "I have a scientifically unverifable personal experience that causes me to believe things. I believe prayer can miraculously heal people through supernatural means even though this has never been verified in a legitimate scientific inquiry."

Maybe God just hates an audience? :D

[brainpan]

Read your own link and get back to me.Oh, I'm sure he will! :D It's just killing me, but I'm determined to resist the urge to answer this myself.

Since Dangermouse provided us with the argument and link, it just seems like good manners, on my part, to allow him the honor of taking your head off and handing it to you.

[neo of the mind]

Oh, I'm sure he will! :D It's just killing me, but I'm determined to resist the urge to answer this myself.

Since Dangermouse provided us with the argument and link, it just seems like good manners, on my part, to allow him the honor of taking your head off and handing it to you.

So that's what the purpose for this forum is, "taking people's" heads off? What happened to the "thirst for knowledge"?

[neo of the mind]

It wasn't Neo's use of the emoticon I mocked, but his logical blunder.
Your statement is meaningless because you want the definition of "evidence" to indicate different things depending upon the observer.

In your personal experience, faith, circular reasoning, and appeals to ignorance qualify as evidence. But, when you challenge unbelievers, you clearly appeal to something entirely different; valid empirical evidence. Whether you actually possess it is another matter entirely, of course.

So feel free to inform us you "got all the evidence" you need to "know that God exists." But I'll remind the audience what it really means: "I have a scientifically unverifable personal experience that causes me to believe things. I believe prayer can miraculously heal people through supernatural means even though this has never been verified in a legitimate scientific inquiry."

Maybe God just hates an audience? :D



Oh...it was so many posts ago that this was pointed out...

"Thanks for the link. So, when an Atheist makes the statement, "There is no evidence that there is a God", then they are committing Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. This of course is a statement used universally by all Atheists every other post, an exaggeration, but not so much when considering all the different "forms" the argument takes."

....and you continue to prove my point.

[julierep]

It wasn't Neo's use of the emoticon I mocked, but his logical blunder.
No, Im quite sure you mocked the emoticon.
Your statement is meaningless because you want the definition of "evidence" to indicate different things depending upon the observer.

In your personal experience, faith, circular reasoning, and appeals to ignorance qualify as evidence. But, when you challenge unbelievers, you clearly appeal to something entirely different; valid empirical evidence. Whether you actually possess it is another matter entirely, of course.

So feel free to inform us you "got all the evidence" you need to "know that God exists." But I'll remind the audience what it really means: "I have a scientifically unverifable personal experience that causes me to believe things. I believe prayer can miraculously heal people through supernatural means even though this has never been verified in a legitimate scientific inquiry."

Maybe God just hates an audience? :D

My evidence is all around you. Not only that, yes, I have experienced Gods works on several occassions and have seen hundreds of people do the same thing. There is a reason why I ask for specific evidence from you and that is because you quote science all of the time. If you believe by science theories, then I would suspect you would have some hard line facts. I can give you my evidence all day long, problem is you think its non existant.

If your going to preach science and verifiable (lets remember the word verifiable is personal experiences and eye witness accounts as well) then show me the science. Next time you want to say something is unverifiable I suggest you pay attention to what you are saying. Youve got verifiable evidence all around you on this board alone.

[brainpan]

This of course is a statement used universally by all Atheists every other post, an exaggeration, but not so much when considering all the different "forms" the argument takes."Your new attitude makes me a lot less anxious to beat you over the head with this. Go back to the link for another look, it addresses the very dynamic you're describing.

[heel31ok]

These parameters are part of the formal disciplines of debate. Read this and get back to us...

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
You cannot take that literally it is more a guideline. It is just to give a little food for thought.Plus it has no real authority or basis for it.

[JoeR]

You cannot take that literally it is more a guideline. It is just to give a little food for thought.Plus it has no real authority or basis for it.

Heard it here first folks. Logic has no real authority or basis.

[Dangerrmouse]

Exposition:
An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.


Thanks for the link. So, when an Atheist makes the statement, "There is no evidence that there is a God", then they are committing Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. This of course is a statement used universally by all Atheists every other post, an exaggeration, but not so much when considering all the different "forms" the argument takes.

Read your own link and get back to me.

You are ... confused.
The lack of evidence for something that does not exist cannot be held as proof of its existence.

[heel31ok]

Heard it here first folks. Logic has no real authority or basis.
logic yes, but not from a mere man which only makes it oppinion and subject to error.In this case "logic" is more of copyright issue.with those owning the rights determining what it is and is not.
logic that leads to truth should be the goal not logic that follows prescribed rules that can be manipulated and let falsehood appear correct. That is not logic , that is wickedness.
you have no proof that this is logic in reality only what someone thinks logic is.
So in that sense I agree thereis no basis or authority for us to have logic of our ownaccord which would be in essence making it up.It is more philosophy which can be anything anyone thinks it is. In this case it was just set in stone as it were in the above copyright situation.
The point should be the destination not the process.
I do have to say I erred in responding so quickly, I assumed thelink would give parameters of formaldebate as described but like most of the other links given the info was far lessthan advertised. it is more a definition of onearea of debate, a part, one bone as it were, that has been transformed by its presenter into a whole fossil of proof beyond a shadow of doubt that of its complete and utter authority in all points of this matter.I would suggest that logic itself would be upset at such an attempt og deception and embellishment.But It comes as no surprise .

[JoeR]

Logic is pretty much like math. This isn't one man's opinion of what it should be, these are the established mathetmatical rules of logic.

[Dangerrmouse]

Logic is pretty much like math. This isn't one man's opinion of what it should be, these are the established mathetmatical rules of logic.

He's talking Biblical logic, where a word means what the chosen think it means to best support their lie at the time.

[neo of the mind]

You are ... confused.
The lack of evidence for something that does not exist cannot be held as proof of its existence.


That is hilarious. Atheists love to use "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" to disprove their "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" statements are not "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam", but in fact are.

[sub_zer0]

That is hilarious. Atheists love to use "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" to disprove their "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" statements are not "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam", but in fact are.

Sounds like a bunch of ignorance dominates the atheist thinking.

[heel31ok]

Logic is pretty much like math. This isn't one man's opinion of what it should be, these are the established mathetmatical rules of logic.
No, logic is philosophy and changes. It is an idea and ideas.Logic changes from person to person.A man or men over manyy years have "established " what logic is supposed to be but no ones knows or can know what logic really is.The "rules" of logic are not universal but merely the invention of man and his philosophies.It carries no more authority than any other oppinion except it may be a little more organised. It carries no mpore wieght of truth or determinate of truth. It is merely an organised way to argue and declare a winner regardless of truth or value coming from it.To violate the rules of logic is not always a bad thing when the result is truth. Logicdoes not always =truth and that is the weakness of relying wholly on it.

[burntgorilla]

No, logic is philosophy and changes. It is an idea and ideas.Logic changes from person to person.A man or men over manyy years have "established " what logic is supposed to be but no ones knows or can know what logic really is.The "rules" of logic are not universal but merely the invention of man and his philosophies.It carries no more authority than any other oppinion except it may be a little more organised. It carries no mpore wieght of truth or determinate of truth. It is merely an organised way to argue and declare a winner regardless of truth or value coming from it.To violate the rules of logic is not always a bad thing when the result is truth. Logicdoes not always =truth and that is the weakness of relying wholly on it.

Is that why Oxford teach logic in their maths degrees? They don't teach any other types of philosophy. You're plain wrong there. Logic is used extensively within philosophy, but it is still mathematically based.

Nothing mathematical here, it's all "ideas". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic)

[burntgorilla]

No, Im not talking about the palm leaves business. You know, it really would help your cases if you guys actually read the bible.

Well then, grace me with the knowledge of which bit you were referring to. There's quite a lot of it.

[julierep]

Well then, grace me with the knowledge of which bit you were referring to. There's quite a lot of it.

Ive given a couple of scriptures over and over again in this very thread. Ive given you the information, it is up to you to look at it.

[burntgorilla]

Ive given a couple of scriptures over and over again in this very thread. Ive given you the information, it is up to you to look at it.

I'm assuming you're talking about Isaiah 53, which you posted about way back on page 2, and isn't what I was talking about. Having read it, it seems the general gist is that people weren't too nice to Jesus first time around. If that's all that had to happen to fulfil that prophecy, it wasn't too hard was it? Did you expect them to all come and hug him just because he said he was the Son of God?

[heel31ok]

Is that why Oxford teach logic in their maths degrees? They don't teach any other types of philosophy. You're plain wrong there. Logic is used extensively within philosophy, but it is still mathematically based.

Nothing mathematical here, it's all "ideas". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic)
No actually mathematics is applied to it but it is not based on it. anything can apply math to it ,that does not make it math based.It is philosophy based.philosophy is the originator of logic.Not plain wrong at all.If you knew the history of liogic you would know this already but of course pick and choose education does not give you a full understanding of the facts.
since you subcribe to logic as the overseer you have presenteda fallacy in your argumet on logic. You cannot even use it properly to decribe or defend it.
Oxford teaches logic in their math degrees.They do not teach any other types of philosophy therefore it is mathematically based.

[burntgorilla]

No actually mathematics is applied to it but it is not based on it. anything can apply math to it ,that does not make it math based.It is philosophy based.philosophy is the originator of logic.Not plain wrong at all.If you knew the history of liogic you would know this already but of course pick and choose education does not give you a full understanding of the facts.
since you subcribe to logic as the overseer you have presenteda fallacy in your argumet on logic. You cannot even use it properly to decribe or defend it.
Oxford teaches logic in their math degrees.They do not teach any other types of philosophy therefore it is mathematically based.

Err, no, that's not really my line of thinking at all. I was using it as an example more than anything. I am aware that it is linked to philosophy; if you bothered to look you'd see that they also teach it in their philosophy degrees. However, it has a reputation of being highly mathematical and is unpopular for that reason. It is by far the most mathematical part of philosophy. I appreciate that logic doesn't "need" maths as such, but that is because the maths is dressed up. Maths is at the core of it. The mathematical rules that govern it, that I linked to, don't suddenly change on the whim of philosophers, which was my original point anyway.

[JoeR]

I realize maths is the proper usage over there, but it just sounds so damn wrong to me.

[heel31ok]

Err, no, that's not really my line of thinking at all. I was using it as an example more than anything. I am aware that it is linked to philosophy; if you bothered to look you'd see that they also teach it in their philosophy degrees. However, it has a reputation of being highly mathematical and is unpopular for that reason. It is by far the most mathematical part of philosophy. I appreciate that logic doesn't "need" maths as such, but that is because the maths is dressed up. Maths is at the core of it. The mathematical rules that govern it, that I linked to, don't suddenly change on the whim of philosophers, which was my original point anyway.
That is not what you said and in changing your answer you illustrate how logic and philosophy do actually change because peole change their minds. Maths are applied to it but the essence of logic is of the mind and thought.Mathematic logic by name is of course mathematical but this is only one area or type of logic.It is the result of mathematicians applying math to it , this can be done to anything but does not make its whole basis mathematics. The basis for logic is one of thought and philosophy.It is controversial because by nature math can only give a formula but does not guarantee truth as in fact logic itself cannot. That is my point and apparently not mine alone because this has been a sticking point from the earliest times that we know of.

[burntgorilla]

I realize maths is the proper usage over there, but it just sounds so damn wrong to me.

"Math" just is wrong. "Let's do some math!" is the same as "let's do some mathematic!", which is weird to me.

That is not what you said and in changing your answer you illustrate how logic and philosophy do actually change because peole change their minds. Maths are applied to it but the essence of logic is of the mind and thought.Mathematic logic by name is of course mathematical but this is only one area or type of logic.It is the result of mathematicians applying math to it , this can be done to anything but does not make its whole basis mathematics. The basis for logic is one of thought and philosophy.It is controversial because by nature math can only give a formula but does not guarantee truth as in fact logic itself cannot. That is my point and apparently not mine alone because this has been a sticking point from the earliest times that we know of.

When have people suddenly changed their mind about what logic was? Logic can give a wrong answer, when it is applied incorrectly, yes. Or perhaps it gives a mathematically rational answer, but that is not one that humans would use. That does not make logic itself wrong, it is just the use of it.

Have you read "Think" by Simon Blackburn? If you're interested in philosophy, I would recommend it. Logic is indeed a system of thinking, which is very mathematical. Boolean operators are mathematical. Phiosophy changes, that is true, but when does p & ¬p ever equal true? It would be an impossibility. Logic is built upon constructions like that, which do not change.

[steveksux]

The point should be the destination not the process.That sums up perfectly why creationism is junk "science". Ignore any evidence that doesn't support their pre-planned destination. This is what passes for science in the creationist world. :lol: This is what they want in science class? It belongs in seance class...

Randy

[steveksux]

I realize maths is the proper usage over there, but it just sounds so damn wrong to me.Just like studying "THE" calculus always sounded goofy to me too...

Randy

[steveksux]

To violate the rules of logic is not always a bad thing when the result is truth. :shock: :laughter:

More gems of wisdom from the so-called scientific opposition to evolution. Lets add logic to geology, biology, mathematics, archaeology, etc which all support evolution, but in reality are tricks by the DEVIL to mislead us from the true path... ROFLMAO....

Randy

[julierep]

I'm assuming you're talking about Isaiah 53, which you posted about way back on page 2, and isn't what I was talking about. Having read it, it seems the general gist is that people weren't too nice to Jesus first time around. If that's all that had to happen to fulfil that prophecy, it wasn't too hard was it? Did you expect them to all come and hug him just because he said he was the Son of God?

You obviously know little to nothing about the crucifixtion. If you did, you would realize how exact this scripture is. But I guess this is the kind of thing you deal with when people dont know what they are even talking about. Once again, read and study the bible and then we can talk about prophecy in the OT and how they mirror what happened in the NT.

[Dangerrmouse]

You obviously know little to nothing about the crucifixtion. If you did, you would realize how exact this scripture is. But I guess this is the kind of thing you deal with when people dont know what they are even talking about. Once again, read and study the bible and then we can talk about prophecy in the OT and how they mirror what happened in the NT.

Why do you continually place conditions, caveats, and qualifications on simple debate?

An atheist is unlikely to sit down and study prophecy, he's part of a non-prophet group.

[burntgorilla]

You obviously know little to nothing about the crucifixtion. If you did, you would realize how exact this scripture is. But I guess this is the kind of thing you deal with when people dont know what they are even talking about. Once again, read and study the bible and then we can talk about prophecy in the OT and how they mirror what happened in the NT.

Right then, let's do it verse by verse:

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.


He grew up, and wasn't particularly hot.


3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.


People didn't believe him when he said he was the Son of God. Surprising.


4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.


Was nice to people. As you would expect.


5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.


First relevant detail, "pierced". However, he wasn't crushed, as far as I'm aware. And he took people's sins. Which was the whole point, I believe.


6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

People weren't great at the whole religion thing.


7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.


People didn't believe he was a prophet. Nothing out of the ordinary. The silence could mean a variety of things.


8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]


Who can speak of his descendants? Dunno, maybe Dan Brown. So he was taken away, and killed.


9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.


Wasn't given a great burial spot. Presumably because he was seen as a criminal, like other false prophets (assuming for the moment that he was one, don't get uppity). Jesus didn't lie, so they say.


10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.


God killed him. Since only God can take or give life, that's what you'd expect. More crushing.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.


Jesus did well.


12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Was a good bloke, took the sins of people.


Right, so how exact is it? All I see is generalities, with maybe a couple of general things, that could be interpreted in various way. I see nothing amazing.

[julierep]

Right then, let's do it verse by verse:



He grew up, and wasn't particularly hot.



People didn't believe him when he said he was the Son of God. Surprising.



Was nice to people. As you would expect.



First relevant detail, "pierced". However, he wasn't crushed, as far as I'm aware. And he took people's sins. Which was the whole point, I believe.


People weren't great at the whole religion thing.



People didn't believe he was a prophet. Nothing out of the ordinary. The silence could mean a variety of things.



Who can speak of his descendants? Dunno, maybe Dan Brown. So he was taken away, and killed.



Wasn't given a great burial spot. Presumably because he was seen as a criminal, like other false prophets (assuming for the moment that he was one, don't get uppity). Jesus didn't lie, so they say.



God killed him. Since only God can take or give life, that's what you'd expect. More crushing.


Jesus did well.



Was a good bloke, took the sins of people.


Right, so how exact is it? All I see is generalities, with maybe a couple of general things, that could be interpreted in various way. I see nothing amazing.

:lol: Read the story of His taking into custody and his crucifixtion. Then compare notes.

[julierep]

Why do you continually place conditions, caveats, and qualifications on simple debate?

An atheist is unlikely to sit down and study prophecy, he's part of a non-prophet group.

Then he has no right in saying that prophecy doesnt fit the scriptures or the life of Christ. Its like me quoting something and debating it without any knowledge of what it was I was debating. If your going to debate something, have a little knowledge in what it is your wanting to disprove.

[sub_zer0]

First relevant detail, "pierced". However, he wasn't crushed, as far as I'm aware. And he took people's sins. Which was the whole point, I believe.

If you read and actually cared to understand, in verse 5, it is the "chastening for our well-being", that "fell upon Him," which is why they say "crushed".

Wasn't given a great burial spot. Presumably because he was seen as a criminal, like other false prophets (assuming for the moment that he was one, don't get uppity). Jesus didn't lie, so they say.

God killed him. Since only God can take or give life, that's what you'd expect. More crushing.

Jesus did well.

Was a good bloke, took the sins of people.

Right, so how exact is it? All I see is generalities, with maybe a couple of general things, that could be interpreted in various way. I see nothing amazing.

But you yourself in your own statments claim that it is about Jesus. So I guess you are to blind to realize it that your own words are approving that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus.

You are gonna have to do better than meet the generalities given with more generalities.

Why do you continually place conditions, caveats, and qualifications on simple debate?

An atheist is unlikely to sit down and study prophecy, he's part of a non-prophet group.

And people on here have the nerve to say I am not open-minded? With this statement, you have just claimed ignorance on behalf of atheism.

[Dangerrmouse]

And people on here have the nerve to say I am not open-minded? With this statement, you have just claimed ignorance on behalf of atheism.

How, precisely?

[heel31ok]

That sums up perfectly why creationism is junk "science". Ignore any evidence that doesn't support their pre-planned destination. This is what passes for science in the creationist world. :lol: This is what they want in science class? It belongs in seance class...

Randy
You may have a point except we are not talking about creationism , the topic is logic and you have given us a full view of yours.way off, but not unexpected at all. I will give you one thing you are consistent.

[neo of the mind]

If you read and actually cared to understand, in verse 5, it is the "chastening for our well-being", that "fell upon Him," which is why they say "crushed".

I would add, the fact that he was severely beaten would attest to the physical damage that was done to him, on top of the crucifixion and being stabbed in the side with a spear.




Side note:
I would agree with julierep that if there is going to be debate on scripture and it's interpretation, you need to have a basic knowledge of it to begin with.

[burntgorilla]

If you read and actually cared to understand, in verse 5, it is the "chastening for our well-being", that "fell upon Him," which is why they say "crushed". Ah, so it's a metaphorical crushing? So really, it doesn't predict anything?



But you yourself in your own statments claim that it is about Jesus. So I guess you are to blind to realize it that your own words are approving that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus.

You are gonna have to do better than meet the generalities given with more generalities.No, I'm just working along with the idea that it's about Jesus. While Jesus certainly fits into it, it's extremely general and doesn't really match up to the degree that julierep was on about. I would like her to show me how it does, but I doubt she'll do that.

[julierep]

Ah, so it's a metaphorical crushing? So really, it doesn't predict anything?


No, I'm just working along with the idea that it's about Jesus. While Jesus certainly fits into it, it's extremely general and doesn't really match up to the degree that julierep was on about. I would like her to show me how it does, but I doubt she'll do that.

I told you to read the story of the crucifixtion and then we can discuss. It does not good when you dont have any knowledge of what happened (only what you have heard) to debate someone that does. It takes an understanding of the scriptures and what happpened at the cross. Once you get that basic knowledge down, I will have no problem with debating with you the prophecies foretold in the OT and how it mirrors the NT.

[sub_zer0]

No, I'm just working along with the idea that it's about Jesus. While Jesus certainly fits into it, it's extremely general and doesn't really match up to the degree that julierep was on about. I would like her to show me how it does, but I doubt she'll do that.

She apparently doesn't need to, if you are OK with working along with the idea. Just use that and see the connections, lol. It is as easy as that.

[burntgorilla]

I told you to read the story of the crucifixtion and then we can discuss. It does not good when you dont have any knowledge of what happened (only what you have heard) to debate someone that does. It takes an understanding of the scriptures and what happpened at the cross. Once you get that basic knowledge down, I will have no problem with debating with you the prophecies foretold in the OT and how it mirrors the NT.

I have read the stories of the crucifixion. I have studied RE in my time, you know. :rolleyes: Though if you do post anything, I won't get at it until tuesday, probably.

But now you must have some kind of inkling of what it feels like when sub_zer0 et al try and discuss science.

[julierep]

I have read the stories of the crucifixion. I have studied RE in my time, you know. :rolleyes: Though if you do post anything, I won't get at it until tuesday, probably.
Im not trying to be rude or whatever, but if you have read the stories and studied the exact descriptions of everything that took place, the similarities would be obviously overwhelming. From casting lots for His clothes, to piercing His side, to the bones that were broken....these are just the beginning of the similarites.

But now you must have some kind of inkling of what it feels like when sub_zer0 et al try and discuss science.
Which is why I dont discuss science. I do know about anatomy and physiology but when you get to evolution, I studied it in school, had a hard time believing it, and know that it is a theory, but other than that I dont have time nor the will to study it. Now, if something about it is put up that strikes my attention, I will read it and discuss my opinion on it. Sub may know quite a bit more than I. So I will leave that debate to him. ;)

[burntgorilla]

Im not trying to be rude or whatever, but if you have read the stories and studied the exact descriptions of everything that took place, the similarities would be obviously overwhelming. From casting lots for His clothes, to piercing His side, to the bones that were broken....these are just the beginning of the similarites.


Where does casting lots appear in it? I can't see any reference to it, but I may have missed it. I already pointed out the "pierced" bit, and according to sub_zer0 it's a metaphorical crushing, if that's what you meant by the bones. I just want you to point out the similarities.

[neo of the mind]

Where does casting lots appear in it? I can't see any reference to it, but I may have missed it. I already pointed out the "pierced" bit, and according to sub_zer0 it's a metaphorical crushing, if that's what you meant by the bones. I just want you to point out the similarities.

Matt 27:35

35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots : that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots .
KJV

Mark 15:24

24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
KJV

Luke 23:34

34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots .
KJV

John 19:24

24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots . These things therefore the soldiers did.
KJV

Also read Psalms 22 which details Jesus on the Cross.

[sub_zer0]

Where does casting lots appear in it? I can't see any reference to it, but I may have missed it. I already pointed out the "pierced" bit, and according to sub_zer0 it's a metaphorical crushing, if that's what you meant by the bones. I just want you to point out the similarities.

When did I say it was a metaphorical crushing?

[sub_zer0]

No, I'm just working along with the idea that it's about Jesus. While Jesus certainly fits into it, it's extremely general and doesn't really match up to the degree that julierep was on about. I would like her to show me how it does, but I doubt she'll do that.

Julierep shouldn't have to do anything if, to you, Jesus certainly fits into it. That is the point, it is Jesus that certainly fits into it.

[Dangerrmouse]

Julierep shouldn't have to do anything if, to you, Jesus certainly fits into it. That is the point, it is Jesus that certainly fits into it.

Fits into what?

[sub_zer0]

Fits into what?

Isaiah 53... prophecy!

[Dangerrmouse]

Nostradamus was big in prophecy...He predicted big trouble with Hister.

[burntgorilla]

When did I say it was a metaphorical crushing?

"If you read and actually cared to understand, in verse 5, it is the "chastening for our well-being", that "fell upon Him," which is why they say "crushed"."

I assume that "chastening for our well-being" doesn't physically fall on him, what with it being non-physical.

[burntgorilla]

Julierep shouldn't have to do anything if, to you, Jesus certainly fits into it. That is the point, it is Jesus that certainly fits into it.

The old "I can't tell you the answer!" explanation?

[burntgorilla]

Matt 27:35

35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots : that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots .
KJV

Mark 15:24

24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
KJV

Luke 23:34

34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots .
KJV

John 19:24

24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots . These things therefore the soldiers did.
KJV

Also read Psalms 22 which details Jesus on the Cross.

Thank you, someone actually posting some explanations. Though I actually meant in the prophecy. Julierep said that it mentioned lots in the prophecy, I couldn't find it but I may have missed it.

[julierep]

Thank you, someone actually posting some explanations. Though I actually meant in the prophecy. Julierep said that it mentioned lots in the prophecy, I couldn't find it but I may have missed it.

From Psalms 22 (NIV)

14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

At the time this was written, if I am correct, crucifixtion was not the method of being put to death. All of the things suffered in this passage came by means of crucifixtion.

[Dangerrmouse]

Why do you put a "t" in crucifixion?

[neo of the mind]

Why do you put a "t" in crucifixion?

You know why she did, it was a mistake.

[Dangerrmouse]

You know why she did, it was a mistake.

Why do you say that?

[burntgorilla]

From Psalms 22 (NIV)



At the time this was written, if I am correct, crucifixtion was not the method of being put to death. All of the things suffered in this passage came by means of crucifixtion.

Ah, so it wasn't actually in the passage we were discussing. Great. So the Isaiah passage doesn't predict anything. :rolleyes:

Did Jesus' heart turn to wax?